IndexIntroductionContextThe Cold WarPartisanship in the United StatesThe ScreenplayCharactersStage Directions and Setting 500ConclusionWorks CitedIntroductionThe courtroom drama has been around as long as there has been a concept of justice. From Oresteia to The Merchant of Venice to Law and Order, he was essential in the public's understanding of both the law and their rights as a citizen, not only informing the 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 became a staple of the American lifestyle. American society's engagement with television material, fictional or authentic, has strengthened public understanding of information – and in terms of courtroom dramas, real courtrooms, and court trials. We say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay One such piece of television is Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men, a 1954 courtroom drama detailing the deliberation of twelve jurors regarding the verdict on a murder case. Rose adapted his play for the big screen following the success of the screenplay, which is credited by many, including the American Bar Association, as one of the greatest legal films of all time. The play has a one-act structure, so it has a fluid narrative, undisturbed by intervals. It also has only one set, the jury room in the courthouse. These simple lines frame well the cross-section of an essential component of American democracy, showing the small events behind the enormous system that is the judiciary, translating the abstract into the concrete for viewers. As in all fictional or interpreted texts, theater intrinsically embodies a certain point of view of its writer: the author's intention. In this essay, I would attempt to analyze the playwright's perspective and intended purpose for the play. Since 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?” Because of its range of characters and the context in which the play was written and performed, The Context informs and approaches the theatricality of the trial from the jury's perspective, with its ambiguity Written for a different time and place For different audiences, topics explored in Twelve Angry Men remain significant in today's society: "democracy, justice, social responsibilities and the pressure of the times". I would first like to outline the historical and social contexts behind the production of the script, then describe how the contexts and texts inform each other. Next, I would examine the text's use of symbolism with direction choices, characters, and theme, ultimately synthesizing my exploration based on today's context. In this exploration, I will refer to the original 1954 screenplay and the script of the subsequent stage play. , both by Reginald Rose. They have a similar composition context and almost identical content, with the former having more set and character details and the latter containing more dialogue. Since both are Rose's works, I find that looking at both screenplays allows for a deeper understanding of his authorial intentions. Background Reginald Rose wrote Twelve Angry Men after his experience as a juror in a manslaughter case. In his experience with a pillar of theAmerican society “faced with a strange man whose life is more or less in his hands,” saw the potential for “an exciting and potentially moving experience for the audience.” Twelve Angry Men is set in the United States. States of America, where the courtroom drama was and still is one of the most popular genres on television. The 1950s saw the advent of television. Within a decade it became the primary medium through which many historical events were broadcast and brought into homes, in turn influencing public opinion. Originally broadcast as a live television script to great critical acclaim 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 a long television drama for its fifty-minute total running time, to "meet the needs of the new medium", the drama had to be condensed, but remains poignant in its message. In the mid-1950s, America was immersed in the long Cold War between the United States and the USSR, within its borders the partisanship and rivalry between the two major parties continues as it has since the founding of the state. Twelve Angry Men was broadcast in such a context, where television was more influential and political tensions were high, that the connection between them and the show was crucial to examining its purpose. The Cold War At the beginning of the Cold War era, President Henry Truman led the defense of American values ​​of freedom and democracy against the threat of communism with his “Truth Campaign.” By essentially providing pro-US propaganda through the use of the media, such as the radio station Radio Free Europe which opposes communism-centered news media and “exposes their lies” in Eastern Europe, American ideas are promoted at the internationally from the United States. Nationally, movies and television in particular were used as tools to boost morale and reinforce American values. The ways in which the United States and the USSR differ were chosen and dramatized, highlighting the superiority of American values ​​and lifestyle. Elevating American politics and belittling the communist ideas of the USSR is more often than not the main purpose of cinema and television. Twelve Angry Men, originally broadcast on television in 1954 and adapted into a film in 1957, is set at the height of the Cold War, also concerned with showing the superiority of democracy and the American justice system. This purpose has also been recognized with the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award, which honors works that understand and convey jurisprudence well in the United States. Partisanship in the United States Internationally, the Cold War was a war of ideologies, capitalism of the United States and communism of the USSR, their hostility manifested itself in acts of indirect conflict such as the arms race and mutual threats and propaganda . In the United States, on a national level, the Cold War manifested itself in the alienation of any communist ideas both at the grassroots level through the media, and officially by the infamous House Un-American Activities Committee or HUAC, an investigative committee for communist ties or sympathies that is part of the House of Representatives. Often associated with anti-Communist Senator Joseph McCarthy, they became infamous due to their "Communist witch hunts" following the Red Scare, which involved many public figures on the "Hollywood blacklist" who were considered Communist sympathizers. HUAC lost its influence later in the late 1950s when it was condemned by former President Henry Truman andbecame the subject of much satire in the 1960s when they began investigating opposition to the Vietnam War. Faced with left-wing extremism in communism, and right-wing extremism in HUAC and McCarthyism, a new bipartisanship of moderate liberals and conservatives was formed. Impossible in the economically stagnant 1930s, the prosperous 1950s with its technological advances and trade boom enabled this unlikely alliance. become friends. Therefore: liberal intellectuals had to change their attitude towards Wall Street - which symbolizes both the big financiers and the gigantic multinationals they organize - and towards 'small businesses'”. The Democratic side of the alliance was made up of “Cold War liberals”: ​​former Communists and Social Democrats while the Republican wing were “corporate capitalists”: business and financial leaders in banks and corporations on the East Coast, North and Midwest. With the moderates of both parties, the "liberal intellectuals" and "Wall Street", forming a "bipartisan" coalition, they had great collective power, controlling the political landscape, solidifying the position of the United States at this critical moment in politics international. at Twelve Angry Men, Rose commented on the alliances in the play saying that "the alliances formed for purely intellectual reasons and those formed only for emotional reasons reminded us of larger, more important alliances that we can see at every turn in our newspapers, locally , national, international.” Written in the context of the Cold War, one can reasonably infer that one of these national alliances is that of the “corporate liberals.” The scriptAt first glance, the case appears to be open and shut compelling evidence in the Twelve Angry Men case. First the elderly man who lived under the accused boy, heard the boy scream "I'll kill you", the father's body hit the floor and saw the boy running down the stairs while he ran away from the crime scene. The second testimony was that of the woman, who from the other side of the road saw the boy stab his father through the windows of the overpass. The murder weapon, deemed "one of a kind", the jurors "have never seen one like it before in their lives and neither has the shopkeeper who sold it to the boy". The alibi provided by the boy cannot be proven, he said he had gone to the cinema but that he had no eyewitnesses and "didn't even remember what photo he had seen". Allegedly there was a motive for the murder: the neighbors heard their loud arguments and the father beating the boy, he himself admitted that a few 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 a history of involvement in acts of violence, including knife fights, which, while not directly related to the boy's guilt in the current case, demonstrated to some jurors that she was a of "those people" who have a tendency towards crime. Given these facts, the jury is expected to render an impartial verdict based only on the evidence heard during the trial. All the evidence seemed to point towards the boy's undoubted guilt according to eleven of the twelve jurors. However, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution: defendants are innocent until the prosecution is able to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Reasonable doubt is a recurring topic in the play, mentioned right from the start by the judge, saying: "if you have a reasonable doubt in your mind as to the guilt of the defendant... then you must find him not guilty." As the show progresses, each juror begins to doubtof the boy's absolute guilt, who ultimately delivered a not guilty verdict. Characters Although one of the most memorable details of Twelve Angry Men, the naming or lack thereof of the jurors was purely due to practicality. According to Rose, he "omitted the sometimes annoying task of choosing names for his characters" since "a dozen names would be entirely meaningless to the audience." However, the lack of character names allows for their function as symbols: they are not specific people, rather micro-representations of a group in American society at large, capable of instilling greater meaning in the limited time allowed for the screenplay. From the character descriptions in the script we can deduce that the jurors represent a spectrum of alignments in American politics, with Juror 4 embodying a typical conservative capitalist and so on. Portraying the jurors at odds with each other highlights themes of pluralism as they find ground common in determining the guilt of the boy on trial, echoing that of moderate liberals and conservatives during the Cold War. While they have a well-rounded cast of characters, some 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 his verdict to guilty. Described as "a man of wealth and position", he is cultured, eloquent and presents himself well. He was concerned only with the facts of the case rather than personal bias, repeatedly reminding the jury to "discuss the facts." He wears a tie and eyeglasses, his way of speaking is correct and polite, even when there is a difference of opinion. When Juror 10 gets into an argument with Juror 8 over his not guilty vote, Juror 4 intervened by saying "they should act like gentlemen." He was also an active member in the jury room discussions, according to Juror 3 “making all the arguments.” Despite not being invited by Juror 8 to consider the case further and initially supporting the status quo, he had no emotional attachment to the case, an opinion not influenced by personal bias. He was then able to approach the case critically, changing his verdict, saying "I now have reasonable doubt" in considering sufficient information to support this position. A stockbroker by profession, his character represents the "enlightened corporate capitalist" who constituted moderate conservatives in the Cold War era. These types of conservatives made up the Republican side of the 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 instinct rather than the facts about them. verdict, an alliance “formed for emotional reasons.” This is demonstrated not only by their initial insistence on the defendant's guilt, but also by why they changed their verdict to not guilty. Juror 3 is "intolerant of opinions different from his own", believed he was "right 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 said several times that just by sight he "could see" that the boy was guilty. At the end of the show it turned out that he had been blinded by the fact that the defendant reminded him of his son, repeating that "he was his father". In the end he changed his vote to a simple “okay,” acknowledging that the defendant was not his son and that he was the only one to deliver the guilty verdict. In contrast to hislong rants within the show, his final decision shows the irrational anger he had before. Juror 10, on the other hand, was influenced less by his personal life, but by prejudice against the boy's "type". He constantly uses "these people" or "they" to refer to the boy, whose race is left ambiguous in the show, described only as "the boy" since the jurors are referred to by their numbers, but it is likely that "these people" to whom Juror 10 references was the Hispanic population which constituted a notable minority on the East Coast. Arriving in the jury room, Juror 10 said that "you have to expect it" and "you know what you're dealing with," referring to the minority the boy is from. His combination of the use of "they", suggesting an intentional distance from the subject, "what" when the word is used for an inanimate object or animal rather than a human, and even "wild animal" to belittle the boy reveals Juror 10's bigotry towards ethnicity. minorities. He is sarcastic and easily provoked, starting most of the arguments with the other jurors. He also believes he is more knowledgeable than the other jurors given his behavior, speaking "wisely" to Juror 7 about his prejudices and in his final monologue insisting that he was "just trying to tell the other jurors" that "those people are lying." other jurors turned their backs on him while juror 4, despite being of the same opinion that the boy was guilty, got fed up with his outbursts and threatened to "crack his skull". Juror 10 has not changed his mind about the boy's guilt, but he is been threatened by the collective power of the other jurors, forcing him to change his verdict. These two jurors symbolize political extremists, who due to their personal prejudices on issues are unable to see problems from the other side instead of understanding injustices of the case like Juror 11, or see that the facts overwhelmingly support doubt about guilt like Juror 4, they surrender to the collective power of the other jurors rather than reconcile themselves to the decision. Juror 11 is a refugee from Europe whose honesty and insight reveal much of the play's theme. He believes that Americans' social responsibility to serve as jurors is what is "amazing about democracy" and "one of the reasons why America is strong." Although shy, he makes touching points every time he speaks. He criticized the emotional attachment of jurors who presented arguments unrelated to the facts of the case, saying they "had nothing to gain or lose from the verdict" and "should not take it personally." As a refugee, he symbolizes someone who went to America of his own free will, realizing the greatness of American democracy and actively fighting for it. Juror 8 immediately stands out in the show as the first sole “not guilty” voter. Although described as "quiet" and "thoughtful", faced with emotional jurors he had to defend his position, while maintaining that he did not necessarily believe in the boy's innocence, he was willing to examine the indispensability of his guilt. Wanting to bridge the gap between different jurors despite opinions, open to interactive discussion and basing his initial verdict on the simple fact that he “doesn't know”, he fits the mold of the “Cold War liberal”. It is an example of how active citizenship is essential in democracy. If all jurors had not considered the implications of a “guilty” verdict, the boy would have been put to death. Through the representation of Juror 8, not only is the democratic system of government defended, since his vote enabled the discussion thatonce the boy was acquitted, juror 8 and the ideology linked to his character were elevated. Juror 8 embodies personal responsibility and the pursuit of justice. The description of his character is entirely positive, he "constantly seeks the truth", is "of strength tempered by compassion" and will "fight" for "justice to be done". Heroes of the story, Juror 8 also makes heroes of the then "liberal intellectuals" who first initiated the alliance with the conservatives of "Wall Street".Stage directions and setting 500Writing Twelve Angry Men, one of the things that Rose found vitally important was to depict "physical problems such as weather, weather, uncomfortable room" in the play. Set in a jury room described as “large, dingy, bare” and “desperately in need of a painting”, there is a sense of shabbiness and emptiness, aptly symbolizing the initial one-dimensional nature of the open-and-shut case. Whether due to practical constraints or a creative choice, Twelve Angry Men's use of a set - a nondescript jury room - ingeniously communicates tension. Although the room is described as large, its single table and the chairs around it trap the characters. As the minutes pass, the jury is unable to reach a consensus, the claustrophobia already represented by the set intensifies. The weather was revealed by Juror 7 by saying it is the "hottest day of the year", which adds to the stuffy nature of the jury room. Referring to the original script, the events of Twelve Angry Men occur in "a large Eastern city" in the script (specifically New York in the play). The large city contrasted with the confines of the jury room is visible in the recurring window motif. Juror8 "looked out the window" at the beginning of the show and on several other occasions throughout. Other jurors also did so by distancing themselves from Juror 10's outbursts. The juxtaposition between inside and outside represents the broader meaning of the work: while the work can be the subject of a single discussion by a jury, the The work's message lends itself to interpretation in broader society. The fact that the show is one act also contributes to this. The characters have props that highlight their personality, for example Juror 4, his use of glasses and the newspaper shows his curious nature and a certain level of education. The way he rubs his glasses symbolizes the gradual clarity of the case in his eyes, leading to his final verdict of not guilty. Conclusion Written and adapted numerous times since its first official airing in 1954, Twelve Angry Men remains one of the most important and influential books. legal dramas never made. More recent revivals of Twelve Angry Men have changed the composition of the all-white male jury, with several stage adaptations choosing female jurors, and the 1997 film was revamped to include black jurors. Looking at Twelve Angry Men through a modern lens, with the play's characters symbolizing factions of American society, one might find the racial homogeneity of the characters in the original production to be flawed. However, the purpose of the work is emphasized if not 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 then, America now.” Like Twelve Angry Men, Hamilton depicts American values ​​and ideals. However, unlike Hamilton, whose story concerns the infamous founding fathers, Twelve Angry Men is a story about the mundane everyman who for the most part does not experience discrimination 2017,/408019/.