What would you like to do?
It is open to interpretation, however i feel that it has little importance. It is just a ploy by the author to generate side conversation to add to the story and detract from the focus of the story. It could also be interpreted as a comparison of the tension felt within the room and the warmth resonating from outside, or maybe a longing to go outside by some of the characters is shown by this heat such as the man with the tickets wishing to leave to get off to where he needs to be. Its up to you, there is no way to be wrong in an interpretation so just go with whatever you think it is, or use one of the interpretations i provided.
4 people found this useful
Was this answer useful?
Thanks for the feedback!
the theme is to understand how a jury trial is in that point of viewed how they all come together to come up with an answer by looking at the evidence they have
The climax is when juror #9 explains to the rest that the woman across the street couldn't have seen the crime just casually looking out her window from bed without her glasse…s. (cuz no one wears their glasses to bed.) Previously, juror #4 said that her testimony was good evidence, but after #9 disproves this, only #3 is left voting guilty. This is the climax because at the beginning of the play, all but one (#8) of the jurors vote guilty. But at this point, all but one vote not guilty (#3).
Ultimately they deduce through process of elimination that the evidence against the accused is entirely circumstantial and they therefore under the constitution, cannot find h…im guilty of the crime charged against him. That is the overall ending. It is a glimpse into a day of 12 strangers having to work together for a mutual end and conflicting but overall coming to resolve.
The cast of the 1957 movie 12 Angry Men: In the order in which they sat around the table, starting with Juror #1: Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall,… Jack Klugman, Ed Binns, Jack Warden, Henry Fonda, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec, Robert Webber.
Juror #3 would take the Antagonist position because he stands to his opinion "Guilty" the longest, having Juror #8 to finally persuade him at the end.
The main conflict in the film Twelve Angry Men, was that there were eleven jurors who initially voted Guilty with one hold-out. That lone juror (Henry Fonda) would spend the r…est of the film presenting causes for 'reasonable doubt' in the minds of fellow jurors.
There have always been twelve jurors on any jury panels that I know of. Does something give you the impression there should be any less? I believe twelve individuals would be …able to come up with the appropriate verdict much better than six. I only say that because I realize some cases only employ six to eight jurors. But, not in Capital cases!
A teenager is on trial for murder. The film is about the jury deliberating a verdict.
Juror 1, the foreman never seemed to get involved in the arguments. He is a representation of complete impartiality. When Juror 1 votes not guilty, it is a turning point, a si…gn that the evidence points to a not-guilty verdict.
Juror #1, Juror #2, Juror #3, Juror #4, Juror #5, Juror #6, Juror #7, Juror #8, Juror #9, Juror #10, Juror #11, Juror #12, Only two character's names are revealed. At the en…d of the film, while the jurors are leaving the courthouse, Henry Fonda (Juror #8) and Joseph Sweeney (Juror #9) meet on the steps. Fonda introduces himself as "Davis", Sweeney as "McCardle".
The film is only about the trial of the boy. Once he is found Not Guilty, the film ends. The murder is unsolved at that point.
Twelve jurors are trying to come to a decision on whether a young man is guilty or innocent for the murder of his father.
People should put all personal feelings away when deciding on a decision
A teenager was charged with murder.