Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose is one of the only literary pieces that reveals the dark truth of America post-WWII. This is a play depicting a jury of twelve white men deciding if a sixteen-year old defendant is guilty of the murder of his own father. In addition, knowledge versus ignorance is the strongest theme in Twelve Angry Men. Rose uses a set of character foils with static characters, a specific time and place, and the archetype of darkness versus light to convey this idea.

12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are the jury for an 18 year old accused of murder. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home. The prosecutors have several eye witness testimonies, and all of the evidence that they could need to convict the 18 year old male. In the movie it takes place on the hottest day of the year in New York City. There are 12 jurors whom are to decide if the evidence is enough to convict the teen of murder in the first degree. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. The only way that the jurors could turn in

Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’ is a play which displays the twelve individual jurors’ characteristics through the deliberation of a first degree murder case. Out of the twelve jurors, the 8th Juror shows an outstanding heroism exists in his individual bravery and truthfulness. At the start, the 8th Juror stands alone with his opposing view of the case to the other eleven jurors. Furthermore, he is depicted as a juror who definitely understands the jury system and defends it from the jurors who do not know it fully. At the end, he eventually successes to persuade the eleven other jurors and achieves a unanimous verdict, showing his

At one point in his or her life, everyone is faced with some type of difficulty or problem that seems impossible to solve. Whether it be trying to convince people with an opposing view that your view is correct, or the difficulty of choosing between two opportunities, that could change your life, everyone shares the experience of being faced with adversity. In these strenuous moments everyone reacts in their own unique way, allowing some people to overcome the difficult moment, while others are left unsuccessful. This begs the question, in the face of adversity, what causes some people to prevail while others fail? While there could be countless answers to this question for any given scenario, it ultimately comes down to one's attitude and fortitude.

The play "Twelve Angry Men", By Reginald Rose, is a play about 12 jurors that in an

"Twelve Angry Men", a play about a trial in which a teenager is being accused guilty in the murder of his own father while his case is being reviewed by the jurors. Throughout the play Reginald Rose, the author, shows us that not every trial that is held is actually always a fair trial. This play that was written is a good example of a trial being treated unfair by the jurors, although at the end the case was fairly brought to a decision. In this play most of the men are being unfair and vote guilty towards the kid, but one stands up for him and fights the case, the author does a great job in showing that cases are not always fair by describing each juror. Throughout the play there are good details that show the unfairness of most of the jurors and how they rushed most of the time and just tried to get over it.

Similarly ,In Twelve Angry Men Juror 8 is a smart and moral juror who is willing to stand against all the other jurors for what he thinks is right. He is the main protagonist who believes a boy accused with murdering his father deserves a discussion prior to a guilty verdict. Although all the other jurors initially voted guilty, juror 8 believed that the jurors should not “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”(Juror 8, 12). Throughout the play Juror 8 combats the pressure from the other Jurors to just vote guilty and manages to convince his fellow Jurors one by one that there in fact is “reasonable doubt”(Judge, 6) and convinces them to arrive at a “not guilty”(Juror 3, 72) verdict. Reginald Rose extols Juror 8’s pursuit of justice through his success. Not only did Juror 8 stand by his principles and have the courage to stand against all the other Jurors, he also had the wits to convince his fellow jurors to change their verdict. Through these actions Juror 8 brings justice to the courts of New York city saving the life of a young boy.

Twelve Angry Men, is a play written by Reginald Rose. The play is about the process of individuals and a court case, which is determining the fate of a teenager. It presents the themes of justice, independence and ignorance. Rose emphasises these three themes through the characters and the dialogue. Justice is the principle of moral rightness or equity. This is shown through juror number eight who isn’t sure whether or not the boy is actually innocent or guilty, but he persists to ask questions and convinces the other jurors to think about the facts first. Independence is shown through both juror number three and ten. They both believe that the defendant is guilty until they both realise that they can not relate there past experiences with

Inside a room where life or death decisions are made, twelve men sit with wandering thoughts. The made up minds of some jurors are to send a boy to his death without a second thought, but one other juror may change that. Inside of the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose, Juror 8 has the persuasive evidence to change the minds of his fellow Jurors and save a boy from his execution. The other Juror’s seem like they won’t budge with their mind set on the decision of guilty, but after Juror 8 proves his thoughts on the decision of innocent, he may just be able to save a young life.

Twelve Angry Men, a play by Reginald Rose, was written in 1955 at a time when America was involved in a cold war with communist countries. It shows the strength of a deliberative process that enables individuals, who have “nothing to gain or lose,” to reach a verdict. In the American jury system “everybody deserves a fair trial” and in Twelve Angry Men the defendant gets a very fair trial. All the jurors have their own opinions on the case but in the end a decision is made. The jury, and the audience, never discovers if in fact the defendant did murder his father. His guilt or innocence seems to be almost

Reginald Rose’s ’12 Angry Men’ brings 12 jurors together in a room to decide whether a young foreign boy is guilty of killing his father. The play is interwoven with dynamic characterisation, striking symbolism and intense moments of drama. Although Rose positions Juror 8 as the hero, the strongest character is in fact Juror 4, who is an independent thinker, rational and calm even as tension begins to build. Although Juror 4 initially votes guilty, he is able to admit his fault and change his vote.

The drama play/film, 12 Angry Men, written in 1957 by Reginald Rose, is about concerns that arise in a homicide trial of an 18 year old inner city teen, who was accused of stabbing his father to death. As the arguments of the trial closed, the 12 members of the jury prepare to put careful thought into a decision, with a guilty verdict sentencing the teen to death. As a unanimous decision is attempted to be reached while in isolation together, juror member 8 expresses sincere doubt in details of the case. Delicate personal issues came about in the room, and strife creates a risk of the trial being disrupted or delayed, as opposed to a smooth process, which could be costly for the teen. Many factors contributed to the apprehensions that were faced during the trial of the boy who they believed killed his father. The ideas and perspectives of those factors can influence the overall outcome of the decisions made in the jury room, which will result in a life or death sentence. There are similarities and differences in the rational and irrational arguments for a guilty decision made by juror #4, #7, and #10 in the film 12 Angry Men.

The movie, 12 Angry Men, encourages the audience to fully develop their own ideas and find a logical reason behind something before jumping to conclusions. The 12 jurors participate in a group discussion over the trial of a young man charged with murdering his father. At many points, this discussion becomes hostile and provokes feelings of disdain and frustration among the jurors. Mr. Davis, Juror Eight, displays his core beliefs of open- mindedness, work ethic, and ability to think logically to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the other jurors.

The setting of 12 Angry Men is a jury deliberation room where the jurors are and required to decide the guilt or innocence of an 18 year old that is accused of committing first-degree murder by stabbing his father with a switchblade knife. Witnesses were presented to give evidence of hearing a quarrel; hearing a threat to kill, and have seeing the boy run away. Another witness swore to having seen the boy stabbing his father from a window across from where the murder occurred. Eleven jurors were convinced the boy was guilty and deserved the death penalty. One raised questions he felt had not been asked or had not been pursued by the defense.

The manner that both jurors eight and three approached the case was quite interesting to observe, while through out the entire film. It cultivated very well the different personalities of both jurors and gave such an important piece to the film. Juror eight as described by Reginald Rose, was more of a “Thoughtful, gentlemen. Who sees many sides to every question and constantly seeks the truth”(III). It is very obvious of his thoughtfulness for this case in comparison to the other eleven jurors, in contrast to the other eleven jurors when the initial vote was taken, they all didn’t take the vote to be very serious due to the lack of thought given. Even before the initial vote was taken, juror eight had already been thinking into deep thought of the case, and it is demonstrated when the foreman says “The gentleman at the window, How about sitting down?” (9). This does not only show his respect, but also shows the type of person he is and what he will be for the case. In caparison juror three is described by Rose is a “Strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man, who is intolerant of opinions other then his owns”(II). Through out the film it can be noticeably seen the way juror three aggressively approaches the case, without thinking of other possibilities, but his own. As well in the film it can be seen how the camera angles close up on his face of anger portraying him as aggressive, which is opposite of juror eight’s personality.