In Twelve Angry Men what is the cause of Juror number three's anger towards the boy?
His anger towards the defendant stems from the estrangement from his own teen-aged son, causing him to be hateful and hostile toward all young people.
13 people found this useful
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 . div style=%22padding: 0pt; margin: 10px 0pt 0pt 37px; background-image: url(%22http://site.wikianswers.com/templates/icons/ql.gif%22); …background-position: left top; background-repeat: no-repeat; height: 22px "> . (MORE)
The 12th juror in the play 12 Angry Men originally believes thatthe boy is guilty. He later changes his vote to not guiltyfollowing the deliberation.
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 glasses. (cuz no one wears their glasses to bed.) Previously, juror #4 said that her testimony was good evidence, but after #9 disp…roves 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). (MORE)
The first vote was 11-1 against Henry Fonda. So all the others changed their vote.
Juror 9 was an elderly old man, but quite insightful. Although not physically strong, he was very sharp and had the courage to stand up for what he believed in. He appears to be the most observant in terms of noticing people's behaviours.
Ultimately they deduce through process of elimination that the evidence against the accused is entirely circumstantial and they therefore under the constitution, cannot find him 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. (MORE)
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 10 is a loud mouthed impolite bigot. He berates people he doesn't agree with and has a low opinion of people living in slum areas.
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.
Twelve Angry Men does not have a set protagonist or antagonist. It is referenced as a "gang drama." A gang drama's resolution occurs when everyone cooperates and comes to a general consensus. There is technically no protagonist, but the closest thing to it is Juror 8. He is arguing for the life of a… boy that may or may not be guilty. The real conclusion to the book lies in the fact that everyone was able to settle with a unanimous vote. (MORE)
he wants to miss jury duty at all cost to make his game. he represents the many people that hate jury duty
Act 1 Twelve Angry Men takes place in a jury room in the late afternoon on a hot summer's day in New York City. After the curtain rises, the judge's voice is heard offstage, giving instructions to the jury. He says that the defendant is being tried for first-degree murder, which carries a mandato…ry death penalty. The judge adds that if the jury has reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused, they must acquit him. The verdict must be unanimous. The jurors, all men, file into the jury room and sit in straight-backed chairs around a long conference table. The weather is hot, and there is no air-conditioning; some of the men are irritable. From the initial chitchat, it is clear that most members of the jury regard the man as guilty. Jurors Seven and Ten ridicule the defendant's story. Apparently, a young man has stabbed his father to death with a knife. He admits that he bought a knife that night but claims that he lost it. The jury takes a vote. Eleven jurors vote guilty, and one juror, Juror Eight, votes not guilty. Jurors Three, Seven, and Twelve criticize him, but Juror Eight says that he does not know whether the man is guilty or not but that it is not easy for him to send a boy to his death without discussing it first. After some argument, they agree to discuss the facts of the case. Juror Three reviews what they know. An old man who lives underneath the room where the murder took place heard loud noises just after midnight. He heard the son yell at the father that he was going to kill him. Then he heard a body falling and moments later, saw the boy running out of the house. Juror Four says the boy's story is flimsy. He said that he was at the movies at the time of the murder, but no one remembers seeing him there. Also, a woman living opposite looked out of her window and saw the murder through the windows of a passing elevated train. During the trial, it was verified that this was possible. Further facts emerge: the father regularly beat his son, and the son had been arrested for car theft, mugging, and knife fighting. He had been sent to reform school for knifing someone. Juror Eight insists that, during the trial, too many questions were left unasked. He asks for the murder weapon to be brought in and says that it is possible that someone else stabbed the boy's father with a similar knife. Several jurors insist the knife is a very unusual one, but then Juror Eight produces from his pocket a switchblade that is exactly the same. He says that it is possible the boy is telling the truth. The other jurors scoff at this, but Juror Eight calls for another vote, a secret one this time. He says that he will abstain. When the votes are counted, there are ten guilty votes and one not guilty. Act 2 Juror Three is angry with Juror Five because he thinks that Juror Five is the one who changed his vote. It transpires that the not-guilty vote was cast by Juror Nine. This juror says that he wants to hear more discussion of the case, even though there is still a strong feeling among the other jurors that the defendant is guilty. Jurors Three and Twelve start to play a game of tic-tac-toe to pass the time, but Juror Eight angrily snatches the piece of paper away, saying that jury deliberations are not a game. Pressured by Juror Eight, the jury agrees that it would take about ten seconds for the train to pass by the apartment. Juror Eight also establishes that the train is noisy, so the old man could not have heard the boy yell that he was going to kill his father, as the old man testified. Juror Nine suggests that the old man may have convinced himself that he heard the words because he has never had any recognition from anyone and has a strong need for attention. Juror Three responds to this with hostility, but Juror Eight argues additionally that even if the boy had said he was going to kill his father, that does not mean he intended to do so, since people often use that or similar phrases without meaning them. Convinced by these arguments, Juror Five changes his vote to not guilty, making the vote nine to three. Juror Eight then questions the old man's testimony that he took only fifteen seconds to get downstairs, open the front door, and see the boy fleeing. He says that bearing in mind that the man cannot walk well, it probably took longer. Using a diagram of the apartment, Juror Eight acts out the old man's steps and is timed at thirty-nine seconds. He says that the old man must have heard, rather than seen, someone racing down the stairs and assumed it was the boy. An argument erupts between Jurors Three and Eight, as Juror Three insists the boy is guilty and must be executed. Juror Eight accuses him of being a sadist. Juror Three lunges at him, screaming that he will kill him. Juror Eight replies softly, suggesting that perhaps Juror Three does not really mean what he is saying. Act 3 The jurors take another vote, this time an open one, which is evenly split, six to six. Jurors Two, Six, and Eleven have switched their votes, to the annoyance of Jurors Three and Ten. The possibility of being a hung jury is brought up, but Juror Eight refuses to accept the possibility. They take a vote on that, too. Six jurors vote in favor of declaring themselves a hung jury; six vote against. Juror Four changes his vote, so it is seven to five against declaring a hung jury. Juror Four then argues persuasively for a guilty verdict, based on the evidence. He raises the possibility that although the old man may have taken longer to get to the door than he testified, the murderer might also have taken longer to escape. Reenacting the actions of the murderer, the jurors time it at twenty-nine and a half seconds. This suggests that the old man's testimony that he saw the boy fleeing may be correct after all. As a result, three jurors change their votes back, leaving the tally at nine to three in favor of guilt. Juror Two raises a question about the fact that the fatal wound was caused by a downward thrust of the knife. How could that be, since the son is six inches shorter than his father, which would make such an action very awkward? Juror Three demonstrates on Juror Eight how it could be done, crouching down to approximate the boy's height and then raising the knife and making a downward stabbing motion. But Juror Five, who has witnessed knife fights, says that anyone using a switchblade would use it underhand, stabbing upward, thus making it unlikely that the boy, who was an experienced knife fighter, could have caused the fatal wound. Another vote is taken, and it is nine to three in favor of acquittal. Juror Ten goes off on a prejudiced rant about how all people from the slums are liars and violent and have no respect for human life. Disgusted with his views, most of the other jurors get up and walk to the window, where they turn their backs on Juror Ten. Juror Four still insists that the boy is guilty. He says the most important testimony is that of the woman who says she saw the murder. She was in bed, unable to sleep, when she looked out the window and saw the boy stab his father. Juror Eight reminds them that the woman wears glasses, but she would not wear them in bed and would not have had time to put them on to see what she claims to have seen. He contends that she could have seen only a blur. At this, Jurors Four and Ten change their votes to not guilty, leaving the tally at eleven to one. Only Juror Three insists on a guilty verdict, but when he sees that he stands alone and cannot change anyone else's opinion, he begrudgingly votes not guilty. The jury has reached a unanimous decision, and the defendant is acquitted. (MORE)
The professions of all 12 jurors is not made clear during the play. Some professions are revealed while the rest of the jurors are symbolized more by their character than what they profess to do for a living. The list as follows (NOTE: the translation of character attributes is in some cases based u…pon my translation and review of the play): #1) Foreman of the Jury #2) (MORE)
Juror 5 gets mad after the second vote, when Juror 3 accuses him of being soft and changing his vote. It turns out Juror 9 (the old man) was the one to change his vote.
The story is set in the jury room in New York City. It was late afternoon, and summer time.
Well, there really are no leaders in Twelve Angry Men, but those with more 'input' would include Juror #1 (Martin Balsam) the Foreman and Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) who pushes for fellow jury members to consider the possibility the Defendant may not be guilty of the crime.
Juror #12 Is: Superficial, easily-swayed, and easy-going; vacillating, lacks deep convictions or belief system; uses interesting analogies such as: "Run this idea up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes it."
The 1957 version was directed by Sidney Lumet. The 1997 version was directed by William Friedkin.
Juror Number 9 was a quiet old man, polite, but firm in what opinions he had. He was the first to support Juror Number 8. He later made two very incisive points, about the old man witness maybe seeing the trial as an opportunity to have people pay attention to him, and later when he noted that the… lady witness had indentations on the sides of her nose indicative of glasses. (MORE)
Juror #1o agrees with juror #12 and changes his vote to Not Guilty without any hoopla attached. You may have the number wrong for the juror you are attributing the quote to.
Juror Number Ten (played by Ed Begley) is garage owner who simmers with anger, bitterness and racist bigotry and needs the support of others to reinforce his stance. He is nasty, repellent, intolerant, reactionary and accusative. This character segregates the world into 'Us' and 'Them' categories.
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 rest of the film presenting causes for 'reasonable doubt' in the minds of fellow jurors.
The boy claimed he went to a movie about 11:30 pm, returning home at 3:10 am "to find his father dead and himself arrested'.
Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) dispels the old man's testimony by posing a question to fellow jurors: "How could the old man in the apartment downstairs distinctly hear the threat and the body hit the floor a second later, while the woman across the street was viewing the killing through the last two car…s, when an El train was making a deafening noise as it passed?" Juror #9 (Joseph Sweeney) answers with an opinion: "Maybe...The seam of his jacket was split under the shoulder...to come to court like that...He was a very old man in a torn jacket and he walked very slowly to the stand. He was dragging his left leg and trying to hide it because he was ashamed. I think I know this man better than anyone here. This is a quiet, frightened, insignificant old man who has been nothing all his life - who has never had recognition - or his name in the newspapers. Nobody knows him. Nobody quotes him. Nobody seeks his advice after seventy-five years. Gentlemen, that's a very sad thing to be nothing. A man like this needs to be quoted, to be listened to, to be quoted just once - very important to him...He wouldn't really lie. But perhaps he made himself believe that he heard those words and recognized the boy's face. " (MORE)
Juror # 3 loses his influence on the others when he tells them of his own disrespectful, teen-aged son who hit him in the face when he was 16. Now 22 years old, the boy hasn't been seen for two years and Juror #3 is embittered. This attitude shows his obvious prejudice for the youthful defendant…. (MORE)
In Act Two of the movie 'Twelve Angry Men - What causes conflict between juror number three and juror number five in the opening scene?
Juror #3 stands face-to-face with Juror #8, to demonstrate the stabbing action taken by the young defendant. But Juror #5 , who has had experience with switchblade knife fights in his childhood neighborhood, dispels the theory citing the positioning of the blade had to be on a downward angle. J…uror #5: "Anyone who's ever used a switch knife wouldn't handle it any other way." (MORE)
in the beginning of act 2, the 12 jurors learn that someone changed their vote from guilty to innocent. juror 3 demands to know who changed their vote so he yells at juror 5 because he thought he did it. it was actually juror 9
The reason all the other jurors turned their backs on Juror #10 (played by Ed Begley) was because whenever he takes to voicing an opinion he constantly criticizes minorities in a hateful manner and with an obviously racist attitude. At one point in the movie, he is actually left standing there babbl…ing away to nobody in the middle of the room. (MORE)
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 s…ix to eight jurors. But, not in Capital cases! (MORE)
Twelve Angry Men list and explain three specific aspects of the case that create reasonable doubt for the jurors?
1. The knife was described in court as being very unique, almost one of a kind. That was not true. Identical knives could be purchased in the neighborhood. 2. One of the witnesses said she looked through a passing el train from bed. It was established that she wore glasses, so there would not have …been time for her to put them on as the train passed. 3. Something about a downstairs neighbor hearing a thump.. (MORE)
In the 1957 version, he is played by Robert Webber. In the 1997 television production, he is played by William Petersen.
1: High School Football Coach 2: Bank Teller 3: Owner of Messenger Service 4: Stock Broker 5: Never Stated 6: Painter 7: Salesman 8: Architect 9: Never Stated 10: Garage Owner 11: Watch Maker 12: Advertising Executive
Twelve angry men. discuss external factors those not related to the trial-think of them as context that affected three of the jurors' original position?
Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb) had lost his relationship with his son and was very bitter about it. Juror #10 (Ed Begley) was a racist.
A teenager is on trial for murder. The film is about the jury deliberating a verdict.
Juror 2 brings up the point that the accused is a half foot shorter than his father, so it would have been hard to stab him downwards. Juror 5 (the one brought up in the slums) brought up the point that the killer slashed down with the knife, as opposed to upwards like you would in a knife fight,… using the duplicate knife brought by Juror 8 as demonstration. (MORE)
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 sign 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 end 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". (MORE)
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.
His normal job is not specified, although he did have a job as a juror .
Twelve jurors are trying to come to a decision on whether a young man is guilty or innocent for the murder of his father.
Jack Lemmon's character accuses Juror #3 as being a "sadist" when he proposes that 3 cares nothing for the facts of the case, and is bent on sending the kid to the chair for killing his father. It is reiterated throughout the film that 3 has more of a vendetta than the others in that he feels very n…egatively against a son being against a father, as this is something that had happened to 3 himself with his son, and he has yet to get over it. (MORE)
Juror #10 (Ed Begley) was a racist. He kept speaking that "they" were all liars. Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb) had lost his relationship with his son and hated the defendant for allegedly killing his father.
He is the one juror who is truly pragmatic and tries to follow only the evidence with no emotions.
The 9th among the 12 Juror's is an old Man whosematured & impressive memory, the role played by Jack Wardendecides to change his vote, because of the sane reasoning as putforth by the 7th Juror , played by Henry Fonda insupport of the accused as not-guilty. Juror 9 changed his vote infavor of… Juror 7 because of his stand which would put an 18 yearold boy on Death Row by an unanimous decision of the 12Jurors if voted guilty. Therefore as a worldly-wise & keen observer of the proceedingsin the Court, he weighs the pros & cons, deciding to vote insupport of the accuse as not guilty, turning the vote count to 2not-guilty against the majority 10 Jurors voting himguilty . There are several remakes, but the story & thecharacters r the same but with different actors. My Answer is basedon Sidney Lumet's directorial debut with "12Angry Men" releasedin 1957. This Courtroom drama was adapted from a teleplay ofthe same name by Reginald Rose who co-produced and wrote thescreenplay for the movie. (MORE)
Juror eight uses many things to change the minds of the other juriors: first the knife that the knife found in the apartment, the state said it was one of a kind, yet jurior eight was able to find one exactly the same as the one the boy had. Second he picked apart the testimony of the the man down…stairs, that at the time the man had heard the statement "I am going to Kill you" then a thud, could not have happened because at the same time the train was making to much noise to hear anything at the time. Third, with the help another juror he picked apart the testimoy of the woman across the street, who said she looked in just as the boy killed his father, but again the train, would make that nearly if not impossible to see what was going on across the street and without her glasses And Finally (making note that at the time the play was written that going to the movies ment watching not just one movie but newsreels, cartoons, and then another movie, and maybe a short in between) it was very possible that he could forget watching the movie he saw at the theater that night, in fact he asks another jurior what movies he saw the other night and he could not remember. (MORE)
What cause the conflict between them is the protagonist is convinced that the boy on trial is not guilty, and not only that but he is able to sway other juriors to fill the same by picking apart the state's "evidence" and testiment.
We don't know if he was guilty or not. Maybe he did do it, or maybe he didn't, that's not the point. The play/movie is all against capital punishment, and that no one can decide if a man can live or die, because it's too much responsability and our limited knowledge and judgement do not allow us to …say for sure if a person is guilty or not. No matter the evidence there's always a chance, you know? __________________________ The evidence was circumstantial. The jurors decided they could not convict based only on that. (MORE)
Juror #3 was played by actor Lee J. Cobb. In addition to being in this film, he had a very extensive resume and had been in such films as On the Waterfront and The Exorcist among many others.
His first doubt was the knife. The knife had been described as very rare. But he had been able to buy one for $6 at a store in the neighborhood of the murder.
Because he is a jilted father whose son had hit him in the face once during a verbal argument, and he has not seen or spoken to him since, causing him great pain coupled with rage. So, the fact that this boy could kill his father is a loathsome thing to him, and he is bent on convicting the boy base…d on the flimsy evidence submitted. (MORE)