Hi, Please feel free to provide feedback and a mark out of 10? Thank you!
Reginald Rose’s naturalistic play, ‘Twelve Angry Men’, a two-act drama is set in a ‘single jury room in a New York Court of law’. The play begins with all but one of the jurors certain of the defendant’s guilt. As the play begins, clashes between reasoning and emotions shifts the jurors to be affected by numerous factors such as prejudice, racial discrimination and personal emotions. Rose presents the view that although preconception and inequity influence the way a juror’s decision, it is also the different type of conflicts that revolve around the jurors that evoke feelings from making a reasonable judgment. Furthermore, the diversity within the jury room allows all ‘facts’ and ‘fancy’ to be analyzed properly and accordingly, therefore justice will always prevail. However, the jurors are deterred from this path, hence it is harder to reach the final verdict.
Throughout the play, the constant clashes between reason and emotion shifts the jurors further away from reaching an undisputed vote. Rose draws our attention to the fact that human nature dictates that the jurors are not going to reach consensus easily as they are perceived to be easily provoked. Rose also brings up the notion that not all people are able to put their personal beliefs and feelings aside to concentrate on the facts and evidence that they hear in a court. Whilst Juror 8 is able to logically separate the ‘facts’ from the ‘fancy’, other jurors can only personalize the case rather than setting aside their feelings. Juror 3 is an example of this. The antagonism between Jurors 3 and 8 are highlighted by Juror 3’s anger at Juror 8: ‘Who do you think you are to start cross-examining us? ‘Let go of me, God damn it. I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him’ is provoked by Juror 8’s statement of calling Juror 3 a ‘sadist. Hence, Rose reveal through the characters with conflict, people are easily provoked and angered, which leads to the notion that people may be influenced by other aspects.
It is a lie if most people consider other human beings as equal to themselves and do not make assumptions based on race or typical stereotypes. Rose highlights the character, Juror 3, a loud, troubled and aggressive man, who establishes himself as an intolerant bully who is quick to insult and patronize the other jurors into agreeing with a ‘guilty’ verdict is actually influenced by past experiences therefore, he is not qualified to make a partial judgment. “The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it. That goddamn rotten kid. I know him. What they’re like” Rose presents the prejudice that Juror 3’s troubled relationship with his own son, views the defendant through his small-minded misconceptions about young men. His inability to see past his own pain and hatred allows his views to become twisted and as a result he is unable to make a rational judgment. Likewise, Juror 10 represents those who are prejudiced against people from differing ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds. This prejudice reaches culmination during his outburst against ‘these people’. “You can’t believe a word they say. I mean they’re born liars.” Rose clearly highlights that the trial is a chance to get rid of one of ‘them’ by finding the defendant ‘guilty’, even at the expense of a fair trial. Hence, through characters that hold a simple degree of prejudice or discrimination, Rose reveals the possibilities of why it is complex to reach a unanimous vote.
Words should not be simply thrown around as there may be grave consequences afterwards. The play uses the language of America in the 1950s. It is not just the prejudice, discrimination and personal experience that plays a part in determining whether the case is guilty or not, it is also the setting. The setting in the play, part of the visual language of the text is evident in unrevealing as to why it is easier said than done in uncovering the truth behind this case. Not only is the stage illustrated to be a small jury room with the door being locked, it is also hot and humid. This limited setting intensifies feelings of claustrophobia and oppressiveness, and it contributes to the short tempers and frustrations of the jurors. Rose also notes that this single, stagnant spaced used, and the fact that “this is the hottest day of the year”, combine to contribute to the oppressive feeling that serves to highlight the men’s frustration and sense of entrapment. It is also shown that by Act 2, “it has grown considerably darker in the room and it’s oppressively still”, mirroring the darkening mood and the tension that has grown between the men, which signifies that the case is nowhere close to being solved. It is clear that the visual setting of the play has an impact that produces tension and conflict within the jurors.
Reginald Rose’s play, “Twelve Angry Men”, explores the idea of how it is difficult for the jury in 12 Angry Men to reach its final verdict through the use of characters and visual settings of the scene. It is true to an extent that the characterization of each characters determine the outcome of the case, however it is the past, racial discrimination and prejudice each character holds that ultimately determines the result.