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…
purpose in writing the play ‘Twelve Angry Men’ is to express his criticism on the flaws of the jurors that operate the jury system. This can be referred to the inability of the jury system properly functioning due to the McCarthy era that existed alongside the jury system around the 1950s. The McCarthy era was a time where fear and anxiety was used to control the population in America; upholding the right to accuse others rightfully without the use of proper and solid evidence. This means that anyone who felt that the accused was innocent – chosen by a person who possibly had a light suspicion of Communism association or a grudge – cannot help them without having themselves put in front of danger themselves of others who would have a grudge of him – putting a lot of people in fear of participating in acts that can be considered outrageous.
He uses Juror 8 to represent the perfect juror that other jurors should follow, as he defies the age in which he existed fictionally. The use of Juror 8 is to point out the flaws in the evidence which no one else would. However he intends to express to his audience that there are flaws which must be fixed:
-The concept that he is able to manipulate others was one possible flaw. This is because of the fact that the other jurors had no emotional connection to the case and were more influenced by their actions being a consequence to being scrutinised by those such as Juror 10 and Juror 3 who supposedly pose with strong authority over others.
Themes:
Justice: In one particular view, Juror 8 brings justice to a room of in-justice. He stands up for the perpetrator who could be viewed as a victim due to the lack of depth the other jurors show. Although he may be wrong he expresses criticism of the jury’s verdict being based on a lack of questioning on their evidence.
“The 8th Juror stands alone for a few moments and we know that that this is the problem which has been tormenting him. He does not know, and will never will.”
Prejudice/Injustice: Specifically meaning the intolerance of others from different social standards: The dialogue between Juror 3 to 5 suggests that he understands Juror 5’s financial conditions to a point where he can insult him. This can also connect with the theme of Injustice where he focuses on the status of another rather than progressing with the case. Suggesting Juror 3 prefers to provoke others to face them head on. As indicated by his quote in the initial scenes of the play:
“Come on, let’s vote.” Suggesting he wants to intimidate those who choose not to vote the verdict he desires.
“Well, it stands to reason…” – Juror 5
(In response) “You keep coming up with these bright sayings. Why don’t you send one in to a newspaper? They pay three dollars.” – Juror 3 to 5
Protection of individualism:
“The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn’t have to open his mouth. That’s in the Constitution. You’ve heard of it.”
An interaction between Juror 8 and Juror 2 shows a restoration of a capability of working in the jury.
To tell Juror 2 this is an act to make him more capable of his duty as a juror. He restores confidence in one who lacked it.
Racial intolerance: “He comes over to this country running for his life and before he can even take a big breath he’s telling us how to run the show. The arrogance of the guy!” “…Nobody around here’s gonna tell me what words I understand and hat words I don’t. (he points to the 11th juror) Especially him. Because I’ll knock his goddamn Middle European head off.” – Juror 7
Juror 7 represents the typical American of the 1950s society who normally lack a care of those accused in the hands of the jury system, and the justice system itself.
This scene represents his intolerance to other ethnicities in being able to voice their own suggestions – alike of other Americans who viewed Middle Europeans in such ways.
Leadership: Rose demonstrates there is a difference between those who are natural leaders and those who are appointed as one.
This is definitely shown between the Foreman and Juror 8, where the authority of the foreman is continuously eroded while the leadership of Juror 8 develops throughout the play.
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?
Here.’
Juror 2: A juror who represents the outspoken. Lacks confidence in himself. Rose critiques this character solely off his lack of confidence, as he is made to be very intellectual in contributing to the case further in the play. A clerk for a bank. He is important in addressing Juror 10’s sickness to prejudice in cough drops.
‘He pauses nervously’
‘…takes a package of cough drops from his jacket pocket’
‘I just – think he’s guilty.’
Juror 3: Juror who antagonises Juror 8. Makes his arguments unconsciously on his grievances of his son. Rose shows his flaws with his emotional attachment to his son. Had Juror 3 not based his anger off his son for this case, he might’ve been seen as a difficult juror to the 8th. He is a father who ended up living with a successful life.
‘He refers to his notes’
Juror 4: Juror who crafts his arguments based purely off logic. The flaw that Rose tried to point out here is that logic isn’t the only concept that should be utilized in the jury system. The use of questioning evidence is a concept of logic which the 4th Juror fails to use. The concept of emotion being used to understand some situations is lacking. He is a broker.
‘Children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society’
Juror 5: A Juror who lives in an impoverished area of New York (where the play is based), works as a nurse. He also provides key information about the knife due to his background of where he was raised. The flaw that Rose tried to point out here is that of many; the inability to express his true opinion, due to his status. In a jury, he should see himself as equal to others, devoid of any status that defined him.
‘He closes the knife and holds it gingerly’
‘I hate these things. I grew up with them.’
-in response to juror 10 rant- ‘the 5th juror goes into the wash room, slams the door behind him’
Juror 6: A house painter who worked in an apartment that is beside a rail road, vital in providing evidence for the el train discussion. He uses humour in a way to mediate the environment and create a position where he can contribute. Rose uses him to express the use of blue collar workers in an environment that doesn’t suit him, may not be ideal but in some cases vital.
‘You sound like you’ve met my brother-in-law.’
Juror 7
An individual which prioritises his own welfare over others even in a state of judicial determination. He shows racial intolerance towards Juror 11 because he doesn’t like the ideas of other individual to interfere in what he thinks is more appropriate. He is likeminded of most of the Americans within the 1950s due to the influence of the McCarthy Era. Rose shows that it is inevitable that individuals such as the 7th juror will be in the jury, so a solution must be sought in order to bypass this issue.
“He comes over to this country running for his life and before he can even take a big breath he’s telling us how to run the show. The arrogance of the guy!”
“…Nobody around here’s gonna tell me what words I understand and hat words I don’t. (he points to the 11th juror) Especially him. Because I’ll knock his goddamn Middle European head off.” – Juror 7
Juror 8: A juror which based his argument off a bit of logic and a bit of emotion. He sympathises with the accused in being completely defenceless with a weak defence and a strong opposition. This juror Rose creates is perfect in all ways, making him address the flaws in the juror case. He is able to manipulate most jurors because of his unparalleled ability to question the evidence and interpret it in a questionable manner. Because no one else is able to consist of arguments strong enough to make it a debatable, it becomes one sided, and becomes a jury that Rose doesn’t seem to want. It is intended by Rose to have jurors with the intellect and attitude of Juror 8 so that a proper jury case may occur.
“The 8th Juror stands alone for a few moments and we know that that this is the problem which has been tormenting him. He does not know, and will never will.”
‘It’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of this.’
Juror 9: An old man who is on the case. He represents those of the elderly which desires a recognition in the society. He is alike the witness who wanted to provide evidence based on his observations, knowing it may be flawed. He is able to address that. Rose argues through his observation, that these people can be used more in the world, not only for their desire of being recognised as still being useful in the justice system but in all others.
Juror 10: A prejudiced man who despises minorities in the social and racial aspects of the community. He is representative of those entwined in the events of World War II and before that, where the minorities are consistent of some wealthy individuals as well as Americans. His hatred for minorities is depicted as a sickness shown by his coughing and asking for cough drops.
Rose implies that there is nothing that can be done to fix these issues, shown by his changing of verdict primarily because he knows he’s going to lose, and his steadfast opinion on his hatred of minorities.
‘These people are born to lie’
‘They’re against us, they hate us, they want to destroy us.’
Juror 11: A foreigner in this matter. Provides a viewpoint as an outsider to address the flaws in which they do not realise. This is important as he serves as a warning to those who take the society as granted.
Juror 12: An individual similar to Juror 7, preferring his finances over other issues. (See juror 7 on his inclusion).
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…
purpose in writing the play ‘Twelve Angry Men’ is to express his criticism on the flaws of the jurors that operate the jury system. This can be referred to the inability of the jury system properly functioning due to the McCarthy era that existed alongside the jury system around the 1950s. The McCarthy era was a time where fear and anxiety was used to control the population in America; upholding the right to accuse others rightfully without the use of proper and solid evidence. This means that anyone who felt that the accused was innocent – chosen by a person who possibly had a light suspicion of Communism association or a grudge – cannot help them without having themselves put in front of danger themselves of others who would have a grudge of him – putting a lot of people in fear of participating in acts that can be considered outrageous.
He uses Juror 8 to represent the perfect juror that other jurors should follow, as he defies the age in which he existed fictionally. The use of Juror 8 is to point out the flaws in the evidence which no one else would. However he intends to express to his audience that there are flaws which must be fixed:
-The concept that he is able to manipulate others was one possible flaw. This is because of the fact that the other jurors had no emotional connection to the case and were more influenced by their actions being a consequence to being scrutinised by those such as Juror 10 and Juror 3 who supposedly pose with strong authority over others.
Themes:
Justice: In one particular view, Juror 8 brings justice to a room of in-justice. He stands up for the perpetrator who could be viewed as a victim due to the lack of depth the other jurors show. Although he may be wrong he expresses criticism of the jury’s verdict being based on a lack of questioning on their evidence.
“The 8th Juror stands alone for a few moments and we know that that this is the problem which has been tormenting him. He does not know, and will never will.”
Prejudice/Injustice: Specifically meaning the intolerance of others from different social standards: The dialogue between Juror 3 to 5 suggests that he understands Juror 5’s financial conditions to a point where he can insult him. This can also connect with the theme of Injustice where he focuses on the status of another rather than progressing with the case. Suggesting Juror 3 prefers to provoke others to face them head on. As indicated by his quote in the initial scenes of the play:
“Come on, let’s vote.” Suggesting he wants to intimidate those who choose not to vote the verdict he desires.
“Well, it stands to reason…” – Juror 5
(In response) “You keep coming up with these bright sayings. Why don’t you send one in to a newspaper? They pay three dollars.” – Juror 3 to 5
Protection of individualism:
“The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn’t have to open his mouth. That’s in the Constitution. You’ve heard of it.”
An interaction between Juror 8 and Juror 2 shows a restoration of a capability of working in the jury.
To tell Juror 2 this is an act to make him more capable of his duty as a juror. He restores confidence in one who lacked it.
Racial intolerance: “He comes over to this country running for his life and before he can even take a big breath he’s telling us how to run the show. The arrogance of the guy!” “…Nobody around here’s gonna tell me what words I understand and hat words I don’t. (he points to the 11th juror) Especially him. Because I’ll knock his goddamn Middle European head off.” – Juror 7
Juror 7 represents the typical American of the 1950s society who normally lack a care of those accused in the hands of the jury system, and the justice system itself.
This scene represents his intolerance to other ethnicities in being able to voice their own suggestions – alike of other Americans who viewed Middle Europeans in such ways.
Leadership: Rose demonstrates there is a difference between those who are natural leaders and those who are appointed as one.
This is definitely shown between the Foreman and Juror 8, where the authority of the foreman is continuously eroded while the leadership of Juror 8 develops throughout the play.
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?
Here.’
Juror 2: A juror who represents the outspoken. Lacks confidence in himself. Rose critiques this character solely off his lack of confidence, as he is made to be very intellectual in contributing to the case further in the play. A clerk for a bank. He is important in addressing Juror 10’s sickness to prejudice in cough drops.
‘He pauses nervously’
‘…takes a package of cough drops from his jacket pocket’
‘I just – think he’s guilty.’
Juror 3: Juror who antagonises Juror 8. Makes his arguments unconsciously on his grievances of his son. Rose shows his flaws with his emotional attachment to his son. Had Juror 3 not based his anger off his son for this case, he might’ve been seen as a difficult juror to the 8th. He is a father who ended up living with a successful life.
‘He refers to his notes’
Juror 4: Juror who crafts his arguments based purely off logic. The flaw that Rose tried to point out here is that logic isn’t the only concept that should be utilized in the jury system. The use of questioning evidence is a concept of logic which the 4th Juror fails to use. The concept of emotion being used to understand some situations is lacking. He is a broker.
‘Children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society’
Juror 5: A Juror who lives in an impoverished area of New York (where the play is based), works as a nurse. He also provides key information about the knife due to his background of where he was raised. The flaw that Rose tried to point out here is that of many; the inability to express his true opinion, due to his status. In a jury, he should see himself as equal to others, devoid of any status that defined him.
‘He closes the knife and holds it gingerly’
‘I hate these things. I grew up with them.’
-in response to juror 10 rant- ‘the 5th juror goes into the wash room, slams the door behind him’
Juror 6: A house painter who worked in an apartment that is beside a rail road, vital in providing evidence for the el train discussion. He uses humour in a way to mediate the environment and create a position where he can contribute. Rose uses him to express the use of blue collar workers in an environment that doesn’t suit him, may not be ideal but in some cases vital.
‘You sound like you’ve met my brother-in-law.’
Juror 7
An individual which prioritises his own welfare over others even in a state of judicial determination. He shows racial intolerance towards Juror 11 because he doesn’t like the ideas of other individual to interfere in what he thinks is more appropriate. He is likeminded of most of the Americans within the 1950s due to the influence of the McCarthy Era. Rose shows that it is inevitable that individuals such as the 7th juror will be in the jury, so a solution must be sought in order to bypass this issue.
“He comes over to this country running for his life and before he can even take a big breath he’s telling us how to run the show. The arrogance of the guy!”
“…Nobody around here’s gonna tell me what words I understand and hat words I don’t. (he points to the 11th juror) Especially him. Because I’ll knock his goddamn Middle European head off.” – Juror 7
Juror 8: A juror which based his argument off a bit of logic and a bit of emotion. He sympathises with the accused in being completely defenceless with a weak defence and a strong opposition. This juror Rose creates is perfect in all ways, making him address the flaws in the juror case. He is able to manipulate most jurors because of his unparalleled ability to question the evidence and interpret it in a questionable manner. Because no one else is able to consist of arguments strong enough to make it a debatable, it becomes one sided, and becomes a jury that Rose doesn’t seem to want. It is intended by Rose to have jurors with the intellect and attitude of Juror 8 so that a proper jury case may occur.
“The 8th Juror stands alone for a few moments and we know that that this is the problem which has been tormenting him. He does not know, and will never will.”
‘It’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of this.’
Juror 9: An old man who is on the case. He represents those of the elderly which desires a recognition in the society. He is alike the witness who wanted to provide evidence based on his observations, knowing it may be flawed. He is able to address that. Rose argues through his observation, that these people can be used more in the world, not only for their desire of being recognised as still being useful in the justice system but in all others.
Juror 10: A prejudiced man who despises minorities in the social and racial aspects of the community. He is representative of those entwined in the events of World War II and before that, where the minorities are consistent of some wealthy individuals as well as Americans. His hatred for minorities is depicted as a sickness shown by his coughing and asking for cough drops.
Rose implies that there is nothing that can be done to fix these issues, shown by his changing of verdict primarily because he knows he’s going to lose, and his steadfast opinion on his hatred of minorities.
‘These people are born to lie’
‘They’re against us, they hate us, they want to destroy us.’
Juror 11: A foreigner in this matter. Provides a viewpoint as an outsider to address the flaws in which they do not realise. This is important as he serves as a warning to those who take the society as granted.
Juror 12: An individual similar to Juror 7, preferring his finances over other issues. (See juror 7 on his inclusion).