Witness for the Prosecution has been a critically-acclaimed film ever since its release, and it could be argued much of its success comes from the stellar performance of Charles Laughton as Sir Wilfred Robarts, a lawyer with a high success rate and an even higher level of ego. Audience members laughed at his jokes, no matter how demeaning they might have been to their targets, and they also held their breath in anticipation for him to discover the truth about his client's case. The acting style of Charles Laughton and the development of the character himself added to the crowd's desire to see if the lawyer would uncover the right evidence to win his trial. Aristotle himself would have been invested in Sir Robarts' case and how he handles it …show more content…
French. Both the audience and Sir Robarts himself are invested in the progress of the trial, oftentimes unsure of who the culprit truly is. At first, Sir Robarts feels quite certain that Leonard is innocent. He passed the eye glass test that he presumes to be infallible, and the lawyer trusts his own judgment more than he probably should despite his success rate in court. As the evidence continues to come in from both sides, he begins to question his previous certainty about Leonard's innocence in the murder trial, and eventually he is fully shamed by the admission that Leonard really did kill the old lady. Both Leonard and Christine tricked the acclaimed best lawyer in town and wounded his ego. Whether or not Robarts takes this humiliation to heart is undecided, as he does take on another case minutes after the reveal. However, he does end up happier than he was at the start of the film, perhaps excited by the challenge brought by his downfall, and he does appear to treat his nurse with more respect than he had during the first half of the film. He seems to embrace his failure with dignity. Aristotle's description of an impactful character in a drama has been studied and utilized for centuries. In his Poetics, he lists a recipe for an effective main character. In order for the audience to respond and care for this character, he or she must be good, appropriate, relatable, and consistent within the narrative. Exploring this formula, Sir Wilfred Roberts seemed to hold up against the
Reasonable doubt is defined “as uncertainty as to the guilt of a criminal defendant.” This ideology has been the basis for justice systems in many modern countries for centuries. A panel of twelve men and women who have the immense responsibility of choosing the fate for one person. This principle is the basis for Reginald Rose’s satire, Twelve Angry Men. A play that describes the scene of a New York jury room, where twelve men have to decide between life and death for a inner-city teen, charged with killing his father. These jurors have to sift through the facts and the fiction to uncover the truth about the case and some truths about themselves. Reginald Rose outlines through the actions of juror number three, that no matter the consequences,
Yet with the help of one aged yet wise and optimistic man he speaks his opinion, one that starts to not change however open the minds of the other eleven men on the jury. By doing this the man puts out a visual picture by verbally expressing the facts discussed during the trial, he uses props from the room and other items the he himself brought with him during the course of the trial. Once expressed the gentleman essentially demonstrate that perhaps this young man on trial May or may not be guilty. Which goes to show the lack of research, and misused information that was used in the benefit of the prosecution. For example when a certain factor was brought upon the trail; that being timing, whether or not it took the neighbor 15 seconds to run from his chair all the way to the door. By proving this right or wrong this man Juror #4 put on a demonstration, but first he made sure his notes were correct with the other 11 jurors. After it was
Not able to remember much about this particular part of the movie, I believe this introductory scene's purpose was to either enhance 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 the 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 case, 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 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.
The play, ‘Twelve Angry men’, written by Reginald Rose, explores the thrilling story of how twelve different orientated jurors express their perceptions towards a delinquent crime, allegedly committed by a black, sixteen-year-old. Throughout the duration of the play, we witness how the juror’s background ordeals and presumptuous assumptions influence the way they conceptualise the whole testimony itself.
Aristotle. " The Good." Dramatic Theory and Criticism. Ed. Bernard F. Dukore. Fort Worth: Harcourt, 1974.
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
Myers, H. A. (1949). Aristotle's study of tragedy. Educational Theatre Journal, 1(2), 115. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1290192594?accountid=12085
Aristotle, a philosopher, scientist, spiritualist and passionate critic of the arts, spent many years studying human nature and its relevance to the stage. His rules of tragedy in fact made a deep imprint on the writing of tragic works, while he influenced the structure of theatre, with his analysis of human nature. Euripides 'Medea', a Greek tragedy written with partial adherence to the Aristotelian rules, explores the continuation of the ancient Greek tales surrounding the mythology of Medea, Princess of Colchis, and granddaughter of Helios, the sun god, with heartlessness to rival the infamous Circe. While the structure of this play undoubtedly perpetuates many of the Aristotelian rules, there are some dramatic structures which challenge its standing with relevance to Aristotle's guidelines, and the judgment of Medea as a dramatic success within the tragic genre.
The story as a whole was inspired by Reginald Rose’s experience of jury duty in New York City. At first he was reluctant to serve on the jury, but he ended up telling in a press meet “ The Moment I Walked into the courtroom and found myself facing a strange man, whose fate is suddenly more or less in my hands, my entire attitude changed.” The words from Rose showed the pressure he faced inside the courtroom and his personal conscience he had not to make a mistake with the decision. The overview of the story is an engrossing drama in which eleven jurors believe the accused is guilty,
Aristotle was a Greek philosopher born around 384 BC. He was a very well educated man with a wide range of interests. However, one of those interests was poetry. During the time when he wrote Poetics, it was considered the earliest surviving work of dramatic theory. In Poetics, he offers an account of what he would call poetry. He analyses the most important aspects of a good poem, many of which turn out to be similar to what Virginia Woolf believes. In Letter to a Young Poet, Woolf explains the importance of a strong character. “I say, that poetry has done all this why should it not once more open its eyes, look out of the window and write about other people...Your pages were crammed with character s of the most opposite and various of kinds” (Woolf). She believes that poetry always used to have strong characters, such as Cleopatra, Hamlet, or Falstaff, but now poetry has gotten off track. She goes on to say that if a poet wants to get back into the subsidies of human character, then the poet needs to get out and go into the real world. Aristotle believed that strong characters were almost as important as the plot itself. You cannot have a good performance without a villain or hero that the audience can relate
The characters in a novel or play are attributed certain characteristics by the author. The opinions one might form of a character are based on these; therefore, the characteristics suggested by an author are intrinsic to the reader having a complete and subjective understanding of a work. Characteristics are often displayed through a character s actions, in what is said about them, and what they themselves say, which shall be the focus of this essay. Both Oedipus, in Sophocles' King Oedipus and Odysseus, in The Odyssey of Homer, oftenare spoken of by others, but their own words are telling, as certain emotions and traits can be seen. Traits of a character can often be masked or distorted by favorable or unfavorable descriptions by others, but their own speech, however calculated or controlled, often clearly shows character flaws and attributes that one might not come across otherwise. Strict narration often polarizes a character, casting them as black or white, good or evil. However, in most writings, and certainly in The Odyssey and King Oedipus, the speech of a characterallows us to see the various shades of grey, thus portraying the character more fairly. One might see Oedipus and Odysseus as being in some ways quite similar, but their speech and the characteristics revealed therein is what sets them apart.
One might think of a tragedy being a terrible and destructible event in one’s life that causes great pain and may contain great loss. One particular play written by William Shakespeare – one of the most well known poets in history, happens to be a tragedy-filled story. Othello, the Moor of Venice, set during the captivating renaissance era portrays a character named Othello who reveals characteristics of a tragic hero. The brilliant philosopher Aristotle from the fourth century B.C. developed his own definition and idea of what a tragic hero is. Eric Engle, author of “Aristotle, Law and Justice: The Tragic Hero,” said, Due to Aristotle’s influence, his tragic flaw has distorted western thought ever since its conception” (Engle). “The enquiry of whether Othello is a true tragic hero is debatable. Aristotle’s definition of a tragic hero was a protagonist who is socially superior to others, but then has a downfall due to a “tragic flaw,” typically caused by the character’s solitary weakness. Due to Aristotle’s definition of a tragic hero, Othello possesses the qualities from his definition that fulfill the role of being a tragic hero.
When one hears the word tragedy, one can assume that the human emotions are responsible for the collapse of an individual. To the Greek philosopher Aristotle, however, a tragedy is “an imitation of an action of high importance…in language enhanced by distinct and varying beauties…[or] by means of pity and fear effecting its purgation of these emotions” (Kennedy & Gioia, 945). He defined a tragic hero as having three common characteristics: hamartia, or the tragic flaw in the character which coupled with hubris (pride which results in overconfidence) causes his downfall and demise; katharsis, the purgation of the audience’s emotions, which causes the audience to feel “not depressed, but somehow elated”; and anagnorisis, or the recognition of some fact not previously realized by the true identity of the main character (Kennedy & Gioia, 946). Therefore, as defined by Aristotle’s concept of tragedy, William Shakespeare’s Othello could be classified as a tragic hero. Shakespeare’s play includes jealousy and intrigue, which intertwined with pride and suspense create the finest of Aristotelian tragedies. Othello complies with the requirements for a tragic hero as Aristotle began with the premise that the hero must be of “high estate,” as if he were the member of a royal family; however, he yet falls from a hierarchy of power to one of abashment. He has married the daughter of a Venetian nobleman. He starts out well, but his end is one of drama. Moreover, Shakespeare’s plot develops as Othello’s katharsis is revealed through the climax and conclusion of the play, while the anagnorisis with the recognition that Iago was a traitor and Desdemona his innocent victim.
In Aristotle’s book, Poetics, he defines tragedy as, “an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and possessing magnitude; in embellished language, each kind of which is used separately in the different parts; in the mode of action and not narrated; and effecting through pity and fear” (Aristotle 1149). Tragedy creates a cause and effect chain of actions that clearly gives the audience ideas of possible events. The six parts to Aristotle’s elements of tragedy are: Plot, character, language, thought, spectacle, and melody. According to Aristotle, the most important element is the plot. Aristotle writes in Poetics that, “It is not for the purpose of presenting their characters that the agents engage in action, but rather it is for the sake of their actions that they take on the characters they have” (Aristotle 1150). Plots should have a beginning, middle, and end that have a unity of actions throughout the play making it complete. In addition, the plot should be complex making it an effective tragedy. The second most important element is character. Characters...
...n Aristotle’s view of characters. Aristotle also suggests that a tragedy should have the power to provoke audience’s emotion of pity and fear. The suffering and behavior of each character in Hamlet possess that power. The author agrees with the Aristotelian analysis of Hamlet, the story of Hamlet was perfectly based on Aristotle’s tragedy theory. However, the author thinks that the tragedy doesn’t always have to end up in misery. A tragic story can also have some hidden happiness in the suffering, misery of tragic hero(s), in which way can audience realize that there is still hopeful when your life is tragic and encourage people to strive hard to create a better life.