The overcoming of assumptions and dismissing of prejudices can prove to be difficult challenges, but triumph is impossible to achieve without being willing to confront ourselves and others. Johnny Friendly lacks compassion and empathy, creating fear throughout the waterfront community. His inability to feel remorse for those effected by his decisions and actions results in the necessity for conflict. Throughout ‘On the Waterfront’, Johnny Friendly has a rough upbringing and his taste for power does not let his overcome conflict. Because Friendly is a very stubborn and cold hearted man, with control over the unions, he does not want to develop over the course of the text. This is shown when Terry fights against Friendly, when he wont accept change and therefore fails to put aside his pride. While antagonists Johnny Friendly, Juror 10, and Juror 3 both present a very stubborn front when confronted with conflict, unlike Juror 3, neither Friendly or Juror 10 develop or change in ‘On the Waterfront’, and do not, therefore, triumph. …show more content…
Similarly, Juror 7 refuses to engage in the discussion around the boy’s innocence, passively accepting the opinions of those around him and siding with the majority, and is confronted for this by Juror 11, who asks him ‘don’t you have the guts to do what you think is right?’ In ‘Twelve Angry Men’, the Jurors who voted guilty at the beginning of the play, made a quick assumption about the case without putting much thought into it and holding onto past experiences. Juror 3 and 10 hold onto these judgments the longest, and allow their prejudices to keep them from agreeing with Juror 8. This prejudice creates tension in the room, as the other jurors slowly begin to confront their own assumptions and accept the way that their ‘prejudice can obscure the
Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three
Johnny and Pony had gone to the park and the Socs pulled up in their blue Mustang. They got out of their car. Johnny and Pony ran. A Soc pushed Johnny down and said it looks like this Greaser needs a bath and tries to drown Pony. “‘I killed him,’ he said slowly. ‘I killed that boy.’ Bob, the handsome Soc, was lying there in the moonlight, doubled up and still,” (Hinton, pg. 56). Johnny stabbed the Soc leaving a pile of blood. Johnny is a hero because he saved his best friend’s life.
This essay will compare and 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.
As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate and seems to be somehow personally involved with the case. At one point, he tells the other jurors about an argument between him and his son. Juror 3 and his son had an argument which made his son run away. When his son returned to apologize, Juror 3 hit him for leaving the first time thus leading him to run away once more. He has not seen his son in two years and this has left him somewhat bitter inside. His anger toward his supposed ungrateful son is projected toward the young man on trial. Juror 3 has no concern for the life of the defendant. He makes it clear that he would have been an executioner and would have pulled the switch on the boy himself. His personal troubles have imposed on his ability to come to a verdict.
Juror 6 seems to be part of one of the characters’ whose intentions exhibit otherwise. He proclaims vociferously, “It’s pretty obvious, I mean, I was convinced from the first day”. This sentiment provides compelling evidence as to what the Juror’s intentions and perspectives were, towards the alleged sixteen-year-old. In addition, an important factor that can be taken into consideration is the factor of civic responsibility, which he didn’t uphold properly. In fact, it was proved to have biased, prejudiced and pre-conceptualised
...ted by peer pressure. At the end of the play, after all the other jurors joined up with Juror 8, Juror 3 was the only one who still voted ‘guilty’. This time, Juror 3’s perseverance collapsed and he finally voted on ‘not guilty’. Juror 3 is obviously not as brave as Juror 8 as to stand up for his singular thought on the crime. A reason for this might be because he doesn’t have the intelligence to use good arguments to prove his stance.
Juror #3 is very biased against the 19-year-old boy that is being tried, and this affects all of his thoughts and actions regarding the case. He has this bias because his own son hit him in the jaw and ran away from home at the age of 15: “I’ve got a kid…when he was fifteen he hit me in the face…I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids! You work your heart out [but it’s no use] (21).”According to this quote from the text, this juror condemns all teenagers and feels resentment towards them. He especially feels strongly about the boy being tried, because the boy grew up in the slums, and this juror is also biased against these people who grew up there. It is because of these feelings that he is strongly cemented in his vote of guilty.
Literature allows the reader to experience a variety of conflicts and emotions of the characters in the plot or novel. In The Outsiders, Johnny faces various conflicts. Specifically, Johnny struggles with abusive, unloving parents, the fact that he never got a proper education, and that he was wanted for manslaughter. Thus, Johnny must learn that his life is precious.
The author uses the character, Mr. Lapham, to inform Johnny of his arrogant behavior, and tries to adjust Johnny’s character into someone with a humble heart and
Along with his high social status, he is contentious and narcissistic which plays into his distaste for the other jurors’ unruly behavior. His arrogance plays directly into how he constructs presumptions throughout the duration of the decision. The Puerto Rican’s upbringing and current lifestyle is the diametrical opposite of Juror number 4’s which results in his inferior thinking when discussing the boy. Affirmatively, he states in the play, “We’re not here to go into the reasons of why slums are breeding grounds for criminals.” After his statement, he goes on about how he finds the boy’s alibi ridiculous and the resulting argument unnecessary. His idea that the criminals are the product of the local slums is nothing of solid evidence but more a presumption and prejudice set upon by his arrogant mindset. Juror number 10’s selfish and arrogant thinking is displayed in his assumptive prejudice of the people who reside in the
Juror Eleven’s personality consists of him being an honest man and very quiet, which he breaks out of early in the deliberation. He is seeking justice because
The book “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a book about twelve jurors who are trying to come to a unanimous decision about their case. One man stands alone while the others vote guilty without giving it a second thought. Throughout the book this man, the eighth juror, tries to provide a fair trial to the defendant by reviewing all the evidence. After reassessing all the evidence presented, it becomes clear that most of the men were swayed by each of their own personal experiences and prejudices. Not only was it a factor in their final decisions but it was the most influential variable when the arbitration for the defendant was finally decided.
Johnny saw that Pony was unhappy because he missed his brothers that were back home. Johnny thought that the only reason Pony was still there in the church with him was because he was the one who wanted to run away in the first place . Johnny finally decided to turn himself in because Pony hadn’t committed a crime and Johnny would be let of easy for saving the kids . Johnny would do anything for his buddies but he has a limit and I think that limit is girls. I don’t think that Johnny would of yelled at Dally if he wouldn’t of disrespected those girls the way he did. Although he yelled at his buddy he was the hero of those two Socs that Dally was disrespecting and he got a complement from them and they let him and Pony sit with
“[Has] there always been something between himself and the boy that neither of them understood? “No.” he said to himself. “No, it’s your fault. It’s always been your fault.” (76) The Father realizes how oblivious he has been towards Johnny’s needs. It has always been his fault for not being there for Johnny. He does not know a single thing that is currently happening in Johnny's life. John was blind to how important this banquet was to his son. All John did by going was make the tension between father and son grow with a negative impact. His lack of effort towards reconciliation, actions of betrayal and embarrassment are the reason he is at fault. He can not blame Johnny for his actions because having a drunk father who lifts you in the air and then nearly knocks over a table is embarrassing. I believe the point at which John begins to have his epiphany is when he was talking to Johnny on the way to the banquet. “As they passes the schoolyard he asked the boy how the softball team was doing.... He [realizes] the he [did not] even know what position his own son played, or even the name of the team.” (68) (69) That makes it clear that John does not attend any of his sons games. That means he is not getting much attention from his father. His father showed signs of marginalization towards Johnnys needs but seems like he has changed by the end of the
Yet, the justice system is inevitably susceptible to a flaw, as personal prejudices slip through the initial screening and become apparent in the jury room. In Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men the jury systems imperfections are addressed. He demonstrates the atmosphere of the jury room by introducing twelve characters with unique personalities. A particular character I believe to stand out from the rest would be juror ten. Upon first glance, he comes across as a bigot, but as the play continues he exhibits he is also impatient, arrogant, cantankerous and several other traits.