This essay sample essay on Twelve Angry Men Author offers an extensive list of facts and arguments related to it. The essay’s introduction, body paragraphs and the conclusion are provided below.
Throughout the play Twelve Angry Men, the author Reginald Rose uses multiple dramatic techniques to establish and maintain a sense of tension. In this essay, I will analyze these techniques and suggest how they make the storyline so effective. Reginald Rose bases all of the tension and suspense around the social and historical context of the era.
At the time, Americans are concerned with the huge influx of immigrants and there is a great deal of racial tension between Juror 11 and the other jurors.
Each separate juror has their own background, personality and morals and inside the jury room we see how they react to each other and the dynamics of the group. On the face of it, the case put forward to them seems clear cut, but the arguments which evolve from the individual differences between each juror completely change the final outcome.
Although a plot which is set in one singly location throughout its duration seems dull, Rose has used a small but particular set of techniques to mould Twelve Angry Men into the play it is and eventually produce one of the most thrilling pieces of literature of the past century.
Why Did Juror 11 Change His Vote
These techniques include: the set, the weather outside, stage directions, contrasts of changes in mood and tone, gesture, conflicts and alliances between jurors and the backgrounds of each juror.
![](https://paperap.com/wp-content/themes/theme/img-rh/star.svg")
4.7 (657)
“ Really polite, and a great writer! Task done as described and better, responded to all my questions promptly too! ”
All of these are used at least once to demonstrate the atmosphere and growing tension inside the jury room. The play opens to an empty stage with the judge issuing his final orders to the jury. They must deliberate ‘honestly and thoughtfully’ but also with a ‘good conscience’.
The ruthlessness of the situation is immediately made clear when the judge reveals that ‘the death sentence is mandatory in this case’ and that ‘the bench will not entertain a recommendation for mercy’. Rose has implemented tension almost immediately and this proves to have a great effect on the audience. The brief pause which follows indicates the jurors have suddenly realised the severity of the situation which they now find themselves in. The words ‘I don’t envy your job’ are another indication of this. Rose has very deliberately done this as if to emphasise the words of the judge.
With nothing else happening on stage, the audience will take in and understand his words as if they were the jurors themselves. Then tension has already been transferred from the stage to the audience – a technique that brings a sense of realism to the play. The audience are suddenly feeling the tension and grave responsibility resting on the shoulders of the jurors. Juror 7 – who seems to be the least concerned about the case in hand and more worried about a baseball match he is meant to be attending – begins to diffuse this tension by offering a fellow juror a stick of gum.
This signifies the contrasting attitudes towards the case inside the room and as far as an opening line goes, it suggests that the rest of the play may take a more laid back attitude. So within two pages, we have already experienced two twists that Rose has intentionally used to generate a sense of tension and uncertainty. Throughout Act One, Juror 8 emerges as the stand out character in the play. His arguments and disagreements with Juror 3 become a focus of not just the Act but the play as well.
And as Juror 8 begins to persuade more of the other jurors that the boy on trial may be innocent, Juror 3 struggles to hide his frustration until tensions boil over at the end of the Act. Juror 3 has unintentionally divulged that he has a son similar to the boy on trial. He says: ‘I’ve got one (a son). He’s twenty. We did everything for that boy and what happened? When he was nine he ran away from a fight. Well, I made a man outa him all right. When he was sixteen we had a battle. He hit me in the face. He’s big, y’know. You work your heart out’.
This is a vital moment in the play. Suddenly, the whole background of one of the jurors is clouding the discussions which are taking place. Juror 3 envies his son and seems determined to take revenge on the boy on trial – who he views as a similar boy to his son. The tension built up by this is intense and reflects on the other jurors. A spat between Jurors 10 and 5 breaks out as a result of the growing tension inside the room. And as Act One draws to a close, Rose demonstrates that tension is rising to the point of brinkmanship. Juror 3 rants: ‘Shut up, you son of a bitch!
Let go of me, God damn it! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him’. Juror 8 pounces and says: ‘You don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you? ‘ The tension here is considerably higher than the rest of the play. A clear rivalry had broken out between two of the jurors and their fierce arguments take centre stage. Rose is using conflicts between jurors as a key technique in creating tension in the play. Act Two begins almost oppositely to how the proceeding Act ended. The other Jurors are trying to diffuse the tension in the air, and Juror 12 sheepishly kicks-off discussions again.
Jurors 3 and 8 seem to disappear into the background after the climax in tension moments earlier. Despite watching from a distance for most of the play, the fierce discussions between Jurors 3 and 8 have rubbed off on the other jurors. They are snappier and seem on edge. Juror 7 sarcastically criticises Juror 6: ‘Great idea. Maybe we can follow this one up with dancing and refreshments’. This unpleasant atmosphere is reflected in the stormy weather outside – another technique which creates tension that Rose has used to great effect.
Even when proceedings return to some degree of normality, the regular ballots which are held maintain some level of tension. These also constantly remind the reader of where the jury stand on the case and this is a ploy by Rose to deliberately create this effect. Whereas at the beginning of the play, all the jurors were reasonably polite in their discussions with each other, small arguments start to crop up. The depressing atmosphere of the case has made an impact on the jurors themselves and the very civil deliberations have broken out into disorderly ramblings.
Another technique used to create tension is when certain characters talk to each other about the case away from the rest of the characters. Like Juror 3 and Juror 8 made enemies of one another, soon the alliances which have been formed become clear in the deliberations. A good example of this in Act Two when the Forman and Juror 8 begin to talk about the incessant rain which is pouring down outside. Juror 3 meanwhile is gaining support from Juror 4 who still insists that the boy is guilty. These alliances are a focal point of the play and they contribute huge amounts to the tension.
As each ballot is called, the numbers on each side change and so do the rivalries within the group. Juror 7, for instance, seemed convinced that the boy was guilty until he is eventually persuaded otherwise. The tension of the play reaches a non-stop crescendo as the storyline draws to a close. Just one Juror, Juror 3, is still in favour of a guilty verdict and he says: ‘I don’t care whether I’m alone or not. It’s my right. Do you think I’m an idiot or something? You lousy bunch of bleeding hearts. You’re not going to intimidate me.
I’m entitled to my opinion. I can sit in this goddamn room for a year’. From that moment on, it looks as if the Jury will not be able to reach a unanimous verdict. The story looks like having a disappointing ending, until a dramatic, sudden twist that not even the most learned audience members would have been expecting. Rose performs the most audacious of ‘U-turns’ with suspense as much as tension and suddenly Juror 3’s resistance is broken. And his backtrack comes as even more of a surprise after this bold statement: ‘It was his father.
That goddamn rotten kid. I know him. What they’re like. What they do to you. How they kill you every day. My God, don’t you see? How come I’m the only one who sees? Jeez, I can feel that knife goin’ in’. You can almost reach out and touch the tension here. The entire Jury have practically begged Juror 3 to change his vote – and spare the boy his life – but he seems unwilling to oblige at this critical moment. The atmosphere in the room is anger as much as disappointment. Yet, Rose has not described this at all.
The mere build up of tension in the pages before have provided the reader with enough information to gather the circumstances and feelings inside the room at this very moment. Juror 8, knowing that this would be his last plea, says: ‘It’s not your boy. He’s somebody else’s’ before Juror 4, who had been on Juror 3’s side for practically the entire case, delivers the most potent line of the entire play: ‘Let him live’. As the stage directions describe, there’s a long pause before Juror 3 finally reveals that he has changed his mind.
Out of choice or because of the mounting opposition he faced inside the room we will never know, but Juror 3 says weeping: ‘All right. Not guilty’. The huge ball of tensions almost swirling above the jurors suddenly diffuses. The case is over. The audience as well as the jurors breathe a sigh of relief. The rollercoaster ride which Reginald Rose has taken 12 men – and one boy on – slams to a dramatic halt. So as you can see, Reginald Rose uses multiple dramatic techniques to establish and maintain a sense of tension which makes 12 Angry Men the fantastic thriller that it is.
Twelve Angry Men Author. (2019, Dec 07). Retrieved from https://paperap.com/paper-on-reginald-rose-establish-maintain-sense-tension-twelve-angry-men/
