Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men, to which I last alluded in a post called 12 Angry Seminarians: On Diversity, is among my favorite works tackling prejudice. Brilliant play and film.
Just check out this short scene, which packs a lot of punch on its own merit:
Ed Begley, portraying the incredible (and yes, quite angry) Juror #10 in the above clip (1957) acts commendably here. His character's actions, on the other hand, are nothing short of detestable.
But I think it's worth discussing how easy it is to pin blame on certain people, to label some as bigots and assume that everyone else loves and supports diversity and says and does nothing to perpetuate stereotypes, intolerance, and double-standards. And this is by no means meant to condemn everyone or those who condemn bigotry, but rather to illuminate the complexity of the issue.
When we villify someone on the basis of that person's prejudice, is our judgment ever justified? If so, when, and if not, why not?
If you had been among the jurors in this scene, would you have responded to #10 in the same way? What would you have done or said differently?
If you haven't seen/read 12 Angry Men, click here to see the full film online or here to find the book on Amazon.
No comments:
Post a Comment