One person can make a difference in a situation. Although we all hate to be the odd ball, sometimes it’s good to show what we really think. In the play Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose demonstrates how the power of an individual in society can make a difference in someone’s life, which is represented though juror number eight. There would be no play without juror number eight. He was the one to make everyone think differently, to think twice about the boy.
In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose twelve jurors in a court have to try to decide If a boy is guilty or innocent in the charge of murdering his father. With this we get to see many personalities within all the jurors making them all extermenley different voices being heard the the courtroom. For this assignment we created shapes showing off the personalonalities for three jurors, the twelfth, eighth and third jurors as they all have they different and distinguishable personalities. While juror eight is logical and tries to examine all the evidence thoroughly, juror three is brash and goes against his personal pregidef.nces, strongly sharing all of them to the other jurors. Juror twelve was the one I had watched in the movie, he didn 't
People tend to base characteristics of people pretty quickly; likewise, their personalities. Most people base their opinions on stereotypes. Reginald Rose and his play “12 Angry Men” demonstrate how people are quick to judge other people based on looks. In the movie all twelve jurors must decide if a young boy is guilty or innocent. At the beginning of the movie/play-write, only one juror, juror eight, decides the boy is innocent.
In his play Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose brings us back in time to 1957, to a jury room of a New York Court of Law where one man, Juror #8, confronts the rest of the jury to look at a homicide case without prejudice, and ultimately convinces Juror #2, a very soft-spoken man who at first had little say in the deliberation. Throughout the play, many of the jurors give convincing arguments that make one think about whether the boy is “guilty” or “not guilty.” Ultimately, one is convinced by ethos, logos, and pathos. We can see ethos, logos, and pathos having an effect on Juror #2 as he begins as a humble man and changes into someone brave at the end. Although all three modes play a part in convincing Juror #2, pathos was the most influential
Introduction: “Twelve Angry Men” a play in jury room in The United States in 50’s written by Reginald Rose is a story about an eighteen year boy from the ghetto who is on trial for the murder of his abusive father. A jury of twelve men is locked in the deliberation room to choose the fate of the young boy. If all facts are against the boy and he is considered guilty they will send him to die in the electric chair. This play turned into a movie in 1957 the producer was Henry Fonda he played the lead role. Stakeholders of the movie: The Judge and the 12 Jurors are the stakeholders of the movie these people are from same country having different backgrounds.
In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose twelve jurors in a court have to try to decide If a boy is guilty or innocent in the charge of murdering his father. With this we get to see many personalities within all the jurors, making them all extermenley different voices being heard the the courtroom. For this assignment we created shapes showing off the personalonalities for three jurors, the twelfth, eighth and third jurors as they all have they different and distinguishable personalities. While juror eight is logical and tries to examine all the evidence thoroughly, juror three is brash and goes against his personal prejudices, strongly sharing all of them to the other jurors. As for juror twelve, he didn't make a huge impact in the courtroom
In Twelve Angry Men, the award winning three act drama written by Reginald Rose, each juror is told to reconsider a reasonable doubt in deciding the fate of a young man accused of murdering his own father. With little exception, each juror bring his own personal biases and preconceptions. However, in this rollercoaster of a drama, no other juror stands out as much as Juror Three. Though other jurors may occasionally admit a reasonable doubt, Juror Three is strictly motivated by his superiority complex, impatience, and personal grudges. Juror Three often believes his opinions matter more than others and only appreciates those who agree with him.
In Twelve Angry Men the direction of the jury room was pushed by self interest to leave. ‘7th Juror: goddamn waste of time. 10th Juror: yeah, can you imagine, sitting there for three days just for this.’ Here the jurors are dulling the importance of the murder trial because they have ‘better things to do’. The tasks vary from a ball game to just going home. This highlights the fact the jurors intentions weren’t focused to the trial rather that they were focused on self interest in getting out early ‘3rd juror: let's get this over with.
Geometric Character Analysis After watching the movie “12 Angry Men” and watching a certain Juror ( Juror 11) the viewer would say that he likes to take notes and really pays attention to the case he is very wise and takes everything into consideration, he doesn’t talk much but when he does it is very brilliant he is a european man who is foreign to the country. He is also a watchmaker. As the I said before he takes lots of notes on the case and definitely pays attention he is very logical too. He believes he does not have to be loyal to one side and at first votes guilty then changes and votes not guilty. Dealing with shapes I believe he would be and orange and light blue circle the orange signifying his brilliance and blue signifying his care about the case.
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.