Essay PreviewMore ↓
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.
How to Cite this Page
"Compare and Contrast Play and Movie Versions of 12 Angry Men." 123HelpMe.com. 25 Feb 2020
Need Writing Help?
Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.Check your paper »
- Laertes in the Play and Movie Version of Hamlet In the 1990 version of Hamlet starring Mel Gibson, Laertes is portrayed in a very poor light. He seems to have no redeeming qualities whatsoever. At certain points during the written play, Laertes's actions may be taken entirely differently than they are conveyed in the movie. In the film version of Hamlet, all of Laertes's negative aspects are much more pronounced. As presented in the movie, Laertes is a sore loser. The text version of the play has Laertes simply say "No" after Hamlet scores his first hit.... [tags: Movie Film comparison compare contrast]
876 words (2.5 pages)
- For example, Leonardo Dicaprio’s character of Gatsby was focused on emotions. I enjoyed that Redford was very calm and cool about everything and the way he approached the character but, Dicaprio made such an open and outgoing character which made the movie more entertaining. DiCaprio captured Gatsby’s intensity and charm and brought out the crazy mood swings and took his character and the audience to a more emotional place. Both Robert Redford and Leonardo DiCaprio had their own way of approaching the character and really selling Gatsby but Leonardo DiCaprios was better.... [tags: Film, Actor]
784 words (2.2 pages)
- Romeo and Juliet is a timeless, classic love story written by the incomparable William Shakespeare. Many of Shakespeare’s works are considered literary classics, but none are more loved than Romeo and Juliet. This play masterfully tells the love story of two teenagers in Elizabethan England. The title characters Romeo and Juliet are members of two feuding families, Romeo is a Montague and Juliet is a Capulet. There are different stylistic ways of portraying Romeo and Juliet, and the two most popular film versions portray two very different styles of this one play.... [tags: Movie Film comparison compare contrast]
1333 words (3.8 pages)
- "For never was a story of more woe Than this of Juliet and her Romeo." - William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, 5.3 ‘Romeo and Juliet’ is a tragic play about two star crossed lovers written by Shakespeare in 1595. The play is a timeless teenage tradgedy. “The play champions the 16th Century belief that true love always strikes at first sight,” (Lamb 1993: Introduction) and even in modern times an audience still want to believe in such a thing as love at first sight. Act II Scene II the balcony scene displays that romantic notion perfectly.... [tags: compare, contrast, comparison]
916 words (2.6 pages)
- Comparing Two Film Versions of A Midsummer Night's Dream by William Shakespeare Introduction The two films we have been asked to compare are both different versions of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream'. The first was a big screen movie, by Michael Hoffman and made in 1998. This film was set in the 19th Century in the fictional city of Monte Athena and starred major actors and actresses such as Sophie Marceau, Kelvin Klein, Rupert Everett and Calista Flockhart. The second was a budget film made for channel 4 by Royal Shakespeare Company.... [tags: Papers]
866 words (2.5 pages)
- Comparison of the Opening Sequences of Two Different Versions of Romeo and Juilet The objective of this essay is to compare two different film adaptations of William Shakespeare's Romeo & Juilet. Franco Zefferelli directed the first rendition of this play in 1968. This was the more conventional, traditional version of the play. It was slow, peaceful, and in my opinion, how Shakespeare would've wanted it. Despite it being old, it was a beautiful interpretation of Shakespeare's tragic love story.... [tags: Papers]
2168 words (6.2 pages)
- Pauls Case The Movie Vs. Pauls Case The Short Story by Willa Cather Sometimes in movie production a film is developed from a piece of literature. Directors will use the plot of a book either to create a unique movie, or to give the audience a chance to see what their favorite book is like when acted out on the screen. Willa Cather's "Paul's Case" is a good example of a work adapted to video. The movie has slight differences from the book, but the director Lamont Johnson follows the original closely.... [tags: Compare Contrast Paul's Case Willa Cather Essays]
933 words (2.7 pages)
- Inherit the Wind (1960) is a film directed by Stanley Kramer that is based on the play of the same name that debuted in 1955. The play was not intended to be an exact historical account of the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, and so the movie also contains various differences from what actually happened. The film allows the viewer to understand the basic concepts and outcomes of the trial, but there are many inaccurate details which make the trial of Inherit the Wind significantly different from reality.... [tags: Movie Review, Film Review]
1018 words (2.9 pages)
- Educating Rita - Comparing the Movie and Play The play Educating Rita by Willy Russell gained great popularity especially during the early eighties. There has also been a movie made from it starring Julie Walters and the more famous Michael Caine. As so often the case, the movie was more elaborate with additional scenes, some of which were spoken of or retold by the actors in the play. The movie also included several actors while the play only featured two, Frank and Rita. After having read the play and seen the movie I am struck by a number of differences.... [tags: Movie Film comparison compare contrast]
961 words (2.7 pages)
- Comparison Between the Play and Movie Versions of Death and the Maiden There is a significant difference between the play and movie versions of Death and the Maiden. The movie version emphasizes visual and sound effects, while the play highlights the importance of language. The movie version starts by playing a section from Schubert’s quartet Death and the Maiden. After the melodious music, viewers immediately see and hear lightening outside a small house as well as ocean waves clash against rocks.... [tags: English Literature]
449 words (1.3 pages)
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 façade, 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.