Question Drama reflects real life on stage Essays - Fiction, Film

Question: Drama reflects real life on stage Text: The Twelve Angry Men Drama has been used to reflect real life experiences and issues on stage. This is exemplified in Reginald Rose's play "Twelve Angry Men" which depicts the different types of prejudice within the American subconscious symbolized through 12 jurors who must make a judgment on a boy accused of murder. The anonymity of characters in the play generalises the American population, based on the Juror's personality, dramatically reflecting the common mentalities of Americans during the 1950's. Rose cleverly uses Juror 8 to persuade the rest of the Jury that the boy is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, whilst simultaneously convincing the audience as well. Rose's diligently concocted characterizations of jurors allows us to understand the significance of the drama, which accurately reflects real life on stage. The dramatization of prejudice in the play "Twelve Angry Men", is demonstrated as interference in the course of justice. This is highlighted in the introduction where all jurors enter the jury room with preconceived notions, ready to convict the defendant due to his social status rather than evaluating the evidence presented itself. The 4th Juror's stereotypical statement, "slums are breeding grounds for criminals," may be statistically justified, however, this is not actual proof that the suspect is guilty, demonstrating the capability for prejudice to cloud judgement. Rose also portrays personal prejudice as impacting on an individual's judgements, which is exemplified through Juror 3's personal bias towards his own son who left him. This transforms into a generalised prejudice against the younger population, thus creating tension. The 8th Juror's statement, "prejudice obscures the truth," suggests that that he is aware of the impact of prejudice on logic, and hence a fair verdict to bring justice. This problem is used to dramatically reflect the issue prejudice, distrust and depression within the American population during the Cold War. The unusual anonymity of the characters dramatically allows the audience to judge characters for who they really are and reflect their personality to real life people. Rose removes any detailed plot descriptions, names or specifics in the play. Jurors are simply referred to as a number, the defendant as the accused' and even the witness as the old man', illustrating that the function of the jury is more important than the details of their identity. This anonymity of characters allows Rose to break them up into less specific individuals that symbolises a cross section of the American population, as each Juror has a different perspective and looks at the evidence from different angles. As the play develops, we are immediately able to make some conclusions on characters based on the information provided. The anonymity of the play hence dramatically reflects American society, and due to no specifics of characters we are forced to make similar substitutions based on personal experien ce. During the play we are given many different perspectives of the case, which are given to seed doubt within the audience's mind. However, these perspectives can also be obscured by personal matters that are irrelevant to the case, as the jury are not trained in legal judgement. This is exemplified in the statement by Juror 7, "This better be fast, I got tickets to a ball game tonight," which highlights his open lack of interest in the verdict of the jury. In contrast to this, Juror 8 fully focuses on the case and throughout the course of the play, aptly examines, questions and manipulates evidence and other opinions. The discomfort of the situation at the beginning of the play is illustrated through the pathetic fallacy of the hot and sticky atmosphere, but this also portrays the depressing atmosphere surround the time in the 1950's. However, this weather soon changes into a storm, reflecting the tension and conflicting moods within the jury room. Juror 8 finally succeeds in pe rsuading the rest of the jury, thus successfully changing the audience's mind as well. The play concludes with the defeat of prejudice and irrationality through justice, however the accuracy of the final verdict is not demonstrated by Rose. This doubt at the conclusion of the play plagues the psychologies of the audience due to the ambivalence of whether they were right' in