Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men

Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Guys

There are some people in life who like to make things harder for others, the method Juror 3 did. He persisted and did not want to see anybody else’s viewpoint. One will always have a “Juror 3” in his life. It depends on a person to take a stand like Juror Eight, and defend what he believes in even if it is against the majority. This essay will compare; contrast the protagonist/antagonist’s relationship with each other and the other jurors in the play and in the motion picture versions of Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men.There aren’t any changes made to the key part of the story but yet the small changes made in making the motion picture adjustment produce a various picture than what one pictures when reading the drama in the kind of a play.

First of all, the settings in the motion picture are a great deal more expanded. In the play, the scene starts with the jurors regarding the judge’s last statements concerning the case in the courtroom and after that going out into the jury room.In the motion picture, the audience is put in the role of the undetectable casual observer, who for maybe the first 5 minutes of the film, walks throughout the court structure passing other court rooms, lawyers, offenders, gatekeeper, elevators, etc. Not able to remember much about this specific part of the movie, I believe this initial scene’s purpose was to either enhanced the realism of the setting by emphasizing the court building’s effective, service like manner or to supply a timeslot in which to roll the credits for manufacturer, director, stars, etc.The settings aren’t just built upon through usage of landscapes and additionals in the movie. Unnoticeable and remote in the play, we see in the movie the judge, bailiff, those seeing the trial and most significantly of all- the accused. This is a crucial modification due to the fact that in the play, we are free to come up with our own objective conclusions regarding the nature and identity of the defendant, whom we only understand to a be a 19 year boy from the slums.

Seeing his haggard and worn face in the movie alters all of that, yet for better or even worse, it engages the audience deeper into the trial as they surely will sympathize with him and can get some insight into why, later, Juror 8 does so also. Of last note in this summary of points concerning the differences in setting, the jurors all mention the heat wave affecting the city when they begin, and as it upsets them, it serves to increase the tension in between each other and their animosity or other feelings towards jury duty.Oh- likewise last but not least, I believe we can infer that the motion picture occurs in Manhattan, New York City City. Which jurors are from which boroughs is quickly apparent and yet I’m hesitant to state that the accused might be from any of them- run-down neighborhoods were persistent in those times. Worrying the characterization of the cast and their conflicts with each other, the motion picture is true to the play’s standards. For the a lot of part, each character I saw in the movie matched up with the image my mind’s eye had painted whilst I read the play.One thing bugged me nevertheless: all the jurors appeared a minimum of 10 years older that I had actually imagined them.

For example, I had actually seen Juror 8- the protagonist of the play and Juror 3- his competitor, the antagonist as being possibly 30-ish or two and spirited and dynamic in their arguments. While rather vibrant they were, their age made them seem to come across as being more stubborn and bad-tempered (at least in, Juror 3’s case) than lively. Even Juror 2- the meek, weak and timid-spoken one, I thought would be so due to the fact that of the age variation between him and the older (and therefore, supposedly- better) jurors.Yet he is portrayed as such a man but balding and cigarette smoking a pipeline. His voice, nevertheless, fit well to its function. The disputes in the movie, while also being more fleshed out than in the play, did match up basically but there was one point- I thing just before Juror 8 requests the diagram of the home- that the film’s directors took the liberty to take dialogue from later on in the play and put it there, significantly confusing me and hampering my ability to follow along.In examining the differences in the antagonist’s and protagonist’s relationship with each other and the other jurors, it too held to the play’s standards with the various alliances and spoken sparring making sense in light of each juror’s ethical alignment and personality.

There was one distinction, a minor or significant one depending how it was seen. Separated from the ending, Juror 3 being more humanely depicted in the movie than in the play was a minor change. Seen in relation to the film’s ending, Juror 3’s inner disputes and humanness is a really a significant change.Finally the endings are to be gone over. Here, the play and the film are obviously extremely different. The director with his poetic license makes an extremely obvious change just meant discreetly earlier on and the impact it has on the audience’s conclusions at the end of the motion picture and the differences between that and those amassed at the end of the play are great. He informs us that Juror 3 was a violent and unconcerned daddy who, because he triggered him to run away, has not seen his boy- very similar to the defendant- in over 2 years.

Ah, now we can see where his predispositions stem from: past unfavorable experiences with his boy, the rebellious nature of which validates the execution of the accused. Yet at the very end of the movie we have compassion with Juror 3 just as we finished with offender. We see his brutish, sadistic temperament is simply a facade, and at one point he too was an innocent father who just made wrong choices. I think that the modification in the ending was for the better because it clarified Juror 3’s intentions greatly.The play’s ending did not- one got the sensation that Juror 3 was merely pressured into voting innocent. We leave from it with a greater sensation self-satisfaction at the resolved trial. So, save for, but likewise consisting of the ending, the changes made in the relocation adjustment of Rose’s play, “12 Angry Guys”- the enhanced setting, terrific character casting and tense conflict and resolve- just served to enhanced it’s quality and make it satisfying to see.

You Might Also Like