Some thoughts about today’s lesson 19.9.13
Social, historical, cultural values embodied in the text:
America in the 1950s- background of the text
– a peak of post war prosperity- Great American Dream- idea that everyone who works hard is capable of achieving success through their own efforts
– citizens enjoyed more that just basic needs of food, clothing , shelter
-concept of self made man, independent of government assistance reflecting the notion of the era that business operated with minimal government interference leading to social mobility and growth of the middle class
-America as a land of opportunity and freedom founded on the notion of equality– eve of the Civil Rights movement
and
– Cold War- threat from outside
– McCarthyism – threat from inside leading to mood of suspicion, fear, conservatism, materialism
-America is seen as a cultural melting pot with diverse attitudes towards the different groups in society- immigrants from Europe, slum areas, Hispanics, African Americans
Question to generate discussion: Leadership
In ’12 Angry Men’ how does Juror 8 control the temperature in the jury room?
I hope this question is answered by everyone in the class. Let’s get some discussion going! Give an example of Juror 8’s leadership in controlling the temperature of the room. I am looking forward to your comments.
Welcome! A thoughtful response.
In your discussions, notice the absolute words like never or always. These can be tricky and limit you.
e.g. ‘Juror 8 never puts any of the other Juror’s opinions down’
It is preferable to avoid absolutes which means that you may have to think deeper about your sentence structure
e.g. ‘Juror 8 is measured with his responses to the jurors’ questions, particularly when their confusion and anger are a result of comments he made. He ‘stands for a moment in silence’, or ‘stands watching’ all the while keeping some control of the unfolding events.
Do the above two sentences seem precise and supported, complete and clear? If not, how do you get them to be?
I think this idea is worth exploring- does Juror 8 always avoid conflict? There is a suggestion that he creates conflict as he is the only dissenter in the room initially. He does calm things down at certain points , but does he also enflame the discussion?
Thoughts?
So if we look at the first vote- 11 to 1- Juror 8 is already in a room where the temperature is almost certain to rise as he prevents Juror 7 from getting out early to see his ball game, Juror 10 from walking out with his ‘serves ’em right’ attitude and Juror 3 from leaving as ‘we’ve probably all got things to do.’
Remember they have just sat on a 3 day jury where the ‘lawyers can talk, and talk, and talk’ even with such an ‘obvious’ case. There seems to be a lack of courtesy to even give the case time as some jurors are convinced that they are right.
‘Well, what’s there to talk about?’ Who would have thought that simply talking would make some of the men angry?
However- are they just talking? What happens to the temperature in the room? After the first vote?
Thoughts?
In ’12 Angry Men’ how does Juror 8 control the temperature in the jury room?
– Juror 8 never puts any of the other Juror’s opinions down. He either stays silent or asks questions ‘how come he showed what was going to be the murder weapon to three friends?’ ‘What does that prove?’ Therefore he doesn’t directly oppose them, he asks questions to create reasonable doubt.
– He makes a proposition to the other Jurors to keep them happy. ‘I have a proposition to make all of you’. He takes a huge risk by doing this but this is his strategy to keep the Jury talking.
– He avoids conflict. He put his hand firmly on Juror 9’s arm to calm him down. Silently expressing that there’s no need to talk, actions speak louder than words. He stays calm to try and keep everyone else calm.
In ’12 Angry Men’ how does Juror 8 control the temperature in the jury room?
– Leads by example. Brings other jurors into the debate and gives them confidence to speak their mind. Thus softens the effect of McCarthyism, where many individuals were fearful of having an opinion that wasn’t part of the majority. Also by leading by example, others aspire to similar behaviour. For example when Juror 9 changes to not guilty and ‘respects [Juror 8’s] motives’.
– Remains controlled and balanced. Juror 8 is very rarely out of control, and by maintaining a calm and open outlook on the deliberations he is able to keep the temperature of the room at the level he desires. However, there are times when he inflames the debate, or leaves it completely for the jurors to discuss a particular idea on their own. (Difficult to find an exact quote for this idea though…)
– Lastly, Juror 8 controls the temperature by avoiding to cause conflict and aggressively disagreeing with other jurors, (same point as Olivia’s). He doesn’t reject other juror’s opinions but only questions them for their validity. This notion of always looking deeper for the little details is displayed by Juror 8, and is one of the ways he approaches finding justice.
Great input by Olivia and Harry. Thanks guys!
Some further comments on Juror 8 controlling the temperature of the room
Juror 8 has already disturbed the equilibrium of the room by holding out 11-1
He suggests ‘Let’s take an hour’ to talk placing importance on the conversation and ensuring its integrity by maintaining order ‘ That’s not what we’re sitting here for’ when the conversation goes off topic.
He corrects misconceptions ‘Nobody has to prove otherwise…That’s in the Constitution. You’ve heard of it’ and he asks jurors questions directly when he finds contradictions ‘ You don’t believe the boy. How come you believe the woman?’
Some jurors become antagonistic towards him. Juror 10 (suddenly angry) ‘You’re a pretty smart fellow, aren’t you?’ and begin to show threatening behaviour ( The 10th Juror crosses towards the 8th Juror. Several jurors rise as if to intercept the 10th Juror) and ‘ I’ve got a good mind to belt him one.’ At one point Juror 8 seems physically in danger when Juror 3 demonstrates the knife stab ‘ ‘Look out!’ yet Juror 8 remains calm and steady. He resists escalating the instability.
He raises the temperature with the dramatic production of a knife that looks like the murder weapon, which is shortly followed by taking a break from their deliberations. As the tension rises Juror 8 cools things off temporarily by putting forward a high risk proposition. He calls for a secret ballot. If he is the only one for acquittal he will back off and vote for conviction. But he gains agreement from the group that if there is another vote for acquittal the group will commit to staying and talking it out. When the additional vote comes through Juror 8 backs off from the fall out and lets the surprise turn of events play out.
He raises the temperature with his decisive actions taking the tic tac toe pad off Jurors 3 and 12 and allowing other jurors to temper the mood. ‘All right forget it. It’s not important.’ and ‘Alright. Take it easy.’ As a natural consequence of his leadership there are flow on effects, for example, Juror 6 asking the majority to listen to him ‘ ‘Now let’s hear what the man has to say.’ He baits Juror 3 ‘Are you his executioner?’ ‘Ever since we walked into this room you’ve been behaving like a self appointed public avenger.’ ‘You’re a sadist!’ until Juror 3 explodes and threatens to ‘kill’ Juror 8, thus making Juror 8’s point that people often use that language without really intending to follow through.
After this scene the vote is 6 to 6 and deliberations are going ‘into extra innings.’ In exercising leadership Juror 8 takes the intense heat from the jurors whose support he needs. He cannot accomplish his aim of talking without the help of those he is frustrating and disappointing. Withstanding such pressure demands a broad perspective and extra measures of patience, maturity, courage, strength and grace.
With his combination of relentless and careful modulation of the temperature in the room Juror 8 is able to survive the overwhelming desire of the group to convict and go home.
( Source acknowledgement Leadership on the Line)
Can we look at this topic please…
Twelve Angry Men takes place in ‘real time’. How does Rose use this structure to strengthen his examination of the judicial system?
Well some thoughts around this include:
the issue of real time- what does that mean?
– the audience is on par with the members of the jury for fact finding and making decisions on the guilt or innocence of the boy-enables the audience to empathise with a jury’s role in attaining the yes outcome
– the audience identifies with a jury member as they go on a fact finding journey- real people are seen to be deliberating important issues and providing a behind the scenes look at democracy at work
-the climactic first act which sees tensions boil and jurors taking sides-in moments of tension there needs to be some cool off time- humanity at its core
-the refuge of the washroom which cools down the temperature at times and allows other candid con versations to take place- freedom of speech
I was considering looking at the stage directions as a crucial tool utilised by Rose to highlight the movement of jurors in ‘real time’. Thus, the rising internal heat within jurors matching the weather, the reactions from less outspoken jurors exposing the effect of McCarthyism on society and the way in which the reader can feel the play and see all the minute details. I believe this works on another level in that, as part of the juror’s role, we should see every detail of their discussions, just as they should see all the details of the case, and it ‘should be that accurate’.
Moreover, just a point about the washroom. There are a variety of distinct and personal reasons that jurors reach for the washroom after particular moments however there are three which I find most significant. One, they perceive it to be a savehaven to escape the fiery arguments in the jury room. Two, it is a place to de-stress and gather one’s thoughts. And three, to wash their hands which symbolises the horrific nature of the discussions they are having. Hence, the cold, bitter and audacious bigotry from Juror 10, sometimes leaves jurors needing to wash their hands as they feel so uneasy about what other’s are saying. On the contrary, some jurors who may be losing their way, wash their hands to clear their moral compasses and thus begin to see the case with more impartiality.
Again, this is a difficult point to find quotes for, and some help would be appreciated.
The movement away from characters is a telling sign so is the movement towards them. Juror 2 moves away from Juror 3 and heads to the water cooler, refilling his cup and sipping alone. It appears that Juror 2 who is initially unsure, not confident, unable to articulate a point of view, even though he votes guilty, does not want to listen to the harsh and unforgiving views of Juror 3 ‘But I’m telling you sometimes I think we’d be better off if we took these tough kids and slapped ‘em down…’Rose might be intimating that in a democratic society not everyone one wants to listen to harsh views and while citizens have a right to express them, they also have a right to walk away from hearing them.
The washroom and Juror 7. He walks away from Juror 9 ‘No I wouldn’t like you to tell me why’ and slams the door after he enters the washroom. He is disgusted that the vote now stands at 10 to 2 and will take longer to resolve.
He had let Juror 8 appeal to his civic responsibility begrudgingly ‘Let’s take an hour’ to give the accused a fair hearing ‘OK, slugger, be my guest’ as if expecting that it would wrap up. Is Juror 7 gracious as he dries his hands and talks about himself to Juror 8? In this private setting Juror 7 still wishes to seem reasonable to Juror 8 ‘No difference pal,’but the next time a vote is held Juror 7 argues with Juror 8 and exclaims ‘Look at the time!’ The momentary transformation in the washroom, is long gone around the battle scarred table.
Further thoughts:
In searching for evidence for your interpretations, you must be able to find quotations to support them. It serves little purpose if you make statements which you cannot back up.
Perhaps the washroom is a place where conversations cement the characteristics of the jurors for the audience. On page 42 we discover that Juror 3 and 10 are different even though they are equally vociferous in their condemnation of the defendant. We also discover that Juror 4, while on the same side, is different too. ‘But let me tell you, I’m sincere.’
‘Fine. We all are.’ Yet the conversation in the washroom marks them distinctly.
Juror 10 ‘bursts’ into the washroom and ‘strides’ out, while Juror 3 ‘crosses to the washroom’ and ‘comes slowly’ out.
Perhaps the washroom is a place that foreshadows the tragedies that befall each character – after Juror 4’s emphasis on ‘Just by using logic’ his logic becomes irrelevant as he can’t use his memory properly when questioned by Juror 8. Juror 10’s declaration that he wants to quit and walk out into court to declare a hung jury as he doesn’t care what happens leads him to a vicious rant which alienates him from the other characters who are sickened by his prejudiced diatribe ‘And don’t open your filthy mouth again.’ While Juror 3’s belief that the defendant is guilty is firmly entrenched in his support of Juror 4 ‘Now, just you listen to this man. He’s the only one in the room who knows…’who relies on logic and facts. When the logic and facts are broken down and Juror 4 is ‘convinced’ and has reasonable doubt, Juror 3 also breaks down and changes his vote.
Just another topic to look at.
‘Like the 8th Juror, we ultimately pity rather than condemn the 3rd Juror. Do you agree?
– Condemn Juror 3 for how he has let his prejudice take control over his moral compass.
– Pity Juror 3 for how he has been riddled by his deep, engrained and tainted relationship with his son.
– Juror 8 has both light and dark shades to his personality. Epitomises justice, empathy, tolerance and compassion. But also alludes to a manipulative and biased attitude in his contributions to the discussions. Manipulation arises from baiting jurors and targeting the weaker jurors at times. Bias transpires from his belief that he prefers a guilty man to go free than an innocent man to be executed. Therefore it is a bias of uncertainty which undeniably ‘torments’ Juror 8, but also sparks his approach to his civic duty.
Any further ideas?
An interesting topic.
It is asking if we, like Juror 8, pity Juror 3 rather than condemn him. Notice the word -ultimately- which could mean towards the end of the play symbolically represented by Juror 8 helping Juror 3 with his jacket. Do we or Juror 8 pity Juror 3 before the end of Act 2, say at the end of Act 1 when he is threatening to kill Juror 8? Does the audience side with the voice of reason rather than an explosive and emotional loudmouth? At what point do we pity rather than condemn? Furthermore are we as gracious in our compassion towards Juror 3 like Juror 8 is? What are your thoughts? In a free society, freedom of expression is a basic tenant of democracy, ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’ (Hall) Does Juror 3 give us enough reason to feel compassion for him. Remember he had a go at one Juror for not fulfilling his civic duty. What do you think?
Thanks Harry for starting this discussion.
I would encourage further opinions 🙂
Who calls the jurors ‘old ladies?’ 🙂
Thanks Harry!
I was thinking that the Jurors believe witnesses so their ideals remain intact.
e.g Juror 10 and his prejudice thoughts and Juror 3 and his personal view that all ‘kids’ are ‘angry’ and ‘hostile’ because of his own bad relationship with his son.
Also, the witnesses believe what they want to believe because they have an expectation that they saw the killing, so their expectations filled the gap in their minds. (the misinformation effect)
My opinion was that TAM does show this to be true, however Juror 8 dissects this by having an open mind, creating discussions and reasonable doubt. I like your points on Juror 8, they are very helpful. Thank you!
Any thoughts on the following topic –
‘ “The 10th Juror says ‘What you want to believe, you believe.” How does Twelve Angry Me show this to be true?’
Thanks 🙂
I think this topic is opening up the discussion about how facts can be malleable and are ‘coloured by the personalities of the people who present them’. Thus, in examining the evidence, looking beneath the surface is inherently part of that process, but in Juror 10′s perspective he finds it unnecessary as his view is blurred by prejudice.
So maybe look at Juror 8 and how he destabilises the ‘circumstantial’ evidence and questions the validity of the testimonies of the witnesses. As this is where the detailed discussions begin, it inevitably leads to other jurors disapproving of the notion of looking at the intricacies of the evidence.
I guess in my opinion, it doesn’t show that to be true, but Rose alludes to the fact that the case is ‘not an exact science’ and needs an in depth, thorough deliberation to unearth justice.
Hope that helps, there is more to this topic that I know I am missing, but it is a difficult one.
Does TAM show this to be partly true?
Do we explain a belief as a changeable state of mind given certain conditions? Or do we argue that a belief is fixed and static no matter what.- Juror 8 must think the former as he uses tactics such as logic and reason to cast doubt on what the 11 jurors believe about the defendant as the deliberations progress.
Can we pinpoint the core beliefs for each juror? Do they alter in the play? What about those who believe one thing but vote inconsistent to that belief?
Food for thought. Thanks to all.