Twelve Angry Men Exam Notes

[brenden]

Hey guys. I'm actually not tutoring any 12AM students this year so I figured I may as well just upload all of my resources into this thread over the next few days. I'll put up essays and stuff like that, so keep checking back.

The file I'm putting up tonight is basically 20+ pages of the annotations I made when I was in Year 12. Keep in mind this was March 2012, well before the exam, so not everything in here is correct or anything like that - I had a lot of practice left to do (that being said, I did make some minor changes in 2013 to make sure not everything was horrible). I do think it will be really really helpful to a lot of people though, so if you're writing on Twelve Angry Men on the exam or considering it, please download and make use of them

The file "TAM essay" is a random essay on my computer. By the looks of things I wrote it really early on, possibly for SAC preparation. It isn't intended as an example of a high-scoring essay - it's just up here for ideas and quotes and stuff.

The file "20 out of 20..." is an essay re-written from memory of my exam script. I ordered an inspection of scripts after my exams and, whilst you're not allowed to photocopy it or anything like that, there's nothing stopping you from remembering it word for word and producing it later . It has many mistakes in it, most of which were made in the exam, some of which might have been made from lazy typing. Either way, this is probably like... 95% correct to exactly what was written in my exam (incorrect quotes included).

The file "Section A Intro Structure" is just a really quick, basic structure I typed up before a text response lesson this year. It's not intended as teaching material - I type it up to have a reference for students to look at as I taught them verbally. Regardless, it might be interesting to different structures to what you've been taught and stuff.

[Anchy]

Thank you!

[brenden]

Thank you!

Thanks for these, so much detail.

You're welcome!!

[Camo15]

Thanks for these, so much detail.

[auds]

This is so helpful, thank you so much!

[metalfingers]

thanks a lot for these, i look forward to the rest of your resources

[brenden]

You're welcome guys!

Added some other random stuff. Tried to upload some essays by PDF but files are too large, so that's annoying. Don't think there's anything on the desktop that I haven't uploaded, will check the laptop later.

[myanacondadont]

That's some high quality stuff! Thankyou!

[brenden]

Also, if you wanted to discuss Twelve Angry Men with each other/myself, feel free to do it here, I'll do my best to answer all 12AM questions directed at me

[Jason12]

would you say juror 8 is definitely on the boy's side (as he goes out to buy the knife) or is he just trying to give him the fairest trial he can?

[brenden]

would you say juror 8 is definitely on the boy's side (as he goes out to buy the knife) or is he just trying to give him the fairest trial he can?

As in, does J8 believe he's innocent?

[Jason12]

As in, does J8 believe he's innocent?

yes

[brenden]

That's probably one of the bigger questions I thought about but I ultimately believe J8 was just doing his job. He explains to the jurors that some things just didn't add up and there were certain things he would have liked asked but the defence attorney was too stupid. I believe J8's experience in court was definitely enough for him to start asking firm, pertinent questions within the jury room without the belief the boy is innocent. Further, even if you wanted to say he is untrustworthy in his dialogue because of his manipulation, can stage direction be untrustworthy? In the wash room and at the play's denouement J8 has a moment of self reflection that was written purely to demonstrate that he was unconcinced of the boy's innocence. Those are what seal it for me. 

[soNasty]

Hi all,

Am i able to quote words used in the blurb of the book? Such as: The 'ambiguous' prosecution evidence, and the 'ingenious revers[al]' of attitudes towards the 'young delinquent' on trial.

Also, I really enjoy trying to tear apart words/quotes in the play to portray the 3rd juror in a positive light. Where juror 10 announces that he, juror 3, and juror 4 should 'just quit', juror 3 responds by overtly questioning his intentions, and alludes to the 'oath' juror 10 swore by in court. Furthermore, juror 3 asserts that juror 10 might as well vote 'not guilty' than deliberate 'dishonest[ly]'.

Could this signify that not only does juror 3 have an emotional attachment to the case, but also an unforeseen loyalty to decide upon a verdict? The stark xenophobic attitudes of juror 10 have caused him to dismiss the case's entirety, as he is repelled by the boys socio-economic background, asseverating that he does not wish to 'break [his] brains over scum like that'. In doing so, Rose portrays that the 3rd juror values honesty, above and beyond the bigoted juror's attempt to alter the case in accordance to his prejudicial beliefs.

Is that even right?
How would I conclude that to holistically mention Rose's intended message?

THANKS

[brenden]

Am i able to quote words used in the blurb of the book? Such as: The 'ambiguous' prosecution evidence, and the 'ingenious revers[al]' of attitudes towards the 'young delinquent' on trial.

Well, you could if you wanted to, but it wouldn't do anything for you, as those quotes wouldn't be hitting the criteria (so, you probably shouldn't bother).

Also, I really enjoy trying to tear apart words/quotes in the play to portray the 3rd juror in a positive light. Where juror 10 announces that he, juror 3, and juror 4 should 'just quit', juror 3 responds by overtly questioning his intentions, and alludes to the 'oath' juror 10 swore by in court. Furthermore, juror 3 asserts that juror 10 might as well vote 'not guilty' than deliberate 'dishonest[ly]'.

Could this signify that not only does juror 3 have an emotional attachment to the case, but also an unforeseen loyalty to decide upon a verdict? The stark xenophobic attitudes of juror 10 have caused him to dismiss the case's entirety, as he is repelled by the boys socio-economic background, asseverating that he does not wish to 'break [his] brains over scum like that'. In doing so, Rose portrays that the 3rd juror values honesty, above and beyond the bigoted juror's attempt to alter the case in accordance to his prejudicial beliefs.

Is that even right?
How would I conclude that to holistically mention Rose's intended message?

You could definitely make an argument that Third Juror isn't portrayed in a completely negative light! I wouldn't go as far as to say he's portrayed positively (I know you're not saying this but it really needs to be stressed lol) - but you could definitely say that evidences Third Juror's value of honesty. If you were talking about how Third Juror is portrayed as a stereotype of masculinity, you could even use the idea of forthright honesty to back you up. Further, you could even use it to reinforce how invested he is in the case - he doesn't only want the boy killed, he wants him found guilty, because thats better reconciles his belief that his son is at fault.

As to how you'd conclude it mentioning Rose's intended message - well, it would depend upon what you were saying Rose's message was, so it's hard for me to help you on that one without some more information