The Twelve Angry Men Juror 3 and Juror 8 Comparing Essay Example

“guilty. ” Only one juror votes “not guilty. That juror, who is known in the script as Juror #8 is the protagonist of the play. As the tempers flare and the arguments begin, the audience learns about each member of the jury. And slowly but surely, Juror #8 guides the others toward a verdict of “Not Guilty. ” The main conflict between the two is that juror Number 8 did his ho9mework and juror Number 3 is basing his verdict on the fact that he doesn't give any slck to those from the lower class because he simply doesn't like them. But one of 3's biggest problems is that he wants the deliberation over.

Example: Juror #8 says that the boys would never yell, "I'm going to kill you. " Juror #3 later attacks #8 because he's irritated he's keeping them there. Juror #3 yells in anger, "Let me go, I'll kill him, I'll kill him!. " (at #8) To which, #8 says something like "you really didn't mean that, did you? " The Prosecution’s Case: At the beginning of the play, eleven of the jurors believe that the boy killed his father. They summarize the compelling evidence of the trial: • A 45 year old woman claimed she witnessed the defendant stabbing his father.

She watched through her window as the city’s commuter train passed by. • An old man living downstairs claimed that he heard the boy yell “I’ll kill you! ” followed by a “thump” on the floor. He then witnessed a young man, supposedly the defendant, running away. • Before the murder took place, the defendant purchased a switchblade,

the same type that was used in the murder. • Presenting a weak alibi, the defendant claimed he was at the movies at the time of the murder. He failed to remember the names of the films. Finding Reasonable Doubt: Juror #8 picks apart each piece of evidence to persuade the others.

Here are some of the observations: • The old man could have invented his story because he craved attention. He also might not have heard the boy’s voice while the train was passing by. • Although the prosecution stated that the switchblade was rare and unusual, Juror #8 purchased one just like it from a store in the defendant’s neighborhood. • Some members of the jury decide that during a stressful situation, anyone could forget the names of the movie they had seen. • The 45 year old woman had indentations on her nose, indicating that she wore glasses.

Because her eyesight is in question, the jury decides that she is not a reliable witness. their audience and include different opinions into a shared conclusion. In the movie 12 Angry Men, juror number 8 (Henry Fonda) was not sure if evidence presented... Twelve Angry Men The play ? Twelve Angry Men? , By Reginald Rose, is a play about 12 jurors that in an uncomfortable room have to discuss a life and death case about a boy that is accused or killing his father. the jurors do not really know eachother to talk to and wish they were anywhere but in that jury room.

Every juror has a different emotional pattern that makes the play interesting. In my opinion there

were 3 main jurors 12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men A persons surroundings can influence him. In "12 Angry Men" by Reginald Rose a young mans life is held by twelve men with contrasing views. Eight ... in the jury room: Juror 8, Juror 3 and Juror 9. Juror 8 is important because he is smart, brave, and fair. Juror 3 was important because he was the antagonist, he was mean, and he was intolerant. Juror 9 was important because he wasn? t afraid of confronting other jurors.

Juror 8 was a very important juror, he was the protagonist. He was the one that proved the truth. Juror 8 was very smart, he bought a knife similar to 12 Angry Men 12 Angry MenA persons surroundings can influence him. In "12 Angry Men" by Reginald Rose a young manslife is held by twelve men with contrasing views. Eight a caring man, ... the one used in the crime to prove that is easy to get an identical knife, and he proved that it was impossible for the old man to make it to the scene of the crime in 15 seconds like he testified. Juror 8 was also brave.

He was the only one that voted not guilty in the first vote and he standed for what he believed in and confronted everybody. In addition, Juror 8 was also fair. He said 12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men: Influence of Surroundings A persons surroundings can influence him. In "12 Angry Men" by Reginald Rose a young mans life is held by twelve men with contrasing ... ?It? s not easy for me to

raise my hand and send a boy off to die with out talking about it first? when he was the only one that voted not guilty in the first vote. He also listened to everyone? opinions and never insulted anyone. Juror 3 was also a very important juror in the jury room. Juror 3 was the antagonist. He was the main enemy of Juror 8 and he was trying to keep people from 12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men: Juror #8 is the Most Important Juror Juror #8 was the most important juror in the play Twelve Angry Men for a number ... believing that the boy was not guilty. Juror 3 was also mean. He wanted everyone to think the way he did, and lost his temper whenever they didn? t. In addition, Juror 3 was also intolerant.

Describe at least one important conflict in the text(s) One important conflict in the drama script 12 angry men by Reginald Rose was between Juror number 3 and Juror number 8. Their contrasting personalities and different beliefs caused conflict between them throughout the entire play. From the beginning of the drama script and throughout the play Juror number 8 was portrayed to us as the ‘perfect juror’ being fair, objective and strong minded. He was the only juror willing to rifle through the evidence to try and figure out whether the defendant in question was guilty or not.

Number 8 was the only juror who voted not guilty in the first vote causing conflict amongst the other jurors. When questioned about his decision juror 8 simply said ‘It’s not so easy

for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first. ’ Had juror 8 voted guilty, a boy may have unfairly been charged with a crime that he may or may not have committed. Through the action of voting not guilty we understand that one of number 8’s values is integrity. In contrast to juror number 8, juror number 3 is a prejudiced bully who is portrayed to us as the ‘night mare juror’.

He believes that the defendant is guilty purely because his own son retaliated against him and punched him in the face, making him believe that all teenagers are just ‘no good delinquents’. This proves to us that unlike juror 8, juror number 3 does not hold the integrity value. This is one of the many reasons that juror 8 and juror 3 conflict. Juror 8 and juror 3 conflict throughout the entire play because of these obvious differences in personalities and beliefs. One important conflict between them was when juror 3 says “Well I told you, I think the kids guilty, what else do you want? and juror 8 replies with “Your arguments, we’re not convinced, we’re waiting to hear them again, we have time. ” This conflict again shows us number 3’s lack of logic compared to number 8’s calm and concise thinking.... This essay will compare & contrast the protagonist/antagonist's relationship with each other and the other jurors in the play and in the movie versions of Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men. There aren't any changes made to the key part of the story but yet the minor changes made

in making the movie adaptation produce a different picture than what one imagines when reading the drama in the form of a play.

First off, the settings in the movie are a great deal more fleshed out. In the play, the scene begins with the jurors regarding the judge's final statements concerning the case in the courtroom and then walking out into the jury room. In the movie, the audience is placed in the role of the invisible casual observer, who for perhaps the first 5 minutes of the movie, walks throughout the court building passing other court rooms, lawyers, defendants, security officers, elevators, etc.

Not able to remember much about this particular part of the movie, I believe this introductory scene's purpose was to either enhanced the realism of the setting by emphasizing the court building's efficient, business like manner or to provide a timeslot in which to roll the credits for producer, director, stars, etc. The settings aren't only built upon through use of scenery and extras in the movie. Invisible and distant in the play, we see in the movie the judge, bailiff, those witnessing the trial and most importantly of all- the defendant.

This is an important change because in the play, we are free to come up with our own unbiased conclusions as to the nature and identity of the defendant, whom we only know to a be a 19 year boy from the slums. Seeing his haggard and worn face in the movie changes all of that, yet for better or worse, it engages the audience deeper into the trial as they surely will sympathize with

him and can gain some insight into why, later, Juror 8 does so as well. Of final note in this summary of points concerning the differences in setting, the jurors all mention