Status: Gonna be deleted ASAP.
Twelve Angry Men
Essay
Linn Reindl
1/25/12
Mrs. Ray
Twelve Angry Men Essay
The play Twelve Angry Men is full of opposing character dynamics, personal beliefs, and prejudices that all play a large role in the overall outcome of the play. The three characters who are going to be discussed are Juror Three, angry and a little too sensitive; Juror Ten, bigoted; and Juror Five, from the slums just like the boy on trial.
Juror five has a personal kind of connection with the boy on trial, but doesn’t show it. He mostly only talks when he’s proving points of how things work in the slums, proving some key points in the case, or when he’s defending “those people”, namely himself, from the bigoted Juror Ten. The quietness that he shows throughout the entirety of the play proves his timidness, but the way he stands up to Juror Ten; “There is something personal!” shows that he definitely has some backbone. He’s also a very compassionate person, just by his chosen profession as a nurse. He doesn’t do much to push the jury away from conviction, but what he does do is a very key to the story, even if some of the jurors don’t believe it when he talks about the angle of stab-wound. “You don’t use this kind of knife that way. You have to hold it like this to release the blade. In order to stab downward, you would have to change your grip.” right there is good point, made by his personal knowledge of the way switchblades are used.
Juror Ten is a bigot. His personal opinions are almost all negative and generalized. He’s not willing to look at the facts, because in his mind the only fact that matter is where the boy comes from: the slums. Almost every time he talks, the broad generalization of “those people” is used. He wants to put this boy in chair because of his heritage and because of where he comes from. In this man’s closed mind, there’s no chance that he’s innocent. “They’re violent, they’re vicious, they’re ignorant, they will cut us up. That’s their intent.” those lines are a part from his long speech at the end where he’s proving and re-proving his prejudices over and over again. Not only do these lines show his bias, but also his ignorance and close-mindedness, he’s just fighting a war for the side of evil. His entire purpose in this play is to show the ugly side of people and the prejudices that can take place in any aspect of life, even the court system.
The last juror to be analyzed, Juror Three, is the saddest juror in the room. Most see him as just angry and arrogant, but the end shows truly his inner turmoil and pain. This boy, accused of murdering his own father, mirrors his own son in his eyes. He is angry at his own son, and makes the case a personal vendetta to take the anger directed at his own son at the boy now on trial. “That goddamn rotten kid, I know . . . what they’re like . . . how they kill you everyday . . . I can feel the knife going in”. He’s talking about his own son in these words, and his final break down at the end what Juror eight says “It’s not your boy. He’s somebody else”, shows the personalization that this juror feels toward this case, and shows clearly why he’s been fighting so hard to condemn this boy.
The play, Twelve Angry Men, reflects real life and situations that could happen to any of us. All people have their own personal beliefs and prejudices that are hard to set aside for any aspect of life, even within the jury room.
1/25/12
Mrs. Ray
Twelve Angry Men Essay
The play Twelve Angry Men is full of opposing character dynamics, personal beliefs, and prejudices that all play a large role in the overall outcome of the play. The three characters who are going to be discussed are Juror Three, angry and a little too sensitive; Juror Ten, bigoted; and Juror Five, from the slums just like the boy on trial.
Juror five has a personal kind of connection with the boy on trial, but doesn’t show it. He mostly only talks when he’s proving points of how things work in the slums, proving some key points in the case, or when he’s defending “those people”, namely himself, from the bigoted Juror Ten. The quietness that he shows throughout the entirety of the play proves his timidness, but the way he stands up to Juror Ten; “There is something personal!” shows that he definitely has some backbone. He’s also a very compassionate person, just by his chosen profession as a nurse. He doesn’t do much to push the jury away from conviction, but what he does do is a very key to the story, even if some of the jurors don’t believe it when he talks about the angle of stab-wound. “You don’t use this kind of knife that way. You have to hold it like this to release the blade. In order to stab downward, you would have to change your grip.” right there is good point, made by his personal knowledge of the way switchblades are used.
Juror Ten is a bigot. His personal opinions are almost all negative and generalized. He’s not willing to look at the facts, because in his mind the only fact that matter is where the boy comes from: the slums. Almost every time he talks, the broad generalization of “those people” is used. He wants to put this boy in chair because of his heritage and because of where he comes from. In this man’s closed mind, there’s no chance that he’s innocent. “They’re violent, they’re vicious, they’re ignorant, they will cut us up. That’s their intent.” those lines are a part from his long speech at the end where he’s proving and re-proving his prejudices over and over again. Not only do these lines show his bias, but also his ignorance and close-mindedness, he’s just fighting a war for the side of evil. His entire purpose in this play is to show the ugly side of people and the prejudices that can take place in any aspect of life, even the court system.
The last juror to be analyzed, Juror Three, is the saddest juror in the room. Most see him as just angry and arrogant, but the end shows truly his inner turmoil and pain. This boy, accused of murdering his own father, mirrors his own son in his eyes. He is angry at his own son, and makes the case a personal vendetta to take the anger directed at his own son at the boy now on trial. “That goddamn rotten kid, I know . . . what they’re like . . . how they kill you everyday . . . I can feel the knife going in”. He’s talking about his own son in these words, and his final break down at the end what Juror eight says “It’s not your boy. He’s somebody else”, shows the personalization that this juror feels toward this case, and shows clearly why he’s been fighting so hard to condemn this boy.
The play, Twelve Angry Men, reflects real life and situations that could happen to any of us. All people have their own personal beliefs and prejudices that are hard to set aside for any aspect of life, even within the jury room.