Take a photo of a barcode or cover
_kaylinconn 's review for:
12 Angry Men
by Reginald Rose, E.G. Marshall
challenging
dark
emotional
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This play will not be for everyone, yet it is one of the few I don’t understand why everyone doesn’t love it.
It is a character study in its rawest, purest form and explores themes that are still shockingly relevant 70 years later. (Including the roles of the justice system, how our childhood affects us, classism, vulnerability, innocent until PROVEN guilty, and way more.) Each juror is given a distinct personality and travels through an arc throughout the production (aside from maybe Juror 8, though he still has lots of his own battles.)
Some quotes and scenes I loved :
“To say that a man is capable of murder does not mean he has committed murder.”
“Facts may be colored by the personalities of the people who present them.”
Juror 8 intentionally riling up Juror 3 to showcase the nature of humans and further disprove the old man’s testimony.
The jury collectively shunning/ignoring Juror 10 for his ignorance.
Juror 3’s break at the end where he comes to realize his anger to the boy on trial is more to do with himself, and the rawness shown in that. And Juror 8’s kindness after the fact.
I would direct this show in a HEARTBEAT!!
It is a character study in its rawest, purest form and explores themes that are still shockingly relevant 70 years later. (Including the roles of the justice system, how our childhood affects us, classism, vulnerability, innocent until PROVEN guilty, and way more.) Each juror is given a distinct personality and travels through an arc throughout the production (aside from maybe Juror 8, though he still has lots of his own battles.)
Some quotes and scenes I loved :
“To say that a man is capable of murder does not mean he has committed murder.”
“Facts may be colored by the personalities of the people who present them.”
Juror 8 intentionally riling up Juror 3 to showcase the nature of humans and further disprove the old man’s testimony.
The jury collectively shunning/ignoring Juror 10 for his ignorance.
Juror 3’s break at the end where he comes to realize his anger to the boy on trial is more to do with himself, and the rawness shown in that. And Juror 8’s kindness after the fact.
I would direct this show in a HEARTBEAT!!