TWELVE ANGRY MEN

[Zebra]

someone must be planning to write on this play right....

so can we get a discussion going.

"Who was the strongest character in 12 Angry Men, and why?"

[Zebra]

buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuump... someone must be doing this play.... right?

[xdecay]

i'm doing this play - honestly i would say it's the 8th juror (due to generic reasons) but to mix things up a bit i would also say the 10th because he stayed with his beliefs until the end where he fully understands that he will lose which is the only reason why he gave up. i believe his determination made him strong, although he was prejudiced in many ways. i haven't been studying this for the exam (focused on my other text) so this is all i can say.

[Zebra]

so you wouldn't even talk about the third?

okay... that's interesting. Do you mind outlining your essay structure?

[riceiscow]

I am focusing on Twelve Angry Men for the exam and I think Juror 4 is the strongest. He is the only one that remains emotionally uninvolved, almost unhuman. He doesn't sweat like the others until his memory is proved to be fallible - a human trait.

My essays for Twelve Angry Men always follow the same structure, each paragraph is based around a separate juror or a couple of jurors. As a play is driven by the characters, the themes are embodied by the characters and i have had huge trouble structuring my essays any other way.

[Zebra]

I am focusing on Twelve Angry Men for the exam and I think Juror 4 is the strongest. He is the only one that remains emotionally uninvolved, almost unhuman. He doesn't sweat like the others until his memory is proved to be fallible - a human trait.

My essays for Twelve Angry Men always follow the same structure, each paragraph is based around a separate juror or a couple of jurors. As a play is driven by the characters, the themes are embodied by the characters and i have had huge trouble structuring my essays any other way.

so you essay is heavily character based? no structure discussed?

[jane1234]

I am focusing on Twelve Angry Men for the exam and I think Juror 4 is the strongest. He is the only one that remains emotionally uninvolved, almost unhuman. He doesn't sweat like the others until his memory is proved to be fallible - a human trait.

My essays for Twelve Angry Men always follow the same structure, each paragraph is based around a separate juror or a couple of jurors. As a play is driven by the characters, the themes are embodied by the characters and i have had huge trouble structuring my essays any other way.

We were given advice from a VCAA assessor and this is what they said not to do. A play has so many more elements than characters, and TR essays should show how characterisation is USED to support your argument, rather than using characters to answer the question. Personally, I always try and have at least one paragraph that goes into detail about historical/social context as well as one paragraph dedicated to dramatic elements/stage directions/structural features, obviously using characters to support if needed. This shows depth of knowledge, something that cannot be achieved through knowledge of characters alone. I would only have one paragraph dedicated to a single juror (and even then, include some of the other stuff as well) and maybe one looking at the relationships between jurors.

^ This would be in response to a thematic question. "How does..." questions should have more than one paragraph on structural feature; they should be weaved throughout the whole essay.

That said, I do like your first point about the 4th juror...

[Zebra]

I am focusing on Twelve Angry Men for the exam and I think Juror 4 is the strongest. He is the only one that remains emotionally uninvolved, almost unhuman. He doesn't sweat like the others until his memory is proved to be fallible - a human trait.

My essays for Twelve Angry Men always follow the same structure, each paragraph is based around a separate juror or a couple of jurors. As a play is driven by the characters, the themes are embodied by the characters and i have had huge trouble structuring my essays any other way.

We were given advice from a VCAA assessor and this is what they said not to do. A play has so many more elements than characters, and TR essays should show how characterisation is USED to support your argument, rather than using characters to answer the question. Personally, I always try and have at least one paragraph that goes into detail about historical/social context as well as one paragraph dedicated to dramatic elements/stage directions/structural features, obviously using characters to support if needed. This shows depth of knowledge, something that cannot be achieved through knowledge of characters alone. I would only have one paragraph dedicated to a single juror (and even then, include some of the other stuff as well) and maybe one looking at the relationships between jurors.

^ This would be in response to a thematic question. "How does..." questions should have more than one paragraph on structural feature; they should be weaved throughout the whole essay.

That said, I do like your first point about the 4th juror...

so what structure do you discuss?

[jane1234]

I am focusing on Twelve Angry Men for the exam and I think Juror 4 is the strongest. He is the only one that remains emotionally uninvolved, almost unhuman. He doesn't sweat like the others until his memory is proved to be fallible - a human trait.

My essays for Twelve Angry Men always follow the same structure, each paragraph is based around a separate juror or a couple of jurors. As a play is driven by the characters, the themes are embodied by the characters and i have had huge trouble structuring my essays any other way.

We were given advice from a VCAA assessor and this is what they said not to do. A play has so many more elements than characters, and TR essays should show how characterisation is USED to support your argument, rather than using characters to answer the question. Personally, I always try and have at least one paragraph that goes into detail about historical/social context as well as one paragraph dedicated to dramatic elements/stage directions/structural features, obviously using characters to support if needed. This shows depth of knowledge, something that cannot be achieved through knowledge of characters alone. I would only have one paragraph dedicated to a single juror (and even then, include some of the other stuff as well) and maybe one looking at the relationships between jurors.

^ This would be in response to a thematic question. "How does..." questions should have more than one paragraph on structural feature; they should be weaved throughout the whole essay.

That said, I do like your first point about the 4th juror...

so what structure do you discuss?

Stage directions and their implications to the wider text, dialogues, repetition of words and other language features, structure of acts (and lack of scenes), the fact that the jurors aren't named, the setting and props... etc. Look in a study guide you should find a fair bit on this. But these are the things that will get you marks, because most people will focus on the story/characters.

[Zebra]

I agree. But, do you mind elaborating on the significance of the structures you've mentioned?
for example, the nameless jurors....

I'd say that this makes the play universal because they represent a cross-section of society right? But, I'm not sure how this contributes in conveying Rose's intention?

Also, do you guys think Rose is validating or condemning the judicial system? I personally think he is condemning it.

[xdecay]

we've discussed this in class - Rose's intention can be said as to convey the lack of power in prejudice. those who are prejudiced lose in the end. that's pretty much i can say now, i haven't touched this text for so long. sorry.

[Cinnah]

I am focusing on Twelve Angry Men for the exam and I think Juror 4 is the strongest. He is the only one that remains emotionally uninvolved, almost unhuman. He doesn't sweat like the others until his memory is proved to be fallible - a human trait.

My essays for Twelve Angry Men always follow the same structure, each paragraph is based around a separate juror or a couple of jurors. As a play is driven by the characters, the themes are embodied by the characters and i have had huge trouble structuring my essays any other way.

From what I've studied and been told, there are only two possibilities for the question to fall under - and there IS overlap in these:

1. Characterisation Themes (usually argumentative)
eg; which character is more important, the jurors have more significance than the boy on trial, the most significant vote
2. Rose's views, values, and intended Themes (usually discussion)
eg; prejudice and bigotry, personal grievances clouding truth, justice, societal flaws

However, it could also be a blend, as things are rarely 'simple'. Something more like:
"The jurors in Twelve Angry Men conclude that justice is truly unattainable",
however, it could be completely different. We just need to know the text enough to pick up anything and support it.

Pre-preparing essays might help, but will probably just skew our responses.
Prep essays are more for comfort with writing time and ability to respond to a topic, not so much word for word revision.

The question will most likely not directly ask about authorial choices, for example
'WHY DID ROSE WRITE A PLAY AND NOT A PICTURE BOOK?'
but more like
'Twelve Angry Men says more with the stage direction and character physicality than with the dialogue. Discuss'


Everyone should mostly have a different writing style and interpretation of the text at this point, and the beauty with English is that it's pretty much malleable, as long as we support our contentions. Responding to the topic is what we need to do.
This is not a chance to be obscure and experimental, we need solid writing and evidence to get good marks.

We should always mention that it is a play, that the characters (and what they say) are constructs that Rose has built to talk to the audience, no matter what the topic is. Also the historical context, but we can't let that distract us from the 'meat' of the text - like all things, add more depending how relevant it is.


IN SHORT:
If the question asks which Juror is strongest, you SAY which juror is strongest.
And then you say why.

[riceiscow]

I am focusing on Twelve Angry Men for the exam and I think Juror 4 is the strongest. He is the only one that remains emotionally uninvolved, almost unhuman. He doesn't sweat like the others until his memory is proved to be fallible - a human trait.

My essays for Twelve Angry Men always follow the same structure, each paragraph is based around a separate juror or a couple of jurors. As a play is driven by the characters, the themes are embodied by the characters and i have had huge trouble structuring my essays any other way.

We were given advice from a VCAA assessor and this is what they said not to do. A play has so many more elements than characters, and TR essays should show how characterisation is USED to support your argument, rather than using characters to answer the question. Personally, I always try and have at least one paragraph that goes into detail about historical/social context as well as one paragraph dedicated to dramatic elements/stage directions/structural features, obviously using characters to support if needed. This shows depth of knowledge, something that cannot be achieved through knowledge of characters alone. I would only have one paragraph dedicated to a single juror (and even then, include some of the other stuff as well) and maybe one looking at the relationships between jurors.

^ This would be in response to a thematic question. "How does..." questions should have more than one paragraph on structural feature; they should be weaved throughout the whole essay.

That said, I do like your first point about the 4th juror...

Well what I do is base each paragraph around a juror as evidence to support the use of symbols, themes and stage directions etc. As the jurors are the real 'meat' of the play, they act as vehicles to discuss everything else.
So although I build my essays around the jurors, I do put everything else that is relevant in there with it too. I just like to have an essay that flows (e.g. from juror to juror) and not from a juror or two, then to stage directions, then to themes and then to symbols or something like that.

[xXjAmEZXx]

the guy who played johnny friendly, because he runs the mob on the waterfront, but is also acting as a juror.

[Zebra]

hey guys how would you approach this topic?

in what ways does the eighth juror persuade the others?