The Power of Three Perspectives One can be easily mislead or persuade in a direction they do not agree with. However this is not the case with Juror 8 (Mr. Davis) in the film 12 Angry Men. In this film, twelve jurors try to identify whether or not the convicted eighteen year-old boy is guilty of murdering his father with a switchblade knife. If the puerto-rican boy is found guilty, he will be sent to the electric chair and sentenced to death. The movie begins in the humid jury room by taking a vote to see whether or not the boy is guilty: eleven guilties and one not guilty.
The Film 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, is a film written about the American jury system. In the film, as in any part in life, emotions are a tricky thing; This is especially true for the 3rd, 7th, and 8th jurors. One of the main themes in the film questions that of the emotions of the jurors. That question is: Is it possible to keep personal prejudice and emotions out of a trial? Is this even a good or bad thing?
He was the one to make everyone think differently, to think twice about the boy. While everyone was going against the boy and saying he’s guilty, juror number eight stood up for him saying he isn’t. Juror number eight states, “this boy's been kicked around all his life. You know - living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. He spent a year and a half in an orphanage
Most of the jury was convinced the boy was guilty, but Juror 8 used relaxed tactics to change their minds. One of the last jurors to change his mind was Juror 3. He couldn’t be convinced at first, but eventually, he let Juror 8’s point sink in to add clarity. In addition, because of Juror 8’s civility, many jurors respected him. Juror 9 was one of the first jurors to show respect for Juror 8.
Whenever people inspect a piece of work and try and figure out what it means 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a play about 12 jurors deciding on a verdict for a boy who supposedly committed murder. There is a lot of opinions shared with everyone trying to have the correct verdict that they want and many people may think that this play is just about finding the correct outcome of the case, but it is actually about deeper meaning that Rose wanted the reader to learn. In the play 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the authorial intent is two different ideas to take away from the reading and they are, people change with the opinions of others and your background changes your perspective. The first idea that Rose intended for the readers to get is
Nevertheless, the defendant could not identify what movies he saw nor the actors and/or actresses that starred in the films. Juror Eight questioned Juror Four, the person who was critical towards the defendant’s alibi, whether he was “‘able to remember details after an upsetting experience such as being struck in the face by your father?’” (Rose 56). After Juror Four claimed that he could recall specific aspects while under intensive stress, Juror Eight questioned Juror Four about his daily life before today, which consisted of going to the movies. Juror Four appeared to struggle to name the movies and the individuals that starred in the films without any emotional stress. Therefore, Juror Nine was able to conclude that “‘that no one can prove he wasn’t.
8th juror appeals to their sense of pathos and pity by saying “this boy’s been kicked around all his life…He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” While this has nothing to do with the case, he hopes to appeal to their humanity in order to get them to give him a chance in these deliberations. Many of the jurors use logos, logic and reasoning, to lay out the evidence in a rational and concrete manner to convince him. An example is when 4th Juror lays out all of the evidence of the knife to convince 8th Juror with seven, linear, factual points.
The story of 12 Angry Men is a strong persuasive story, about todays biggest struggle between wrong and right. Its smart, creative and It shows the importance of standing up, and not being pressured into doing what others are. Jury 9 and 3, I feel made the most impact on the plot, and the theme of the story. Both characters where interesting through out the story. Jury 3 was a major contributor to the plot of the story, and constantly added outrage.
He has no sympathy and only cares about the evidence of the case. On the website Study.com i found “When Juror Eight feels sorry for the teenage defendant, who is accused of murdering his father, because of the bad lot this boy got in life, Juror Four starts fixing his hair as he is uninterested in anything except evidence. He then says, 'We 're not here to go into the reasons why slums are breeding grounds for criminals; they are. I know it. So do you.
In a New York City, an 18-year-old male from a slum is on a trial claiming that he is responsible for his father death by stabbing him After both sides has finished their closing argument in the trial, the judge asks the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty or not The judge informs the jury decided the boy is guilty, he will face a death sentence as a result of this trial The jurors went into the private room to discuss about this case. At the first vote, all jurors vote guilty apart from Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), he was the only one who voted “Note Guilty” Juror 8 told other jurors that they should discuss about this case before they put a boy into a death sentence Other jurors feel annoyed after listening to Juror 8 statements.