Reasons To Overrule Emotions In Twelve Angry Men
2. Rose conveys that reason must overrule emotions in decision making. Do you agree?
Rose often demonstrates throughout the course of ‘Twelve Angry Men’ that reason needs to overrule emotion if important decisions need to be made, however some emotion is proven to be good for the discussion of the court case. The Jurors own prejudice often cloud their judgment and reason is the only way a decision can be reached fairly. Rose demonstrates through the characterization of several Jurors that people should care about the case, and anger can sometimes be a good motivator although it has its difficulties.
Throughout the course of ‘Twelve Angry Men’ Rose demonstrates that reason can often overcome prejudice. The Jurors have to make an important decision …show more content…
Many of the Jurors use anger to fuel their desire to maintain their position on whether the Defendant is guilty or not. Juror 3 is seen as the antagonist of the play, but his stubbornness to not change his mind causes the other Jurors to examine facts more closely. He is angry and always challenging Juror 8; which forces the Juror to show the others that the facts may be false. This is evident when Juror 3 yells “I’ll kill him!” at Juror 8 in the climax of the play. This causes the other Jurors to believe that perhaps the Defendant did not wish to kill his father after they fought.. Juror 8’s anger towards the other Jurors who refuse to see reason and focused on more than themselves is channeled towards showing facts for what they are. Rose uses the contrast between these two characters to show how anger is good if it is channeled towards the determination to use reason to overcome the many other emotions expressed in ‘Twelve Angry Men.’
Throughout the play of Twelve Angry Men the triumph of reason over one’s own interests and feelings is constantly presented to an audience. Sometimes feelings were good for the discussion of the Defendant’s case when it was channeled towards determination. But evidently Rose shows that reason is often triumphant over the Jurors feelings and personal
Rose often demonstrates throughout the course of ‘Twelve Angry Men’ that reason needs to overrule emotion if important decisions need to be made, however some emotion is proven to be good for the discussion of the court case. The Jurors own prejudice often cloud their judgment and reason is the only way a decision can be reached fairly. Rose demonstrates through the characterization of several Jurors that people should care about the case, and anger can sometimes be a good motivator although it has its difficulties.
Throughout the course of ‘Twelve Angry Men’ Rose demonstrates that reason can often overcome prejudice. The Jurors have to make an important decision …show more content…
Many of the Jurors use anger to fuel their desire to maintain their position on whether the Defendant is guilty or not. Juror 3 is seen as the antagonist of the play, but his stubbornness to not change his mind causes the other Jurors to examine facts more closely. He is angry and always challenging Juror 8; which forces the Juror to show the others that the facts may be false. This is evident when Juror 3 yells “I’ll kill him!” at Juror 8 in the climax of the play. This causes the other Jurors to believe that perhaps the Defendant did not wish to kill his father after they fought.. Juror 8’s anger towards the other Jurors who refuse to see reason and focused on more than themselves is channeled towards showing facts for what they are. Rose uses the contrast between these two characters to show how anger is good if it is channeled towards the determination to use reason to overcome the many other emotions expressed in ‘Twelve Angry Men.’
Throughout the play of Twelve Angry Men the triumph of reason over one’s own interests and feelings is constantly presented to an audience. Sometimes feelings were good for the discussion of the Defendant’s case when it was channeled towards determination. But evidently Rose shows that reason is often triumphant over the Jurors feelings and personal