In Twelve Angry Men, conflict between the eighth and third juror is evident from the very beginning of the play. While the eighth juror prefers to take his time to ascertain the facts of the case, the third juror is convinced of the young man's guilt almost immediately.
In Act Two, the third juror accuses the eighth juror of making up 'wild stories' about 'slum kids and injustice,' all the while denying what he considers...
In Twelve Angry Men, conflict between the eighth and third juror is evident from the very beginning of the play. While the eighth juror prefers to take his time to ascertain the facts of the case, the third juror is convinced of the young man's guilt almost immediately.
In Act Two, the third juror accuses the eighth juror of making up 'wild stories' about 'slum kids and injustice,' all the while denying what he considers the plain facts of the case. When the third juror proclaims that he wouldn't mind pulling the switch to the electric chair (presumably with the accused in it), the eighth juror accuses him of being a sadist. Enraged by this portrayal, the third juror lunges at the eighth juror and yells out that he will kill him. Two jurors have to hold the third juror back from carrying out his threat. However, the eighth juror casts suspicion on the sincerity of the third juror's intentions to murder a fellow juror.
As the play continues, we come to doubt the third juror's impartiality, as he is shown to have a troubled relationship with his own son. The eighth juror's act of compassion towards the third juror becomes a defining moment, as the act symbolizes the eventual capitulation of the third juror to the eighth juror's will. This act foreshadows the resolution of the play cleverly; due to his earlier outburst against the eighth juror, the third juror is shown to be an unreliable purveyor of justice. The final verdict of the case must then demonstrate the impartiality of the eighth juror as exemplified by his steady reasoning throughout the deliberations.
No comments:
Post a Comment