In the opening act of the short story, there is a narration that states that the judge is a male. In the opening act of the movie, you can see that the judge is not a male. Also, in the story, the judge seems quite a bit more serious about making the jurors really think about what is going on and having them be conscience about the fact that if there is at all any doubt then they will have to vote ‘not guilty.’ In the movie, the judge plainly says you, jurors, have to think about how the actions you take are going to affect the defendant.
During deliberation there are multiple occasions where there are similarities between the story and the movie. One occasion, how the juror members are sitting around the table in order. Another, how #3 is still a sadist. Also, juror #7 is very obnoxious and wants to leave early because he has places to go. The jurors’ votes are the same in the book and the movie. The first, second, third, and fourth vote remain the same throughout both of them. Another similarity is how the jurors think that #3 is ignorant due to the fact that he is a sadist and only wants to convict the boy of his charge so the boy can suffer.
There are also several differences during deliberation in the short story and the movie version of 12 Angry Men. For one example, in the story the foreman did not seem like he was in control at all and throughout the movie he was in more control. There were a lot of arguments and confrontations among the jurors during deliberation and the man that broke it up and calmed everyone down was the foreman. Another example, during the movie the jurors don’t truly care that much about the case. They are extremely sarcastic and they call #5 out and say that he is ‘soft’ just because he is one of the few that is actually listening to #8 give reasons to why the defendant is not guilty and testing the actual evidence to see if it is legitimate. Also, in the story, the #8 juror never once said that it was the lawyers fault for not questioning the sources that the testimonies’ stories were real. In the movie, the #8 juror strongly preaches that if the defendant’s lawyer was not court appointed and wanted the kid to win his case then there would have been another lawyer in the courtroom that day that would have actually questioned the testimonies. Another difference between the story and the movie is in the story, the jury basically only said that the boy could have been the only one to kill his father due to the fact that the person that heard him scream “I’m going to kill you” said that he seen him running down the stairs with a hood over his head. Then in the movie #8 makes a strong point about how it could have been anyone that was in the area at that time could have done the dirty to the dad. There were only a few differences between the story and the movie.
In conclusion, I think that both the story and the movie were both very interesting because there were several similarities, but there were differences between the two of them. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the story then watching the movie. They are both very good. Another thing is that I would definitely recommend both of them to my friends. If there were no differences, then it would possibly be better but there were so it is what it is. The similarities are what made both the story and the book so interesting for me. Finally, the differences and the similarities played roles in the outcome of the story, but I still thought it was good.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Twelve angry men is a 1957 American Film that originated from a play of Reginald Rose and has been directed to a film by Sidney Lumet. The movie is not just about the outcome of the trial of a Puerto Rican youth who has been accused of murdering his father, but also shows how the beliefs and attitudes of the twelve jurors lead to his acquittal. Aside from that, this movie also shows Leadership traits that can help every individual on developing their leadership capabilities. The story started when the twelve jurors were put together in a sweltering deliberation room somewhere in America where they have been asked for their verdicts whether to put the child on chair or not. Eleven of them unanimously voted that the youth is guilty and must be…
- 225 Words
- 1 Page
Good Essays -
3. What is the significance of law and the jury in this novel? What is the difference between the two? Is this important? Why or…
- 1266 Words
- 6 Pages
Good Essays -
On the other hand, juror 10 is a loud mouthed, racist bigot. He scolds people he doesn’t agree with and a low opinion of people living in slum areas. Juror #10 is the character who brings in the most prejudice to the jury room as he has formed his decision from the moment he saw the young boy and sees no reason for him to waste any time debating on whether the defendant is guilty. His prejudice comes from the fact he used to live in the “slums” and considers people like the defendant to be “trash”. This is established when he states “well take a look at them…you can’t believe a word they say…they act different… they don’t need any big excuse to kill someone. (59) This man is very…
- 491 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Soon after the men gather in the deliberation room the foreman suggests a vote. All of the jurors except Henry Fonda suggested the boy was guilty. Fonda, is unsure of the defendant's guilt or innocence himself, even though his fellow jury members all disagree…
- 1676 Words
- 7 Pages
Good Essays -
The first Juror to votes not guilty in the initial vote is the old white man who works as an architect. As when sitting on his office and drawing blueprints for constructing a building, He was very quiet and respectful in the room. He wasn’t convinced that the boy is innocent, but he wants to compare what’s really happened with the testimony’s evidence. At the end of the film he introduces himself to one of the jurors as Davis. He is free of prejudice, and he believes in justice for all. Although in his job he can be sure about the construction material and similar things,…
- 664 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Also juror number 1 had some character flaws too. Juror number 1 was the foreman and he was very relaxed and lacks intelligences, but most importantly he is very obedient. In the description of jurors for one says “Not overly bright”(The script) When the jurors go to the jury room and after everyone's gets settled in and down, he says “I’m not going to make any rules,” which sounds like he does not really care and relaxed (The script). Juror 1 gets talked over a lot and not taken serious by the others jurors, which makes him obedient to majority of the group. Well as juror number 3 is way different than juror number 1, he lacks moral courage, sadists and very opinionated. In his description it says that he is “extremely opinionated and detected a streak of sadism”(The script). Some things he say such as: “ We don’t need sermon” to juor 9, way he talks about his own kid “Rotten kid,” after juor 9 explains about the old man eyewitness and “Well, that’s the most fantastic story I’ve ever heard” (The script). Juror 3 is really rude and making his own feelings on what happen to his own son's relationship get away from the real…
- 1116 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
3. “I’m going to kill you,” and the kid screamed it out at the top of his lungs. Don’t tell me he didn’t mean it. Anybody says a thing like that the way he said it, they mean it.…
- 892 Words
- 4 Pages
Better Essays -
In the movie Samuel L. Jackson's daughter was raped by two white men, knowing that the men would get off if taken to trail Samuel took justice into his own hands and killed the both of them. If he hadn't of killed the two man most likely they would have gotten off free, because they were in the deep south and blacks were looked at as less than human. If it hadn't of been for his lawyer he might have gotten the chair, but his lawyer made sure everyone saw his murders as being an act of justice. All the jurors were made to think like a father who's pride and joy had been raped, and once they did this they did begin to see him as a person. That doesn't mean that the justice was blind to his color because had it been a white girl in the first place none of this would had happened, justice would have prevailed the first time, and he wouldn't of had to take matters into his own hands. In both the movie and the novel the truth was there to be seen my the judging party, the parities just had to look past the color boundaries and accept it for the justice to be found. In the novel To Kill a Mockingbird the truth wasn't found in time, however in the movie A Time To Kill justice was eventually found only after the loss of lives though. The death of the truly guilty party lead to the truth in both cases…
- 1291 Words
- 6 Pages
Good Essays -
2.At the beginning of this movie the jurors vote 11 to 1 to convict the defendant and send him to death for murder; yet by the end of the movie they vote to acquit him, to set him free. What are the events that led the jurors to change their minds so radically and set the defendant free ? Describe the process.…
- 611 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
The movie "12 Angry Men" focuses on a jury's decision on a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent to begin decisions on the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino accused of stabbing his father to death, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. The case appears to be open-and-shut: The defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty; only Juror No. 8 (Mr. Davis) casts a not guilty vote. At first Mr. Davis' bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion after all, the jurors must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. As the movie unfolds, the story quickly becomes a study of the jurors' complex personalities and how they deal with argumentation within groups and critical thinking. This allows Mr. Davis to try and convince the other jury members that the defendant might not be guilty by using cooperative argumentation, claim, evidence, warrant, facts, etc.…
- 836 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
The trial was a rape case, it was against Mayella Ewell who was White and Tom Robinson who was black. So not only was it a rape case but it was a case against races, these are two topics that really took the children into the real world. This shows the children growing up and accepting things that happen in the real world weather they are good or bad. This shows loss of innocence.This shows that the trial handles mature content and it can bring the children out of their “ideal” worlds and into the real…
- 1415 Words
- 6 Pages
Good Essays -
It’s a scary but a true reality that prejudice has the power to overshadow the facts and evidence, which can prevent jurors from seeing the truth. From the start of the play, juror 4 votes the defendant guilty of murder, not based on facts but entirely based on prejudice and stereotyping the defendant. The fact that the defendant “was born in a slum” (p.g 12) and the generalisation from the outside world: “Children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society.” (p.g 12) convince juror 4 that the defendant must be guilty. Because of prejudice, he cannot see the details like the defendant’s birthplace and circumstances may potentially be used to prove that he does not have a strong motive. As pointed out by the 8th Juror, the defendant was raised in a slum and had “been hit so many times” (p.g 11) that a few slaps from his father cannot make the defendant commit patricide. Therefore, the defendant does not have a strong motive. When we compare juror 8 and juror4’s reasoning, we can see that prejudice and stereotyping can veil the truth of the case and hide it from jurors and consequently prevent them from seeing the truth. However, juror 4 is only prejudiced at the start of…
- 1110 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
The judge in the beginning of the movie showed some non verbal behavior, which is sending a message without using words but things like facial expressions and body movements. The judge in the beginning was hunched over meaning he was not very alert and seemed to be a passive man. The foreman is supposed to be the leader of the jury’s and according to his behaviors he is. He communicates well which is a key role to being a leader. The foreman functions as a leader because he listens well and also tries to give out ideas to the rest of the jurors. He has the ability to look at the situation in other perspectives. In making these hard decisions the jurors need to have perception checks, to make sure they are not jumping to any conclusions. This is the life of a kid and their decision depends on his life. The conflicts that arise in the jurors room where productive to the situation at hand. The conflicts were solved in a good manner and beneficial to the case and getting everyone to feel confident about whether the kid was guilty or not. The jurors had assumptions about “those people” and “slums” which influenced the way they felt about the case. Their assumptions about those things influenced the way they thought about the case initially, the perception of the facts was altered because of having some type of bias. The juror’s assumptions had to do with the cultural and social diversity of the jury. The jurors based on how they lived their life, thought differently from the ones who were different from them based on the way they lived their lives. There were a lot of details to the case, and some jurors did not quite remember what others did. Some jurors remembered things that others did not due to selective…
- 455 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginad Rose the twelve jurors have to decide if a young boy is guilty or not guilty. The boy is accused of the murder of his father. His fate lies in the hands of the twelve jurors. Will he get the death penalty? Will they prove that the young boy is not guilty? Will he get to live the rest of his life? There are many different versions of this story including William Friedkins film version produced in 1997. Friedkins film version is easier to comprehend because it includes more detail than Rose’s original play version of Twelve Angry Men. Friedkin goes more in depth in his version of the story unlike Rose. Its more effective to the reader because of the message its telling us.…
- 563 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Juror 10 is clearly motivated by his prejudice. He uses his intolerance to determine his vote for the accused defendant. For instance, in the beginning of Act I, Juror 10 haphazardly said, “ Look at the kind of people they are, you know them,” (13) without even digging deep into the case. It is quite obvious that Juror 10 is generating an “opinion” of the defendant based on the color of his skin and his background. He does not refer to them as regular people, but as “they” and “them” on certain pages. In the courtroom though, no juror is to have any judgments, they are supposed to bring the facts to the table, not their opinions. Juror 10’s outlook of the defendant is blinding him from thinking of any reasonable doubt. Further more, when Juror 10 said, “…I lived among em’ all my life, you can’t believe a word they say. You know that,” he yet again was referring to the defendant’s people as “em” and “they”. You can clearly infer that while Juror 10 was living amongst them, he must have experienced or witnessed situations which has caused him to have judgments on these specific people. These same judgments he brings to the courtroom just add difficulty into solving the case. Following Juror 10’s views further, when Juror 5 was explaining how the person who did stab the father was…
- 717 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays