Twelve Angry Men - Seeing Things from a Different Perspective
Twelve Angry Men highlights the importance of seeing things from more than one perspective.
Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men is a play concerning 12 jury men who experience the difficulties of coming to a unanimous decision regarding a 16 year old murder suspect. In this case the importance of seeing things from more than one perspective is relevant as a young boy's life hangs in the balance. Rose highlights this through Juror 3 and 10's narrow minded views and the ways in which they must be persuaded. Also it is seen by Juror 8, who feels it only right to have each side of the story broken down and discussed thoroughly.
Rose uses Juror 3 to show that certain jurors are wrong and that if they are not open minded and put their personal prejudices aside they are bound to behave unacceptably and be viewed negatively. Juror 3's biases and stubborrness to be able to see things from the eyes of others really restricts him from doing justice and giving the boy the trial he deserves as does every human, according to the American Constitution. He is immediately vocal about the supposed simplicity of the case and the obvious guilt of the defendant when he says 'The man's a dangerous killer. You could see it.' From the beginning it is evident that Juror 3 is narrow-minded and only sees things from one perspective; his own. As the story unravels Juror 3 is seen as violent and a bit crazy hence why Juror 5 asks 'What's the matter with you?' when he imitates the stabbing of the victim. Because of Juror 3's aggressive and stubborn nature he is unable to see that the defendant and his son are two different people and the importance of the trial and what it will mean to the 16 year old boy if found guilty. He thinks he is doing the world good by getting rid of one of 'them' therefore clouding his vision and making it impossible to do justice, which is similiar to Juror 10.
Juror 10 also does not see things from a perspective other then his own and this makes it very hard to
Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men is a play concerning 12 jury men who experience the difficulties of coming to a unanimous decision regarding a 16 year old murder suspect. In this case the importance of seeing things from more than one perspective is relevant as a young boy's life hangs in the balance. Rose highlights this through Juror 3 and 10's narrow minded views and the ways in which they must be persuaded. Also it is seen by Juror 8, who feels it only right to have each side of the story broken down and discussed thoroughly.
Rose uses Juror 3 to show that certain jurors are wrong and that if they are not open minded and put their personal prejudices aside they are bound to behave unacceptably and be viewed negatively. Juror 3's biases and stubborrness to be able to see things from the eyes of others really restricts him from doing justice and giving the boy the trial he deserves as does every human, according to the American Constitution. He is immediately vocal about the supposed simplicity of the case and the obvious guilt of the defendant when he says 'The man's a dangerous killer. You could see it.' From the beginning it is evident that Juror 3 is narrow-minded and only sees things from one perspective; his own. As the story unravels Juror 3 is seen as violent and a bit crazy hence why Juror 5 asks 'What's the matter with you?' when he imitates the stabbing of the victim. Because of Juror 3's aggressive and stubborn nature he is unable to see that the defendant and his son are two different people and the importance of the trial and what it will mean to the 16 year old boy if found guilty. He thinks he is doing the world good by getting rid of one of 'them' therefore clouding his vision and making it impossible to do justice, which is similiar to Juror 10.
Juror 10 also does not see things from a perspective other then his own and this makes it very hard to