arious 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 faade, 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....
