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
is known in the script as Juror #8 is the protagonist of the play. As the tempers flare and the arguments begin, the audience learns about each member of the jury. And slowly but surely, Juror #8 guides the others toward a verdict of “Not Guilty.”
The main piece of set that added to the play was the table, the central long table is on a revolve, turning imperceptibly slowly.
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
in. The space which the show was set in was very limited throughout the whole play as they were in the same room the entire time. The room was very stuffy and hot and the added lighting effect lights emphasised this with the yellow and orange projected to add the effect of the temperature. The room was very minimally constructed; with three wall frames outlining the room however the frames were completely transparent leaving the set bare, however atmosphere is created not only by the actors themselves but by the intensity of the lights. This then allows for it to be interpreted in different ways, for instance; although the walls are completely transparent, the jurors are so close minded on the case, they can’t see beyond their own mind. Also the fact that were no walls, just windows and a door could suggest that the Jurors need to look outside of the box to come to a conclusion about the case.
The actors used the space very effectively to prove that the victim was innocent, through the use of pacing with juror#8, demonstrating that evidence given by a witness that it took him 15 seconds to see the crime was false. The lack of pace made by Juror#8 to try and act as if he were the witness made the tension build up as the audience waited for the outcome. This was extremely significant because it showed how information from certain witnesses can automatically be believed and this communicated the lack of knowledge and analysis the Jurors had towards the witness’s statement. Also it communicated that each juror has swiftness in judgement but a deficient in hard-concrete knowledge and scrutiny.
The actor’s use of costume added to the communication of the temperature.
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
cultivating.
“Twelve Angry Men” paints a portrait of a small portion of American society in the mid-1950s. Dramatically, 12 Angry Men is an excellent example of the mid-20th century American style of socially conscious, psychologically driven realism, depicting everyday individuals in everyday situations. In form, the play is a perfect piece of naturalism, occurring in real time and running continuously, even between acts, for the length of the drama. Historically, we can look at the play in the context of its original film release date, 1957. The United States was in a politically transitional time. The Civil Rights Movement was well underway with the Brown vs. Board of Education decision passed in 1954 and the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1956. Many of the themes of racial and social inequity being played out in the drama were being played out on the national scene.
Throughout the play, we see two opposing views of justice. From 8th Juror and others, as they join, we see a perspective of justice that favors the accused and that wants most for him to have a fair shot. To 8th Juror, the boy's poor and troubled upbringing, his shoddy state-appointed defense attorney, and the jury's quick near-decisive decision to convict him are all gross forms of injustice.
Conversely, we see another side of justice proposed by the other members of the jury, who feel that the accused is clearly guilty, and anything other than conviction and execution is short of justice. 6th Juror articulates this most clearly, saying, "Suppose you talk us outta this and the kid really did knife his father?" This type of justice depends on retribution and vengeance. Rose plays off the two-sided nature of justice to create tension and contrast the characters. Each character wants "justice," but what justice becomes unclear and fluid throughout the course of the play.
Words; 999