12 Angry Men – Movie And Play Essay, Research Paper

This essay will compare & contrast the protagonist /

antagonist’s relationship with each other and the other jurors in the

play and in the movie versions of Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men. There

aren’t any changes made to the key part of the story but yet the

minor changes made in making the movie adaptation produce a different

picture than what one imagines when reading the drama in the form of

a play.

First off, the settings in the movie are a great deal more

fleshed out. In the play, the scene begins with the jurors regarding

the judge’s final statements concerning the case in the courtroom and

then walking out into the jury room. In the movie, the audience is

placed in the role of the invisible casual observer, who for perhaps

the first 5 minutes of the movie, walks throughout the court building

passing other court rooms, lawyers, defendants, security officers,

elevators, etc. Not able to remember much about this particular part

of the movie, I believe this introductory scene’s purpose was to

either enhanced 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 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 play,

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 a 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. Of final note in this summary of points concerning the

differences in setting, the jurors all mention the heat wave

affecting the city when they begin, and as it agitates them, it

serves to heighten the tension between each other and their

resentment or other feelings towards jury duty. Oh- also lastly, I

think we can infer that the movie takes place in Manhattan, New York

City. Which jurors are from which boroughs is easily obvious and yet

I’m hesitant to say that the defendant could be from any of them-

slums were persistent in those times.

Concerning the characterization of the cast and their

conflicts with each other, the movie holds true to the play’s

guidelines. For the most part, each character I saw in the movie

matched up with the picture my mind’s eye had painted whilst I was

reading the play. One thing irked me however: all the jurors seemed

at least 10 years older that I had imagined them. For instance, I had

seen Juror 8- the protagonist of the play and Juror 3- his rival, the

antagonist as being perhaps 30-ish or so and spirited and vibrant in

their arguments. While somewhat vibrant they were, their age made

them seem to come across as being more stubborn and grumpy (at least

in, Juror 3’s case) than lively. Even Juror 2- the meek, weak and

timid-spoken one, I thought would be so because of the age disparity

between him and the older (and thus, supposedly- wiser) jurors. Yet

he is portrayed as such a man but balding and smoking a pipe. His

voice, however, fit nicely to its role. The conflicts in the movie,

while also being more fleshed out than in the play, did match up

essentially but there was one point- I thing just before Juror 8 asks

for the diagram of the apartment- that the movie’s directors took the

liberty to take dialogue from later in the play and put it there,

greatly confusing me and hampering my ability to follow along.

In analyzing the differences in the antagonist’s and

protagonist’s relationship with each other and the other jurors, it

too held to the play’s guidelines with the various alliances and

verbal sparring making sense in light of each juror’s moral alignment

and personality. There was one difference, a minor or major one

depending how it was viewed. Detached from the ending, Juror 3 being

more humanely portrayed in the movie than in the play was a minor

change. Seen in relation to the movie’s ending, Juror 3’s inner

conflicts and humanness is a very a major change.

Finally the endings are to be discussed. Here, the play and

the movie are obviously very different. The director with his poetic

license makes a very obvious change only hinted at subtly earlier on

and the impact it has on the audience’s conclusions at the end of the

movie and the differences between that and those garnered at the end

of the play are great. He tells us that Juror 3 was an abusive and

uncaring father who, because he caused him to run away, has not seen

his son- very similar to the defendant- in over 2 years. Ah, now we

can see where his biases stem from: past negative experiences with

his son, the rebellious nature of which justifies the execution of

the defendant. Yet at the very end of the movie we sympathize with

Juror 3 just as we did with defendant. We see his brutish, sadistic

demeanor is just a fa?ade, and at one point he too was an innocent

father who simply made wrong choices. I think that the change in the

ending was for the better because it clarified Juror 3’s motives

greatly. The play’s ending did not- one got the feeling that Juror 3

was simply pressured into voting not guilty. We come away from it

with a greater feeling self-satisfaction at the resolved trial.

So, save for, but also including the ending, the changes made

in the move adaptation of Rose’s play, “12 Angry Men”- the enhanced

setting, great character casting and tense conflict and resolve- only

served to enhanced it’s quality and make it enjoyable to watch.