The focal point is on the twelve jurors who are named only as such and how they go about deciding their verdict. For example, I could tell which voice was Hector Elizondo, but was unable to determine whether protagonist Juror 8 was the one being portrayed by vocal chameleon Dan Castellaneta. بی ارتباط نیست که رز در این نمایشنامه دوران سالهای ۱۹۵۰ دوره ای از مهاجرت ها و تفکیک در آغاز نمایشنامه دوازده مرد خشمگین اثر رجینالد رز، قاضی بیان می کند: «اکنون این وظیفه شما است که در جدا کردن واقعیات از خیال بکوشید». In this site a brief, but the exhaustive content of literary works of a large volume is presented. Immediately, the jurors turn on , accusing him of having changed his vote out of sympathy for the boy. Ten, the opposite of Eight, feels the kid has already received too much sympathy in the form of a trial. Angry Men Would you recommend this audiobook to a friend? Five most closely resembles the kid in age and circumstance and feels he is being targeted.
Although the setting provides the catalyst for the interaction, it's possible to find a Juror 8 or Juror 10 or Juror 3 in another text. Moreover, heated conflicts and conflict of interests amongst the jurors allows viewers to lean more about the personalities of each juror. But after one last epic blowout, even this guy has to let go of his hate and find the kid Not Guilty. He also had three children, which may have been an indication to how adamant he was to find justice in this. After another heated discussion which raises the question of why the boy would have returned home, after killing his father, they take another vote.
Please don't ban me from your university. Juror Ten establishes the other main piece of evidence: the testimony of the woman across the street. The film describes the story of a 12-men jury in a New York City courthouse deliberating the case of an 18-year-old Hispanic slum-born boy who had allegedly stabbed his father to death. This play only takes place in a jury room, and the setup to the plot line is never revealed all at once. I just think he's guilty. These twelve jurors are appointed to deliberate on the trial of a teenage boy who allegedly stabbed his father, and it looks like a open-and-shut case in the beginning, but the evidence that is revealed during the story makes it much more difficult to decide. I see this alot, especially on social media where people attack each other because of their differences.
This can be done through collaborative problem solving, testing and evaluating ideas as well as having collective ownership of the decision making. Like a surgeon he opens up the minds and hearts of his characters to reveal how their backgrounds and personal opinions influence their decisions. An interesting point of this book is that there are no names, only the numbers of the jurors and the witnesses of the case as the 'old man', or 'woman'. However, Juror 8 continues his assault on the evidence by proving that it was impossible for one of the witnesses an old man to have been in the place he was when he allegedly saw the defendant fleeing the murder scene. In part because I'm required to like this one and in part because I enjoy the difference in media. After these instructions, the jurors enter.
That is all except for one juror alone who stands questioning whether the boy should be condemned so rashly. After reading the book in a concise form, you will get a complete idea of the work, its theme, idea, plot, heroes, stylistic features. Four demonstrates his rhetorical skills and Three supports him because he is excited and impressed to have someone articulate the case against the kid so well. More recently, Twelve Angry Men had a successful, and award-winning, run on Broadway. Are all the decisions we firmly make based on evidence or are they more emotional? They agree to this and vote by secret ballot.
At first, all but one Juror 8 think he's guilty but as the story continues, they start picking apart the case. The fact that the author could make all the evidence to convict the boy icebergs is incredible. The other jurors are offended when they think he is criticizing them for quickly, and therefore callously, sending the kid to his death — though of course their taking offense signals that it is likely true. Instead, Juror 8 comfortingly lays a hand on Juror 9 and calms him down. The plot revolves around 12 men on a jury who are deliberating regarding a boy's accused murder of his father. Four, again, maintains the peace.
I guess Twelve Angry Men had to be called that. They listened because they do seemingly have reasonable doubt nagging at the back of their mind. Nine supports him against Seven because he is aware that a life is at stake, and that Eight is standing alone is courageous. Hilarious, raunchy, and ultimately very touching, Stephen Adly Guirgis is a new voice to be celebrated. You may see them act as if they know the whole truth about anything.
It's kind of sad how relatable this book is in today's world even though the story was produced in the 50s. The longer the discussion goes on, the more we realize that certain jurors like 3 and 10 are just really vindictive dudes who want to send the kid to the electric chair for petty, personal reasons. I read this play as I'm considering taking part in the production and I really enjoyed it. One of the last pieces of evidence that stands in Juror 8's way is a woman who testified to seeing the defendant kill his father from across the street. Eleven jurors are ready to make a snap decision of guilty and head home, but one dissenting juror has a reasonable doubt. Pero poco a poco van surgiendo dudas y dudas, a medida que las personalidades de cada uno de los doce jurados chocan unas con otras y amenazan incluso con llegar a las patadas.