I taught the play itself, not the film. I noted the steady progression as first one, then another realizes that they are far from "beyond reasonable doubt." I also stressed the conflict between the two principle jurors, and the emotional baggage of Juror #3 (vis-a-vis his own son). Then I mentioned the ethnicity of the defendant and tied that into today's criminal "justice" system (i.e., minorities get a fair trial less frequently -- and this was the 1950s!). I also introduced the concept of projection, and -- of course -- shared my own story (in considerably more detail). I enjoyed it; a fair number of the students did, also.
That's very interesting. The fundamental story of "12 Angry Men" is very much rooted in reality, which is why it is so useful and meaningful to study it even so many decades later. And as you stated earlier, it very clearly signals which behaviors are virtuous (fairness, reason, open-mindedness) and which are not (prejudice, indifference, anger/resentment), but all the jurors are an "everyman" in a sense and are relatable and/or understandable. That's part of what makes the story so captivating.
Thanks for sharing this. I taught *Twelve Angry Men* on several occasions, and I was always impressed by the integrity of Juror #8. Ironically, I found myself in a similar position the last time I served on a jury.
The defendant was charged with operating a motorcycle under the influence of alcohol. Without belaboring all the details, I shall explain that (a) although he had consumed some beer, his blood alcohol level was still clearly BELOW the state's limits, and (b) although he had failed two field sobriety tests, both tests were specifically contra-indicated for a man who was both quite obese and over 60 years of age, and the officer who conducted the tests had misled him about where he was expected to walk (since the road curved). Nevertheless, everyone else on the jury wanted to convict.
I faced immense hostility, which eventually escalated to threats, but I stood my ground. The judge declared a mistrial, and the case was not continued.
"Justice" is almost nonexistent in this country, anyway, thanks to judicial ideology and the laws themselves. At the very least, those called to jury duty should learn from the example Juror #8 and seek to emulate him.
Yes, exactly. I completely agree that Juror #8 is a great model of integrity and strength that we would do well to emulate. I'm very curious about what you taught on "12 Angry Men". It's a fantastic movie and worthy of dissection and discussion.
I taught the play itself, not the film. I noted the steady progression as first one, then another realizes that they are far from "beyond reasonable doubt." I also stressed the conflict between the two principle jurors, and the emotional baggage of Juror #3 (vis-a-vis his own son). Then I mentioned the ethnicity of the defendant and tied that into today's criminal "justice" system (i.e., minorities get a fair trial less frequently -- and this was the 1950s!). I also introduced the concept of projection, and -- of course -- shared my own story (in considerably more detail). I enjoyed it; a fair number of the students did, also.
That's very interesting. The fundamental story of "12 Angry Men" is very much rooted in reality, which is why it is so useful and meaningful to study it even so many decades later. And as you stated earlier, it very clearly signals which behaviors are virtuous (fairness, reason, open-mindedness) and which are not (prejudice, indifference, anger/resentment), but all the jurors are an "everyman" in a sense and are relatable and/or understandable. That's part of what makes the story so captivating.
Thanks for sharing this. I taught *Twelve Angry Men* on several occasions, and I was always impressed by the integrity of Juror #8. Ironically, I found myself in a similar position the last time I served on a jury.
The defendant was charged with operating a motorcycle under the influence of alcohol. Without belaboring all the details, I shall explain that (a) although he had consumed some beer, his blood alcohol level was still clearly BELOW the state's limits, and (b) although he had failed two field sobriety tests, both tests were specifically contra-indicated for a man who was both quite obese and over 60 years of age, and the officer who conducted the tests had misled him about where he was expected to walk (since the road curved). Nevertheless, everyone else on the jury wanted to convict.
I faced immense hostility, which eventually escalated to threats, but I stood my ground. The judge declared a mistrial, and the case was not continued.
"Justice" is almost nonexistent in this country, anyway, thanks to judicial ideology and the laws themselves. At the very least, those called to jury duty should learn from the example Juror #8 and seek to emulate him.
Yes, exactly. I completely agree that Juror #8 is a great model of integrity and strength that we would do well to emulate. I'm very curious about what you taught on "12 Angry Men". It's a fantastic movie and worthy of dissection and discussion.