Summary Of The Play 'Twelve Angry Men'

Evaluation of Twelve Angry Men
On January 16th 2014 I went to see “Twelve Angry Men” written by Regional Rose at the Garrick Theatre, London. This play was directed by Christopher Hayden with added design elements by Michael Pavelka. “Twelve Angry Men” was originally presented as a television series in 1953 then as play and finally presented as film starring Jack Klugman.
The play is set in a New York City Court of Law jury room in 1957. We learn that this is a murder case for a sixteen year old boy who killed his father and that, if found guilty, the mandatory sentence for the accused is the death penalty. Before any formal discussion, they cast a vote. Eleven of the jurors vote “guilty.” Only one juror votes “not guilty.” That juror, who
This solves static sightline issues, and presents us with an ever-changing perspective - what the men must feel is suddenly playing out inside their heads once Juror 8 starts turning over the case. Once the table has made a complete rotation by the end of the play this could show how the ‘tables have turned’. This was where all the men (except one) changed their original vote from ‘guilty to ‘not guilty’. This communicated to me that Hayden had put a lot of thought into this design element and that he moved the table at each precise moment, not making it obvious; and as an audience member is was not.. Another way that the turning table could be interpreted as is the slow passing of time, adding to the idea of the 12 Jurors all being locked in a room together until they reach a decision. As an audience member it never occurred to me how dull the set was and that it never changed. I think this was a very positive design element as the whole audience was most interested in the thoughts and arguments coming out of the jurors mouths than the rooms they were placed
All the Jurors wore roughly the same costume, being a shirt, maybe a tie and smart trousers. This signified the fact that they were all equal and neutral when judging the case. However as the case developed and conflicts arise, the Jurors started removing jackets and ties. This could literally mean they were hot and tired from arguing, but it could be interpreted in the way that as each Juror removed a piece of clothing, they were also removing a piece of their neutrality and revealing more and more of their personality within the case, thus adding influence onto the judgement. As the mood in the room changed and the opinions of the Jurors changed, so did the weather meaning pathetic fallacy was used. The rain connotes negative and dark atmosphere which highlighted how conflicts were developing and the arguments were