He also lets everyone know that Caesar was “ambitious” and he had to “slew” him because of it. He says this because he thought everyone in town thought Caesar was an honorable man. When Anthony came up, he knew that he had to work harder to gain the crowd’s attention, so he begins with saying, “I come to bury Caesar, not praise him.” (Act 3 Scene 2; 72) He says this because he knows people don’t want to hear a speech about how “amazing” Caesar was, so he says he’s not there to praise him. In saying this, he gets people’s attention. Both start off with trying to get their credibility first, Antony wins in doing a better job because he worked harder in trying to get it.
The film “Twelve Angry Men” is a very interesting and captivating one. This film features twelve jurors who are middle-aged men. A young boy is on trial for the murder of his father and these jurors are faced with the responsibility of deciding whether or not he is guilty. However, the room that they deliberate in is very uncomfortable and hot. As they deliberate they are weighing the facts to ensure that they come up with a unanimous decision.
The accused is a young 19 year old boy, and the victim is the young boy’s father. When the jurors enter the Jury Room, they all think this case is open and shut – until they take the initial vote, and discover one man voted in favor of not-guilty. All the other jurors seem to think that all the evidence is laid out for them, while Juror Eight is not so sure. Juror Eight reviews all the evidence and is able to find many ways in which reasonable doubt was established. Specifically, in the testimony of the old woman, through the weapon that was used to murder the father, and finally through the testimony of the old man.
There were instances where he seemed somewhat surprised that others on the jury did not hold his same opinion. This juror began the deliberation under some stress and irritation due to a cold that he was suffering, but he also used his circumstance to disrupt some of the discussion by coughing and blowing his nose. It wasn’t until the vote of not guilty became the majority that he became enraged and went on a rant that he became subdued as he realized the type of person that he had become. After this incident, he did not attempt to disrupt the discussion of evidence and
The audience sees Mr. Smith fighting for something he believes in, despite everything that suddenly hits him. Despite his mentor turning on him, despite his town getting biased news and believing that he is corrupt, despite the distrust he receives form the page boys and from the reporters, despite the disdain directed at him by his fellow senators, despite having to talk for more than twenty-three hours he stands and he fights for what he believes him, waiting for anybody to trust him. And his fighting works. His mentor barges in, yelling that he, Senator Paine, lied and that Mr. Smith told the truth the entire time. The joy and elation the audience
12 Angry Men (Deliverable from Wesley & Andrew) Idealized Influence: A transformational leader Chooses to do what is right: • Though it was convenient for all the jury members to conclude their decision in 5 minutes without giving serious thoughts to their decision, but he (our chosen character), insisted on exercising due diligence before taken a decision. He protested against the nonchalance of the jury: “we can’t decide in five minutes, we are talking about somebody’s life!” He had nothing personal to gain, but he insisted on doing the right thing. He votes against the other 11, saying that he doesn’t know if the kid is guilty, but feels that he deserves some discussion. • He stood alone for what was right in the face of intense pressure and ridicule of other jury members. The old man who first changed his vote acknowledged this admirable transformational leadership quality when he commented: “it is not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others.
Savannah Stephens English Honors Juror Seven Twelve angry men is a drama about a sixteen year old boy who allegedly killed his father. When the only people deciding your fate are complete strangers you hope that they take a second look at what the facts are. Juror VII stands out, with barely a background, rude actions, and a confidence that he’s never going to be persuaded. Slicks, self-centered, jerk who is a salesman who wants to be anywhere but in this juror meeting. He talks about how he made a fortune selling marmalade (Pg.).
"Set in the sweltering summer of 1957, Reginald Rose bases his play “12 Angry Men” on the notion that personal experience has the capacity to influence and sway our decisions. *Rose specifically amplifies this ideology as throughout the play, as a myriad of contrasting backstories are seen to be the foundation of the characters judgments. Set amongst a court case apropos to a 16 year old boy convicted of killing his father, the “reasonable doubt” underlying his conviction is explicitly supported by one Juror 8 amidst 11 others. Demonstrating the diversity of the Jurors, Rose illustrates the “2 America’s” that can be observed in the different Jurors identities. In addition the jurisprudence of America enshrines the belief that “the multitude
He had never given me insult.”However in his mind the old man’s evil eye had provoked him for a very long time and he finally had to kill him to get rid of the eye. Tenhet 2 The narrator is very paranoid and, maybe he thought the eye saw who he really is, He is a crazy man. He is not the calm and
Jake builds a bridge with the audience towards the end when he starts to get emotional and cry. That shows the viewers that he is not only professionally involved with the trial but also very emotionally involved as well. Finally, the closing argument, most importantly, uses Ethos. It uses a fair, open-minded, honest, and well-informed opinion about the subject matter. Now here is a white male, defending a black father who killed two white men after raping his 7