What are some similarities between Jurors 3 and 8? What about differences?
Oh gosh, it's been years since I've seen the movie (didn't read the play).
Okay, Juror #3 is the angry father, and Juror #8 is the guy who stands alone in the INNOCENT vote, right?
I suspect the similarities are easier to find by reading the play because the movie really shows their contrasts. There is one similarity in that when they really believe something, they are passionate about their cause.
Juror 3 is explosive and highly emotional
Juror 8 thinks before speaking and is a calming influence on the jury
Juror 3 is loud
Juror 8 is quiet
Juror 3 expects people to agree with him and belittles people when they don't Juror 8 simply puts out questions and asks people to challenge their own beliefs. He is prepared to allow anyone to keep their own opinion without compromising his own.
It's a great movie and the fact that it's in black and white is very effective, because everyone has such strong opinions. Everything is "black" or "white" to the jurists.
At the beginning of Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the jury has just finished listening to six days of trial proceedings. A nineteen-year old man is on trial for the murder of his father. The defendant has a criminal record (and a lot of circumstantial evidence piled against him). The defendant, if found guilty, would receive a mandatory death penalty.
The jury is sent to a hot, crowded room to deliberate. Before any formal discussion, they cast a vote. Eleven of the jurors vote “guilty.” Only one juror votes “not guilty.” That juror, who is known in the script as Juror #8 is the protagonist of the play. As the tempers flare and the arguments begin, the audience learns about each member of the jury. And slowly but surely, Juror #8 guides the others toward a verdict of “Not Guilty.”
The main conflict between the two is that juror Number 8 did his ho9mework and juror Number 3 is basing his verdict on the fact that he doesn't give any slck to those from the lower class because he simply doesn't like them. But one of 3's biggest problems is that he wants the deliberation over.
Juror #8 says that the boys would never yell, "I'm going to kill you."
Juror #3 later attacks #8 because he's irritated he's keeping them there. Juror #3 yells in anger, "Let me go, I'll kill him, I'll kill him!." (at #8) To which, #8 says something like "you really didn't mean that, did you?"
The Prosecution’s Case:
At the beginning of the play, eleven of the jurors believe that the boy killed his father. They summarize the compelling evidence of the trial:
• A 45 year old woman claimed she witnessed the defendant stabbing his father. She watched through her window as the city’s commuter train passed by. • An old man living downstairs claimed that he heard the boy yell “I’ll kill you!” followed by a “thump” on the floor. He then witnessed a young man, supposedly the defendant, running away. • Before the murder took place, the defendant purchased a switchblade, the same type that was used in the murder. • Presenting a weak alibi, the defendant claimed he was at the movies at the time of the murder. He failed to remember the names of the films.
Finding Reasonable Doubt:
Juror #8 picks apart each piece of evidence to persuade the others. Here are some of the observations:
• The old man could have invented his story because he craved attention. He also might not have heard the boy’s voice while the train was passing by. • Although the prosecution stated that the switchblade was rare and unusual, Juror #8 purchased one just like it from a store in the defendant’s neighborhood. • Some members of the jury decide that during a stressful situation, anyone could forget the names of the movie they had seen. • The 45 year old woman had indentations on her nose, indicating that she wore...