Twelve Angry Men: Summary
Section A
Twelve Angry Men
Summary:
Twelve Angry Men is an 1950s allegorical play that represents the social views on justice, using the scenario of a debatable innocent or guilty perpetrator to define the microcosms that each of Reginald Rose’s jurors represent. Each juror represents their own society through their given characteristics, showing their attitudes to the jury system.
The idea that the perpetrator is debatable as innocent or guilty is left up to the audience whether the 8th Juror’s ability to manipulate the other jurors to vote “not guilty” was righteous or not: questionable if his intellect was itself manipulated because of his human quality in showing sympathy for the accused’s situation in life.
Purpose:
Reginald Rose’s …show more content…
The foreman seems to explicitly express his authority over others, whereas the 8th juror displays his leadership through his vote and his influence of convincing those around him.Rose also shows the incompetency of some jurors who are appointed. “What, just because I’m trying to keep this thing organised? Listen (He rises) you want to do it? Here...” “Don’t tell me to calm down.” The Foreman shows that he is incapable of taking matters to his own hand. This is strongly augmented by Juror 10 and Juror 5’s argument on social status where the 5th Juror took it personal.
Contrasting the Foreman here:
“Now, let’s be reasonable. There’s nothing personal.”
Foreman: The representative of the voice of the jurors in this case. Tried to maintain order. Roses’ criticism of such a character is that not all appointed leaders of an event are great leaders. We have to search for them rather than appoint a random person. A coach of a baseball team.
‘Now let’s be reasonable..’
‘Now just a second. We decided to do it a certain way. Let’s stick to what we said’
‘You want to do it?
Twelve Angry Men
Summary:
Twelve Angry Men is an 1950s allegorical play that represents the social views on justice, using the scenario of a debatable innocent or guilty perpetrator to define the microcosms that each of Reginald Rose’s jurors represent. Each juror represents their own society through their given characteristics, showing their attitudes to the jury system.
The idea that the perpetrator is debatable as innocent or guilty is left up to the audience whether the 8th Juror’s ability to manipulate the other jurors to vote “not guilty” was righteous or not: questionable if his intellect was itself manipulated because of his human quality in showing sympathy for the accused’s situation in life.
Purpose:
Reginald Rose’s …show more content…
The foreman seems to explicitly express his authority over others, whereas the 8th juror displays his leadership through his vote and his influence of convincing those around him.Rose also shows the incompetency of some jurors who are appointed. “What, just because I’m trying to keep this thing organised? Listen (He rises) you want to do it? Here...” “Don’t tell me to calm down.” The Foreman shows that he is incapable of taking matters to his own hand. This is strongly augmented by Juror 10 and Juror 5’s argument on social status where the 5th Juror took it personal.
Contrasting the Foreman here:
“Now, let’s be reasonable. There’s nothing personal.”
Foreman: The representative of the voice of the jurors in this case. Tried to maintain order. Roses’ criticism of such a character is that not all appointed leaders of an event are great leaders. We have to search for them rather than appoint a random person. A coach of a baseball team.
‘Now let’s be reasonable..’
‘Now just a second. We decided to do it a certain way. Let’s stick to what we said’
‘You want to do it?