What do you think?
Rate this book
Twelve Angry Men
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.
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.
96 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1954
About the author
Reginald Rose
31 books76 followersReginald Rose (December 10, 1920 – April 19, 2002) was an American film and television writer most widely known for his work in the early years of television drama. Rose's work is marked by its treatment of controversial social and political issues. His realistic approach helped create the slice of life school of television drama, which was particularly influential in the anthology programs of the 1950s.
Born in Manhattan, Rose attended Townsend High School and briefly attended City College (now part of the City University of New York) before serving in the U.S. Army in 1942-46, where he became a first lieutenant.
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.
Television
He sold his first teleplay, Bus to Nowhere, in 1950 to the live CBS dramatic anthology program Studio One, for which he wrote Twelve Angry Men four years later. This latter drama, set entirely in a room where a jury is deliberating the fate of a teenage boy accused of murder, was inspired by Rose's service on just such a trial.The play was later made into a black-and-white movie.
The Internet Movie Database quotes Rose's memories of this experience: "It was such an impressive, solemn setting in a great big wood-paneled courtroom, with a silver-haired judge, it knocked me out. I was overwhelmed. I was on a jury for a manslaughter case, and we got into this terrific, furious, eight-hour argument in the jury room. I was writing one-hour dramas for Studio One then, and I thought, wow, what a setting for a drama."[1]
Rose received an Emmy for his teleplay and an Oscar nomination for its 1957 feature-length film adaptation. Rose wrote for all three of the major broadcast networks of the 1950-80 period. He created and wrote for The Defenders in 1961, a weekly courtroom drama spun off from one of Rose's episodes of Studio One; The Defenders would go on to win two Emmy awards for dramatic writing.
Twilight Zone
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.
Films
Rose was a screenwriter, beginning with Crime in the Streets (1956), an adaptation of his 1955 teleplay for The Elgin Hour. He made four movies with the British producer Euan Lloyd: The Wild Geese, The Sea Wolves, Who Dares Wins and Wild Geese II.
Plays
The Porcelain Year (1950)
Twelve Angry Men (1954)
Black Monday (1962)
Dear Friends (1968)
This Agony, This Triumph (1972)
Born in Manhattan, Rose attended Townsend High School and briefly attended City College (now part of the City University of New York) before serving in the U.S. Army in 1942-46, where he became a first lieutenant.
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.
Television
He sold his first teleplay, Bus to Nowhere, in 1950 to the live CBS dramatic anthology program Studio One, for which he wrote Twelve Angry Men four years later. This latter drama, set entirely in a room where a jury is deliberating the fate of a teenage boy accused of murder, was inspired by Rose's service on just such a trial.The play was later made into a black-and-white movie.
The Internet Movie Database quotes Rose's memories of this experience: "It was such an impressive, solemn setting in a great big wood-paneled courtroom, with a silver-haired judge, it knocked me out. I was overwhelmed. I was on a jury for a manslaughter case, and we got into this terrific, furious, eight-hour argument in the jury room. I was writing one-hour dramas for Studio One then, and I thought, wow, what a setting for a drama."[1]
Rose received an Emmy for his teleplay and an Oscar nomination for its 1957 feature-length film adaptation. Rose wrote for all three of the major broadcast networks of the 1950-80 period. He created and wrote for The Defenders in 1961, a weekly courtroom drama spun off from one of Rose's episodes of Studio One; The Defenders would go on to win two Emmy awards for dramatic writing.
Twilight Zone
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.
Films
Rose was a screenwriter, beginning with Crime in the Streets (1956), an adaptation of his 1955 teleplay for The Elgin Hour. He made four movies with the British producer Euan Lloyd: The Wild Geese, The Sea Wolves, Who Dares Wins and Wild Geese II.
Plays
The Porcelain Year (1950)
Twelve Angry Men (1954)
Black Monday (1962)
Dear Friends (1968)
This Agony, This Triumph (1972)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,227 reviews
January 7, 2024
Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose
In this play, twelve jurors argue in the jury room over the fate of a boy accused of killing his father. And when the verdict 'guilty' is almost convinced, one of the jurors formulates his doubts. Against the bitter resistance of the majority, he gradually developed his arguments with logic. The debate grew increasingly violent as various facts emerged before everyone's eyes. It's easy to read. Very well written as it's easy to understand the argument.
In this play, twelve jurors argue in the jury room over the fate of a boy accused of killing his father. And when the verdict 'guilty' is almost convinced, one of the jurors formulates his doubts. Against the bitter resistance of the majority, he gradually developed his arguments with logic. The debate grew increasingly violent as various facts emerged before everyone's eyes. It's easy to read. Very well written as it's easy to understand the argument.
It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone even if you believe in something very strongly.
March 18, 2019
أين تكمن الحقيقة
وكيف لنا أن نهتدي لليقين..؟
كيف يمكننا إصدار أحكامنا المعلبة بكل أريحية
من أين يأتي كل هذا الغرور..؟
اثنا عشر رجلا اختيروا كمحلفين
هذا الواجب الذي على كل أمريكي تأديته ذات يوم
أن يشارك في إصدار حكم ضد مجرم أو لصالح بريء
والقضية تبدو للوهلة الأولى سهلة غير عسيرة
مراهق متهم بقتل والده وتشير القرائن المبدئية إلى صحة هذا الاتهام
وهذا هو الخيط الأول
:::::::::::::::::::::::
لجنة المحلفين في مسرحيتنا هذه باقة منوعة من البشر
كلهم يجمعهم شيء واحد
الرغبة في القيام بهذا الواجب الوطني المشرف بأقصى سرعة ممكنة
وبالطبع وكما يبدو للجميع أن الفتى مذنب بالثلاثة
:::::::::::::::::::::::
قبل أن تصدر حكمك الأخلاقي على أحدهم
تمهل
فالأمر ليس أبدا بهذه البساطة
وحيلة الكاتب الذكية التي تلعب على هذا الوتر الذي يبدو كمن عزف عليه مرات
كانت حيلة من أبرع ما يمكن
منها ولجنا إلى عقل ونفسية كل شخص من شخصيات المسرحية القصيرة جدا والعميقة جدا
ومنها نستخلص حكمتها التي بقيت لأحيال وخلدت في واحد من أجمل أفلام هوليود
July 28, 2018
"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.
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.
February 6, 2023
Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a Deep Character Study!
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...
I absolutely devoured this short two-hour audiobook and when I finished I had goosebumps and watery eyes. Yep, it's the 'emotional reader' in me surfacing once again.
What you get with this audiobook is the experience of listening to the L.A. Theater Works production being performed by seasoned actors in front of a live audience. The acting is first rate and you'll recognize their names. I assure you, it's something you won't want to miss.
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.
In my quest to read more classics, I was elated to rediscover a jewel. My hope is that you'll take the time to read or listen to this one, as well. I highly recommend it! ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
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...
I absolutely devoured this short two-hour audiobook and when I finished I had goosebumps and watery eyes. Yep, it's the 'emotional reader' in me surfacing once again.
What you get with this audiobook is the experience of listening to the L.A. Theater Works production being performed by seasoned actors in front of a live audience. The acting is first rate and you'll recognize their names. I assure you, it's something you won't want to miss.
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.
In my quest to read more classics, I was elated to rediscover a jewel. My hope is that you'll take the time to read or listen to this one, as well. I highly recommend it! ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
April 29, 2023
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.
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.
La acción transcurre en una tarde calurosa de verano de 1957, en una corte de la ciudad de Nueva York y se inicia cuando un juez advierte a los doce jurados sobre su importante labor...
"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.
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.
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."
El asunto parece rápido y concreto para la mayoría, claramente, creen culpable al joven acusado de haber asesinado a su padre, pretenden votar y seguir con sus vidas. Pero uno de ellos se permite dudar y abrir así el debate, analizar los hechos, despejar prejuicios e intereses personales, apuntar a la reflexión y brindarle un tiempo al valor de la vida en cuestión, que no es un juego, y está en sus manos.
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?
Mas supongo que su riqueza sobrepasa lo argumental.Temas como la justicia, el juicio por jurados, las posibilidades humanas de equivocarse, la labor de los abogados, los prejuicios, las características socioeconómicas de los acusados, la duda razonable o la presunción de inocencia, la pena de muerte, el peligro de los juicios precipitados y demás cuestiones que pueden influir en un proceso judicial, aparecen en el texto. Así como la dificultad para desprenderse de los prejuicios para buscar una verdad, la influencia de los intereses y experiencias personales, las presiones sociales, la ignorancia e indiferencia hacia los otros, la proyección, la empatía, el considerar al otro o ponerse un momento en su lugar. También, el valor del tiempo, del ser humano, del diálogo y de la valentía o la lucha por lo que uno cree correcto o importante o justo, aunque se diferencie del resto, y la aceptación de la responsabilidad y las consecuencias de nuestros actos, son tenidos en cuenta. Es decir, cuestiones sociales y humanas, que aún cuando parezcan ajenas, nos involucran a todos.
Entonces, de algún modo, puede ser de interés sociológico, filosófico, jurídico, educativo y personal. Supongo que es probable que el lector se sienta interpelado o invitado a razonar o pensar sobre el valor del individuo, la sociedad y los sistemas. Tal vez, a pensar qué haría y a tomar conciencia.
Al margen de la situación judicial puntual mencionada que plantea la obra y de la actitud crítica al sistema. Me parece valiosa la idea esencial de pausar, más aún en la vida agitada, egoísta o consumista. El valor de detenerse a reflexionar, a dudar, a dialogar, a discutir con respeto. De tomarse un rato ante lo que otros dicen o lo que se publica o lo que a simple vista parece o creemos, o lo que se dice de algo o de alguien, tanto para ver lo que eso puede reflejar de otros como de nosotros mismos, e intentar tener una actitud de observación crítica y responsable antes de reproducir. En fin, de intentar ser mejores individual y colectivamente o, al menos, ser conscientes de que podemos equivocarnos, o ser influenciados e influir en otros.
Entiendo que a algunas personas pueda no atraerles leer este género (aunque creo que es buena vía para la intención) o no les interese la temática. O que puedan cuestionar algunos detalles de la trama o literarios, como en todo. Pero es en ese espacio y mensaje de esperanza y de apertura al diálogo, a la duda y a involucrarse conscientemente en el valor de las consecuencias de nuestras acciones, donde, al menos yo, encontré la inclinación final de esta valoración.
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.
La acción transcurre en una tarde calurosa de verano de 1957, en una corte de la ciudad de Nueva York y se inicia cuando un juez advierte a los doce jurados sobre su importante labor...
"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.
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.
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."
El asunto parece rápido y concreto para la mayoría, claramente, creen culpable al joven acusado de haber asesinado a su padre, pretenden votar y seguir con sus vidas. Pero uno de ellos se permite dudar y abrir así el debate, analizar los hechos, despejar prejuicios e intereses personales, apuntar a la reflexión y brindarle un tiempo al valor de la vida en cuestión, que no es un juego, y está en sus manos.
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?
Mas supongo que su riqueza sobrepasa lo argumental.Temas como la justicia, el juicio por jurados, las posibilidades humanas de equivocarse, la labor de los abogados, los prejuicios, las características socioeconómicas de los acusados, la duda razonable o la presunción de inocencia, la pena de muerte, el peligro de los juicios precipitados y demás cuestiones que pueden influir en un proceso judicial, aparecen en el texto. Así como la dificultad para desprenderse de los prejuicios para buscar una verdad, la influencia de los intereses y experiencias personales, las presiones sociales, la ignorancia e indiferencia hacia los otros, la proyección, la empatía, el considerar al otro o ponerse un momento en su lugar. También, el valor del tiempo, del ser humano, del diálogo y de la valentía o la lucha por lo que uno cree correcto o importante o justo, aunque se diferencie del resto, y la aceptación de la responsabilidad y las consecuencias de nuestros actos, son tenidos en cuenta. Es decir, cuestiones sociales y humanas, que aún cuando parezcan ajenas, nos involucran a todos.
Entonces, de algún modo, puede ser de interés sociológico, filosófico, jurídico, educativo y personal. Supongo que es probable que el lector se sienta interpelado o invitado a razonar o pensar sobre el valor del individuo, la sociedad y los sistemas. Tal vez, a pensar qué haría y a tomar conciencia.
Al margen de la situación judicial puntual mencionada que plantea la obra y de la actitud crítica al sistema. Me parece valiosa la idea esencial de pausar, más aún en la vida agitada, egoísta o consumista. El valor de detenerse a reflexionar, a dudar, a dialogar, a discutir con respeto. De tomarse un rato ante lo que otros dicen o lo que se publica o lo que a simple vista parece o creemos, o lo que se dice de algo o de alguien, tanto para ver lo que eso puede reflejar de otros como de nosotros mismos, e intentar tener una actitud de observación crítica y responsable antes de reproducir. En fin, de intentar ser mejores individual y colectivamente o, al menos, ser conscientes de que podemos equivocarnos, o ser influenciados e influir en otros.
Entiendo que a algunas personas pueda no atraerles leer este género (aunque creo que es buena vía para la intención) o no les interese la temática. O que puedan cuestionar algunos detalles de la trama o literarios, como en todo. Pero es en ese espacio y mensaje de esperanza y de apertura al diálogo, a la duda y a involucrarse conscientemente en el valor de las consecuencias de nuestras acciones, donde, al menos yo, encontré la inclinación final de esta valoración.
February 22, 2013
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.
February 10, 2024
"اثنا عشر رجلاً غاضبًا" أو
اثنا عشر رجلاً من المحلفين الغاضبين، قصة بطلها الحقيقي هو الحوار الملتهب، والذي يشعل فتيله، أحد أعضاء هذه الهيئة، حيث يكون هو الوحيد صاحب التصويت ..ب(غير مذنب) وهذا العضو المنقذ، يحمل رقم (8)فأنت طوال الحكاية لن تجد أسماءًا، فكل عضو يحمل رقم، وأرى أن الكاتب كان موفقًا في هذا، فالأرقام التي يحملها كل محلف، تستطيع أن تسقطها وتمنحها على الكثير ممن حولك، بل وربما تأخذ لنفسك منهم رقمًا في النهاية
حتى المذنب لم يُذكر اسمه، فيطلق عليه (الولد).
يكتب "رينالد روز" عن جريمة حدثت في أمريكا عام 1957، ومن المعروف هناك أن القانون يحتم على الهيئة الإجماع على قرار الإدانة
اذ أن اعتراض أي عضو، يعطي شكًا، قد يكون سببًا في انقاذ المتهم، وتبرئته، أو إعادة فتح التحقيقات من جديد
ولكننا نجد أنفسنا أمام جريمة مكتملة الأركان !!
أب يُقتل على يد ابنه الحدث، وهناك شاهد سمع، وأخرى رأت وسمعت.
ولكن متى كانت الحقيقة المطلقة هي ما نرى، أو نسمع من الأخرين، أو حتى بأنفسنا؟
ومتى كان ميزان الدنيا عادلًا ؟
فالإنسان منذ بدء الخليقة، ارتضى بحمل الأمانة، التي أبت الجبال والسموات والأرض على حملها، فحملها بكل غرور ..فكان ظلومًا كفارا
تتسارع أنفاسك فتجد نفسك منذ البداية، بلا شك متورطًا في الجلوس، والتفكير وسط غرفة المداولة المغلقة، شديدة الحرارة والتوتر، وأنت تستمع فيها لإثنا عشر رأسًا مشتعلة بحرارة الجو، وبفعل حماقات، وقناعات الكثير منهم
وتسأل نفسك، ماذا لو ساقني القدر يومًا للشهادة ضد أحد، أو ربما لصالحه؟
هل سأفعلها ببساطة وأقول مذنب(ة)..
وأمضي بعدها وأنا مرتاح الضمير؟ أم أنني سوف أمتلك الشجاعة الكافية وأحمل رقم 8، وأمنح العدالة وقتًا اضافيًا، لتطلق حكمها العادل بتريث، وساعتها سوف أمضي مستمتعًا بموسقى روحي الإنسانية التي فطرني الله عليها، وربما أو من المؤكد سوف أشعر بعدها بصفاء في روحي، وتنقيتها من الشوائب التي علقت بها، كوني كنت سببًا في تحقيق العدالة الإنسانية .
شاهدت الفيلم أولًا، وانبهرت به، ثم قرأت المسرحية، والحقيقة أن الترجمة في المسرحية لم تكن موفقة بلغتها العامية، التي لم تعجبني .
وعن
الفكرة والحكاية قد تكون من خيال الكاتب، أو ربما مستوحاة من الواقع، ولكن دعونا نقول أن الدنيا مليئة بآلاف الحكايات الأشد مرارة، وقسوة، وأن خلف القضبان يقبع الكثير من المظلومين الذين لم يحالفهم الحظ ويجدوا من يقول (Not guilty)
ولكنها الدنيا التي تتلفح بالظلم، من رأسها حتى أخمص قدميها .
2021/6/14
.
اثنا عشر رجلاً من المحلفين الغاضبين، قصة بطلها الحقيقي هو الحوار الملتهب، والذي يشعل فتيله، أحد أعضاء هذه الهيئة، حيث يكون هو الوحيد صاحب التصويت ..ب(غير مذنب) وهذا العضو المنقذ، يحمل رقم (8)فأنت طوال الحكاية لن تجد أسماءًا، فكل عضو يحمل رقم، وأرى أن الكاتب كان موفقًا في هذا، فالأرقام التي يحملها كل محلف، تستطيع أن تسقطها وتمنحها على الكثير ممن حولك، بل وربما تأخذ لنفسك منهم رقمًا في النهاية
حتى المذنب لم يُذكر اسمه، فيطلق عليه (الولد).
يكتب "رينالد روز" عن جريمة حدثت في أمريكا عام 1957، ومن المعروف هناك أن القانون يحتم على الهيئة الإجماع على قرار الإدانة
اذ أن اعتراض أي عضو، يعطي شكًا، قد يكون سببًا في انقاذ المتهم، وتبرئته، أو إعادة فتح التحقيقات من جديد
ولكننا نجد أنفسنا أمام جريمة مكتملة الأركان !!
أب يُقتل على يد ابنه الحدث، وهناك شاهد سمع، وأخرى رأت وسمعت.
ولكن متى كانت الحقيقة المطلقة هي ما نرى، أو نسمع من الأخرين، أو حتى بأنفسنا؟
ومتى كان ميزان الدنيا عادلًا ؟
فالإنسان منذ بدء الخليقة، ارتضى بحمل الأمانة، التي أبت الجبال والسموات والأرض على حملها، فحملها بكل غرور ..فكان ظلومًا كفارا
تتسارع أنفاسك فتجد نفسك منذ البداية، بلا شك متورطًا في الجلوس، والتفكير وسط غرفة المداولة المغلقة، شديدة الحرارة والتوتر، وأنت تستمع فيها لإثنا عشر رأسًا مشتعلة بحرارة الجو، وبفعل حماقات، وقناعات الكثير منهم
وتسأل نفسك، ماذا لو ساقني القدر يومًا للشهادة ضد أحد، أو ربما لصالحه؟
هل سأفعلها ببساطة وأقول مذنب(ة)..
وأمضي بعدها وأنا مرتاح الضمير؟ أم أنني سوف أمتلك الشجاعة الكافية وأحمل رقم 8، وأمنح العدالة وقتًا اضافيًا، لتطلق حكمها العادل بتريث، وساعتها سوف أمضي مستمتعًا بموسقى روحي الإنسانية التي فطرني الله عليها، وربما أو من المؤكد سوف أشعر بعدها بصفاء في روحي، وتنقيتها من الشوائب التي علقت بها، كوني كنت سببًا في تحقيق العدالة الإنسانية .
شاهدت الفيلم أولًا، وانبهرت به، ثم قرأت المسرحية، والحقيقة أن الترجمة في المسرحية لم تكن موفقة بلغتها العامية، التي لم تعجبني .
وعن
الفكرة والحكاية قد تكون من خيال الكاتب، أو ربما مستوحاة من الواقع، ولكن دعونا نقول أن الدنيا مليئة بآلاف الحكايات الأشد مرارة، وقسوة، وأن خلف القضبان يقبع الكثير من المظلومين الذين لم يحالفهم الحظ ويجدوا من يقول (Not guilty)
ولكنها الدنيا التي تتلفح بالظلم، من رأسها حتى أخمص قدميها .
2021/6/14
.
April 19, 2023
فیلم رو سه چهار بار دیدم و خواستم نمایشنامه رو هم بخونم
و راستش دیدن فیلم تجربهی بهتریه
جدا از اینکه شخصیتها بهتر دراومدن و درگیرکنندهترن و کمی جزئیات بهشون اضافه شده که باعث شده باورپذیرتر باشن و از اون حالت شماره بودن دربیان
اون جو متشنجِ اتاق توی فیلم فوقالعادهس و نمیتونم این رو در مورد نمایشنامه بگم
خلاصه فیلم
10/10
نمایشنامه
8/10
و راستش دیدن فیلم تجربهی بهتریه
جدا از اینکه شخصیتها بهتر دراومدن و درگیرکنندهترن و کمی جزئیات بهشون اضافه شده که باعث شده باورپذیرتر باشن و از اون حالت شماره بودن دربیان
اون جو متشنجِ اتاق توی فیلم فوقالعادهس و نمیتونم این رو در مورد نمایشنامه بگم
خلاصه فیلم
10/10
نمایشنامه
8/10
January 5, 2023
A wonderfully powerful play about the importance of the individual in a democratic society. We are taken into the jury room, where eleven men have already made up their minds to convict a sixteen year old boy of murdering his father and sentence him to the electric chair. But one man, Juror #8, wants to be sure. He wants to weigh the facts and examine the evidence and remove all doubt from his own mind as to the guilt of this boy, and in doing so, he changes the course of the case and reveals a great deal about the members of this panel.
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.
All of us wants Juror #8 to be sitting on our jury if we are accused of a crime, so each of us should try to be Juror #8 if we are ever in a position of such authority over another person. The good old golden rule.
BTW, the movie with Henry Fonda and a cast of other well-known actors is excellent and follows the play almost word-for-word.
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.
All of us wants Juror #8 to be sitting on our jury if we are accused of a crime, so each of us should try to be Juror #8 if we are ever in a position of such authority over another person. The good old golden rule.
BTW, the movie with Henry Fonda and a cast of other well-known actors is excellent and follows the play almost word-for-word.
January 8, 2023
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 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.
It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone even if you believe in something very strongly.
We felt the tension in the jury room, the heat and the agitation of the men. 11 out of 12 men were quickly able to make a guilty vote without further examination of the evidence and taking the facts presented without questioning them. As the lone juror held each man in the room accountable and to their responsibilities, we witnessed how difficult it can be to go against the group, especially when individual personalities emerge and the discussions become divisive.
Highly recommend this little play.
January 30, 2021
“It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone even if you believe in something very strongly.”
مسرحية صغيره عن هيئة المحلفين وخلافهم حول قضية قتل ابن لوالده كتبها رونالد روز بعد حضوره كأحد المحلفين في قضية ما
تبدأ الحكاية من داخل قائعة المحكمه بعد استماع هيئة المحلفين المكونة من 12 رجل تبدأ المداوله بينهم في غرفة مغلقه عليهم في يوم شديد الحرارة واعصاب متوترة وعصبية زائدة بالطبع
يقرروا جميعهم ان المتهم مذنب ما عدا المحلف رقم 8 يري انه برئ تماما من التهمه أو علي الأقل يحاول اثبات البراءة
يبدأ أولا بالدليل الأول وهو السكين المستخدم في الجريمة ليظهر ان من الممكن الحصول عليه بسهولة ليبدأ المحلفون بالتراجع واحد وراء الآخر مع اثباته ان هناك مشكله في كل دليل وكل كلمة قالها الشهود
ليحدث التصادم النهائي مع المحلف رقم 3 الوحيد المصر علي ان المتهم مذنب مهما حدث ويصل الخلاف الي مرحلة من الكراهية تسمح له بتهديد المحلف 8 بالقتل لتكون هي تلك النقطه التي تغير مسار كل شئ في هذا الخلاف الكبير بين الجميع
احببت الفيلم جدااا وعرفت أمس فقط من الصديق محمد بيومي انها في الأصل مسرحية صغيره لأتحمس وابدأ قرائتها فورا وانهيها في ساعة او اكثر قليلا
بالطبع الفيلم كان افضل بتفاصيل اكثر دقه حتي من حياة المحلفين نفسهم وخصوصا المحلف الغاضب جدا رقم 3
لم تعجبني الترجمة ابدا ولكنها كانت لطيفه ومضحكه في بعض الأحيان فهي بالعامية المصرية تماما فتعتبر مجرد حوار مصري بين بعض الشخصيات
ولكن أصل القصة بالطبع رائع وارشح الفيلم بشدة لمن لم يشاهدة فهو من اعظم افلام هوليوود علي الإطلاق مشهد واحد ونفس الأبطال الإثنا عشر فقط لنعيش معهم تلك الفترة الصعبه ليأخذوا قرار بإنهاء حياة فتى او انقاذه من الإعدام
July 10, 2018
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!!
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!!
January 3, 2023
“I just think he’s guilty. I thought it was obvious.”
I had seen the film, but it’s well worth reading it through slowly. It would also be wonderful to see it live on stage.
Human nature is on display in a jury room. I’ve only served on a jury once, but my experience was like this in so many ways. It’s shocking how quick people judge, how outnumbered someone who doesn’t judge quickly can be, and what a difficult position it is to defend. People are mostly very opinionated, and see the world according to their own prejudices.
But there is something else about people, and that’s what this short play masterfully shows us.
I had seen the film, but it’s well worth reading it through slowly. It would also be wonderful to see it live on stage.
Human nature is on display in a jury room. I’ve only served on a jury once, but my experience was like this in so many ways. It’s shocking how quick people judge, how outnumbered someone who doesn’t judge quickly can be, and what a difficult position it is to defend. People are mostly very opinionated, and see the world according to their own prejudices.
But there is something else about people, and that’s what this short play masterfully shows us.
December 22, 2019
Some plays you need to see performed to really feel the pathos. This is not one of those plays. The words jump off the pages even with just a casual read. It is a rallying cry for the American justice system, though arguably as much a "what should be" as a "what actually is."
I found it moving and inspiring. Definitely an instant favorite.
February 23, 2022
Twelve jurors deliberate the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of killing his father. I saw the movie years ago, but it was good to go back and listen to the play. It’s so well written and very thought provoking. It was an hour well spent. Thinking back, I may be mistaken, but I believe that it was seen as a celebration of the jury system and a recognition of it as being one of the most important political institutions for democratic self government. I certainly read it that way when I saw the movie. A half century later, I found myself wondering about that reading.
Shelved as 'sadly-i-only-watched-the-movie'
May 4, 2019کتاب رو که متاسفانه مطالعه نکردم ولی فیلم رو خیلی دوست داشتم و بارها تماشا کردم در صورت امکان پیشنهاد می کنم فیلم رو ببینید
داستان اینه که دوازده عضو هیات منصفه دادگاه برای تصمیم گیری بی گناهی یا گناهکاری متهم هجده ساله که مضنون به قتل پدر خودش است ، جمع می شوند ، با رای گیری یازده نفر رای به گناهکاری مضنون می دن ولی یک نفر رای نمی ده و میگه مطمئن نیست مضنون گناهکار باشه و همینطور نمیگه که مضنون بی گناه است فقط مطمئن نیست ، حالا اعضا باید سر این موضوع با هم بحث کنند تا اون یک نفر قانع بشه و به یک رای جامع برسند و در دادگاه اعلام کنند
داستان اینه که دوازده عضو هیات منصفه دادگاه برای تصمیم گیری بی گناهی یا گناهکاری متهم هجده ساله که مضنون به قتل پدر خودش است ، جمع می شوند ، با رای گیری یازده نفر رای به گناهکاری مضنون می دن ولی یک نفر رای نمی ده و میگه مطمئن نیست مضنون گناهکار باشه و همینطور نمیگه که مضنون بی گناه است فقط مطمئن نیست ، حالا اعضا باید سر این موضوع با هم بحث کنند تا اون یک نفر قانع بشه و به یک رای جامع برسند و در دادگاه اعلام کنند
January 18, 2023
I wasn’t sure that I wanted to read this play because I have always loved the Henry Fonda performance of the movie Twelve Angry Men. I decided to listen to it on a day when I had a lot of driving time. I listened to the audio version performed by the LA Theater Company, which I thought was well done.
The play was written for men, white men, because at the time, women were routinely excused from jury duty, and I don’t even know how minorities were excluded, but apparently they were.
At the end there was an interview with Rose’s wife. I found the back story of the play very interesting. I was surprised to know that Rose also wrote for the classic TV shows The Twilight Zone and The Defenders, and originally wrote this play as a tele-play for CBS.
So, all in all, time well spent, especially with the interview at the end.
The play was written for men, white men, because at the time, women were routinely excused from jury duty, and I don’t even know how minorities were excluded, but apparently they were.
At the end there was an interview with Rose’s wife. I found the back story of the play very interesting. I was surprised to know that Rose also wrote for the classic TV shows The Twilight Zone and The Defenders, and originally wrote this play as a tele-play for CBS.
So, all in all, time well spent, especially with the interview at the end.
January 8, 2022
This play follows the deliberation of the jurors of a murder trial. With less than a hundred pages, it is a pretty short read, but the book raises so many important issues of justice in those pages - and it does so without any legal jargon. Instead, the jurors' concerns illustrate how justice can be served or endangered in a case. How much doubt is enough to acquit a defendant? How much should a jury discuss? What if jurors are guided by concerns like just wanting to go home rather than actually examining the case? What role can prejudices play in a jury's deliberation? If you are interested in law, this book is an amazing read and what initially sounds like a clear-cut case becomes more and more difficult.
January 13, 2018
Βαθμολογία: 9/10
Χθες το βράδυ είδα για πρώτη φορά την ταινία "12 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.
Υ.Γ. 1. Αυτή την εποχή υπάρχει και θεατρική παράσταση στο θέατρο Αλκμήνη (τίτλος: "Οι 12 ένορκοι"), για την οποία έχω ακούσει πολύ καλά λόγια, τόσο για τις ερμηνείες όσο και για τη σκηνοθεσία και την προσαρμογή του σεναρίου. Σκέφτομαι πολύ σοβαρά να την δω μια εκ των ημερών.
Υ.Γ. 2. Στην ταινία έβαλα δέκα με τόνο!
Χθες το βράδυ είδα για πρώτη φορά την ταινία "12 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.
Υ.Γ. 1. Αυτή την εποχή υπάρχει και θεατρική παράσταση στο θέατρο Αλκμήνη (τίτλος: "Οι 12 ένορκοι"), για την οποία έχω ακούσει πολύ καλά λόγια, τόσο για τις ερμηνείες όσο και για τη σκηνοθεσία και την προσαρμογή του σεναρίου. Σκέφτομαι πολύ σοβαρά να την δω μια εκ των ημερών.
Υ.Γ. 2. Στην ταινία έβαλα δέκα με τόνο!
December 12, 2014
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.
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.
February 25, 2022
“It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone even if you believe in something very strongly."
Well, the movie is better. ♡
Well, the movie is better. ♡
October 25, 2011
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...
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...
August 6, 2018
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.
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.
La historia se desarrolla presentando en que se fundamentan estas dudas, la seriedad con que se debe tomar estas resoluciones y la ligereza con la que muchas veces son consideradas, además de los prejuicios y discriminación presentes al ver los hechos.
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.
Una historia que esta tremendamente bien creada y a la que vale muchísimo la pena darle una oportunidad. Pronto veré la película (porque, que yo sepa, no se encuentra presentándose en algún teatro) para ver que tal funciona directamente para lo que fue creada.
August 31, 2019
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.
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.
November 28, 2022
Reginald Rose writes of the slow process of this group of different social types coalescing into a unit. From the solemn man of dignity to the leadership of the peace-keeping foreman, to the inarticulate drama of the most prejudiced man in the room, Rose has created characters that went beyond these general descriptions. I believe I know these men as I knew these men when growing up, and I am surprised that such a diverse group of people could reach concensus. I am glad to know it's possible and it's the possibility that gives me hope for society.
May 24, 2014
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.
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.
December 30, 2022
Rose basically has a deliberating juror present a defense attorney’s argument in this play. This trick allows us to hear people say aloud comments which they would keep silent during an actual trial. And what this reveals is not exactly a positive portrayal of human tendencies. We see our readiness to follow the crowd, our inclination to choose convenience over justice, our hidden prejudices, and principally, our aversion for skepticism, facts and penetrating thought. You could probably plot the characters in this play across a skepticism spectrum. Rose makes the architect (a mixture of artist and engineer) the most skeptical. And he picks the racist brute out as the least skeptical. Between these are ten other ‘types’ of humans. His judgment of humans is pretty damning, given that at the beginning of the play only one of the twelve jurors is willing to use skepticism to think beyond their prejudice and convenience. However, Rose does portray us as persuadable.
December 10, 2018
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!
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!
May 4, 2016
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.”
“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.”
June 5, 2022
مسرحية مترجمة بالعامية المصرية لكنها جميلة
ذكرتني بأحداث الفيلم الشهير
شكرا لسلمي على هذا الترشيح الجميل
ذكرتني بأحداث الفيلم الشهير
شكرا لسلمي على هذا الترشيح الجميل
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,227 reviews