This being mentioned, the play by Reginald Rose does not directly appoint a specific background, at least not for Juror Number Eight.
Personal narratives versus anonymity Think about the number system to identify the jurors. There is an obvious discrepancy between the articulate nature of the prosecution team and the inefficiency of the defence team.
Evidently, as Rose points out, the personalities of those who present the evidence play a large role. The deconstruction of these obstacles finally paves the way for an honest and just outcome.
Similarly other jurors also have personal commitments and experiences that make them more likely to react to the evidence in different ways and many discount the seriousness of their legal responsibilities.
Harold Pinter directed a production of the play, which opened at the Bristol Old Vic on March 7, Rose relies on real time to show how the deliberation process unravels.
In a sense this depersonalises the jury members to show that their personalities should not play a factor. He shows a more forgiving, compassionate and sympathetic attitude to the young boy. In addition, Juror No. Thus Rose would suggest they reach a fair and reasonable verdict.
In other words, the jurors should presume that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The film alternate version also points that this juror is actually a father of three which also would help explain why Eight, out of all the jurors, seems to have the most compassion for a nineteen year old defendant.
Marshallas the Voice of the Judge. Therefore, Juror Number Eight, with the description given above, calls for a man of deep character and enormous depth of thought and humanity.
Similarly, Rose points out how Juror Number Nine is a defeated man awaiting his death while Juror Number Ten is a passive-aggressive type man who just enjoys aggravating people. I was very impressed. Likewise, the 3rd is forced to recognise the degree to which his personal vendetta interfered with the decision-making process.
The 12th juror also changes his votes. These twelve then move to the jury room, where they begin to become acquainted with the personalities of their peers. Throughout their deliberationnot a single juror calls another by his name because the names are unknown to the jurors.
He is a quiet, thoughtful gentleman who sees all sides of every question and constantly seeks the truth.
Legal responsibilities Many jurors misunderstand or fail to apply their legal responsibilities. The story begins after closing arguments have been presented in the homicide case, as the judge is giving his instructions to the jury.
The 3rd juror is personally offended that his views are questioned. Rose deliberately assigns to each juror a personal narrative which reflects his view that many of the jurors tend to be influenced by their circumstances and experiences which further shape, and often entrench, their biased opinions.
Likewise, the woman in the apartment opposite testifies to the fact that she looked through the window of the EL train and saw the boy stabbing his father. All six jurors were women; only one was of non-white or Hispanic origin. The eye-witnesses manipulate and distort the facts to confirm their personal views.
It is most likely, then, that she would have had blurred vision, and possibly made a mistake. Contrastingly, the 8th juror has a positive impact upon the group; he gradually earns their trust and support because of his considerate and courteous personality.
At stake is the fate of a year-old boy who is on trial for the murder of his father. As Act 1 reaches a climax focusing on an aggressive encounter between the two main protagonists — the 3rd and 8th jurors — the verdict is equally poised.In a jury room of twelve people who have their own ideas and experiences, this task can become even more difficult.
In Reginald Rose's '12. By Barbara Stinson Lee.
Reginald Rose, playwright of Twelve Angry Men, was born in and raised in New York City, the son of William (a lawyer) and Alice (Obendorfer) mint-body.com drew from New York many of the characters for. In '12 Angry Men' by Reginald Rose, Juror 3 is the most difficult of all of the jurors. In this court-room drama where the life of a teenager is.
Twelve Angry Men is a legal drama, written by Reginald Rose during the heightened period of 's McCarthyism. The didactic play presents a cross section, examining 's America during a period of immense suspicion and uncertainty.
Reginald Rose’s drama, "Twelve Angry Men" ends with the jury agreeing that there is enough reasonable doubt to warrant an acquittal. The defendant is deemed “not guilty” by a jury of his peers.
The defendant is deemed “not guilty” by a jury of his peers. “Facts and fancy” by Dr Jennifer Minter (English Works articles) At the beginning of Reginald Rose’s play, Twelve Angry Men (), the judge states, “it now becomes your duty to try to separate the facts from the fancy”.
At stake is the fate of a year-old boy who is on trial for the murder of his father.Download