I have a couple of ideas:
possibly changing the contention slightly to say they jury system is the protagonist-this would most likely require a paragraph on the jury system...
or
finding a way to link and contrast juror eight to the other jurors I have mentioned
or
Ahh...anything!!!!!
Twelve angry men has no protagonist. Do you agree?
As the stale heavy air hugs the twelve, weary jurors, seated around a scarred, wooden table, a vote is called. Seven or eight hands shoot into the air, others follow slowly until only Juror eight remains unmoved, calmly waiting for the option to vote "Not guilty".
Such a scene demonstrates the strength of Juror eight's moral compass, which exemplifies the strength and importance of the jury system. He is a man who has a commitment to the truth and understands the fundamental necessity of remaining objective. This understanding makes him appear to be the protagonist of Reginald Rose's play Twelve Angry Men, and makes him more noteworthy than the other eleven jurors as he is a character that Rose believes a jury needs, however, he is not perfect. Furthermore, each of the characters exists as a symbol of a larger group, who more importantly, if they understand themselves, and have sufficient insight and compassion then justice can occur.
Juror eight influences members of the jury through using a Socratic method, and is the catalyst for a bona fide discussion, further cementing the position of the play's "hero". He leads a thorough examination of all aspects of the case and proves there to be reasonable doubt in all evidence and testimony that was given, which leads the jurors to contemplate the fact that "people make mistakes". Even Juror eight, constructed as a gentle, admirable character and one with whom the audience should empathise, is not perfect. He himself admits that he "broke the law" buying the switch-knife in order to make his point about reasonable doubt. Juror eight's internal strength, allows him "to stand alone against the ridicule of others", in his determined pursuit to follow the judge's plea to "remove fact from fancy". As the climatic tension begins to peak midway through the second act, Jurors eight and three clash, Rose's stage directions establish that as Juror 3 stubs down "the blade stops about on inch from the 8th juror's chest. The 8th juror does not move. Juror three smiles" Rose uses this confrontation to foreshadows the end result of the play, where logic and reason, wins against the emotion and raw passion of other jurors.
Juror eight's catalytic role, leads other jurors to gradually follow in his footsteps and seek a fair trial. Juror eights commitment to the success of the jury system, made clear when he sees Jurors three and twelve playing tic tac toe, snatches the pad and throws it into the waste bin. His conviction is supported by Juror 11, the European immigrant, when he confronts the 7th juror's apathetic nature towards the case, forcing Juror 7 to finally participate in the decision making process: "you have no right to play like this with a man's life...Don't you care?" Both Juror eight and eleven display strength and conviction in their beliefs. Ironically, it is newcomers that actually perceive civic duty as "a remarkable thing about democracy"; it is their personal experience that allows them to recognise the beauty in a system in which the jurors deliberating "have nothing to lose". Through Jurors eight and eleven, Rose emphasises the point, that a successful jury is dependent on all jurors actively participating and thinking for themselves. Similarly to Juror eleven's adoption of Juror eight's pride in the jury system many jurors adopt Juror eight's questioning style: "it's been bothering me a little...there was this whole business about the stab wound..."
Just as some Jurors display great strength and conviction in maintaining an open-minded approach so too does the 3rd Juror demonstrate the right to stand alone, maintaining a stubbornly negative stance uncompromising in his refusal to acknowledge an alternative view. Through the 3rd Juror we witness those whose personal bias informs what should be an objective decision, hampering any prospect of justice. The 3rd Juror's prejudice is revealed to stem from his poor relationship with his son: "I can feel the knife going in". This psychological manifestation of the 3rd Jurors own dysfunctional relationship with his son, is engendered by his attitude towards the defendant, "he got to burn." Throughout the script Juror 3 contradicts himself by using specifics when it is advantageous to his case, proving the defendant to be guilty "he said 20 seconds", while speaking in generalisations when it is not: "how does he know how long 15 seconds is?" by doing so Juror 3 obfuscates the truth by ignoring certain specifics relating to the witness's testimonies. Regardless of the origins, Rose demonstrates how prejudice clouds our ability to objectively look at all the facts equally; it is only when this can be achieved that justice can occur. It is his clash with Juror 8 in particular that show 8's dominant role on the jury, but it then encourages other "bleeding hearts", Jurors five and six to restrain him when he loses control at the end of Act 1.
Despite Juror 9's initial uncertainty,' being the last to raise his arm to vote not guilty' at the preliminary vote and only speaking when addressed, he is the first juror to change his vote. The audience first sees Juror 9 sway from his initial vote, "guilty" as he witnessed other jurors' prejudiced behaviour. He is the first to recognise juror 10s racist attitude: "what this man says is very dangerous". In an attempt to distance himself from juror 10, he removes any of his own prejudice and coupled with the questioning of court evidence, comes to doubt the case. Juror 10 can be seen to act as an alarm bell warning other jurors away from supporting his racist motives. Additionally, Juror 9s understanding of the elderly witness and his need "to be recognized, to be listened to, to be quoted just once" emerges from his identifying with this "very old man with a torn jacket." This 'age' is used to help provide insight and shed experience into aspects of the case which other younger jurors have not yet had the opportunity to experience. Despite juror 9's old age, he has maintained "20-20 vision" this can be seen as a symbol for his ability to separate the "fact from fancy". His personal circumstances provide him with a degree of perception the others lack about these particular witnesses, which assists them in their critical analysis of the evidence given in the courtroom.
While the twelve Jurors go through their journeys of exposing their own truths and acknowledge their own prejudice, the audience too follow a similar journey. As the audience witness Juror 8's thoughtful, dedicated, precise analysis they too recognise that "facts may be coloured by the personalities of the people who present them". Reginald Rose's play reinforce the need for persons of virtue and integrity to speak up, even when from the outset it appears unlikely they will be heard. Since without Juror 8's initial refusal to agree to a guilty verdict precipitates the subsequence prolonged, heated but ultimately fruitful debate, he could be said to be the "protagonist" of the play.
possibly changing the contention slightly to say they jury system is the protagonist-this would most likely require a paragraph on the jury system...
or
finding a way to link and contrast juror eight to the other jurors I have mentioned
or
Ahh...anything!!!!!
Twelve angry men has no protagonist. Do you agree?
As the stale heavy air hugs the twelve, weary jurors, seated around a scarred, wooden table, a vote is called. Seven or eight hands shoot into the air, others follow slowly until only Juror eight remains unmoved, calmly waiting for the option to vote "Not guilty".
Such a scene demonstrates the strength of Juror eight's moral compass, which exemplifies the strength and importance of the jury system. He is a man who has a commitment to the truth and understands the fundamental necessity of remaining objective. This understanding makes him appear to be the protagonist of Reginald Rose's play Twelve Angry Men, and makes him more noteworthy than the other eleven jurors as he is a character that Rose believes a jury needs, however, he is not perfect. Furthermore, each of the characters exists as a symbol of a larger group, who more importantly, if they understand themselves, and have sufficient insight and compassion then justice can occur.
Juror eight influences members of the jury through using a Socratic method, and is the catalyst for a bona fide discussion, further cementing the position of the play's "hero". He leads a thorough examination of all aspects of the case and proves there to be reasonable doubt in all evidence and testimony that was given, which leads the jurors to contemplate the fact that "people make mistakes". Even Juror eight, constructed as a gentle, admirable character and one with whom the audience should empathise, is not perfect. He himself admits that he "broke the law" buying the switch-knife in order to make his point about reasonable doubt. Juror eight's internal strength, allows him "to stand alone against the ridicule of others", in his determined pursuit to follow the judge's plea to "remove fact from fancy". As the climatic tension begins to peak midway through the second act, Jurors eight and three clash, Rose's stage directions establish that as Juror 3 stubs down "the blade stops about on inch from the 8th juror's chest. The 8th juror does not move. Juror three smiles" Rose uses this confrontation to foreshadows the end result of the play, where logic and reason, wins against the emotion and raw passion of other jurors.
Juror eight's catalytic role, leads other jurors to gradually follow in his footsteps and seek a fair trial. Juror eights commitment to the success of the jury system, made clear when he sees Jurors three and twelve playing tic tac toe, snatches the pad and throws it into the waste bin. His conviction is supported by Juror 11, the European immigrant, when he confronts the 7th juror's apathetic nature towards the case, forcing Juror 7 to finally participate in the decision making process: "you have no right to play like this with a man's life...Don't you care?" Both Juror eight and eleven display strength and conviction in their beliefs. Ironically, it is newcomers that actually perceive civic duty as "a remarkable thing about democracy"; it is their personal experience that allows them to recognise the beauty in a system in which the jurors deliberating "have nothing to lose". Through Jurors eight and eleven, Rose emphasises the point, that a successful jury is dependent on all jurors actively participating and thinking for themselves. Similarly to Juror eleven's adoption of Juror eight's pride in the jury system many jurors adopt Juror eight's questioning style: "it's been bothering me a little...there was this whole business about the stab wound..."
Just as some Jurors display great strength and conviction in maintaining an open-minded approach so too does the 3rd Juror demonstrate the right to stand alone, maintaining a stubbornly negative stance uncompromising in his refusal to acknowledge an alternative view. Through the 3rd Juror we witness those whose personal bias informs what should be an objective decision, hampering any prospect of justice. The 3rd Juror's prejudice is revealed to stem from his poor relationship with his son: "I can feel the knife going in". This psychological manifestation of the 3rd Jurors own dysfunctional relationship with his son, is engendered by his attitude towards the defendant, "he got to burn." Throughout the script Juror 3 contradicts himself by using specifics when it is advantageous to his case, proving the defendant to be guilty "he said 20 seconds", while speaking in generalisations when it is not: "how does he know how long 15 seconds is?" by doing so Juror 3 obfuscates the truth by ignoring certain specifics relating to the witness's testimonies. Regardless of the origins, Rose demonstrates how prejudice clouds our ability to objectively look at all the facts equally; it is only when this can be achieved that justice can occur. It is his clash with Juror 8 in particular that show 8's dominant role on the jury, but it then encourages other "bleeding hearts", Jurors five and six to restrain him when he loses control at the end of Act 1.
Despite Juror 9's initial uncertainty,' being the last to raise his arm to vote not guilty' at the preliminary vote and only speaking when addressed, he is the first juror to change his vote. The audience first sees Juror 9 sway from his initial vote, "guilty" as he witnessed other jurors' prejudiced behaviour. He is the first to recognise juror 10s racist attitude: "what this man says is very dangerous". In an attempt to distance himself from juror 10, he removes any of his own prejudice and coupled with the questioning of court evidence, comes to doubt the case. Juror 10 can be seen to act as an alarm bell warning other jurors away from supporting his racist motives. Additionally, Juror 9s understanding of the elderly witness and his need "to be recognized, to be listened to, to be quoted just once" emerges from his identifying with this "very old man with a torn jacket." This 'age' is used to help provide insight and shed experience into aspects of the case which other younger jurors have not yet had the opportunity to experience. Despite juror 9's old age, he has maintained "20-20 vision" this can be seen as a symbol for his ability to separate the "fact from fancy". His personal circumstances provide him with a degree of perception the others lack about these particular witnesses, which assists them in their critical analysis of the evidence given in the courtroom.
While the twelve Jurors go through their journeys of exposing their own truths and acknowledge their own prejudice, the audience too follow a similar journey. As the audience witness Juror 8's thoughtful, dedicated, precise analysis they too recognise that "facts may be coloured by the personalities of the people who present them". Reginald Rose's play reinforce the need for persons of virtue and integrity to speak up, even when from the outset it appears unlikely they will be heard. Since without Juror 8's initial refusal to agree to a guilty verdict precipitates the subsequence prolonged, heated but ultimately fruitful debate, he could be said to be the "protagonist" of the play.
