The Use of Symbolism to Make Political Statements in Twelve Angry Men of justice. From Oresteia to The Merchant of Venice to Law and Order, he has played a vital role in the public's understanding of both the law and their rights as a citizen, not only informing about culture and values of the time, but also playing a monumental role in shaping them. The advent of television brought theater into the home, opening a new frontier in the form of prime-time programming. Sitting down and watching television after dinner has become an essential part of the American way of life. American society's commitment to television material, fictional or authentic, has strengthened the public's understanding of news – and in terms of courtroom dramas, real courtrooms, and legal processes. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on "Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned"? Get an original essay One such TV show is Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men, a 1954 courtroom drama detailing the deliberations of twelve jurors regarding the verdict in homicide case. . Rose adapted his play for the big screen following the success of the teleplay, which is accredited by many, including the American Bar Association, as one of the greatest legal films of all time. The play has a one-act structure, therefore a fluid narrative, undisturbed by intermissions. It also only has one setting, that of a jury room in court. These simple features nicely frame an essential component of American democracy, showing the small events behind the immense system that is the justice system, translating the abstract into concrete for viewers. As in all fictional or performed texts, theater intrinsically embodies a certain point of view of its author - the author's intention. In this essay, I will attempt to analyze the perspective of the playwright and the intended purpose of the play. As it was written in a certain context that allows for subtle political commentary, I chose to explore the research question "How does Reginald Rose use symbolism to make political statements in Twelve Angry Men?" Due to the diversity of characters and the context in which the play was written and performed, the context informs and addresses the theatricality of the trial from the perspective of the jury, with its ambiguity. Written for a different time and place, for a different audience, the topics explored in Twelve Angry Men remain important in today's society: "democracy, justice, social responsibilities and the pressure of time." I would first like to describe the historical and social contexts behind the production of the teleplay, and then describe how the contexts and texts inform each other. Next, I would examine the use of symbolism in the text with setting choices, characters, and theme, finally synthesizing my exploration in accordance with the current context. In this exploration, I will reference the original script for the 1954 teleplay and the script for the subsequent play. , both by Reginald Rose. They have a similar compositional context and almost identical content, with the first having more detail on the setting and characters and the second containing more dialogue. As both are works by Rose, I find that examining both scripts allows for a deeper understanding of his authorial intent. Context Reginald Rose wroteTwelve men angry after his own experience as a juror in a manslaughter case. In his experience with a pillar of American society "facing a strange man whose life is more or less in his hands", he saw the potential for an "exciting and potentially moving experience for the audience". Twelve Angry Men takes place in the United States. United States of America, where the legal drama was and still is one of the most popular genres on television. The 1950s saw the rise of television. In a decade, it became the main media from which many historical events were broadcast and brought back into homes, thus influencing public opinion. Originally released as a critically acclaimed live teleplay and later adapted into one of the most iconic legal films of all time, Twelve Angry Men embodies many aspects of 1950s American society, socially and politically. Considered then as a long television series with a total duration of fifty minutes, to “meet the requirements of the new media”, the series had to be condensed, but remains poignant in its message. By the mid-1950s, America was immersed in the long Cold War between the United States and the USSR, and within its borders, partisanship and rivalry between the two major parties continued as it had since the founding of the state. Twelve Angry Men was broadcast in such a context, where television was very influential and political tensions were high, that the connection between them and the play was essential to examine its purpose. The Cold War At the start of the Cold War, President Henry Truman led the defense of American values of freedom and democracy in opposition to the threat of communism with his "Truth Campaign." By providing primarily pro-American propaganda through the use of media outlets, such as the radio station Radio Free Europe which opposes communist-centered news media and "exposes their lies" in Eastern Europe. East, American ideas are promoted internationally by the United States. Domestically, film and television in particular have been used as tools to boost morale and reinforce American values. The differences between the United States and the USSR were selected and dramatized, with the superiority of American values and way of life being emphasized. Elevating American politics and diminishing the communist ideas of the USSR is most often the main goal of film and television. Twelve Angry Men, originally televised in 1954 and made into a film in 1957, is set during the height of the Cold War. show the superiority of American democracy and justice system. This goal has even been recognized by the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award, which recognizes works that well understand and convey jurisprudence in the United States. The United States and the communism of the USSR, their hostility was manifested in acts of indirect conflict such as the arms race and in mutual threats and propaganda. In the United States, on a national level, the Cold War manifested itself in the alienation of all communist ideas both locally through the media and officially by the infamous House Un-American Activities Committee or HUAC, a committee of inquiry into links with communism or the HUAC. sympathies which is part of the House of Representatives. Often associated with anti-communist Senator Joseph McCarthy, they became known for their "communist witch hunt" following the Red Scare, which involved many public figures on the "Hollywood blacklist" considered to be sympathizerscommunists. HUAC lost its influence later in the late 1950s after being condemned by former President Henry Truman and became the subject of much satire in the 1960s when he began investigating the opposition to the Vietnam War. In the face of left-wing extremism in communism and right-wing extremism in HUAC and McCarthyism, a new bipartisanship of moderate liberals and conservatives formed. Impossible in the economic stagnation of the 1930s, the prosperous 1950s, with their technological advances and booming commerce, made this unlikely alliance possible. become friends. Thus: liberal intellectuals had to change their attitude towards Wall Street - symbolizing both the big financiers and the giant companies they organize - and towards "small businesses". were “corporate capitalists”: business and financial executives of banks and corporations on the East Coast, the North, and the Midwest. With moderates from both parties, "liberal intellectuals" and "Wall Street", forming a "bipartisan" coalition, they had great collective power, controlling the political landscape, consolidating the position of the United States in this critical period. of international politics. In Twelve Angry Men, Rose commented on the alliances in the play by saying that "alliances formed for purely intellectual reasons and those formed for emotional reasons alone have reminded us of larger, more important alliances that we can see in every moment in our newspapers, locally, nationally, internationally. » Written in the context of the Cold War, one can reasonably infer that one of these national alliances is that of the “corporate liberals.” Teleplay At first glance, the case seems open and closed. Several compelling pieces of evidence were used by the prosecution in the Twelve Angry Men case. First, the old man who lived below the accused boy heard the boy scream "I'm going to kill you", the father's body hit the ground and saw the boy running down the stairwell as he was escaping from the crime scene. The second testimony is that of the woman, who saw across the street, through the windows of the elevated train, the boy stabbing his father. The murder weapon thought to be “one of a kind”, the jurors have “never seen one like it in their lives and neither did the merchant who sold it to the boy”. The boy's alibi cannot be proven: he said he had gone to the cinema but had no eyewitnesses and "couldn't even remember what pictures he saw" . There was apparently a motive for the murder: the neighbors heard their loud arguments and the father hit the boy; he himself admitted that hours before the alleged murder he had been "slapped or punched" by his father. Finally, the boy had been arrested for car theft and had been involved in violent acts, including knife fights, which, although not directly related to the boy's culpability in the case in question, proved to some jurors that he was one of “those people.” who have a tendency toward crime. Given these facts, the jury should return an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence heard at trial. All the evidence seemed to point toward the boy's indisputable guilt for eleven of the twelve jurors. However, the burden of proof is on the prosecution: defendants are innocent until the prosecution is able to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt. Reasonable doubt is a recurring topic in the play, which was brought up by the judge early on when he said: "if you have a reasonable doubt as to theguilt of the accused…then you must find him not guilty.” As the play progresses, each juror begins to doubt the boy's absolute guilt, ultimately returning a verdict of not guilty. practicality. According to Rose, he "omitted the sometimes boring chore of choosing his characters' names" because "a dozen names would make no sense to an audience." However, the absence of character names allows them to function as symbols: they are not specific people, but rather micro-representations of a group in American society as a whole, capable of giving more meaning of the limited time given to teleplay. From the character descriptions in the teleplay storyline, we can infer that the jurors represent a spectrum of alignments in American politics, with Juror 4 embodying a typical conservative capitalist, etc. Presenting the jurors in relation to each other Others highlights themes of pluralism as they find common ground in determining the guilt of the boy on trial, echoing that of moderate liberals and conservatives during the Cold War. Despite a cast of well-rounded ensemble characters, a few stand out as representations of certain groups in particular. Juror 4, the conservative capitalist, jurors 3, 7 and 10 the right-wing extremists, juror 11 the refugee and juror 8 the liberal protagonist. Juror 4 is one of the last jurors to change their guilty verdict. Described as "a rich and well-placed man", he is educated, eloquent and presents himself well. He was only concerned with the facts of the case rather than his personal biases, repeatedly reminding the jury to "discuss the facts." He wears a tie and glasses, his manner of speaking is correct and polite, even when there is a difference of opinion. When Juror 10 started an argument with Juror 8 over his not guilty vote, Juror 4 intervened by saying "they should behave like gentlemen." He also actively participated in discussions in the jury room, according to Juror 3, “presenting all the arguments.” Although Juror 8 was not asked to consider the case further and initially supported the status quo, he had no emotional attachment to the case, his opinion being unaffected by personal prejudices. He was thus able to approach the case with a critical eye, changing his verdict and stating, “I now have a reasonable doubt” after considering enough information to support that position. A stockbroker by profession, his character represents the “enlightened capitalist” who constituted the moderate conservatives of the Cold War period. This brand of conservatives constituted the Republican side of Cold War bipartisanship that parallels that of Jurors 4 and 8, which Rose says is an alliance "formed for intellectual reasons." In contrast, Jurors 3 and 10 rely on instincts rather than facts in their verdict, an alliance “formed for emotional reasons.” This is seen not only in their initial emphasis on the guilt of the accused, but also in why they changed their verdict to not guilty. Juror 3 is “intolerant of opinions other than his own,” felt he was “entitled to his own opinion,” and was the last juror to change his vote. He had "never seen a more guilty man in his life" and repeatedly stated that just by seeing him he "could see" that the boy was guilty. It was revealed at the end of the play that he was blinded by the fact that the accused reminded him of his son, repeating that "he was his father". He finally changed his vote to a simple “agree”, recognizing that the accused was not his sonand that he was alone in his guilty verdict. Unlike his long rants in the play, his final decision shows the irrational rage he previously had. On the other hand, Juror 10 was less influenced by his personal life than by prejudices against the boy's "type". He constantly uses "those people" or "them" to refer to the boy, whose race is left ambiguous in the play, described only as "the boy" as the jurors are indicated by their numbers, but it is likely that "those people » Juror 10 was referring to the Hispanic population which constituted a notable minority on the East Coast. Arriving in the jury room, Juror 10 said, "That's to be expected" and "You know what you're dealing with," referring to the boy's minority background. Its combination of the use of "them", suggesting an intentional distance from the subject, of "what" when the word is used for an inanimate object or animal rather than a human being, and even of "wild animal" to demean the boy, reveals Juror 10's bigotry regarding ethnic origin. minorities. He is sarcastic and easily provoked, starting most of the arguments with the other jurors. He also believes that he is more informed than the other jurors, as evidenced by his behavior, the fact that he speaks "wisely" to Juror 7 about his prejudices and, in his final monologue, insists that he " was only trying to tell the other jurors that “these people are lying.” Other jurors turned away from him while Juror 4, although then of the same opinion that the boy was guilty, grew tired of his outbursts and threatened to "split his skull open." Juror 10 did not change his mind about the boy's guilt, but was threatened by the collective power of the other jurors, causing him to change his verdict. These two jurors symbolize political extremists who, due to their personal biases on the issues, are unable to see problems on the other side. Instead of understanding the injustices of the case like Juror 11, or seeing that the facts overwhelmingly support doubt about guilt like Juror 4, they abandon themselves to the collective power of the other jurors instead of reconciling themselves- same decision. Juror 11 is a refugee. of Europe whose honesty and insight reveal much of the play's theme. He believes that Americans' social responsibility to serve on jury duty is what is "remarkable about democracy" and "one of the reasons America is strong." Although shy, every time he speaks he delivers poignant points. He criticized jurors' emotional attachment to their arguments unrelated to the facts of the case, saying "they had nothing to gain or lose by the verdict" and "should not make it personal ". As a refugee, he symbolizes someone who left for America of his own will, realizing the greatness of American democracy and actively fighting to achieve it. Juror 8 immediately stands out in the room as the first to vote alone to be "not guilty." Although described as "calm" and "thoughtful", in the face of emotional jurors he had to defend his position, while maintaining that he did not necessarily believe in the boys' innocence, he was prepared to consider the indispensability of his guilt. Anxious to bridge the gap between the different jurors despite opinions, open to interactive discussions and basing his first verdict on the simple fact that "he doesn't know", he fits the mold of the "cold war liberal" . It illustrates how essential active citizenship is in democracy. If all the jurors had not considered the implications of an outright "guilty" verdict, the boywould have been put to death. Through the portrait of Juror 8, not only is the system of democratic government defended, but his single voice allowed the discussion that acquitted the boy, Juror 8, and the elevation of the ideology attached to his character. Juror 8 embodies personal responsibility and the pursuit of justice. The description of his character is entirely positive, he "constantly seeks the truth", is "strength tempered with compassion" and "will fight" for "justice to be done". The hero of the story, Juror 8, also makes a hero of the "liberal intellectuals" of the time who were the first to initiate the alliance with the conservatives of "Wall Street." was to represent in the play "physical problems such as the weather, the weather, the uncomfortable room". Set in a jury room described as "large, dull, bare" and "in dire need of a painting", there is a feeling of disorder and emptiness, aptly symbolizing the initial one-dimensional nature of the open and closed. Whether due to practical constraints or creative choice, Twelve Angry Men's use of a single setting - a nondescript jury room - ingeniously communicates tension. Although the room is described as large, its single table and the chairs surrounding it trap the characters. With each passing minute the jury fails to reach a consensus, the claustrophobia already represented by the setting intensifies. The weather was revealed by Juror 7 saying it was the "hottest day of the year", which added to the stifling nature of the jury room. In reference to the original teleplay, the events of Twelve Angry Men take place in "a major Eastern city" in the teleplay (specifically New York in the play). The big city contrasts with the confinement of the jury room in the recurring motif of the window. Juror8 “looked out the window” at the beginning of the play and on several other occasions throughout. Other jurors did so as well, turning away from Juror 10's outbursts. The juxtaposition of inside and outside represents the larger meaning of the piece. Although the play may be the subject of a single discussion by a jury, the message of the play lends itself to interpretation in wider society. The fact that the play is in one act also contributes to this. The characters have accessories that highlight their personality, for example Juror 4, his use of glasses and the diary shows his curious nature and certain level of education. The rubbing of his glasses symbolizes the gradual clarity of the case in his eyes, leading to his final verdict of not guilty.ConclusionWritten and adapted numerous times since its first official broadcast in 1954, Twelve Angry Men remains the one of the most remarkable and influential films. legal dramas never made. More recent revivals of Twelve Angry Men have changed the makeup of the all-white male jury, with several stage adaptations using female jurors and the 1997 film being retooled to include black jurors. Looking at Twelve Angry Men through a modern lens, with characters in the play symbolizing factions of American society, one may find the racial homogeneity of the characters in the original production to be flawed. However, the purpose of the piece is emphasized, even dependent on this lack of diversity. The 21st-century musical phenomenon Hamilton, which casts actors of color with the aim, according to writer and composer Lin Manuel Miranda, of telling "a story of America yesterday, by America today ". Like Twelve Angry Men, Hamilton portrays American values and ideals. However, unlike Hamilton, whose story is that of 2017,/408019/.

Essay / The Use of Symbolism to Make Political Statements in Twelve Angry Men of justice. From Oresteia to The Merchant of Venice to Law and Order, he has played a vital role in the public's understanding of both the law and their rights as a citizen, not only informing about culture and values of the time, but also playing a monumental role in shaping them. The advent of television brought theater into the home, opening a new frontier in the form of prime-time programming. Sitting down and watching television after dinner has become an essential part of the American way of life. American society's commitment to television material, fictional or authentic, has strengthened the public's understanding of news – and in terms of courtroom dramas, real courtrooms, and legal processes. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on "Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned"? Get an original essay One such TV show is Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men, a 1954 courtroom drama detailing the deliberations of twelve jurors regarding the verdict in homicide case. . Rose adapted his play for the big screen following the success of the teleplay, which is accredited by many, including the American Bar Association, as one of the greatest legal films of all time. The play has a one-act structure, therefore a fluid narrative, undisturbed by intermissions. It also only has one setting, that of a jury room in court. These simple features nicely frame an essential component of American democracy, showing the small events behind the immense system that is the justice system, translating the abstract into concrete for viewers. As in all fictional or performed texts, theater intrinsically embodies a certain point of view of its author - the author's intention. In this essay, I will attempt to analyze the perspective of the playwright and the intended purpose of the play. As it was written in a certain context that allows for subtle political commentary, I chose to explore the research question "How does Reginald Rose use symbolism to make political statements in Twelve Angry Men?" Due to the diversity of characters and the context in which the play was written and performed, the context informs and addresses the theatricality of the trial from the perspective of the jury, with its ambiguity. Written for a different time and place, for a different audience, the topics explored in Twelve Angry Men remain important in today's society: "democracy, justice, social responsibilities and the pressure of time." I would first like to describe the historical and social contexts behind the production of the teleplay, and then describe how the contexts and texts inform each other. Next, I would examine the use of symbolism in the text with setting choices, characters, and theme, finally synthesizing my exploration in accordance with the current context. In this exploration, I will reference the original script for the 1954 teleplay and the script for the subsequent play. , both by Reginald Rose. They have a similar compositional context and almost identical content, with the first having more detail on the setting and characters and the second containing more dialogue. As both are works by Rose, I find that examining both scripts allows for a deeper understanding of his authorial intent. Context Reginald Rose wroteTwelve men angry after his own experience as a juror in a manslaughter case. In his experience with a pillar of American society "facing a strange man whose life is more or less in his hands", he saw the potential for an "exciting and potentially moving experience for the audience". Twelve Angry Men takes place in the United States. United States of America, where the legal drama was and still is one of the most popular genres on television. The 1950s saw the rise of television. In a decade, it became the main media from which many historical events were broadcast and brought back into homes, thus influencing public opinion. Originally released as a critically acclaimed live teleplay and later adapted into one of the most iconic legal films of all time, Twelve Angry Men embodies many aspects of 1950s American society, socially and politically. Considered then as a long television series with a total duration of fifty minutes, to “meet the requirements of the new media”, the series had to be condensed, but remains poignant in its message. By the mid-1950s, America was immersed in the long Cold War between the United States and the USSR, and within its borders, partisanship and rivalry between the two major parties continued as it had since the founding of the state. Twelve Angry Men was broadcast in such a context, where television was very influential and political tensions were high, that the connection between them and the play was essential to examine its purpose. The Cold War At the start of the Cold War, President Henry Truman led the defense of American values of freedom and democracy in opposition to the threat of communism with his "Truth Campaign." By providing primarily pro-American propaganda through the use of media outlets, such as the radio station Radio Free Europe which opposes communist-centered news media and "exposes their lies" in Eastern Europe. East, American ideas are promoted internationally by the United States. Domestically, film and television in particular have been used as tools to boost morale and reinforce American values. The differences between the United States and the USSR were selected and dramatized, with the superiority of American values and way of life being emphasized. Elevating American politics and diminishing the communist ideas of the USSR is most often the main goal of film and television. Twelve Angry Men, originally televised in 1954 and made into a film in 1957, is set during the height of the Cold War. show the superiority of American democracy and justice system. This goal has even been recognized by the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award, which recognizes works that well understand and convey jurisprudence in the United States. The United States and the communism of the USSR, their hostility was manifested in acts of indirect conflict such as the arms race and in mutual threats and propaganda. In the United States, on a national level, the Cold War manifested itself in the alienation of all communist ideas both locally through the media and officially by the infamous House Un-American Activities Committee or HUAC, a committee of inquiry into links with communism or the HUAC. sympathies which is part of the House of Representatives. Often associated with anti-communist Senator Joseph McCarthy, they became known for their "communist witch hunt" following the Red Scare, which involved many public figures on the "Hollywood blacklist" considered to be sympathizerscommunists. HUAC lost its influence later in the late 1950s after being condemned by former President Henry Truman and became the subject of much satire in the 1960s when he began investigating the opposition to the Vietnam War. In the face of left-wing extremism in communism and right-wing extremism in HUAC and McCarthyism, a new bipartisanship of moderate liberals and conservatives formed. Impossible in the economic stagnation of the 1930s, the prosperous 1950s, with their technological advances and booming commerce, made this unlikely alliance possible. become friends. Thus: liberal intellectuals had to change their attitude towards Wall Street - symbolizing both the big financiers and the giant companies they organize - and towards "small businesses". were “corporate capitalists”: business and financial executives of banks and corporations on the East Coast, the North, and the Midwest. With moderates from both parties, "liberal intellectuals" and "Wall Street", forming a "bipartisan" coalition, they had great collective power, controlling the political landscape, consolidating the position of the United States in this critical period. of international politics. In Twelve Angry Men, Rose commented on the alliances in the play by saying that "alliances formed for purely intellectual reasons and those formed for emotional reasons alone have reminded us of larger, more important alliances that we can see in every moment in our newspapers, locally, nationally, internationally. » Written in the context of the Cold War, one can reasonably infer that one of these national alliances is that of the “corporate liberals.” Teleplay At first glance, the case seems open and closed. Several compelling pieces of evidence were used by the prosecution in the Twelve Angry Men case. First, the old man who lived below the accused boy heard the boy scream "I'm going to kill you", the father's body hit the ground and saw the boy running down the stairwell as he was escaping from the crime scene. The second testimony is that of the woman, who saw across the street, through the windows of the elevated train, the boy stabbing his father. The murder weapon thought to be “one of a kind”, the jurors have “never seen one like it in their lives and neither did the merchant who sold it to the boy”. The boy's alibi cannot be proven: he said he had gone to the cinema but had no eyewitnesses and "couldn't even remember what pictures he saw" . There was apparently a motive for the murder: the neighbors heard their loud arguments and the father hit the boy; he himself admitted that hours before the alleged murder he had been "slapped or punched" by his father. Finally, the boy had been arrested for car theft and had been involved in violent acts, including knife fights, which, although not directly related to the boy's culpability in the case in question, proved to some jurors that he was one of “those people.” who have a tendency toward crime. Given these facts, the jury should return an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence heard at trial. All the evidence seemed to point toward the boy's indisputable guilt for eleven of the twelve jurors. However, the burden of proof is on the prosecution: defendants are innocent until the prosecution is able to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt. Reasonable doubt is a recurring topic in the play, which was brought up by the judge early on when he said: "if you have a reasonable doubt as to theguilt of the accused…then you must find him not guilty.” As the play progresses, each juror begins to doubt the boy's absolute guilt, ultimately returning a verdict of not guilty. practicality. According to Rose, he "omitted the sometimes boring chore of choosing his characters' names" because "a dozen names would make no sense to an audience." However, the absence of character names allows them to function as symbols: they are not specific people, but rather micro-representations of a group in American society as a whole, capable of giving more meaning of the limited time given to teleplay. From the character descriptions in the teleplay storyline, we can infer that the jurors represent a spectrum of alignments in American politics, with Juror 4 embodying a typical conservative capitalist, etc. Presenting the jurors in relation to each other Others highlights themes of pluralism as they find common ground in determining the guilt of the boy on trial, echoing that of moderate liberals and conservatives during the Cold War. Despite a cast of well-rounded ensemble characters, a few stand out as representations of certain groups in particular. Juror 4, the conservative capitalist, jurors 3, 7 and 10 the right-wing extremists, juror 11 the refugee and juror 8 the liberal protagonist. Juror 4 is one of the last jurors to change their guilty verdict. Described as "a rich and well-placed man", he is educated, eloquent and presents himself well. He was only concerned with the facts of the case rather than his personal biases, repeatedly reminding the jury to "discuss the facts." He wears a tie and glasses, his manner of speaking is correct and polite, even when there is a difference of opinion. When Juror 10 started an argument with Juror 8 over his not guilty vote, Juror 4 intervened by saying "they should behave like gentlemen." He also actively participated in discussions in the jury room, according to Juror 3, “presenting all the arguments.” Although Juror 8 was not asked to consider the case further and initially supported the status quo, he had no emotional attachment to the case, his opinion being unaffected by personal prejudices. He was thus able to approach the case with a critical eye, changing his verdict and stating, “I now have a reasonable doubt” after considering enough information to support that position. A stockbroker by profession, his character represents the “enlightened capitalist” who constituted the moderate conservatives of the Cold War period. This brand of conservatives constituted the Republican side of Cold War bipartisanship that parallels that of Jurors 4 and 8, which Rose says is an alliance "formed for intellectual reasons." In contrast, Jurors 3 and 10 rely on instincts rather than facts in their verdict, an alliance “formed for emotional reasons.” This is seen not only in their initial emphasis on the guilt of the accused, but also in why they changed their verdict to not guilty. Juror 3 is “intolerant of opinions other than his own,” felt he was “entitled to his own opinion,” and was the last juror to change his vote. He had "never seen a more guilty man in his life" and repeatedly stated that just by seeing him he "could see" that the boy was guilty. It was revealed at the end of the play that he was blinded by the fact that the accused reminded him of his son, repeating that "he was his father". He finally changed his vote to a simple “agree”, recognizing that the accused was not his sonand that he was alone in his guilty verdict. Unlike his long rants in the play, his final decision shows the irrational rage he previously had. On the other hand, Juror 10 was less influenced by his personal life than by prejudices against the boy's "type". He constantly uses "those people" or "them" to refer to the boy, whose race is left ambiguous in the play, described only as "the boy" as the jurors are indicated by their numbers, but it is likely that "those people » Juror 10 was referring to the Hispanic population which constituted a notable minority on the East Coast. Arriving in the jury room, Juror 10 said, "That's to be expected" and "You know what you're dealing with," referring to the boy's minority background. Its combination of the use of "them", suggesting an intentional distance from the subject, of "what" when the word is used for an inanimate object or animal rather than a human being, and even of "wild animal" to demean the boy, reveals Juror 10's bigotry regarding ethnic origin. minorities. He is sarcastic and easily provoked, starting most of the arguments with the other jurors. He also believes that he is more informed than the other jurors, as evidenced by his behavior, the fact that he speaks "wisely" to Juror 7 about his prejudices and, in his final monologue, insists that he " was only trying to tell the other jurors that “these people are lying.” Other jurors turned away from him while Juror 4, although then of the same opinion that the boy was guilty, grew tired of his outbursts and threatened to "split his skull open." Juror 10 did not change his mind about the boy's guilt, but was threatened by the collective power of the other jurors, causing him to change his verdict. These two jurors symbolize political extremists who, due to their personal biases on the issues, are unable to see problems on the other side. Instead of understanding the injustices of the case like Juror 11, or seeing that the facts overwhelmingly support doubt about guilt like Juror 4, they abandon themselves to the collective power of the other jurors instead of reconciling themselves- same decision. Juror 11 is a refugee. of Europe whose honesty and insight reveal much of the play's theme. He believes that Americans' social responsibility to serve on jury duty is what is "remarkable about democracy" and "one of the reasons America is strong." Although shy, every time he speaks he delivers poignant points. He criticized jurors' emotional attachment to their arguments unrelated to the facts of the case, saying "they had nothing to gain or lose by the verdict" and "should not make it personal ". As a refugee, he symbolizes someone who left for America of his own will, realizing the greatness of American democracy and actively fighting to achieve it. Juror 8 immediately stands out in the room as the first to vote alone to be "not guilty." Although described as "calm" and "thoughtful", in the face of emotional jurors he had to defend his position, while maintaining that he did not necessarily believe in the boys' innocence, he was prepared to consider the indispensability of his guilt. Anxious to bridge the gap between the different jurors despite opinions, open to interactive discussions and basing his first verdict on the simple fact that "he doesn't know", he fits the mold of the "cold war liberal" . It illustrates how essential active citizenship is in democracy. If all the jurors had not considered the implications of an outright "guilty" verdict, the boywould have been put to death. Through the portrait of Juror 8, not only is the system of democratic government defended, but his single voice allowed the discussion that acquitted the boy, Juror 8, and the elevation of the ideology attached to his character. Juror 8 embodies personal responsibility and the pursuit of justice. The description of his character is entirely positive, he "constantly seeks the truth", is "strength tempered with compassion" and "will fight" for "justice to be done". The hero of the story, Juror 8, also makes a hero of the "liberal intellectuals" of the time who were the first to initiate the alliance with the conservatives of "Wall Street." was to represent in the play "physical problems such as the weather, the weather, the uncomfortable room". Set in a jury room described as "large, dull, bare" and "in dire need of a painting", there is a feeling of disorder and emptiness, aptly symbolizing the initial one-dimensional nature of the open and closed. Whether due to practical constraints or creative choice, Twelve Angry Men's use of a single setting - a nondescript jury room - ingeniously communicates tension. Although the room is described as large, its single table and the chairs surrounding it trap the characters. With each passing minute the jury fails to reach a consensus, the claustrophobia already represented by the setting intensifies. The weather was revealed by Juror 7 saying it was the "hottest day of the year", which added to the stifling nature of the jury room. In reference to the original teleplay, the events of Twelve Angry Men take place in "a major Eastern city" in the teleplay (specifically New York in the play). The big city contrasts with the confinement of the jury room in the recurring motif of the window. Juror8 “looked out the window” at the beginning of the play and on several other occasions throughout. Other jurors did so as well, turning away from Juror 10's outbursts. The juxtaposition of inside and outside represents the larger meaning of the piece. Although the play may be the subject of a single discussion by a jury, the message of the play lends itself to interpretation in wider society. The fact that the play is in one act also contributes to this. The characters have accessories that highlight their personality, for example Juror 4, his use of glasses and the diary shows his curious nature and certain level of education. The rubbing of his glasses symbolizes the gradual clarity of the case in his eyes, leading to his final verdict of not guilty.ConclusionWritten and adapted numerous times since its first official broadcast in 1954, Twelve Angry Men remains the one of the most remarkable and influential films. legal dramas never made. More recent revivals of Twelve Angry Men have changed the makeup of the all-white male jury, with several stage adaptations using female jurors and the 1997 film being retooled to include black jurors. Looking at Twelve Angry Men through a modern lens, with characters in the play symbolizing factions of American society, one may find the racial homogeneity of the characters in the original production to be flawed. However, the purpose of the piece is emphasized, even dependent on this lack of diversity. The 21st-century musical phenomenon Hamilton, which casts actors of color with the aim, according to writer and composer Lin Manuel Miranda, of telling "a story of America yesterday, by America today ". Like Twelve Angry Men, Hamilton portrays American values and ideals. However, unlike Hamilton, whose story is that of 2017,/408019/.

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch