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.

January 29, 2022, 07:07:20 am

Author Topic: Your Feedback On SECTION A : 12 ANGRY MEN ESSAY required please :)  (Read 2103 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Gutthi

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 68
  • Respect: 0
  • School: Aitken College
  • School Grad Year: 2014
0
Hey Guys, Can I please have your feedback? (I didn't write this in Exam conditions, which is why it is long)

‘Twelve Angry Men is less about guilt or innocence than about reasonable doubt.’ Discuss. (2011)

Set in the summer of 1957, Reginald Rose’s widely acclaimed play “Twelve Angry Men,” depicts the broader American civilization and its varying perceptions through the medium of a judicial system. By employing the opinions of twelve individual identities in the midst of a jury room, Rose is able to present his understanding of how discrete personalities of the society relate to a scenario, and hence arrive at a “unanimous decision.” Being the architect of reasonable doubt among the Jury, Juror 8 is utilised by the playwright as a medium to highlight how jury members and symbolically the individual identities of a society respond to differing perceptions. Furthermore, it’s through reasonable doubt that Rose builds and maintains tension between his characters, hence proving reasonable doubt to be a key theme of his play. Though prevailing, the concept of reasonable doubt is not the most important aspect of “Twelve Angry Men,” yet it is only a medium through which the jurors arrive at a decision between guilty or innocent. Overall, it can be assumed that both guilt/innocence and reasonable doubt are major aspects of Rose’s play; while it is through the means of reasonable doubt that the essential beliefs and qualities of each juror emerge, it is in order to prove the defendant guilty or innocent that Rose utilises the concept of reasonable doubt itself.

   As reasonable doubt evokes divergent responses from the jurors, it becomes a key aspect of Rose’s play, and his depiction of how individual identities of a society may respond to differing perceptions. Initially all alone with his individual perception of the case, it is Juror 8 who understands the gravity of the situation and that “we’re talking about somebody’s life here.” It’s for his appreciation of the jury duty that he presents reasonable doubt amongst the jury, hence becoming a reason for the extended deliberation process. Following the protagonist’s urge to deliberate, Rose utilises the “sadistic” nature of Juror 3, the “sick” attitude of Juror 10, and Juror 7’s “ignorant” persona to demonstrate their antagonistic opinions, hence how individuals of the wider society may oppose differing perceptions. Capable of judging the defendant by his own “angry, hostile” son, the third Juror’s prejudice emerges as a response to reasonable doubt. His biased disagreement to Juror 8’s reasonable doubt can be assumed as the medium through which Rose portrays how a society may be vulnerable to prejudice, and how “prejudice (may) obscure the truth.” Furthermore, following his own judgement of the “kids who crawl outa (slums),” Juror ten’s egoistic nature precipitates as a strong disagreement to any source of reasonable doubt. By utilising Juror 3’s “sick” approach towards others, Rose projects yet another understanding of the broader society’s response to differing perceptions. Accompanying the third and the tenth jurors, Juror 7’s bias against the defendant is also noticed through his disapproval to reasonable doubt; “I’m tellin’ya they’re all alike.” It is by utilising the concept of reasonable doubt within the context of the play that Rose demonstrates how individuals of a society may respond to differing opinions. Initiated by Juror 8, the concept of reasonable doubt is not necessarily appreciated by several other characters; while being a reason for highlighting their prejudice, it becomes one of the key aspects of Rose’s play.

While highlighting the prejudice of several jurors, reasonable doubt is also a medium through which Rose creates tension amongst his characters; it is through this tension that the playwright depicts how individual opinions may transpire differences in a society. Inspired by Juror 8, there are several others utilised by Rose to partake in the deliberation process. Though perceived as “stupid and unsure” by the third Juror, Juror 9 is seen to contribute his understanding of the case to the discussion, while he is accompanied by several others in doing so. By realising that they “have nothing to gain or lose by (their) verdict,” Jurors 11 and 4 are also seen to subsidize other sources of reasonable doubt from their appreciation of the case. Furthermore, while new sources of reasonable doubt attract more Jurors to the “innocent” verdict, they strengthen the essential qualities and beliefs of the antagonistic characters, such as the contradictory nature of the third and the tenth juror; “You can’t change your mind like that (for) that kids....I tell’ya he don’t even speak good English.” By showing how merely new sources of reasonable doubt transpire the true personas of several of his jurors, Rose is able to depict how new perceptions may cause differences in a society. “I’ll knock his goddam....head off.” Through the concept of reasonable doubt, Rose highlights the fact that differing opinions and thoughts are not as easily accepted by several individuals as opposed to others, and may end up creating tension amongst a society, hence causing it to remain one of the key aspects of his play.

Though a major theme of Rose’s play, reasonable doubt does not overshadow the search for a guilty or an innocent verdict, instead, it is through reasonable doubt that the playwright intends to examine every aspect of the case in order to reach a “unanimous decision.” “Suppose the kid really did knife his father;” by supposing the possibilities every outcome, there are several jurors that examine the defendant’s case in fine detail. By understanding that “it’s a very sad thing, to be nothing,” Juror 9 shares similar social experiences to the old witness, hence contributes his understanding of the witness’ testimony. Furthermore, by appreciating that “we may be wrong....maybe (the defendant) is guilty,” the eighth Juror continues to fulfil his responsibility under the Jury duty and presents possible sources of misapprehension of the case. It is through the medium of this reasonable doubt that several characters seek for a justified decision, hence proving that though a major theme of the play, reasonable doubt is mostly used as a tool to arrive the jury at a “fair” decision. While exploring the fine details of the case, there are several Jurors which contribute to the discussion, while there are others who perceive “this whole thing (as) a waste of time;” however, it is eventually through reasonable doubt that the Jury is able to sum an “innocent” verdict. Rose projects to his audience that though differing perceptions of a society may initially create tension and disagreement, it is eventually justice that overpowers antagonism; By outlining the importance of examining every detail of a situation when “talking about somebody’s life,” Rose utilises the concept of reasonable doubt merely to arrive at either a guilty or an innocent verdict.

Whilst reasonable doubt is a major theme of Rose’s “Twelve Angry Men,” it does not overshadow the importance of the final “innocent” verdict. At times, introduction of reasonable doubt amongst the jury room causes the essential beliefs and qualities of several jurors to transpire. While Juror three’s prejudice emerges as a response to the extended deliberation process which is not in his favour, Rose shows the tenth juror’s contradictory nature through his “sick” attitude. Furthermore, Juror seven’s “ignorant” persona is also seen arising as an opposition to new sources of reasonable doubt which are “a waste of (his) time.” Overall, reasonable doubt intensifies the true characters of the antagonistic jurors, while allowing Rose to portray that new perceptions and differing opinions within a society are not always easily accepted by others, and may experience obstacles before their importance is recognised. The theme of guilt/innocence is seen to be equally as important as reasonable doubt, because it is for the sake of arriving at a justified verdict that jurors, specifically eighth, ninth, fourth and eleventh, present new sources of reasonable doubt. By showing the importance of reasonable doubt as a means for bringing the jury at a fair, “unanimous decision,” Rose demonstrates the significance of a society exploring every aspect of a situation before taking decisions that may affect an individual substantially. Overall, it can be said that while reasonable doubt is a major theme of the play, it is not any more important than the concept of guilt or innocence, as the importance of both are shown by Rose to an equal extent.

Thank you again :)
« Last Edit: October 20, 2014, 01:01:09 am by Gutthi »

24bauer12

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 40
  • Respect: +4
Re: Your Feedback On SECTION A : 12 ANGRY MEN ESSAY required please :)
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2014, 08:25:42 pm »
+3
Hi Gutthi

‘Twelve Angry Men is less about guilt or innocence than about reasonable doubt.’ Discuss. (2011)

Set in the summer of 1957This is extraneous information and does not assist your essay. The examiner is not interested in which season the oeuvre was written in; they want an analysis of the historical context and how the zeitgeist[good word to use for the exam :)] influences the author's play. Why don't you talk about McCarthyism or the anti-communist propaganda? This is more conducive to the higher marks and shows you are a well-read individual. If you don't mention this it will be very hard to attain the top marks :) Twelve Angry Men has a rich historical context; erroneous propaganda, jaundiced societal values and the jury system as a corrupt and corrosive government structure. Seriously, you have so much to talk about; why are you talking about the season? .   , Reginald Rose’s widely acclaimed play “Twelve Angry Men,” depicts the broader American civilization and its varying perceptions through the medium of a judicial systemAs aforementioned, this sentence is not very effective.. By employing the opinions of twelve individual identitiesWe don't need to be told this! in the midst of a jury room, Rose is able to present his understanding of how discrete personalities of the society relate to a scenario, and hence arrive at a “unanimous decision.”This is very clunky and does not demonstrate an understanding of the text's nuances. Being the architect of reasonable doubt among the Jury, Juror 8 is utilised by the playwright as a mediumConsider synonyms; it is only the third sentence and you are already repeating words. to highlight how jury members There is something missing here. and symbolically the individual identities of a society respond to differing perceptions.Check the syntactical construction of this sentence. Furthermore, it’s Do not use contractions in formal writing. through reasonable doubt that Rose builds and maintains tension between his characters, hence provingDon't be so rigidly diagnostic. reasonable doubt to be a key theme of his play. Though prevailing, the concept of reasonable doubt is not the most important aspect of “Twelve Angry Men,” yet it is only a mediumConsider synonyms! through which the jurors arrive at a decision between guilty or innocentThis is retelling.. Overall, it can be assumedDon't use this word. that both guilt/innocence and reasonable doubt are major aspects of Rose’s play; while it is through the means of reasonable doubt that the essential beliefs and qualities of each juror emerge, it is in order to prove the defendant guilty or innocent that Rose utilises the concept of reasonable doubt itself.Your arguments are lost in this phraseology.

I have marked your introduction in detail and have read your other paragraphs.I will divide my feedback into two parts:Interpretation/evidence selection and linguistic ability
Interpretation= At the moment your interpretations are rather reductive and do not display a nuanced understanding of Rose's play. You have not moved beyond schematic interpretations of the text and you are not displaying sufficient analysis skills. Since the exam is in seven days I recommend reading academic articles [Google Scholar or State Victoria library] in order to provide a more sophisticated interpretation. Your selection of evidence is extremely simple and you need to go further than the quotations that 90% of the state will use.When I was studying 12AM I always attempted to analyse stage directions, sibilance, the jurors as caricatures,connotations tone and language style. If you include this into your essay your marks will definitely improve. You are being relevant to the topic;however, you need to examine the play with "a degree of profundity."
Linguistic ability= This is a serious problem in your essay as your meaning is obfuscated by your phraseology. Additionally, some words in your essay are repeated ad nauseam. Your vocabulary is okay; however, at times, it is rather simplistic. The feedback is not intended to be harsh; I am just pointing out the areas for improvement :)
Mark= 6/10   
« Last Edit: October 20, 2014, 08:50:18 pm by 24bauer12 »

brenden

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 7185
  • Respect: +2590
Re: Your Feedback On SECTION A : 12 ANGRY MEN ESSAY required please :)
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2014, 09:56:51 pm »
+2
You're doing a friggen good job, mate. ^
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

Gutthi

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 68
  • Respect: 0
  • School: Aitken College
  • School Grad Year: 2014
Re: Your Feedback On SECTION A : 12 ANGRY MEN ESSAY required please :)
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2014, 05:31:05 pm »
0
Thank You so much for your feedback 24bauer12 :) I will try and look more into the contextual history of the text now that you have reminded me of it. Thank you for taking your time out and giving me such a detailed feedback; it speaks volumes of your kindness :)