I found a good article that I can no longer locate since I think I found it on the 3rd page of google and can't remember what I searched
But basically it deconstructed the title:
- 12 (contrasted with modern day juries that usually only have 6 people) <-- pretty irrelevant
- Angry (how many of the jurors were actually angry? Consider the different ways this anger manifests.)
- Men (obvious commentary on the absence of women blah blah blah)
You might have to zoom out on anger a bit and deal with it in terms of personal subjectivity and individual bias instead of outright vitriolic hate. In fact you could argue that none are truly hateful or spiteful (even though the 3rd juror is described as sadistic) we see his motivations are more complex than pure anger. Conversely, it could be argued that all of the jurors are in their own way 'angry,' or rather discontent. Even the 8th juror is contemptuous of the 10th's prejudices and deliberately provokes him: "Why are you siding with the female witness, she's one of 'them' too, isn't she?"
Either way the trick is to deal with these two concepts together, not separately. A possible contention might be that justice is only achievable once the jurors can overcome their anger, or that its not only justice and anger that are incompatible, but justice and all emotion. After all the 8th juror's reverse discrimination, or the 5th/11th's personal experience influence their votes; are they any less valid than the admittedly louder but nonetheless personal views held by the 3rd, 10th or 7th?
These sorts of prompts can be difficult because it relies on your ability to look at rather basic themes on the surface, then approach them from a variety of angles. Also because it's a 'Views&Values' type (ie. dealing with what Rose is revealing or suggesting) you'll have to keep bringing your discussions back to the author's overall message or critique of the judicial system. It might be worth looking into McCarthyism if you haven't already, since there are some key parallels between that social context and the ideas in the text.
Your approach^ sounds fine, so long as you're deconstructing anger/justice (and you can run with two or more definitions if you're confident enough; dealing with multiple interpretations can really add to discussion) and examining the relationship between these two notions, you'll be fine. It's vague enough to allow you to weave in and out of different characters, or even in and out of the text (in moderation.)
If in doubt, keep asking questions.
Anger and justice are incompatible?
- Why are they incompatible?
- How do we know this?
- Is this always the case?
- Is this because justice is so detached from emotion, or because anger is so destructive?
- If they're incompatible, how come the jurors came to a fair verdict in the end?
- Is justice achieved in the text? And/or is anger overcome?
etc etc
Hope my ramblings helped
Home
Help
Search
Login
