Ads Banner
Hot Best Seller

Twelve Angry Men

Availability: Ready to download

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 Menholds at its core a deeply patriotic faith in the U.S. legal system. The play centers on Juror Eight, who is at first 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.


Compare
Ads Banner

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 Menholds at its core a deeply patriotic faith in the U.S. legal system. The play centers on Juror Eight, who is at first 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.

30 review for Twelve Angry Men

  1. 5 out of 5

    Greta

    "Oh. Well... I just think he's guilty. I thought it was obvious." This is a passionate play about twelve jurors who must decide whether a boy who's charged with premeditated homicide of his father, is guilty or not. Only one member of the jury believes there's a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, and forces the other jurors to examine the evidence more thoroughly. The fierce argument that follows is a powerful warning against rash judgment and condemnation based on ignorance, "Oh. Well... I just think he's guilty. I thought it was obvious." This is a passionate play about twelve jurors who must decide whether a boy who's charged with premeditated homicide of his father, is guilty or not. Only one member of the jury believes there's a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, and forces the other jurors to examine the evidence more thoroughly. The fierce argument that follows is a powerful warning against rash judgment and condemnation based on ignorance, prejudice or casualness and a reminder of how one courageous person can make a difference by confronting other people's opinions.

  2. 4 out of 5

    Flannery

    You would think they would've forced us to watch Twelve Angry Men in law school, but they didn't. After reading the play and watching the movie a few weeks ago, I feel like every American should have to read Twelve Angry Men. The play centers on a jury deliberation. During several heated hours (literally and figuratively), twelve men discuss whether the verdict they come to will exonerate a young man for the murder of his father, or condemn him to a death sentence that the judge explained he had You would think they would've forced us to watch Twelve Angry Men in law school, but they didn't. After reading the play and watching the movie a few weeks ago, I feel like every American should have to read Twelve Angry Men. The play centers on a jury deliberation. During several heated hours (literally and figuratively), twelve men discuss whether the verdict they come to will exonerate a young man for the murder of his father, or condemn him to a death sentence that the judge explained he had no qualms about ordering, should the verdict be guilty. Each man plays his part, from strong prejudice to neutral to easily swayed to chaotic to apathetic. I found this play to be riveting and extremely frightening. (specifically because I cannot stop thinking about the fact that most juries probably do not have that voice of reason or pay such close attention to detail. There are so many scary aspects to both human nature and the jury process, not least of which is that juries often have the life and/or liberty of another human being in their hands) The jurors are given no names, so it can be a feat to try to follow along with an understanding of which character is which, however the overall discussions are the most important aspect of the play, and a reader can easily follow the feel of the room and see whose arguments are most persuasive. This play can be read in a mere hour or so and I recommend it to everyone, especially people who want to read more classics.

  3. 5 out of 5

    Carolina

    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!!

  4. 4 out of 5

    Jim

    This was an LA Theater Works edition. They did a really good job capturing the arguments, prejudices, & attitudes with voices that were easily distinguished. The story is fantastic, of course. The only issue I had with this was the laugh tracks. Honest, they had laugh tracks! There's not a damn thing funny about any of this. I'm not particularly PC or easily offended by inappropriate laughter, but the laughter jarred me badly. I'm taking 2 stars off for it. Yes, this was a 5 star audiobook This was an LA Theater Works edition. They did a really good job capturing the arguments, prejudices, & attitudes with voices that were easily distinguished. The story is fantastic, of course. The only issue I had with this was the laugh tracks. Honest, they had laugh tracks! There's not a damn thing funny about any of this. I'm not particularly PC or easily offended by inappropriate laughter, but the laughter jarred me badly. I'm taking 2 stars off for it. Yes, this was a 5 star audiobook without them. IMO, the best way this has ever been done is in the 1957 movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angr... with Henry Fonda, Jack Lemmon, & George Kennedy.

  5. 5 out of 5

    Jonathan Terrington

    The following will be a twelve thousand word dissertation on the seventy page long play by Reginald Rose. Or maybe not. Maybe I'll simply stick to reviewing. 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. The play itself covers the case of an apparently guilty boy claimed to have stabbed his father. The prosecution The following will be a twelve thousand word dissertation on the seventy page long play by Reginald Rose. Or maybe not. Maybe I'll simply stick to reviewing. 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. The play itself covers the case of an apparently guilty boy claimed to have stabbed his father. The prosecution appears to have condemned the boy effectively and the witness evidence appears sound to all jury members. That is all except for one juror alone who stands questioning whether the boy should be condemned so rashly. And gradually the true details of the case emerge under cross examination. Rose uses his play to analyse human prejudices effectively and in a highly intriguing manner. Like a surgeon he opens up the minds and hearts of his characters to reveal how their backgrounds and personal opinions influence their decisions. Its a brilliant exploration and analysis of prejudice really and makes you think. Are all the decisions we firmly make based on evidence or are they more emotional? The one reason I feel I cannot give this brilliant piece of work five stars is that a reader can easily be lost with who is who. Rose never names his characters instead referring to them as Juror 2, Juror 3 and so on. Which sounds alight until you find yourself trying to work out which Juror is on which side and what Juror is arguing what. However the manner in which Rose attempts to tackle an intriguing and difficult subject matter makes this text worth both a read and a viewing as a film (I recommend the Henry Fonda version rather than any other). So now comes to the all important question: why should you read this play? Well for starters it is short. You can easily read it in one sitting if you're a voracious reader. Secondly it contains brilliantly scripted dialogue and implied questions. Thirdly its an engaging text which is well written if not the most poetic play ever. Its simply well structured and to the point, the hallmarks of powerful writing. So I suggest that you read it and enjoy it. And if you don't well I have the last life since you read this review and wasted seconds off your life. Oh wait I wasted time writing this then...

  6. 4 out of 5

    Nat

    “Facts may be coloured by the personalities of the people who present them.”

  7. 4 out of 5

    Nasom

    I remember watching the movie in class and enjoyed it so much, so I just had to read the book! Honestly, this should be a compulsory read or watch for everyone in school Facts may be coloured by the personalities of the people who present them This is basically about 12 jurors who have to decide if a guy is guilty of committing murder, and if he's found guilty, he would die! At first, all but one (Juror 8) think he's guilty but as the story continues, they start picking apart the case. It's kind I remember watching the movie in class and enjoyed it so much, so I just had to read the book! Honestly, this should be a compulsory read or watch for everyone in school Facts may be coloured by the personalities of the people who present them This is basically about 12 jurors who have to decide if a guy is guilty of committing murder, and if he's found guilty, he would die! At first, all but one (Juror 8) think he's guilty but as the story continues, they start picking apart the case. It's kind of sad how relatable this book is in today's world even though the story was produced in the 50s. This books talks about the 'us' vs 'them' narrative where a few jurors think the guy is guilty because he's a 'them'. I see this alot, especially on social media where people attack each other because of their differences. Eg, men vs women, white vs black, religious vs non-religious, etc. If someone from one of these groups does something bad, people automatically think it's because they are a 'them'. This leads to jumping into conclusions instead of using critical thinking skills. That's why we now live in a 'cancel' culture where no one is trying to understand/reason, but are very eager to try and ruin someone's career/life (eg the Kevin Hart situation). If everyone was like Juror 8 who stopped to actually think critically about the case, the world would be a better place!

  8. 4 out of 5

    Connie G

    The twelve angry men in this play are members of a jury deliberating during a homicide trial. They must come to an unanimous decision of "guilty" or "not guilty" to prevent a hung jury. Their decision has serious consequences since a guilty charge will result in a death sentence. Eleven jurors are ready to make a snap decision of guilty and head home, but one dissenting juror has a reasonable doubt. He prompts the other jurors to examine the evidence more closely. The young man on trial is a The twelve angry men in this play are members of a jury deliberating during a homicide trial. They must come to an unanimous decision of "guilty" or "not guilty" to prevent a hung jury. Their decision has serious consequences since a guilty charge will result in a death sentence. Eleven jurors are ready to make a snap decision of guilty and head home, but one dissenting juror has a reasonable doubt. He prompts the other jurors to examine the evidence more closely. The young man on trial is a minority from a poor background who has a record of minor crimes. The jurors' prejudices and personal experiences influence their decisions of whether the man is guilty. The witnesses had also made assumptions that made their testimony unreliable. It also seemed that the defense attorney (probably court appointed) did less than a stellar job. Was there a reasonable doubt? I first saw this play about ten years ago with the actor Richard Thomas playing the lead role. It's a very powerful play when seen on stage. Recently I read this with a play-reading group, but it had less of an impact. The jurors are not named, but play the parts juror #1, #2, etc, so it's more difficult to think of them as distinct personalities. So I would recommend seeing this play on stage or watching the movie. In the present political climate, this drama is especially meaningful.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Liz Janet

    First of all, go and watch the film version of this with Henry Fonda, as it is one of the greatest films of all time. I have yet to meet one person that did not like nor appreciate the importance of that film. “There were eleven votes for “guilty.” It’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” This short play follows a jury, as they try to pass a verdict on a homicide case. Juror 8 believes there is reasonable doubt while all the other men have First of all, go and watch the film version of this with Henry Fonda, as it is one of the greatest films of all time. I have yet to meet one person that did not like nor appreciate the importance of that film. “There were eleven votes for “guilty.” It’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” This short play follows a jury, as they try to pass a verdict on a homicide case. Juror 8 believes there is reasonable doubt while all the other men have ridiculous reasons to simply pass the guilty verdict, from needing to get to a baseball game, to racism, to the relationship between a juror and his own son. Juror 8 is in an struggle, trying to convince all other eleven to leave their prejudices and biases separate from the case, as the life of a sixteen-year old is at stake. In the end we are left to wonder if the decision made was the correct one, but at least all points of the case were looked at rather than simply glossed over. “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.”

  10. 4 out of 5

    Becky

    I love this. It's so brilliant in so many ways. 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. It's interesting to me now how that tells me as much about myself as it does about the characters. Back then, I thought that Juror 3 was a mean man, almost evil, and that he just wanted the defendant to die I love this. It's so brilliant in so many ways. 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. It's interesting to me now how that tells me as much about myself as it does about the characters. Back then, I thought that Juror 3 was a mean man, almost evil, and that he just wanted the defendant to die to make himself feel powerful. Now, I don't necessarily disagree with my younger self... but I do think that there's more nuance there than just being mean and wanting control. I love how, in himself, he displays all of the negativity that he is condemning the defendant for. But he's so blinded by his anger that he can't see it. 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. I think it's that way in all things, though. We see what we want to see, and some of us never move past that. The thing I love about this book is that the jurors do grow and get past it... at least in this instance. I don't know if they were right to do so - we never learn whether the kid was guilty or not. But that's also the way of things. Once a jury votes, there's no scorecard that tells them whether they got it right or not. They just have to live with their conscience about it, and trust they examined the case as best as they could and made the best decision possible.

  11. 4 out of 5

    notgettingenough

    I made some comments about this play in my review of The Affair As an afterthought, I think it is worth mentioning something about the maleness of both. Females are involved in none of the overt process of decision making in either work. Nonetheless, there is a striking difference between them. Twelve Angry Men is just that. But The Affair has a strong female presence. The men who have wives are highly influenced by them. It is the women who impel the men to action and it is the women who want I made some comments about this play in my review of The Affair As an afterthought, I think it is worth mentioning something about the maleness of both. Females are involved in none of the overt process of decision making in either work. Nonetheless, there is a striking difference between them. Twelve Angry Men is just that. But The Affair has a strong female presence. The men who have wives are highly influenced by them. It is the women who impel the men to action and it is the women who want justice at any cost. Behind the throne, yes, but more or less in control of it. It would be nice to think that this reflected well upon male academics, but I somehow doubt it's the case. I guess Twelve Angry Men had to be called that. Twelve Angry People or An Angry Gender-balanced Jury or An Angry Jury of people representing the entire spectrum of sexuality doesn't really work - I hope I'm not just being old-fashioned in saying that. Please don't ban me from your university. Still, I don't think I really noticed the maleness of Twelve Angry Men despite the way it was blatantly put forward to me in the title before I'd even bought the tickets, until I watched Amy Schumer's take on it. These are just two excepts from it and really worth watching. Wonderful cast led by Jeff Goldblum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOuHb... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96LgR...

  12. 5 out of 5

    Jazzy Lemon

    I've read this a few times before and seen the film. This is one of those books everyone should read.

  13. 5 out of 5

    Doreen Petersen

    Excellent book and it was an excellent movie as well! A definite must read!

  14. 5 out of 5

    Amanda

    I was very excited about reading "Twelve Angry Men." I've seen the film, so when I saw that the play was a choice for class reading, I couldn't wait to read it. My immediate response to the text was that I couldn't put it down. I was compelled by the 8th Juror's arguments and by figuring out each individual's demeanor and attitude, I loved discovering more and more about each character as I read about their interaction with other characters. As I continue reading, I'm not only motivated by the I was very excited about reading "Twelve Angry Men." I've seen the film, so when I saw that the play was a choice for class reading, I couldn't wait to read it. My immediate response to the text was that I couldn't put it down. I was compelled by the 8th Juror's arguments and by figuring out each individual's demeanor and attitude, I loved discovering more and more about each character as I read about their interaction with other characters. As I continue reading, I'm not only motivated by the ultimate ending and whether or not the boy is convicted, but also by the human relationships. Each argument made by Juror 8 both reveals a hole in the "evidence" and a bit about the other jurors. When personal issues aren't supposed to be a part of the judicial system, the reader sees that they can clearly play a role whether the juror knows it or not. I loved this text not only because of it's content in relation to prejudgment of others, but also because it is such a study of human relationships. To me, the play is more about the relationship and interaction between the characters than it is about the eventual outcome. It's a text about relationships that happens to be set in a jury room. Because of this, it's easy to map the text onto another situation as well as relate it to real life. Although the setting provides the catalyst for the interaction, it's possible to find a Juror 8 or Juror 10 or Juror 3 in another text. "Twelve Angry Men" provides an opportunity to discuss both prejudgment and peer pressure. Although 11 of the jurors think that they are convinced, it only takes one to question the evidence and present a sound argument to reaveal to the others that maybe they aren't so sure. It only takes one person to stand up for themselves to completely change a group. This text also provides a good way to reference other classes and world events. It can be a segway into the judicial system or the reality of those who are falsely accused and convicted. I imagine that the students will respond emotionally. With 12 characters, the students may sympathize with one over the other. I also think that students' personal experiences will play into their interpretation because the text itself is so personal. Questions: At the bottom of this study of human relationships is also a window into the injustices within the justice system. Although the play is set in 1957, do we still see it same prejudices and clouded judgment in today's society? What about the Scott Petersen or O.J. Simpson trial? What if a different juror had raised the questions that were raised by Juror 8? Would they have reacted the same way to Juror 10's attitude? What do you think would have been the ending?

  15. 5 out of 5

    Troy Blackford

    WOW! What a play! This was amazing stuff. Though you can sense it is getting up there in years, it doesn't seem nearly as dated as many of the things of its era. I had heard of this my whole life but never really known much about it. It didn't take long to realize that I was dealing with a major work of incredible power. Heavily recommended.

  16. 5 out of 5

    Horace Derwent

    no doubt a typical example of what a muthafakking best of the best muthafakkers is still be in one century for sure

  17. 5 out of 5

    Megan

    A classic that lives up to its reputation. I'm not going to do a plot summary because really, most people don't need it. It's ubiquitous for American Poli-Sci teachers to throw this bad boy on the screen, right? At least it was around where I grew up. I'm pretty sure I watched it multiple times throughout junior high and high school. I understand why. The play retains its weight and clarity despite the decades that have passed, which indicates to me that something very powerful was communicated A classic that lives up to its reputation. I'm not going to do a plot summary because really, most people don't need it. It's ubiquitous for American Poli-Sci teachers to throw this bad boy on the screen, right? At least it was around where I grew up. I'm pretty sure I watched it multiple times throughout junior high and high school. I understand why. The play retains its weight and clarity despite the decades that have passed, which indicates to me that something very powerful was communicated about the judicial system and the way human beings interact with it as jurors. I can say for a fact that I think about this play nearly synonymously with jury duty because of my exposure to it early on in life, and because of that exposure, I'm less inclined to try to circumvent any call to serve that I may receive. This on its own is high praise, in my mind. Characterization was impressive. There are novels with half as many characters, all named, that I had a more difficult time keeping track of than these twelve unnamed men. Even with very little stage direction, I got a good sense for the speech patterns and ideologies of the men, and even gleaned some rough info about their backgrounds (this was obviously easier for a few of the key jurors, particularly the jurors from different backgrounds than the others, such as juror 11 (a German-European immigrant) or juror 5 (raised in a neighborhood similar to that of the defendant). The biggest flaw of the play is that it was written during a time when women or ethnic minorities were not equally represented on the jury panel, and therefore this portion of the play is inconsistent with reality. I've seen arguments about when exactly women were "allowed" the right to serve, but all the information I read suggested that in practice very few were permitted to make it onto a panel for one reason or another until decades later. I imagine this is the same for ethnic minorities, particularly black Americans. Obviously any text that doesn't take into account the complexities of ethnicity and gender and the intersection of the two while discussing a legal case against a person of color (as the text alluded to obliquely on multiple occasions) suffers for that, though as the novel is a product of its times, it's difficult to truly "censure" it in this regard. However, it did keep me from providing the full five stars because ultimately, regardless of when it was written, it could have been more and it was prevented (whether externally or internally) from being so.

  18. 5 out of 5

    Radwa

    "It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone" When I like a book, I can give it 5 stars without a single word, but this one is different. What can I call it? it's "us" the people we meet every day and how they think, act and feel. You may see them act as if they know the whole truth about anything. They may feel they're unwanted or unimportant. And they get excited sometimes and they want to take revenge on a wrong person. But at the end, they admit their guilt.

  19. 5 out of 5

    Ellen

    Excellent play. It's amazing to me that the whole thing takes place in one room. Content: some language 2019 challenge: a book that takes place in a single day

  20. 5 out of 5

    Jenny

    Amazing. Never having seen the play, I picked this up as a "Book You Can Read in a Day" and read it in a little over an hour. There is so much packed into so few words. I loved it.

  21. 5 out of 5

    Tammy

    Interesting and thoughtful read!

  22. 5 out of 5

    Gizem-in-Wonderland

    Guilty or not guilty? That's the question. A 16-year-old boy charged with patricide. A jury trying to reach a verdict: Guilty or not guilty? If all 12 jurors find him guilty, he will be executed. A difficult task awaits. I remember going to the theatre to see the play many years ago and I was quite affected by it. It completely shattered my belief in justice system and made me realize what a fragile thing it is to decide whether someone is guilty of a crime or not. In this script, we watch as the Guilty or not guilty? That's the question. A 16-year-old boy charged with patricide. A jury trying to reach a verdict: Guilty or not guilty? If all 12 jurors find him guilty, he will be executed. A difficult task awaits. I remember going to the theatre to see the play many years ago and I was quite affected by it. It completely shattered my belief in justice system and made me realize what a fragile thing it is to decide whether someone is guilty of a crime or not. In this script, we watch as the jurors from completely different walks of life argue their points and try to reach a decision. A boy's life is at their fingertips and two words that will come out of their month will change a life. Some of them know very well the burden they carry, but others just care about the ball game they will miss by wasting their time in there and just rush to make a decision. This short dramatic play is so intense that you feel your insides churn as you read. Loved it, hated it, definitely recommend it.

  23. 5 out of 5

    Amy

    I just so enjoyed this short and powerful play! Why did I read it today? Of course - its my middle son's 8th grade English assignment. They are going to act it out in class. Although he/they have only finished Act One, I gotta tell you, I thought this was the perfect read for him. He will learn something about how to deep consider something before you make what feels like an easy clear cut decision. He will learn to listen, and think, and not be persuaded by others. One man, Juror #8, starts off I just so enjoyed this short and powerful play! Why did I read it today? Of course - its my middle son's 8th grade English assignment. They are going to act it out in class. Although he/they have only finished Act One, I gotta tell you, I thought this was the perfect read for him. He will learn something about how to deep consider something before you make what feels like an easy clear cut decision. He will learn to listen, and think, and not be persuaded by others. One man, Juror #8, starts off a chain of thought - what if we were making a mistake, and someone's life is on the line. A powerful work, not easily forgotten. Justice and reasonable doubt in its purest form, finally had its day in court! Nice to visit a classic I had never read. And I really enjoyed it. Deep, thoughtful, and funny in a way. Character portrait in a brief snapshot. Loved it!

  24. 5 out of 5

    DanielC_C1

    This is a very short book. In fact, I think this isn't a book. It's a script. But this one wasn't disappointing like Harry Potter 8, with a dragging story and almost no point of dialog or movement, this one cut straight to the point. Just 12 people, a jury, to have a talk over whether a boy lives or not. The fact that the author could make all the evidence to convict the boy icebergs is incredible. On first sight you think the boy is definitely a murderer, but dig deeper and you realize, there's This is a very short book. In fact, I think this isn't a book. It's a script. But this one wasn't disappointing like Harry Potter 8, with a dragging story and almost no point of dialog or movement, this one cut straight to the point. Just 12 people, a jury, to have a talk over whether a boy lives or not. The fact that the author could make all the evidence to convict the boy icebergs is incredible. On first sight you think the boy is definitely a murderer, but dig deeper and you realize, there's a lot more to the case than you think. Which I'm not going to mention here because spoilers. Hey, if you like the book, check it out yourself. It's on the SAS online library. And I definitely recommend using one of your 5 checkouts for this book.

  25. 4 out of 5

    Lilyan

    Interesting. I read this play as I'm considering taking part in the production and I really enjoyed it. In the 12 angry men, you see all the different types of people. You have juror 8, who stood against all the others, did not give in to peer pressure and stood his ground. On the other hand of the spectrum, we have juror 3, a bitter, stubborn and biased man. The play has a very strong message. It's so easy to condemn and judge someone from the safety of our comfortable jury rooms/homes/offices. Interesting. I read this play as I'm considering taking part in the production and I really enjoyed it. In the 12 angry men, you see all the different types of people. You have juror 8, who stood against all the others, did not give in to peer pressure and stood his ground. On the other hand of the spectrum, we have juror 3, a bitter, stubborn and biased man. The play has a very strong message. It's so easy to condemn and judge someone from the safety of our comfortable jury rooms/homes/offices. We're so quick to say "Guilty" with just a few weak evidences because it's the simple easy way out. Especially when subjected to the pressure of society. If society condemns something, then why should we fight it? Most of the jurors in the room where not sure about guilty. However, they raised their hands anyway when they saw that others where doing the same. I like juror 8. He swam against the current even under threat of drowning and ended up creating his own current. Down with the System!

  26. 5 out of 5

    Nadja

    An important play - today more than ever. "A powerful warning against rash judgment and condemnation based on ignorance, prejudice or casualness and a reminder of how one courageous person can make a difference by confronting other people's opinions." (from Greta's review) In the end we know as much as the jury which drives me crazy but is brilliant. Around the Year Challenge 2018: A legal thriller.

  27. 4 out of 5

    BrokenTune

    Review posted on BookLikes: http://brokentune.booklikes.com/post/...

  28. 4 out of 5

    Kristen

    This play was a fun way to wrap-up my school year with my sophomores. It’s instantly engaging, fast, interesting, and gets straight to the chase. I can’t believe I never read this sooner! Juror Eight’s vigilance for what is just and right and his care for due diligence makes him a fantastic hero and protagonist. His attention to detail and grasp on everyone in the juror’s room is captivating. I absolutely understand why he’s in the top heroes for the AFI list. Imagine if he was a juror for This play was a fun way to wrap-up my school year with my sophomores. It’s instantly engaging, fast, interesting, and gets straight to the chase. I can’t believe I never read this sooner! Juror Eight’s vigilance for what is just and right and his care for due diligence makes him a fantastic hero and protagonist. His attention to detail and grasp on everyone in the juror’s room is captivating. I absolutely understand why he’s in the top heroes for the AFI list. Imagine if he was a juror for Atticus Finch! Alas… We watched the Henry Fonda movie as a class after we read the play…and I gotta say, I so much preferred reading it with my students than watching it! My students are no professional actors by any means, but the high stakes and drama was intense and more heavily felt in the classroom reading (for me) than in the movie. No dogs bark 🔇🐶, but it is a play that all takes place in a juror’s room…so that’s fair. I do need to say…there’s an awful LOT of stabbing of inanimate objects. I’m not mad about violence, but WHY are people stabbing tables and walls willy-nilly‽ And why is everyone so fucking chill about it? I know it makes for high drama, but uh…maybe be a bit wary of people in the room who stab a table to make a point? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ just a thought.

  29. 4 out of 5

    Brad

    Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men is, by itself, a five star play. I have yet to hear or see a bad version of it performed. And this version by LA Theatre Works doesn't disappoint. The casting is strong, the performances are convincing, and the soundscape created by the stage effects and the audience watching the show is excellent. Moreover, there is a fantastic interview with Rose's widow, Ellen McLaughlin, who offers fascinating insights into Rose's creative process and how Twelve Angry Men Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men is, by itself, a five star play. I have yet to hear or see a bad version of it performed. And this version by LA Theatre Works doesn't disappoint. The casting is strong, the performances are convincing, and the soundscape created by the stage effects and the audience watching the show is excellent. Moreover, there is a fantastic interview with Rose's widow, Ellen McLaughlin, who offers fascinating insights into Rose's creative process and how Twelve Angry Men came to be. But this isn't Henry Fonda playing Juror 8, nor is it live on stage by whatever group of ambitious amateurs happen to have brought it to your city. It is all sound. And while that's not in any way bad, it does lack that little spark of seeing performers physically taking on the roles ... and that little spark cost the LA Theatre Works audio version one star from me. Sorry Q! Don't send me to the ends of space and time for my heresy.

  30. 4 out of 5

    Kristina Rasmussen

    This was really cool. I’ve never read a play before. I was a little worried when I saw that it had no chapters. Sometimes that makes a book drag on for me. But this didn’t drag at all. Very interesting to see the different types of people and how they interact. I also really liked how the concept of prejudice was presented and handled.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.