Login | Register
Enrol now for our new online tutoring program. Learn from the best tutors. Get amazing results. Learn more.

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

December 05, 2021, 01:04:47 pm

Author Topic: Feedback please!  (Read 2301 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dlen

  • Victorian
  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Respect: 0
Feedback please!
« on: October 30, 2012, 10:39:04 pm »
0
Hi, Please feel free to provide feedback and a mark out of 10? Thank you!

Reginald Rose’s naturalistic play, ‘Twelve Angry Men’, a two-act drama is set in a ‘single jury room in a New York Court of law’. The play begins with all but one of the jurors certain of the defendant’s guilt. As the play begins, clashes between reasoning and emotions shifts the jurors to be affected by numerous factors such as prejudice, racial discrimination and personal emotions. Rose presents the view that although preconception and inequity influence the way a juror’s decision, it is also the different type of conflicts that revolve around the jurors that evoke feelings from making a reasonable judgment. Furthermore, the diversity within the jury room allows all ‘facts’ and ‘fancy’ to be analyzed properly and accordingly, therefore justice will always prevail. However, the jurors are deterred from this path, hence it is harder to reach the final verdict.
   Throughout the play, the constant clashes between reason and emotion shifts the jurors further away from reaching an undisputed vote. Rose draws our attention to the fact that human nature dictates that the jurors are not going to reach consensus easily as they are perceived to be easily provoked. Rose also brings up the notion that not all people are able to put their personal beliefs and feelings aside to concentrate on the facts and evidence that they hear in a court. Whilst Juror 8 is able to logically separate the ‘facts’ from the ‘fancy’, other jurors can only personalize the case rather than setting aside their feelings. Juror 3 is an example of this. The antagonism between Jurors 3 and 8 are highlighted by Juror 3’s anger at Juror 8: ‘Who do you think you are to start cross-examining us? ‘Let go of me, God damn it. I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him’ is provoked by Juror 8’s statement of calling Juror 3 a ‘sadist. Hence, Rose reveal through the characters with conflict, people are easily provoked and angered, which leads to the notion that people may be influenced by other aspects.

   It is a lie if most people consider other human beings as equal to themselves and do not make assumptions based on race or typical stereotypes. Rose highlights the character, Juror 3, a loud, troubled and aggressive man, who establishes himself as an intolerant bully who is quick to insult and patronize the other jurors into agreeing with a ‘guilty’ verdict is actually influenced by past experiences therefore, he is not qualified to make a partial judgment. “The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it. That goddamn rotten kid. I know him. What they’re like” Rose presents the prejudice that Juror 3’s troubled relationship with his own son, views the defendant through his small-minded misconceptions about young men. His inability to see past his own pain and hatred allows his views to become twisted and as a result he is unable to make a rational judgment. Likewise, Juror 10 represents those who are prejudiced against people from differing ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds. This prejudice reaches culmination during his outburst against ‘these people’. “You can’t believe a word they say. I mean they’re born liars.” Rose clearly highlights that the trial is a chance to get rid of one of ‘them’ by finding the defendant ‘guilty’, even at the expense of a fair trial. Hence, through characters that hold a simple degree of prejudice or discrimination, Rose reveals the possibilities of why it is complex to reach a unanimous vote.
   

   Words should not be simply thrown around as there may be grave consequences afterwards. The play uses the language of America in the 1950s. It is not just the prejudice, discrimination and personal experience that plays a part in determining whether the case is guilty or not, it is also the setting. The setting in the play, part of the visual language of the text is evident in unrevealing as to why it is easier said than done in uncovering the truth behind this case. Not only is the stage illustrated to be a small jury room with the door being locked, it is also hot and humid. This limited setting intensifies feelings of claustrophobia and oppressiveness, and it contributes to the short tempers and frustrations of the jurors. Rose also notes that this single, stagnant spaced used, and the fact that “this is the hottest day of the year”, combine to contribute to the oppressive feeling that serves to highlight the men’s frustration and sense of entrapment. It is also shown that by Act 2, “it has grown considerably darker in the room and it’s oppressively still”, mirroring the darkening mood and the tension that has grown between the men, which signifies that the case is nowhere close to being solved. It is clear that the visual setting of the play has an impact that produces tension and conflict within the jurors.
   Reginald Rose’s play, “Twelve Angry Men”, explores the idea of how it is difficult for the jury in 12 Angry Men to reach its final verdict through the use of characters and visual settings of the scene. It is true to an extent that the characterization of each characters determine the outcome of the case, however it is the past, racial discrimination and prejudice each character holds that ultimately determines the result.

brenden

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 7185
  • Respect: +2589
Re: Feedback please!
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2012, 11:21:40 pm »
+1
Hi, Please feel free to provide feedback and a mark out of 10? Thank you!
I could do this a lot better if I knew the prompt :P
Could include historical context. I like it, adds zazz imo but not necessary if you don't want to.Reginald Rose’s naturalistic playyou don't take Theatre or Drama, do you? :P, ‘Twelve Angry Men’, a two-act dramaditch this is set in a ‘single jury room in a New York Court of law’. The play begins with all but one of the jurors certain of the defendant’s guilt. As the play begins, clashes between reasoning and emotions shifts the jurors to be affected by numerous factors such as prejudice, racial discrimination and personal emotions.I think this would also be unnecessary with a contextualising sentence. To be very quick and give you the idea... "Preceding the civil rights movement of the 1960s, propaganda and a resulting xenophobia were rife. Such concepts are explored by Reginald Rose's play, Twelve Angry Men, in which there are major conflicts between [insert the rest of your sentence slightly changed here] Rose presents the view that although preconception and inequity influence the way a juror’s decision, it is also the different type of conflicts that revolve around the jurors that evoke feelings from making a reasonable judgment. Furthermore, the diversity within the jury room allows all ‘facts’ and ‘fancy’ to be analyzed properly and accordingly, therefore justice will always prevailDo you think "justice always occurs" is really a correct statement?. However, the jurors are deterred from this path, hence it is harder to reach the final verdict.Solid intro, give above feedback some consideration.
   Throughout the play, the constant clashes between reason and emotion shifts the jurors further away from reaching an undisputed voteOdd. How can they get further away when the 'not guilty' vote only rises. I wish I knew the prompt so I could better direct a strong topic sentence. But this TS is not bad. Rose draws ourthe audience's/reader's attention to the fact you could say Rose "asserts" ...and it would improve the flow of this sentence. That being said the rest of the sentence is very... wordy? The flow is disjointed, see underlinesthat human nature dictates that the jurors are not going to reach consensus easily as they are perceived to be easily provoked. Rose also brings upSlightly informal. Better words: asserts, conveys, highlights, illuminates, explores(possibly), condemns, condones, commends the notion that not all people are able to put their personal beliefs and feelings aside to concentrate on the facts and evidence that they hear in a court. Whilst Juror 8 is able to logically separate the ‘facts’ from the ‘fancy’, other jurors can only personalize the case rather than setting aside their feelings. Juror 3 is an example of this. This sentence weakens the paragraph. If you took that out and said "This can be seen in the antagonism...", that would be an improvement imoThe antagonism between Jurors 3 and 8 are highlighted by Juror 3’s anger at Juror 8: ‘Who do you think you are to start cross-examining us? ‘Let go of me, God damn it. I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him’ is provoked by Juror 8’s statement of calling Juror 3 a ‘sadist. Hence, Rose reveal through the characters with conflict, people are easily provoked and angered, which leads to the notion that people may be influenced by other aspects. Wish I knew the prompt. Good evidence! Could have been integrated into the essay with more flow. You should also analyse or discuss more, this paragraph lacks depth. To add and rephrase from what you have... "Rose conveys the notion that people may be influence by other aspects in the characterisation of Juror 3. The antagonist subjetivity in the case is highlighted by his embarrassment - "I've said too much" - and subsequent change of what when he realises the accused is "not [his] boy". See the discussion with the quotes? Yours seems "BAM, TAKE QUOTES. aaaaaand here's a little discussion" let me know if you have questions :)

   It is a lie if most people consider other human beings as equal to themselves and do not make assumptions based on race or typical stereotypes. Examiners don't want your world view. Whilst this alludes to you being about to talk about racial stereotypes it's not strong in regards to the text. Try this 'formula' for your topic sentences....
"[proper noun] [verb] [subject matter of paragraph], [verb] [assertion relating to prompt]"... to give an example... "[Rose] [demonstrates] [ways in which humans inherently discriminate based on difference], [asserting that] [objectivity is always more valuable in the face of discrimination]" (that might not even make sense)
Rose highlights the character, characterises Juror 3, as a loud, troubled and aggressive man, who establishes himself as an intolerant bully who is quick to insult and patronize the other jurors into agreeing with a ‘guilty’ verdict is actually influenced by past experiences therefore, he is not qualified to make a partial judgment. Watch the big sentences, they damage the flow/how easy your essay to read. your content is good“The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it. That goddamn rotten kid. I know him. What they’re like”the sophistication of your essay would increase a lot if you could find out a way to integrate your quotes. Your quotes are great but if you could make them apart of your discussion... Rose presents the prejudice that Juror 3’s troubled relationship with his own son, views the defendant through his small-minded misconceptions about young men. His inability to see past his own pain and hatred allows his views to become twisted and as a result he is unable to make a rational judgment. Likewise, Juror 10 representspersonifies, embodies -> both better words. those who are prejudiced against people from differing ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds. This prejudice reaches culmination during his outburst against ‘these people’. “You can’t believe a word they say. I mean they’re born liars.” Rose clearly highlights that the trial is a chance to get rid of one of ‘them’ by finding the defendant ‘guilty’, even at the expense of a fair trialreference juror 10 again. Rose isn't highlighting the way in which the jury system is a great chance for murder. Hence, through characters that hold a simple degree of prejudice or discrimination, Rose reveals the possibilities of why it is complex to reach a unanimous vote.good finishing sentence
   

   Words should not be simply thrown around as there may be grave consequences afterwards. same deal for last paraThe play uses the language of America in the 1950s. It is not just the prejudice, discrimination and personal experience that plays a part in determining whether the case is guilty or not, it is also the setting. The setting in the play, part of the visual language of the text is evident in unrevealing as to why it is easier said than done in uncovering the truth behind this case. Not only is the stage illustrated to be a small jury room with the door being locked, it is also hot and humid. This limited setting intensifies feelings of claustrophobia and oppressiveness, and it contributes to the short tempers and frustrations of the jurors. Rose also notes that this single, stagnant spaced used, and the fact that “this is the hottest day of the year”, combine to contribute to the oppressive feeling that serves to highlight the men’s frustration and sense of entrapment. It is also shown that by Act 2, “it has grown considerably darker in the room and it’s oppressively still”, mirroring the darkening mood and the tension that has grown between the men, which signifies that the case is nowhere close to being solved. It is clear that the visual setting of the play has an impact that produces tension and conflict within the jurors. Whilst this could flow better and be deeper, great stuff!
   Reginald Rose’s play, “Twelve Angry Men”, explores the idea of how it is difficult for the jury in 12 this is a nonoAngry Men to reach its final verdict through the use of characters and visual settings of the scene. It is true to an extent that the characterization of each characters determine the outcome of the case, however it is the past, racial discrimination and prejudice each character holds that ultimately determines the result.
I think my feedback in the essay covers a lot of it. I think you could improve your essays (in a quick amount of time) by: refining topic sentences, integrating quotes into discussion. These are the easiest things for you to change so quickly that imo will have a big impact on your essays before the exam. The evidence you select is fantastic and defs earned you points. Your discussion COULD be more in depth but this is hard to randomly improve before the essay but, that's why I said TSentences and integration; they'll make you look good. I'm conflicted out of 10. There are wonderful moments in the essay and at the same time moments that are a bit 'ahhh!' but I think it'd be safe for a six, very unlucky for a five, and lucky for a seven. More likely to be a seven than a five though. But yeah, 6/10 for now. Fixing those small things would make it a seven pretty quickly. Let me know if you have questions!!
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

dlen

  • Victorian
  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Respect: 0
Re: Feedback please!
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2012, 11:35:29 pm »
0
Hi! Silly me. damn my vocabulary, i had to look up most of the words you said..

The prompt is : Why is it so difficult for the jury in 12 Angry Men to reach its final verdict?

So for my Introduction, I should begin with : Preceding the civil rights movement of the 1960s, propaganda and a resulting xenophobia were rife. Such concepts are explored by Reginald Rose's play, Twelve Angry Men, in which there are major conflicts between reasoning and emotions, affecting the jurors by numerous factors such as prejudice, racial discrimination and personal emotions.

Thanks!!

brenden

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 7185
  • Respect: +2589
Re: Feedback please!
« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2012, 11:36:40 pm »
0
Hi! Silly me. damn my vocabulary, i had to look up most of the words you said..

The prompt is : Why is it so difficult for the jury in 12 Angry Men to reach its final verdict?

So for my Introduction, I should begin with : Preceding the civil rights movement of the 1960s, propaganda and a resulting xenophobia were rife. Such concepts are explored by Reginald Rose's play, Twelve Angry Men, in which there are major conflicts between reasoning and emotions, affecting the jurors by numerous factors such as prejudice, racial discrimination and personal emotions.

Thanks!!
Something LIKE that. That was just my example :)
Ah I see. I wrote on that at some point. Would you like me to find my essay for an example or no?
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

dlen

  • Victorian
  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Respect: 0
Re: Feedback please!
« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2012, 11:39:15 pm »
0
Yes please

Would it be wise to use that introduction as a generic introduction for twelve angry men?
Thanks so much!

brenden

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 7185
  • Respect: +2589
Re: Feedback please!
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2012, 11:57:47 pm »
0
Yes please

Would it be wise to use that introduction as a generic introduction for twelve angry men?
Thanks so much!
Sorry I've looked everywhere, I'm pretty sure I've left it at my Dad's house 'cause I can't find it at Mum's anywhere >.< Sorry.
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️