FREE ESSAY ON 12 ANGRY MEN

12 ANGRY MEN

12 Angry Men
This essay will compare & contrast the protagonist/antagonist's relationship with each
other and the other jurors in the play and in the movie versions of Reginald Rose's 12
Angry Men. There aren't any changes made to the key part of the story but yet the minor
changes made in making the movie adaptation produce a different picture than what one
imagines when reading the drama in the form of a play.
First off, the settings in the movie are a great deal more fleshed out. In the play, the
scene begins with the jurors regarding the judge's final statements concerning the case
in the courtroom and then walking out into the jury room. In the movie, the audience is
placed in the role of the invisible casual observer, who for perhaps the first 5 minutes
of the movie, walks throughout the court building passing other court rooms, lawyers,
defendants, security officers, elevators, etc. Not able to remember much about this
particular part of the movie, I believe this introductory scene's purpose was to either
enhanced the realism of the setting by emphasizing the court building's efficient,
business like manner or to provide a timeslot in which to roll the credits for producer,
director, stars, etc. The settings aren't only built upon through use of scenery and
extras in the movie. Invisible and distant in the play, we see in the movie the judge,
bailiff, those witnessing the trial and most importantly of all- the defendant. This is
an important change because in the play, we are free to come up with our own unbiased
conclusions as to the nature and identity of the defendant, whom we only know to a be a
19 year boy from the slums. Seeing his haggard and worn face in the movie changes all of
that, yet for better or worse, it engages the audience deeper into the trial as they
surely will sympathize with him and can gain some insight into why, later, Juror 8 does
so as well. Of final note in this summary of points concerning the differences in
setting, the jurors all mention the heat wave affecting the city when they begin, and as
it agitates them, it serves to heighten the tension between each other and their
resentment or other feelings towards jury duty. Oh- also lastly, I think we can infer
that the movie takes place in Manhattan, New York City. Which jurors are from which
boroughs is easily obvious and yet I'm hesitant to say that the defendant could be from
any of them- slums were persistent in those times.
Concerning the characterization of the cast and their conflicts with each other, the
movie holds true to the play's guidelines. For the most part, each character I saw in the
movie matched up with the picture my mind's eye had painted whilst I was reading the
play. One thing irked me however: all the jurors seemed at least 10 years older that I
had imagined them. For instance, I had seen Juror 8- the protagonist of the play and
Juror 3- his rival, the antagonist as being perhaps 30-ish or so and spirited and vibrant
in their arguments. While somewhat vibrant they were, their age made them seem to come
across as being more stubborn and grumpy (at least in, Juror 3's case) than lively. Even
Juror 2- the meek, weak and timid-spoken one, I thought would be so because of the age
disparity between him and the older (and thus, supposedly- wiser) jurors. Yet he is
portrayed as such a man but balding and smoking a pipe. His voice, however, fit nicely to
its role. The conflicts in the movie, while also being more fleshed out than in the play,
did match up essentially but there was one point- I thing just before Juror 8 asks for
the diagram of the apartment- that the movie's directors took the liberty to take
dialogue from later in the play and put it there, greatly confusing me and hampering my
ability to follow along.
In analyzing the differences in the antagonist's and protagonist's relationship with each
other and the other jurors, it too held to the play's guidelines with the various
alliances and verbal sparring making sense in light of each juror's moral alignment and
personality. There was one difference, a minor or major one depending how it was viewed.
Detached from the ending, Juror 3 being more humanely portrayed in the movie than in the
play was a minor change. Seen in relation to the movie's ending, Juror 3's inner
conflicts and humanness is a very a major change.
Finally the endings are to be discussed. Here, the play and the movie are obviously very
different. The director with his poetic license makes a very obvious change only hinted
at subtly earlier on and the impact it has on the audience's conclusions at the end of
the movie and the differences between that and those garnered at the end of the play are
great. He tells us that Juror 3 was an abusive and uncaring father who, because he caused
him to run away, has not seen his son- very similar to the defendant- in over 2 years.
Ah, now we can see where his biases stem from: past negative experiences with his son,
the rebellious nature of which justifies the execution of the defendant. Yet at the very
end of the movie we sympathize with Juror 3 just as we did with defendant. We see his
brutish, sadistic demeanor is just a fa?ade, and at one point he too was an innocent
father who simply made wrong choices. I think that the change in the ending was for the
better because it clarified Juror 3's motives greatly. The play's ending did not- one got
the feeling that Juror 3 was simply pressured into voting not guilty. We come away from
it with a greater feeling self-satisfaction at the resolved trial.
So, save for, but also including the ending, the changes made in the move adaptation of
Rose's play, 12 Angry Men- the enhanced setting, great character casting and tense
conflict and resolve- only served to enhanced it's quality and make it enjoyable to
watch.