Twelve Angry Men (Penguin Classics)

Product Information

Si, por el contrario, sus dudas no son razonables, entonces deben votar por la culpabilidad del acusado. Sea cual fuere su decisión, el veredicto debe ser unánime. En el supuesto que declarasen culpable al acusado, no podremos atender ninguna apelación de clemencia. La pena de muerte es obligada en este caso. Están frente a una gran responsabilidad." In 2004–05, the British producer/director Guy Masterson directed a hugely successful Australian version of his hit Edinburgh 2003 production, produced by Arts Projects Australia and Adrian Bohm [9] at QPAC Brisbane, Sydney Theatre and Melbourne Athenaeum. Shane Bourne played as Juror 3, Peter Phelps as Juror 4, Marcus Graham as Juror 8, George Kapiniaris as Juror 2, and Henri Szeps as Juror 9. [10] This production won three Melbourne Green Room Awards and a nomination for "Best Play" at the Sydney Helpmann Awards. Pocas veces podemos encontrarnos en una situación donde la vida de una persona depende de las decisiones que tomemos y de los factores que influyen en esas decisiones.

This is a fascinating play written in 1954 that looks at the members of a jury who are tasked with determining the fate of a 16 year old boy who has been accused of murdering his father. A guilty verdict means the death penalty. In this short, effective and skillful rendering of the various characters and personalities that can make up a jury, we see just how important one’s responsibility is when performing this task. We see a variety of “types” who bring prejudices and biases to the table in forming their opinions and decisions. One juror holds out from the beginning as the lone not guilty vote and forces the other men to view the situation clearly and plainly for any reasonable doubt. A jury of twelve men determining the fate of one young man who's accused of, and on trial for, the murder of his father. The trial has taken place, the jury is now sequestered in the jury room to deliberate and decide the defendant's guilt or innocence. This is where it begins...

Become a Member

Mediante el transcurso de la pieza, se van detallando cuestiones asociadas a la víctima, al acusado, a los testigos, al abogado, a la coartada, a las pruebas...que ponen en situación el caso. Además, se van descubriendo las distintas ideas, sentimientos, intereses, motivaciones y características de las diferentes personalidades que conforman el jurado. Finalmente, más allá de la culpabilidad o inocencia, ¿el grupo logrará la unanimidad necesaria para tener un veredicto o deberá ser catalogado como un jurado inepto? Cada jurado presenta una personalidad bien definida, termina exponiendo su personalidad conforme el debate avanza entre la lógica de los hechos, peleas, amenazas y las cuestiones moral, especialmente destacable esto último, Reginald se tomó su tiempo y las plantea de manera tan sencilla como una conversación pero para nada carente de la profundidad necesaria. The animated television series Pepper Ann features an episode titled "One Angry Woman". Pepper Ann's mother Lydia is called into jury duty for a case involving a supposed spitter. The events play out similarly to the original, complete with certain lines spoofed and altered for the episode. Angry Men" του μεγάλου και τρανού Sidney Lumet και έπαθα την πλάκα μου, τόσο από το σενάριο και την όλη εξέλιξη της πλοκής, όσο και από τις ερμηνείες, τη σκηνοθεσία και τις διάφορες κοινωνιολογικές προεκτάσεις της υπόθεσης. Μιλάμε για ένα πραγματικό αριστούργημα, που αξίζει να δει κανείς πολλές φορές στη ζωή του. Έτσι, είπα να διαβάσω και το αρχικό θεατρικό έργο του Reginald Rose, για να είναι πλήρης η όλη εμπειρία. Και αυτό είναι εξαιρετικό, φυσικά. Οι διάλογοι, ο ψυχισμός των χαρακτήρων που διαφαίνεται μέσω των απόψεών τους, η κοινωνιολογική ανάλυση που γίνεται, ό,τι και να πει κανείς είναι λίγα. Οπωσδήποτε, τόσο το θεατρικό σενάριο όσο φυσικά και η ομότιτλη ταινία, είναι από τα πια δυνατά και ενδιαφέροντα δικαστικά δράματα που μπορεί να διαβάσει και να δει κανείς, αντίστοιχα.

It’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth. Estructura en tres actos, con una buena evolución argumental, un lenguaje coloquial, simple y claro, e interesantes diálogos y frases; creo que la obra puede resultar dinámica, entretenida e interesante por varias razones y, tal vez, útil en diferentes aspectos, superando el asunto, el tiempo y el lugar. Originally published on January 1, 1954, Twelve Angry Men has topics that look at our society and legal system through a magnifying glass. Although written 69 years ago the subject matter is still at the forefront of our American melting pot culture. It's stuff that matters. Recently I've been reading several plays and short stories. In part because I'm required to (like this one) and in part because I enjoy the difference in media. So I shall promptly go over what makes Twelve Angry Men different. On the Norman Lear CBS sitcom All in the Family, Edith Bunker ( Jean Stapleton) is the lone juror who questioned the evidence against the defendant, despite the pressure from her bigoted socialite co-juror ( Doris Singleton) in the first-season episode, "Edith Has Jury Duty".Episode 6 in series 12 ("Jury") of the sitcom Not Going Out is set in a jury room with multiple references to Twelve Angry Men. As the jurors discuss the case, personal biases begin to emerge. The 3rd Juror, a vocal advocate for a conviction, tells a story about his son, who he beat when he was young and who he is now estranged from. The 4th Juror coldly states that people from slums are more likely to be violent, which offends the 5th Juror, who grew up in a slum. The 10th Juror makes racist statements throughout, and as the deliberation goes on, it becomes clear he is less interested in following due process and more interested in seeing the boy punished because of his race. I remember reading this in school and thinking how unfair it was of the main "antagonist" juror, #3, to disregard all points regarding anything that might lead to a not-guilty verdict simply because of his own personal prejudices and opinions.

A landmark American drama that inspired a classic film and a Broadway revival—featuring an introduction by David Mamet I love Juror 8 for being able, and more importantly, WILLING to really take the responsibility of someone's life and death seriously and think about it with an open mind. There's a little dialogue which, in the audio, was probably about 30 seconds long and which really summed up this book for me. One of the jurors accuses another of not understanding the phrase "reasonable doubt". He gets pissed, or MORE pissed, and the scene devolves into another shouting match, and the moment passes... but for me, that's the book right there. The guilty voters were bullheadedly refusing to sway because they couldn't stop seeing the case in reverse: Guilty until PROVEN innocent. The entire play takes place in ashabby jury room on a hot day. The New York City skyline can be seen through the windows of the room. As the play begins, the room is empty, and a judge can be heard offstage giving instructions to the jury on how to deliberate on the case before them. The twelve men are to determine the fate of a 16-year-old boy accused of murdering his father. If they have reasonable doubt, they are to acquit the boy. If the boy is convicted, he will face the death penalty. His teleplay The Incredible World of Horace Ford was the basis for an episode of The Twilight Zone in 1963 starring Pat Hingle, Nan Martin, and Ruth White. The episode was broadcast on April 18, 1963, on CBS as Episode 15 of Season Four. The theme was how the past is always glorified due to the repression and self-censorship of the negative aspects. We remember the good while we forget the bad. The teleplay had originally appeared as a Studio One episode in 1955.Each juror’s deliberation reveals something integral about the case. The jurors discuss the testimony of the boy’s downstairs neighbor, an old man who claims to have heard the boy shout “I’m going to kill you” and had seen the boy run down the stairs after the murder. They discuss the boy’s alibi, which seems flimsy to them because he said he was at the movies when the murder took place but couldn’t recall the details of the film. They explore the testimony of the second witness, who claimed that she saw the boy murder his father through the windows of a passing train. The boy seems to have a clear motive, given that his father hit him earlier in the day, and he also has a history of violence. A ustedes les corresponde ahora enjuiciar los hechos con absoluta imparcialidad. Un hombre ha muerto; la vida de otro está en juego. Si en ustedes existe el menor asomo de duda sobre la culpabilidad del acusado, es decir, una duda razonable, deben emitir veredicto de inocente. Rose was married twice, to Barbara Langbart in 1943, with whom he had four children, and to Ellen McLaughlin in 1963, with whom he had two children. He died in 2002 from complications of heart failure.

A businessman and distraught father, opinionated and stubborn with a temper; the main antagonist. The twelfth to vote "not guilty". In Blue Bloods season 4, episode 8, "Justice Served", Danny Reagan dissents as Juror 8. [ citation needed] In 2014, Chinese film director Xu Ang remade it as 12 Citizens. It was shown at the 2014 Rome Film Festival on October 19, 2014 [15] and was released in China on May 15, 2015. [16] Main articles: 12 Angry Men (1957 film), Ek Ruka Hua Faisla, 12 Angry Men (1997 film), 12 (2007 film), 12 Citizens, and Vaaimai Doce hombres sin piedad (1954), del guionista norteamericano Reginald Rose (1920-2002), es una breve obra de teatro, que parece sencilla, pero puede que contenga una rica complejidad temática humana y social, que, por lo tanto, motive la reflexión y el diálogo más allá de su lectura.Y eso es lo que, de algún modo, influyó en mi apreciación.

SparkNotes—the stress-free way to a better GPA

Caballeros: Acaban de oír un caso largo y complejo de asesinato en primer grado. Han escuchado a los testigos. Les han leído las leyes y la forma de interpretarla para estos casos. En esta obra, un jurado está deliberando la muerte de un hombre por el asesinato de su padre, crimen que el acusado afirma no haber cometido. Con una deliberación de 11 de 12 votos que lo sentencian como culpable, el jurado 8, el único que no está seguro de su culpabilidad, es la única oportunidad con la que cuenta para salvarse. But a bit of sleuthing reveals that he may not have served on the jury. Phil Rosenzweig, the author of this fascinating book about Rose’s masterpiece, searched in court records and found the most similar case. The names of all 12 jurors and both alternates are listed; Rose’s is not among them. Yet the crime was too obscure to be known beyond the courtroom. The best explanation, Mr Rosenzweig writes, is that Rose was called up but dismissed, perhaps staying on to watch the trial. Two and Four, at the water cooler, wonder about the meaning of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” What evidence do they need to support a “not guilty” vote? Do they need evidence of the boy’s innocence? Three tries to start a game of tic-tac-toe to pass the time and Eight says that this is not a game, and reminds them all that a man’s life is at stake. Eight begins to explain his “feeling” that the testimonies of the old man and the woman don’t seem right. The jurors consider the length of time that it takes for an elevated train to pass and how deafeningly loud such trains are. Eight wonders how the old man could have heard the kid yell, “I’ll kill you!” over the sound to the train. Three wonders why the old man would lie and Nine points out the quietness and poverty of the man. He says the man might have needed attention so badly that he would “make himself believe” something he didn’t know for certain. Nine says that he speaks from experience.