12 Angry Men Critical Analysis

In Twelve Angry Men, a boy is convicted of the murder of his father and 12 jurors are chosen to decide his fate. In the beginning, all of the evidence points to him being guilty. However, after a little bit of analysis of the evidence, there is some reasonable doubt. Slowly all of the Jurors accept the boy as innocent except for one very stubborn juror: Juror 3. The differences and similarities between the stage directions and the directors shot selection in the film and in the text affect the readers interpretation of the final scene where Juror 3 says not guilty greatly.

There are many similarities between the two versions. One similarity is how the jurors reacted to Juror 3s resistance to the chance of the boy being innocent. In both the play and the film, the jurors simply stare at Juror 3 out of amazement of his ignorance to the facts. When Juror 8 asks him why he still isnt convinced, Juror 3 says that its his right. He also says that he is entitled to his opinion. This similarity helps add to the question to why Juror 3 is so bent on getting the boy convicted. Another similarity is that Juror 8 seems confident that Juror 3 will pull through his mindset of the boy being guilty. In the play, the playwright says that Juror 8 asks Juror 3 of his arguments calmly and quietly. Juror 8 does the same in the film. Juror 8s calmness and quietness seems to show that he is confident about the verdict and that he can convince Juror 3 that the boy is innocent.

The final similarity being discussed will be about how Juror 3s tone of voice affected the readers inference of his character. In the play the playwrights directions for Juror 3 are mostly loudly or shouting. The same is in the movie. Juror 3 is constantly yelling and shouting, trying to make a point. From this the reader can infer that Juror 3 gets angered quickly and is stubborn at times. He also thinks his opinion is more important than the others because he only stressed his opinion and not the others. This detail alone suggests Juror 3 is hard to work with. The similarities brought out many good details in the story and the characters.

There are also many differences between the text and film. One of them is how Juror 3 admits the boy is not guilty. In the play, all Reginald Rose wrote was that Juror 3 began to pound on the desk and seemed about to cry. He then said, Not guilty. The reader is left confused as to why Juror 3 just admitted to not guilty when he kept saying guilty throughout the play. The reader may think that Juror 3 felt overpowered by everyone and felt weak as opposed to 11 other people who had different viewpoints on the case. One may also think that Juror 3 got tired of the case and just wanted to leave. In the movie however, Juror 3 is shown ripping his sons picture up with trembling hands and then crying. He also mentions how he worked his life out into his son, but for what? He got punched in the face and never saw his son again. From this small scene the reader can infer that Juror 3s stubborn behavior was all caused by the grief of his son. It seemed as if Juror 3 realized that he shouldnt punish the boy because of the memories he had of his son.

Another difference is when Juror 3 is yelling at the others and angrily asking them how they can believe that the boy is innocent. The director does many choker shots of Juror 3 to show his facial expressions. His facial expressions express lots of anger towards the boy and the jurors. In the play there is no way to see the extent of the anger of the jurors because the play can only account for movements and tone of voice. In the movie Juror 3 just keeps saying not guilty without a valid reason until he talks about his son. The play however incorporates the son scene earlier into the story and vaguely lets the reader know why Juror 3 is upset. The movie gives the reader a better chance of understanding the story and why Juror 3 caved in and chose not guilty. The final difference discussed will be about the things Juror 3 did before saying not guilty to the guard. In the play Juror 3 picks up the knife and holds it in the knife-fighter approved way. He stares hard at Juror 8 and then says, not guilty. He then follows through by glancing from side to side and going out the door.

The reader can conclude from this scene that Juror 3 still has second thoughts about the verdict and is nervous because of his behavior. He seems concerned that the other Jurors might think he is a stubborn man who only said not guilty because he was pressured into doing it. The ending scene is portrayed completely differently in the film. It shows Juror 3 still weak from crying and slowly gathering his belongings. He quietly goes out the door, leaving his sons torn picture on the desk. The reader can conclude from this scene that Juror 3 is trying to forgive his son for punching him and that Juror 3 is trying to move on. This scene revealed a completely different Juror 3. It shows a Juror 3 that is more kind and forgiving. It shows a more humane person.

After analyzing all of these similarities and differences between the play and the film, the reader or viewer can conclude that the similarities and differences just help them understand the story better. The similarities bring out the details of the characters and help make the story more understandable. The differences also help make the story more understandable. The differences in the film dont make the viewer confused as to why Juror 3 changed his mind.