He also picks fights with all the other jurors, he even threatened to kill juror #8 after he called him a sadist. He expressed a lot of anger in his thoughts which changed the way a few jurors thought of the defendant. No one knew till the end when juror #3 started crying and revealed his sensitive side. He looked grumpy and disturbed the whole movie and his emotions finally break lose. The real reason he was being so obnoxious was because he had issues with his teenage son which effected his opinions about teenagers.
Reginald Rose ‘Twelve Angry Men’ explores the tense interactions between twelve strangers serving on a jury. He explores the weakness of the jury system. Through his 1957 depiction of the tensions that riddles the jury room, rose illustrates the weakness of the jury system, by randomly selecting twelve individuals each who carry different personalities and each displaying their own prejudice thoughts. Therefore while the plays suggests that using twelve ordinary citizens to judge others can produce injustice, it also implies that there will hopefully be one sympathetic individual within the group to address the prejudicial perceptions of the bombastically outspoken jurors. Rose certainly highlights the defects in the jury system as it relies on twelve mean selected randomly, therefore it is certain that some will have flaws.
‘I’m sick and tired of facts. You can twist ‘em any way you like.” ‘Twelve Angry Men shows that truth is elusive.’ Discuss The 1950s saw America swept up in the ideological turmoil of the Cold War and the subsequent witch- hunt of the McCarthy trials. It is within this climate that theatrical productions such as Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’ were created. Twelve Angry Men demonstrates the idea that facts, not personal views and assumptions are essential when dealing with justice. The drama’s focus is on a jury’s deliberation over a young man’s fate and the crucial role truth plays in relation to the decision.
In one scene the men in Bricksville try to lynch Colonel Sheburn, Colonel Sheburn saw that the town was getting ready to attack him, so he begins to give a speech saying “The idea of you lynching anybody! It’s amusing. The idea of you thinking you had pluck enough to lynch a man! (161). In this speech Colonel Sheburn attacks the cowardice of the mob, for they don’t have the courage to attack him one on one.
Throughout Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men the jurors deciding the verdict are clouded by their personal experiences and by their pre-judged assumptions instead of having objective views. The 8th juror is the protagonist of the play, he is perceived as the heroic one for using reason and logic to persuade the other jurors to get on side with him instead of his judgment being clouded by personal experiences. Unlike the 3rd juror who has been a part of the jury system for other trials bringing his own personal experience of his son into the case. Juror number 10 is one of the most fervent attackers of the defendants, he is bigoted and generalises the defendant instead of looking at him like an individual. It is the 8th juror who exemplifies the strength and importance of the jury in America’s justice system.
In his rage, Oedipus kills the old man and his fellow travelers. Later on in the play, Oedipus’ excessive pride blinds him to advice and makes him deaf to the help of those closest to him especially Creon, when Oedipus says, “do you think I do not know the you plotted to kill me, plotted to steal my throne? Tell me in God’s name: am I a coward, a fool, that you dream you could accomplish this?” (Oedipus Rex 28). This quote shows how Oedipus’ pride makes him deaf to
Immediately after election, Opimius cancelled several of Gracchus’ laws an called into question his actions in Carthage, “omitting nothing that was likely to irritate him.” A rabble-rouser might have used this as ammunition to riot or try and overthrow the government but Gaius “bore these things very patiently,” and only “at the instigation of his friends,” gathered his supporters to oppose the consul’s decisions. At the meeting of both parties one of the consul’s attendants made an obscene gesture and was killed on the spot by Gracchus’ party. As custom of his character, Gaius was very saddened and “severely reprimanded his own party,” for this action that would eventually lead to his death because Opimius was rousing his party into a frenzy at that same moment. When the two parties met, Gaius could not be convinced to bring any arms except a small dagger under his cloak. Gaius wanted to turn himself in to avoid fighting but his loyal supporters would not let this happen and after Opimius denied the proposals of agreement for the second time he sent his troops after Gaius and his party.
Twelve Angry Men is the story of twelve jurors stuck in a room trying to reason out with each other weather a young boy is guilty of killing his father. Emotions flair when one juror stands up for the boy saying that he is indeed not guilty. The story is filled with examples of pathos, ethos and logos. In this writing I will explain some of the spots those three literary tools are used. In the play Twelve Angry Men juror number eight uses ethos when he tries to explain to juror number ten that the old man could not have heard the boy say “I’m going to kill you” to his father.
Unfortunately, he does not see that this feud only harms his kin. He causes the families’ fight to escalate, and modifies the story so much that it ultimately leads to many of the characters’ deaths. Tybalt tries everything to hurl the city of Verona into a civil war. Instead of accepting the peace between the houses that old Capulet tries to create, Tybalt can’t accept that Romeo and other Montagues gatecrashed the party of the Capulets. Tybalt tells his servant “Now, by the stock and honor of my kin, to strike him dead I hold not a sin.” (P. 55 lines 66-67) Although Romeo never harmed Tybalt, he still wants to kill Romeo because he showed up at his party because Tybalt uses Romeo as a scapegoat for all the Montagues.
Juror 4 undermines himself as he said that the boy must be guilty as he can’t remember the name of the films that he saw but when asked himself about the last films that he saw he cannot remember the names of the films and the name of the actors and actresses in them. Juror 3 undermines himself as he said as the boy was heard saying I’m going to kill you this means that he must have done it as saying this means that you really want to kill them and you will while later in the play after being fired up and agitated by juror 8 the 3rd juror says ‘I’m going to kill