This is a representation of the multiple layers that make up the personality of people. Juror number three is a circle within a rhombus and there is a broken heart in the circle. This is because Juror number three has the strongest opinions out of all of them and then breaks down at the end of the movie due to personal experiences of something that the jurors are talking about in the crammed, hot, uncomfortable room. Juror number three was the last one to change his vote from guilty to innocent, and because it shows that Juror number three was stubborn, this is one of the reasons there is a red rhombus . Another reason is, since red is seen to be as an aggressive color, to show that number three is opinionated and gets angry very easily.
iii) Fallacy of begging the question was made by him immediately as he has his entry in the room, claiming that, “everyone knows that he is guilty”. iv) When asked to defend his statement, he repeats that everyone knows he is guilty, thus creating Circular reasoning fallacy. v) Attack on the person was also made by him while stating, “The kid 's a dangerous killer, you could see it...He stabbed his own father, four inches into the chest. They proved it a dozen different ways in court, would you like me to list them for ya?. 4) Juror 4: i) He commits fallacy of equivocation as he took the meaning of the words of the old man the way they were not meant by him.
In the movie 12 Angry Men each juror has a different personality. Figure one shows the shape, color, size, and placement of each character chosen. Juror eight is a rounded rectangle and is a bright yellow on the outside and pale yellow on the inside. Juror three is a square and is red on the outside and blue on the inside. Juror seven is a rectangle that is dark green on the outside and a lighter green on the inside.
Juror #7 is remarkably different in a way that he doesn’t care about being there at all. He flows through the whole discussion and agrees with everyone else. He is a salesman who has more important things to do than to sit on a jury. When standing at the window, he is talking to juror #6 and says, “Y 'know something? It 's hot.
But when it comes to reaching a verdict in the case, #4 is completely unsympathetic, saying, the boy's entire story was flimsy and he also claimed that he was at the movies. He couldn't even remember what pictures he saw and that it was little ridiculous. While he might seem cold and harsh, Juror #4 is actually not all that bad. For one thing, he's totally willing to be swayed by evidence. He tosses aside some of the early arguments about the defendant's innocence not because he's prejudiced, but because he doesn't believe
Juror 3: He is an impulsive, humourless and extremely opinionated character whose own conflict with his own son caused him to take the case personally. Being a Controller (intuitor/judger temperament) with low emotional stability and high in competitiveness, he displayed his ‘bull’ tendency when other Jurors do not share the same opinions as him.This can be seen during the many times in the movie where he happens to have a conflict with Juror 8 over the difference in their view. This relationship of theirs is denoted by a zigzag line in the sociogram. His Type A personality clashes with majority of the Jurors as he uses
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.
This represents his bold viewpoint and his tendency to react quickly and lash out in anger. “I never saw a guiltier man in my life. You sat right in court and heard the same thing I did. The man 's a dangerous killer. You could see it.” (12 Angry Men) he says towards the beginning of the play.
Ethan Monroe Mr. Rodgers English 9 20 April 2017 12 Angry Men: Stage Act vs Movie The act “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is about a jury deciding the fate of a boy charged with a murder of his father and a jury of 12 men. The men have to find the boy guilty or not guilty or if they do not decide they will become a hung jury. There is a lot of differences between the movie and the play with the way the jurors and act the way that they speak. The act makes the jurors seem like they look like something like they are not when I was reading the act, but then I saw the movie and it just didn’t click in my mind. I think that watching movies after reading the book kind of ruins the imagination that you came up with in your head.
There is also almost always going to be a person who’s going to try and make your victory that much harder for Juror 8, that’s going head to head with Juror 3. With a man who already has his mind set to this thinking…” You come in here with your heart bleeding all over the floor about slums and injustices and you make up those wild stories, and you’ve got a couple of soft-hearted sobs listening to you. Well, I’m not...what’s the matter with you people? This boys is guilty! He’s got to burn!