"12 Angry Men" by Reginald Rose [Theater program]

Abstract

The year is 1957. In this hot and sweaty jury room of a New York Court of Law, 12 angry men are discussing the verdict of a child (his race is unknown). After the first vote is finished, the count is 11 to 1 in favor of “guilty” This leads to a very difficult question. How is #8 able to successfully convince the other 11 men to change their vote? Is it possible that #8 is the only one who could see the many flaws in the prosecutor’s arguments? Or, is he manipulating them with his use of logic and language tactics? •‘The play contains many references to the flaws of a jury. Some will say that jurors have “bleeding hearts” Others will say that the average juror isn't educated enough to assess certain complicated cases. And for many jurors, it will be “very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this” As the show goes on and you learn more about the case and the facts concerning it, be wary of the social dynamics between the characters. •Ultimately, we don't know if the kid killed his father. So after you have seen everything down to the final vote, only then shall you make your final decision regarding the verdict of the child. (DONI MANDEL)