The angriest men on the jury would like to think of themselves both as the most American, and with the best reasons to be angry. Twelve Angry Men is a cautionary narrative that describes how such individuals can, with great difficulty, overcome their primal instincts. A unified pack of twelve men easily presents to the mind an image of a sporting team before it does that of a board of academics, and the given description of their emotion further suggests that battle-lines have been drawn and that brawn will achieve more than brains in the contest. Men are stereotypically characterised as barbaric and uncommunicative. The title of the play immediately presents a context removed of compassion, and in some ways of wisdom. Yet each is swiftly unmasked as subtle differences reveal their nature, and equally the purpose of the author in Twelve Angry Men is revealed. They are named only as “Foreman”, “2nd Juror”, “3rd Juror” etc, and mostly lack for props or costumes. In the script, Rose gives very little explicit direction as to the actual character or make-up of the men, and they initially appear to be anonymous. In writing Twelve Angry Men Reginald Rose created characters that would present a cast of stereotypes for his audience to easily identify. How do the characters of Rose’s play contribute to the understanding achieved by an audience?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |