Although the 8th Juror was the only individual in the jury room, who did not raise his hand to vote guilty in the initial vote, as he “[couldn’t] send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” He still held firm to his ideals of just talking about the case before any actions were to be taken. Rose symbolises the 8th Juror as a representative for the defendant, as he is able to go against the majority and put forth his own ideals that are not just concentrated around his own personal emotions. Rose highlights this characteristic within the 8th Juror to mirror the way in which Americans were faced with the task of either conforming to McCarthyism, or simply holding onto their own ideals. Rose incorporates the notion within the 8th Juror that standing alone does not mean that a person is ignorant, but are using the facts to come to a conclusion where there is “a reasonable doubt.” By placing the jury men into a scenario that can be related to American’s in the 1950’s, he emphasises that the actions of the 8th Juror within the room is minute in comparison to the actions taken by Americans during that era. Through the persuasion of the 3rd and 10 Juror’s, they are able to control the thoughts of the other men as a result of their personal bias.
Each of the others is eventually compelled to change his mind at least once (12 juror changes his mind 3 times), usually thanks to an argument posited by 8th. Yet while he is firm in his position, he is not inflexible. Rather, he regularly and openly admits to his own uncertainties, frequently answering others' questions with an honest 'I don't know'; by not hiding his vulnerability he ultimately wins over the entire jury. Similarly, when he first justifies his vote of 'not guilty', he states ' I haven't got anything brilliant. I only know as much as you do' (p.13).
In Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry men the 8th Juror is portrayed as a hero as he is the only juror to vote not guilty after the first vote ultimately this saved the defendants live as in voting not guilty it forced the other jurors to discuss the evidence. While it was a heroic effort by the 8th juror to vote not guilty against the other 11 jurors it was not the sole reason for the jury’s successful outcome. Juror 8 was the only juror to vote not guilty after the first vote guilty as ‘it’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy of to die before talking about it first’. It was heroic for him to speak out against the other jurors and the successful outcome was largely attributed to him as he was a significant factor for the vote swaying from 11-1 for guilty to 12-0 for not guilty. The 8th juror helped convince the other jurors that the boy isn’t guilty by persuading them in a calm manner while other jurors such as juror 3 and 10 were getting angry and worked up over the case the 8th juror stayed calmed and talked over the evidence presented by the prosecution and finding flaws in it.
In doing so I will extrapolate on the ideas of the initial article and reveal the ways in which Kazan uses the formal qualities of the film to reinforce the ideas. Given the three-act narrative structure of On the Waterfront, I want to look closely at a number of sequences from each act. From the opening sequence in which Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando) is complicit with the corrupt (Act 1), to his emerging understanding of the corruption characterised by his growing ambivalence (Act 2), to the fight for ‘rights’ (Act 3), the film is rich in its imagery, dialogue and design. There is a careful fusion of all these cinematic elements in the ways that the narrative of conscience, confession and catharsis is played out. For example, throughout the film a strong sense of place is evoked.
The molding of the men of Police Battalion 101 from ordinary men to ruthless killers is likened to the molding of the prison guards from ordinary men to sadistic authorities. The use of this experiment becomes especially relevant when considering the similarities between the compositions of the participants analyzed. In Zimbardo’s experiment, the twenty-four selected were predominantly white middle-class males and thus relatively “ordinary”. In Browning’s study, the Police Battalion 101 also fit this “ordinary” niche, which when considering their ages, class, origins, and motives, no indication that these men would become mass murderers was made present. They were ‘middle-aged family men of the working-class”(1), implying that they had been exposed to alternative worldviews because they had been socialized before the Nazis came to power and as the working-class, were one of the groups least inclined to support the Nazis.
I can’t speak for anyone in the audience but I can say that the speech had effects on my views because in all reality if two gay people do get married it doesn’t change a thing for most people. If you’re able to gain one audience member’s reason then, your speech has been effective even if the least bit. Because he was gay, talking about how it is unfair for banning gay marriage puts him in the middle of advantage and a disadvantage. It’s a disadvantage because we’re only getting the gay person’s perspective on gay marriage, but it’s an advantage because of the personal connections between him and his theory. Even though he faces the disadvantage, he was still thorough at getting his point across.
He was tolerant of others, yet he let them know what he wanted and what they could get away with. He knew how to handle their weaknesses and how to enhance their strengths. When picking people for his cabinet, he covered his own weaknesses by surrounding himself with people who did well in those areas. He also surrounded himself with people who had opposing views from him, which led him to make decisions that were better for the country and not for his image. After all this praise of Washington, I want to draw your attention to a few things he did that I can’t say I agree with.
Prior to the mock jury trial we conducted in class, I really wasn’t interested in juries or the selection process. I found the jury selection process extremely interesting, because in some cases the attorney can predict the verdict based on the jurors that are selected. Gender, ethnicity, age and educational background have an effect on the juror’s behavior but it varies from case to case. The jurors’ ability to understand and comprehend the instructions and evidence being presented in trial had a direct effect on the verdict outcome. A confused jury is not a jury one would ideally wont.
The Western as a Generic formula. DFK 120 Jeanine Jordaan 13065458 Department of Dramatic Arts Lecturer: Dr. Taub 2 October 2013 In this essay the Western as a generic formula that is always set on or near a frontier will be discussed. Here the concept of the protagonist encountering redemption will be further explored as well as the concept of narrative taking place between two era’s and two lands and how the hero remains divided between the two value systems perceived as binary oppositions. This point of view will be discussed in relation to the films True Grit directed by Ethan Coen and Unforgiven directed by Clint Eastwood. These films will be analysed to see specifically how the above idea manifests in these films in the making of a western genre.
p. 7, l. 35) Klaas has learned to cope with the disadvantages of apartheid. Thus he does not feel any pangs of conscience when he takes on a fake identity to apply for a job of which he thinks that white people would stand a better chance of getting it. All it takes is a wig to replace his otherwise crinkly hair, since there are, as Klaas puts it, "a lot of us good-class coloureds who look a bit white and a lot of whites who look a bit coloured …" (p. 8, ll. 29-32) This explanation of Klaas's unintentionally ridicules the Popuplation Registration Act, which officially established segregation in South