12 Angry Men
Twelve Angry Men
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.
In Rose’s play version of the story there are more racial issues. The problem in the play is that defendant is black and juror three is very prejudice. Juror three wouldn’t change his vote to not guilty for this very reason. He believed that the defendant was guilty without even talking about what happened that night with the other jurors. All of the jurors in the play version were white. Racial prejudice was very common when this play was written. In Friedkins film version although he showed that the whole story wasn’t focused on the racial prejudice issue. In the film version the jurors were white, black, and Mexican. The defendant in the film version was Mexican as well. In Friedkins version there was still a slight issue with racism, but it wasn’t as obvious as the play version Reginad Rose wrote. Lucky in the play version juror eight had a good heart because he’s the one that wanted to give this young boy a chance. He was trying to persuade everyone that the things that the witnesses were saying weren’t adding up. He didn’t care what color the defendant was he was trying to serve justice. By the end of the play though they all proved to juror three that the defendant was not guilty.
The settings in the movie are a
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.
In Rose’s play version of the story there are more racial issues. The problem in the play is that defendant is black and juror three is very prejudice. Juror three wouldn’t change his vote to not guilty for this very reason. He believed that the defendant was guilty without even talking about what happened that night with the other jurors. All of the jurors in the play version were white. Racial prejudice was very common when this play was written. In Friedkins film version although he showed that the whole story wasn’t focused on the racial prejudice issue. In the film version the jurors were white, black, and Mexican. The defendant in the film version was Mexican as well. In Friedkins version there was still a slight issue with racism, but it wasn’t as obvious as the play version Reginad Rose wrote. Lucky in the play version juror eight had a good heart because he’s the one that wanted to give this young boy a chance. He was trying to persuade everyone that the things that the witnesses were saying weren’t adding up. He didn’t care what color the defendant was he was trying to serve justice. By the end of the play though they all proved to juror three that the defendant was not guilty.
The settings in the movie are a