Reginald Rose

"A blistering character study and an examination of the American melting pot and the judicial system that keeps it in check, Twelve Angry Men holds at its core a deeply patriotic belief in the U.S. legal system. The story's focal point, known only as Juror Eight, is at first the sole holdout in an 11-1 guilty vote. Eight sets his sights not on proving the other jurors wrong but rather on getting them to look at the situation in a clear-eyed way not affected by their personal biases. Rose deliberately and carefully peels away the layers of artifice from the men and allows a fuller picture of America, at its best and worst, to form."--Publisher description.

A Play in Two Acts

Twelve Angry Men

A blistering character study and an examination of the American melting pot and the judicial system that keeps it in check, Twelve Angry Men holds at its core a deeply patriotic faith in the U.S. legal system. The play centers on Juror Eight, who is at first the sole holdout in an 11-1 guilty vote. Eight sets his sights not on proving the other jurors wrong but rather on getting them to look at the situation in a clear-eyed way not affected by their personal prejudices or biases. Reginald Rose deliberately and carefully peels away the layers of artifice from the men and allows a fuller picture to form of them—and of America, at its best and worst.
 
After the critically acclaimed teleplay aired in 1954, this landmark American drama went on to become a cinematic masterpiece in 1957 starring Henry Fonda, for which Rose wrote the adaptation. More recently, Twelve Angry Men had a successful, and award-winning, run on Broadway.

It’s a hot humid day when twelve jurors are led to a room to decide the fate of a sixteen year old accused of murder. The prosecution has been relentless, the court appointed defense apathetic, and eleven of the jurors are convinced that the boy is guilty. However, Juror number 8 isn’t sure. The judge has warned them that they should only pass a guilty verdict if they are convinced of this boy’s guilt; if there is reasonable doubt they are to say he’s innocent. If they don’t have a unanimous vote, then the jury is hung and the boy will have to stand trial again. One step at a time juror number 8, and later one or two other jurors question each piece of damning evidence to see how much credence should be lent to it.

This is one of the best old movies I have ever seen (the new one wasn’t nearly as well done), and the play is magnificent (if you are accustomed to reading scripts). It’s been a number of years since I’ve seen the movie, but I’m so glad the original writer of the screenplay versions also wrote a stage play version. It’s not only well written, but it gives us keen insight on human nature, which hasn’t changed as much as we’d like to think it has since the first screen play was written in the 1950s. It also shows the American jury system working at its best in that one man refused to let a boy die without at first discussing his life and the case and examining what they have been told for themselves, away from the rhetoric of the courtroom. Moreover, we see other jurors become inspired to think and question what they had originally thought was an open and shut case.

I still love this play and strongly urge people to see that screenplay/film in black and white with Henry Fonda as Juror Number 8. The acting and directing are worth watching for those interested in that part of it. It is still very timely, too given the prejudice as well as personal biases not necessarily related to prejudice of many of the jurors combined with a lazy defense attorney had against the accused and "his kind" -- it isn't said what "his kind" are, but that hardly matters since this type of prejudice happens in many forms around the world, but it also ties into fairly recent events in the States.

Karin

2021 update at bottom of review

It’s a hot humid day when twelve jurors are led to a room to decide the fate of a sixteen year old accused of murder. The prosecution has been relentless, the court appointed defense apathetic, and eleven of the jurors are convinced that the boy is guilty. However, Juror number 8 isn’t sure. The judge has warned them that they should only pass a guilty verdict if they are convinced of this boy’s guilt; if there is reasonable doubt they are to say he’s innocent. If they don’t have a unanimous vote, then the jury is hung and the boy will have to stand trial again. One step at a time juror number 8, and later one or two other jurors question each piece of damning evidence to see how much credence should be lent to it.

This is one of the best old movies I have ever seen (the new one wasn’t nearly as well done), and the play is magnificent (if you are accustomed to reading scripts). It’s been a number of years since I’ve seen the movie, but I’m so glad the original writer of the screenplay versions also wrote a stage play version. It’s not only well written, but it gives us keen insight on human nature, which hasn’t changed as much as we’d like to think it has since the first screen play was written in the 1950s. It also shows the American jury system working at its best in that one man refused to let a boy die without at first discussing his life and the case and examining what they have been told for themselves, away from the rhetoric of the courtroom. Moreover, we see other jurors become inspired to think and question what they had originally thought was an open and shut case.

I still love this play and strongly urge people to see that screenplay/film in black and white with Henry Fonda as Juror Number 8. The acting and directing are worth watching for those interested in that part of it. It is still very timely, too given the prejudice as well as personal biases not necessarily related to prejudice of many of the jurors combined with a lazy defense attorney had against the accused and "his kind" -- it isn't said what "his kind" are, but that hardly matters since this type of prejudice happens in many forms around the world, but it also ties into fairly recent events in the States.

Mat Connor

“It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone even if you believe in something very strongly.”

There are a lot of lessons to learn from this play. 

The one that resonates the most with me: The beginnings of justice and courage often need to start at the individual level before they make it up to the group.

Jun Angelo Cabuguas

Vittoria Vespoli 

I dont want to go all « psychologically, really insightful” but yea pretty much.

A landmark American drama that inspired a classic film and a Broadway revival—featuring an introduction by David Mamet A blistering character study and an examination of the American melting pot and the judicial system that keeps it in check, Twelve Angry Men holds at its core a deeply patriotic faith in the U.S. legal system. The play centers on Juror Eight, who is at first the sole holdout in an 11-1 guilty vote. Eight sets his sights not on proving the other jurors wrong but rather on getting them to look at the situation in a clear-eyed way not affected by their personal prejudices or biases. Reginald Rose deliberately and carefully peels away the layers of artifice from the men and allows a fuller picture to form of them—and of America, at its best and worst. After the critically acclaimed teleplay aired in 1954, this landmark American drama went on to become a cinematic masterpiece in 1957 starring Henry Fonda, for which Rose wrote the adaptation. More recently, Twelve Angry Men had a successful, and award-winning, run on Broadway. For more than seventy years, Penguin has been the leading publisher of classic literature in the English-speaking world. With more than 1,700 titles, Penguin Classics represents a global bookshelf of the best works throughout history and across genres and disciplines. Readers trust the series to provide authoritative texts enhanced by introductions and notes by distinguished scholars and contemporary authors, as well as up-to-date translations by award-winning translators.

Lynn

I’m not a play person, but I saw this movie a while back and it intrigued me. Now reading the book I admire how well the director did at bringing it to life. This play is an exceptionally interesting take on democracy and the influence of privilege, race, prejudice and us-them thinking have on the justice system. Short but effective story that keeps you thinking on the topic of the fallibility of jury duty.

Carolina Lopes

4.75*

I have commited a book crime. I watched the movie adaptation first and... *gasps* enjoyed the ending of the movie better. Still an incredible play that I would recommend anyone to read!!

Andrada D

One of those masterpieces which makes you think about the apparent truths we receive in the world. 
This being said, I firmly stand by the idea that the kid  was  guilty. Reasonable doubt or not, there were too many coincidences that had to be verified to prove his innocence, so for me the play shows how gullible people can be. But it is masterfully presented and the argument put together by Juror 8 shows how everyone can be persuaded- as long as you have a good argument.

Twelve Angry Men A Play in Two Acts

Reviews