Twelve Angry Men Act one Summary

Twelve angry Men 
A play by Reginald Rose                                                  

Act one                                         

1. The generation of tension in the play

·                     Which characters act as the source of tension within the jury room?

Ø  The 8^th juror: by disagreeing with the “guilty” verdict of the majority, and thus causing the premise/base of tension and disagreement in the play. As well as continuing the flow of tension with his opposing arguments. The height of the tension caused by the 8^th juror is at the end of the first act, where he bates the 3^rd juror into uttering the phrase “I’ll kill him, I’ll kill him”. This carries significance as this  exact phrase was supposedly uttered by the boy on trial (according to a witness) and used as a big argument to support the “guilty” verdict      

Ø  9^th juror: when he provokes the aggressive nature of the 10^th juror by saying “it suddenly occurs to me that you must be an ignorant man”

Ø  3^rd juror: allows his own personal prejudice against children (which becomes apparent quite early on (page 17) “it’s the kids, the way they are nowadays. Angry! Hostile! You can’t do a damn thing with them…”) to colour his judgement and present his arguments in an aggressive manner which causes tension

Ø  10^th  juror causes strain/tension between 5^th juror due to his preconceived ideas and judgement against those who live in slums, whilst these comments directly affect the 5^th juror, who lives and was brought up in a slum area  

·                     What other factors contribute to the building tension?

Ø  The nature of the trial, the fact that the fate of the boy’s life

Ø  The doubt;  the fact that as an audience we too do not know the truth of whether the boy is guilty or not, and at points in the first act certain jurors throw doubt onto the arguments of the 8^th juror

Ø  The voting results. Votes are held multiple times to discern the shift from “guilty” to “not guilty”  or vice versa

·         What issues or discussion topics cause tension amongst the jurors?

Ø  Discussion of the slums, when the 5^th juror is confronted with the bigotry of the 20^th juror in regards to his ideas of the slums

Ø  Discussing the possibility and supporting ideas of the boy not being guilty

2.       The progression of the narrative

·                     What characters have been introduced?

Ø  All  twelve jurors have been introduced within the first act, as has the guard

·                     What specific traits do we learn about the characters?

Ø  1^st juror: the foreman is seen to be unsure of himself a times yet tries to take charge and fulfil the leadership role

Ø  2^nd juror: Doesn’t speak much

Ø  3^rd juror: Prejudice against youth which developed after the emotional impact of  his son running away from home after a fight with him

Ø  4^th juror: considers everything from a logical standpoint and seems to be a middle-upper class and reasonably educated man

Ø  5^th juror: Lives in the slums, possibly a nurse there too?

Ø  6^th juror: He is a worker, who is used to accepting the orders of others rather than thinking of his own free will, this is eluded to when he says “I’m not used to supposing. I’m just a working man. My boss does the supposing”. He does raise the important point to the 8^th juror though when he says “suppose you talk us all out a this and the kid really did knife the father”

Ø  7^th juror: not really concerned with the trial, he does not acknowledge the significance of his decision and seems to care more about the ongoing baseball game than the fate of the boy’s life

Ø  8^th juror: Thoughtful, he is not willing to simply be persuaded by the rest of the group and considers many doubts he has as to whether the boy is guilty. He is quite intelligent, and he also considers the possibility that though he is arguing the boy is not guilty, there is also the possibility he could be the opposite. He considers both sides, like the viewer  

Ø  9^th juror:

Ø  10^th juror: it becomes evident that he has a strong dislike and prejudice against an unknown sector of society, yet it is apparent they are of a lower class when he uses words such as “slum”. It also comes to light that his dislike is borne out of hypocrisy as he says “I've lived among ‘em all my life” ,

Ø  11^th juror: the 11^th juror talks very rarely/is reserved, yet through his line “This sensitivity I understand”, this refers to his feelings of judgement against him based on being German in 50’s America, a time when they were regarded suspiciously/negatively due to WW2 and the Cold war

Ø  12^th juror: unsure  

·                     Along what path is the jury debate travelling?

Ø  Through the course of the act, as the jurors vote each time, the number of those voting “not guilty” increase and argument between the opposition becomes more heated, personal ideas/traits of the jurors are made apparent and the act ends at a point of tension. It seems that the jury is heading in the direction of more of the men voting “not guilty”

3. Predictions regarding the plot development

·                     What do you think will be the next area of discussion regarding the defendant?

Ø  Perhaps what has just occurred between the 3^rd and 8^th juror will be discussed and the jurors will go over the statement of the witness who apparently heard the boy shout “I’ll kill you” and discuss the validity of using that as an argument to support  the “guilty” verdict

·                     Who do you believe will be the next juror to change their mind?

Ø  The 6^th juror

4. Possible viewer responses to the action and character development.

·                     How would an audience viewing the play at the time it was written respond to the action on stage?

Perhaps at the time the audience would have been split into the different thought processes of the jurors, mostly because the issues subtly raised and the ideas were relevant to the time

·                     How does this differ from audiences viewing the play today?

Ø  Audiences today may not understand all the references to events that took place during the time (such as the impact and meaning behind the 11^th juror’s comment “This sensitivity I understand”). Perhaps because of this the audiences have a more holistic view of the trial and consider both arguments

·                     Is there a difference between audience responses here in Australia versus locals in the United States?

Ø  Perhaps the issues raised between the jurors are still present within the united states, such as prejudice against lower socio economic groups (slums) and this may affect US viewers in comparison to Australian viewers