You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.09 AVERAGE
4.09 AVERAGE
I think this play is such a great illustration of prejudice and how it can color the justice system and decide a person’s fate. I feel like anyone that could be called for jury duty needs to read this play.
everything I hate about group work, in 73 pages
I think this play is amazing. It focuses on 12 men on jury duty, deciding whether a teenager is guilty of killing his father. The jurors must unanimously rule "guilty" or "there is a reasonable doubt." All of the jurors are white, fairly privileged. The play stresses that whether he's guilty or not, everyone has the right to a fair trial. The writing is really strong, and I like how the whole plot surrounds so many unknowns...
Note to self: should I even be counting this as a book? The audiobook was approximately an hour and a half, a minuscule amount of time. It seems disingenuous to my reading goal, but I’m reading the Stormlight Archive this year, so maybe everything balanced out?
I watched the movie rendition of “Twelve Angry Men” when I was younger and was incredibly impressed. It is one of the pieces of famous media that fostered my interest in law. I revisited the story via audiobook. I liked how each of the characters had a different, distinct voice (although if they didn’t it would be impossible to tell them apart) and the voice actors were very good. However, through an audiobook format, it was still difficult to distinguish them.
Twelve Angry Men is a great screenplay/play. I don’t have to jabber on about what it says about man and the justice system, or the significance of not naming the jurors or the young man on trial. It’s an important and distinguished piece of media that I feel everyone should interact with. However, in my person opinion, I felt like I got more out of it through a movie format. While watching the movie, I was truly engrossed, and the visual aide brought out the emotion and distinctive personalities of the jurors (one of the parts I really like, they all have quirks and defining characteristics that ensure they don’t feel like stock characters). That’s pretty much all! I wouldn’t dissuade someone from consuming Twelve Angry Men through this type of format, but I just feel like the screenplay through the movie was more impactful.
I watched the movie rendition of “Twelve Angry Men” when I was younger and was incredibly impressed. It is one of the pieces of famous media that fostered my interest in law. I revisited the story via audiobook. I liked how each of the characters had a different, distinct voice (although if they didn’t it would be impossible to tell them apart) and the voice actors were very good. However, through an audiobook format, it was still difficult to distinguish them.
Twelve Angry Men is a great screenplay/play. I don’t have to jabber on about what it says about man and the justice system, or the significance of not naming the jurors or the young man on trial. It’s an important and distinguished piece of media that I feel everyone should interact with. However, in my person opinion, I felt like I got more out of it through a movie format. While watching the movie, I was truly engrossed, and the visual aide brought out the emotion and distinctive personalities of the jurors (one of the parts I really like, they all have quirks and defining characteristics that ensure they don’t feel like stock characters). That’s pretty much all! I wouldn’t dissuade someone from consuming Twelve Angry Men through this type of format, but I just feel like the screenplay through the movie was more impactful.
challenging
emotional
funny
fast-paced
if any of this actually happened in a jury deliberation room there would be a mistrial
The 98% accurate film adaptation of this play is slightly better than the play (Probably because I read it and not seen it.) The film, I have seen a million times and it shouldn't make any sense that I can still enjoy it as thoroughly as I did when I read it, but that's what happened. I read it in one go, like plays should be read or seen, and I still didn't feel the scenes and characters were boring despite knowing what they will say and do at every moment of the plat. It's that good.
It's damn near impossible to separate the film and the play in your mind if you have prior knowledge of the either of the sources. You see the faces of the people in the film when you are reading the play. You see their actions, their expressions, their places in the jury room.
It's like what Henry Fonda said after watching the film for the first time (paraphrasing): 'It's beautiful, Sidney.'
But it is still only a 98% accurate adaptation. But one needs to understand that the subtle and deliberate deviation from the source is justified. The 2% inaccuracy lends itself to the movie magic. Some of the jurors are better portrayed when they have a proper voice, the old juror #9 doesn't work in the play (when you read it) as well he does in the film. In such manner, the film is a perhaps the best adaptation of the source material which is as equally riveting as its film cousin.
P. S.
David Mamet's introduction has two parts. The second part is a short analysis of the type of plays and what they demand. The first part, despite being one of his best pieces, is absolute crap. It doesn't matter how well you write something if that something isn't true. The first part of the introduction tells of the nobility and infallibility of the jury system in America. Even those who have only glimpsed into the evil swamps of history knows what Mamet writes to be not true. Not in ancient history, but in the recent, there have been many a cases and innocents sent to their deaths because of the prejudices and individual beliefs. Mamet presents a jury system that will only work in a perfectly good world, but not the real one. You wait for the 'but' point, but it never arrives. It is particularly offsetting given what was to follow his introduction.
It's damn near impossible to separate the film and the play in your mind if you have prior knowledge of the either of the sources. You see the faces of the people in the film when you are reading the play. You see their actions, their expressions, their places in the jury room.
It's like what Henry Fonda said after watching the film for the first time (paraphrasing): 'It's beautiful, Sidney.'
But it is still only a 98% accurate adaptation. But one needs to understand that the subtle and deliberate deviation from the source is justified. The 2% inaccuracy lends itself to the movie magic. Some of the jurors are better portrayed when they have a proper voice, the old juror #9 doesn't work in the play (when you read it) as well he does in the film. In such manner, the film is a perhaps the best adaptation of the source material which is as equally riveting as its film cousin.
P. S.
David Mamet's introduction has two parts. The second part is a short analysis of the type of plays and what they demand. The first part, despite being one of his best pieces, is absolute crap. It doesn't matter how well you write something if that something isn't true. The first part of the introduction tells of the nobility and infallibility of the jury system in America. Even those who have only glimpsed into the evil swamps of history knows what Mamet writes to be not true. Not in ancient history, but in the recent, there have been many a cases and innocents sent to their deaths because of the prejudices and individual beliefs. Mamet presents a jury system that will only work in a perfectly good world, but not the real one. You wait for the 'but' point, but it never arrives. It is particularly offsetting given what was to follow his introduction.
challenging
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I read this for class a few years ago and it is still my favorite play.
I chose this play as group's Catching Up on Classics monthly short book. I listened to an audioplay from Amazon Audible and enjoyed every minute of it.
Maybe, longer review to follow.
Maybe, longer review to follow.