Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.09 AVERAGE
4.09 AVERAGE
3.5: I enjoyed reading the play. It was a fine story nothing was wrong just not life changing 4-5 star territory. It was interesting to see how willing regular people are to ignore the care and attention to detail it requires to be a juror, especially in an execution case. "Nobody knows him, no body quotes him, nobody seeks his advice after seventy-five years. That's a very sad thing, to be nothing. A man like this needs to be recognized, to be listened to, to be quoted just once."
reflective
fast-paced
emotional
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
N/A
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
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
12 jurors representing a microcosm of society debate the guilt or innocence of a 16 year old on trial for the murder of his father.
Interesting although it did take me a little while to differentiate the jurors based only on their voices.
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
challenging
informative
reflective
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Interesting.
I read this play as I'm considering taking part in the production and I really enjoyed it.
In the 12 angry men, you see all the different types of people. You have juror 8, who stood against all the others, did not give in to peer pressure and stood his ground. On the other hand of the spectrum, we have juror 3, a bitter, stubborn and biased man.
The play has a very strong message. It's so easy to condemn and judge someone from the safety of our comfortable jury rooms/homes/offices. We're so quick to say "Guilty" with just a few weak evidences because it's the simple easy way out. Especially when subjected to the pressure of society. If society condemns something, then why should we fight it? Most of the jurors in the room where not sure about guilty. However, they raised their hands anyway when they saw that others where doing the same.
I like juror 8. He swam against the current even under threat of drowning and ended up creating his own current. Down with the System!
I read this play as I'm considering taking part in the production and I really enjoyed it.
In the 12 angry men, you see all the different types of people. You have juror 8, who stood against all the others, did not give in to peer pressure and stood his ground. On the other hand of the spectrum, we have juror 3, a bitter, stubborn and biased man.
The play has a very strong message. It's so easy to condemn and judge someone from the safety of our comfortable jury rooms/homes/offices. We're so quick to say "Guilty" with just a few weak evidences because it's the simple easy way out. Especially when subjected to the pressure of society. If society condemns something, then why should we fight it? Most of the jurors in the room where not sure about guilty. However, they raised their hands anyway when they saw that others where doing the same.
I like juror 8. He swam against the current even under threat of drowning and ended up creating his own current. Down with the System!
This is a good story, but I don't think it has aged well.
I've been reading a lot of fiction from the 50s-70s recently and I am interested in how some stories age well and some do not. I feel that this play did not. First, it's 12 angry men. An all male jury seems unlikely in contemporary america and probably wasn't always the case even in the 50s. They also seem to be a racially homogeneous group. That might still happen, but would be odd enough to remark upon. They are also an overtly racist bunch. The script doesn't specifically identify anyone by race, thought the defendant is clearly part of some identifiable low status racial/ethnic group, and the general ill-will towards that group is open and obvious. One juror's obsession with baseball could easily be replaced with football. The physical aggression between jurors is from another time. Americans do still get in each other's faces, but among the older, employed, white-guy crowd in the play I don't think that happens very often.
The jurors seem less fragmented than a contemporary jury might be. If this were a contemporary jury room I think a democrat-republican political and ideological fault line would appear to internally divide the jury. I also think that political identification would make it more difficult for the jurors to change their minds.
Is this a metaphor for the changing American attitudes towards race? Initially, one man in twelve doubts the defendants guilt. Gradually a few more are won over through arguments and facts and in the end the final racist holdout concedes to vote not guilty not out of a genuine change of heart, but to form a consensus with he others and to go home.
I've been reading a lot of fiction from the 50s-70s recently and I am interested in how some stories age well and some do not. I feel that this play did not. First, it's 12 angry men. An all male jury seems unlikely in contemporary america and probably wasn't always the case even in the 50s. They also seem to be a racially homogeneous group. That might still happen, but would be odd enough to remark upon. They are also an overtly racist bunch. The script doesn't specifically identify anyone by race, thought the defendant is clearly part of some identifiable low status racial/ethnic group, and the general ill-will towards that group is open and obvious. One juror's obsession with baseball could easily be replaced with football. The physical aggression between jurors is from another time. Americans do still get in each other's faces, but among the older, employed, white-guy crowd in the play I don't think that happens very often.
The jurors seem less fragmented than a contemporary jury might be. If this were a contemporary jury room I think a democrat-republican political and ideological fault line would appear to internally divide the jury. I also think that political identification would make it more difficult for the jurors to change their minds.
Is this a metaphor for the changing American attitudes towards race? Initially, one man in twelve doubts the defendants guilt. Gradually a few more are won over through arguments and facts and in the end the final racist holdout concedes to vote not guilty not out of a genuine change of heart, but to form a consensus with he others and to go home.