Assignment Example on Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose

Introduction

In the play "12 Angry Men", the author Reginald Rose, presents 12 male jurors as they tried to dissent the guilty or not guilty verdict following the murder case presented before them. In the play, the twelve male jurors show different characters that gave the piece works its natural substance (Garfinkle, 2011). This work will discuss two characters to make an interpersonal analysis of their relationship as well as the conflict emanating from the condition stated by the judge that they should unanimously agree to a unison verdict.

1. Select two characters in this film that have interaction with each other. Give their Juror numbers and describe their "behavior" in this film.

In this play "12 Angry Men" the author Rose capitalizes on characterization to give audience insights into the characters' personality. The use of characterization uses four distinct methods to categorize the characters; appearance, actions, dialogue and thought to make assumptions about their personality. This paper, I will discuss Juror number eight and number three. The two members of the jury had strong interactions because juror #3 could not understand why juror #8 made simple matters complicated. Juror #8 is the only jury member with a dissenting verdict of not guilty during the initial vote. He is described to be thoughtful, heroic, sympathetic, competent, firm, patient, contemplate, just, persuasive, and gentle among others. He is also mentioned to be professionally an architect. Juror #3 is referred to be a small business proprietor an antagonist who is described to be quiet, short-tempered, forceful, emotional, projected, biased, opinionated, dismissive, and authoritative.

2. Identify the type of conflict that occurs between them. Give specific examples from the film.

The two jurors, 8 and 3, portrayed the different characteristics that yielded conflict among them. Their character traits make than to have different perspectives on the situations of the case before them as well as their outlook on life. Juror 3 has opinionated personality causing him to be dismissive and have posterities negatively on opinions or different views from anybody else. His hostility and self-centered character emanate conflict between his interactions with a juror who was the first to have a dissenting opinion on the verdict before them. Contrary, juror characteristics to persistently seek justice made him have a different view as opposed to the rest eleven members of the jury. He used his inquisitive elements to critic the evidence presented before them during the trial proceeding and is not afraid to face different situation due to his firm stand due to his opinion. The conflict based on the singularity of their thoughts concerning the case's verdict emanate from their different personalities. The character traits of Juror 8 show his convincing, manipulative, and robust nature. He was the only man with a different opinion during the first voting exercise, though he is mentioned to be quiet and gentle. Juror 3 is stubbornly making their different situation to emanate from the difference in opinions and positions held.

3. Explain what you perceive to be the underlying cause of conflict between these two men.

The causes of conflict between the jurors emanated from the difference in perspectives and opinions regarding the case's verdict. To deliver a fair and just anonymous verdict disagreement to agree scenarios were standard for all members to lure the other to their line of thought. Juror 3 is described to have opinionated that had previously cause disagreement between him and his son. He was basing the harsh feelings of the failed relationship with his son on the accused boy during the trial since the defendant was young. He allows his unstable and intolerant elements to get dragged into this different on personal grounds. He is quick to see the simplicity of the case before them despite the fact that a man's life depended on their decision while another one was dead and sought justice. Juror 8 was not acting from past ties or references; he was sincere and not opinionated prejudice as his opponents. During the verdict delivery juror, 8 had no hard feelings towards the defendant showing his lack of bigotry personality. The two men had distinct contrasts in opinion and personality in the manner they conducted themselves and how they handled issues at hand. Indeed, the course of conflict between Juror 8 and juror three came from their strong similarities in holding persistent stands on their objectivity. This common trait found in both men mad it hard for any of them to hear out the other or even argue out the reasoning of the other. The two men persistency triggered disagreements between them because none was ready to give in to their opinion on the case's verdict. For instance, Juror 3 got annoyed with Juror 8's persistence on the innocence of the boy and advocated for his acquaintance of the electric chair, Juror 3 convinces himself that this case was well set, and they death penalty was warranty, so when they disagreed on the issue Juror 3 told Juror 8: "I'm going to kill you". The scene showed the conflicting persistence where on one side Juror 3 gets consumed by range and sadism while Juror 8 is persistence using his calm nature to drive a point home.

4. Identify some specific examples of conflict-generating behavior that occur between these two characters.

Juror 3 had some conflict generating behaviors that triggered disagreement between him and the rest of the jury members, more so Juror 8. Stubbornness, Juror 3 will not let go the issues between himself and his prejudice perception of the defendant. He allows his stubbornness drive his understanding and point of view in the case. When the man was in disagreeing standpoints with juror #8 takes out his range by threating to kill him though did not mean. He closed out his reasonable doubt chances throughout the play and only agrees with the rest towards the end of the film. His stubbornness shows when the other eleven jurors labor to bring him into senses and see the different perspective of the case.

Juror 8 was passionate a character that generated conflict between him and the rest of the jurors. The manner in which he handled the defendant with tender, compassionate understanding intrigued furry from the others especially Juror 3. He was quick to understand the life and agony suffered by the accused and even seemed like he was trying to justify the boy's reasons for killing his father. His passionate character did not allow him to drag his prejudice manifest in the case. For instance, when he tells his colleagues that: "He spent a year and a half in an orphanage while his father served a jail term for forgery. That's not a very good head start. He had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That's all. (Rose, 1971, P.13)" In this instance, Juror 8 was passionate and sympathetic about the life the diseased had offered his son giving his reasonable doubts on the motives for murder. The loving and responsible character trait placed juror 8 in adverse situations with the other members of the jury, he is committed to performing his role as a responsible American citizen and be just to humanity even during odds.

5. Identify the conflict management style of each of these characters by describing their behavior.

Jurors 3 and 8, have conflict management strategies that characterize their behavior. Juror 8 has calmness in handling adverse situations; he is authoritative in the manner he addresses his point of view when de defends his dissenting stand on the voting process. How he feels himself to win the rest of the eleven men to his side of thought shows his domineering behavior. On the other hand, the third juror shows negligent and ruthless conduct, despite his role in the jury playing a significant role in determining the fate of others; he has a constant disagreement with his son. Juror 3 carries his disappointment in life to assess other situations he finds himself in, for instance, his trying the accused innocence to the unruliness of his son shows lack of responsibility in his conduct. Consequently, his weak character shows when he cannot handle the conflict between him and Juror 8 and threatens to kill him. The uncontrolled manner shows inferiority in his behavior despite being trusted in a sensitive post.

6. Identify how the two characters you have selected use or try to use their power.

Reginald Rose draws these two characters with authority to manipulate others due to their individualities. For instance, when Juror 8 was trying to simplify the accused reasons for telling his father he was going to kill him did not necessarily mean he was the one who killed him. Juror 3 uses his coercive and intimidating powers to shut him up. On the same argument, Juror 8 uses his referent power to manipulate juror three by asking him whether he mean what he said. Throughout the play, juror 8 exercises his legitimate potential to lead the whole group to a reasonable understanding of the necessary verdict in the case. Juror 8 is expertise to discern the way juror 3 perceives the defendant as his son, and he uses his expert power when telling him: "it's not your boy. He's somebody else.

Works Cited

Garfinkle, E. "Psychic Barriers to Truth in Twelve Angry Men". Canadian Journal of Psychoanalysis, 2011, 19(1), 169-184.

Rose, Reginald, "Twelve Angry Men", in Film Scripts 2, edited by George P. Garrett and others, New York, 1971.