In support of this week's unit on the American justice system, we watched
Twelve Angry Men, the classic 1957 courtroom drama that mostly takes place inside a jury room. Having received their instructions from a bored, monotone-speaking judge, eleven men are ready to convict and send to his death a teenager charged with murdering his father. However, one lone juror holds out for acquittal because he believes there is a reasonable doubt about the youth's guilt. Tempers reach the boiling point as these jurors struggle to reach a decision in an atmosphere of tension and racial bias. At the same time, the film is a
paean to the ideals of democracy and fairness embedded in the Constitution. It also follows a common theme in American culture -- the
righteous lone individual standing up against the System, or the State, or the Corporation, or against any number of other evils and badness. The jurors are neither good nor bad, but ordinary citizens guided by a complex set of emotions, values, and agendas. Juror #8 is an extraordinary individual who uses reason and logic to overcome emotion and prejudice. There was a comment in class today about the fact that we never learn the jurors' names, except at the end, when the old man and #8 introduce themselves to each other. That the jurors are nameless reinforces a notion of universality. The jurors are Everyman. Hence, the jury of 12 "angry men" is meant to be a
microcosm of society at large. The class had previously debated the pros and cons of the death penalty, and deliberated as a mock, activities that I hope helped students gain a better appreciation for the awesome responsibility of juries. Today's discussion of the film,which barely scratched the surface before we ran out of time, left me hungry for answers: Can we ever really know the truth about something? Can we ever truly understand other people's motives? What kinds of pressure do jurors face to vote one way or another? Does a set of facts always point to the truth? In a world where nothing is simply black or white, but shades of gray, can we ever be certain about why people do the things they do, or say the things they say? One thing's for certain: prejudice obscures the truth, as
this scene so powerfully shows.
In support of this week's unit on the American justice system, we watched Twelve Angry Men, the classic 1957 courtroom drama that mostly takes place inside a jury room. Having received their instructions from a bored, monotone-speaking judge, eleven men are ready to convict and send to his death a teenager charged with murdering his father. However, one lone juror holds out for acquittal because he believes there is a reasonable doubt about the youth's guilt. Tempers reach the boiling point as these jurors struggle to reach a decision in an atmosphere of tension and racial bias. At the same time, the film is a paean to the ideals of democracy and fairness embedded in the Constitution. It also follows a common theme in American culture -- the righteous lone individual standing up against the System, or the State, or the Corporation, or against any number of other evils and badness. The jurors are neither good nor bad, but ordinary citizens guided by a complex set of emotions, values, and agendas. Juror #8 is an extraordinary individual who uses reason and logic to overcome emotion and prejudice. There was a comment in class today about the fact that we never learn the jurors' names, except at the end, when the old man and #8 introduce themselves to each other. That the jurors are nameless reinforces a notion of universality. The jurors are Everyman. Hence, the jury of 12 "angry men" is meant to be a microcosm of society at large. The class had previously debated the pros and cons of the death penalty, and deliberated as a mock, activities that I hope helped students gain a better appreciation for the awesome responsibility of juries. Today's discussion of the film,which barely scratched the surface before we ran out of time, left me hungry for answers: Can we ever really know the truth about something? Can we ever truly understand other people's motives? What kinds of pressure do jurors face to vote one way or another? Does a set of facts always point to the truth? In a world where nothing is simply black or white, but shades of gray, can we ever be certain about why people do the things they do, or say the things they say? One thing's for certain: prejudice obscures the truth, as this scene so powerfully shows.
No comments:
Post a Comment