Analysis:

a) Preliminary vote (pages 8-13)

In this scene, the jurors have decided to take a preliminary vote to have an overview of where they stand. The vote is 11-1 guilty.

Foreman:

• Foreman tries to be fair and in control of the situation. He often asks the other jurors for their opinions and whether they are okay with how the deliberation is running. He is quite hesitant which indicates some anxiety.

Juror 2:

• Juror 2 is quiet and is an observer. 

Juror 7:

• Juror 7 makes cuff remarks throughout the first scene. His character serves as to balance the tension within the courtroom.

Juror 8:

• Juror 8 is the only juror to vote 'not guilty' in the preliminary vote.

Juror 9:

• Similar to Juror 8, Juror 9 considers what he is about to see. This indicates that he is wise and also his background in terms of his education and upbringing. He is an observer and is points out that Juror 10 is an ignorant man.

Juror 10:

• Juror 10 overly uses exclusive language which demonstrates his prejudice towards people of a lower social standing. He is described as a bigot.
• 'You can't believe a word they say. I mean, they're born liars'

b) The Knife (pages 21-24)

In this scene the jurors focus on the knife and its role in the murder. Juror 4 is logical and focuses on the facts, by doing so he also gives the audience more information about the case. There is also a clear distinction between the language of jurors 3 and 4. Juror 3 uses sarcasm and less sophisticated compared to that of juror 4. Juror 3 describes some of the evidence discussed as the 'discovery of the age or something'. Whereas juror 4 is more educated in terms of the way he approaches evidence. 

c) The Confrontation (pages 47-48)

This scene is the point of tension. It is the scene just before scene 2 begins. Juror 3 is derogatory and refers to the other jurors as 'old ladies'. His impatient and bias judgement is explicit in this scene. It is clear that something has hurt him which draws parallels between the defendant's life and his. This scene also exemplifies how difficult it is to leave your personal emotions behind. The conclusion of the play leave s the audience with a climax point/ cliff hanger. It reiterates the name of the play, '12 Angry Men', it also makes the audience think about the severity of the phrase 'I'm going to kill you' and ultimately whether juror 3 meant it or not.

d) The opposition (pages 53-54)

In this scene there is a change of mise en scene. Juror 4, who is an educated, reserved character is agitated by juror 3 and his attitudes towards the case. He is continually rude and bigot. He refers to the other jurors as '6 bastards over there' and is not willing to let the defendant live. He does not want to 'break [his] brain over scum like that'. Juror 3's dislike and prejudice does not go away and at the end of the scene and results in juror 10 giving up on the case. Juror 10's actions further agitate juror 3 as it reminds him of how his con gave up their relationship.  

e) Indecision (pages 60-63)

Revelations occur in this scene. Jurors 2, 5 and 11 are vital characters in this scene and eventually persuades other jurors to change their votes. Throughout the beginning of the play jurors 2, 5 and 11 are observers rather than conductors. Their involvement in this scene is of great importance.

Juror 2:

• methodical- thinks about his arguments

Juror 5:

• shows how a switch knife is held 
• The audience learns that juror 5 is educative and practical.

Juror 11:

• is annoyed with juror 7's immaturity
• wants juror 7 to take the case more seriously. This acts as a reminder to jurors for today of the importance of jury duty

f) Shame (pages 63-66)

In this scene jurors 10 and 12 turn their backs on juror 10. Juror 3's bigotry initiates angry within the jury room and results in juror 4 telling juror 3 to stop because '[they've] heard enough'. This significantly contrasts with juror 4's character in the beginning of the play. Juror 4's outburst gives the audience an indication of how offended the jurors are. Almost immediately after being embarrassed, juror 3 turns away in shame. He is ashamed of his prejudice and stubbornness, although so juror 3's character in the play does not have closure and ends as a defeated character. He no longer cares about the case and is flippant. The audience learns that his lack seriousness is due to his nature rather than his educational background.

g) Conclusion (pages 70-73)

This scene draws the conclusion of the play. All twelve jurors vote 'not guilty' after Juror 9 picks out the fact that the woman's testimony could not have been true. Juror 9, who was an observer throughout a large portion of the play points this out. In the end of the play, the audience is able to see Juror 9's personal feelings and learn more about his character.

Act Summaries:

1) The generation of tension in the play.

Which characters act as the source of tension within the jury room?

 A number of characters act as a source of tension within the jury room.

• Juror 3- Juror 3 acts as a source of tension within the jury room as he allows his emotional baggage to cloud his judgement. He is quick to lose his temper when there is disagreement.
• Juror 7- Juror 7's eagerness for the case to conclude before his baseball game begins, creates a reasonable amount of tension within the jury room. His character is discontent with the idea of the jury and for that reason further distances himself away from the case. Throughout the play, he is often seen making irrational decisions in order to rush the deliberation. 
• Juror 10- Juror 10 is openly racist and prejudice. He is the source of many arguments within the jury and as a result of his bigot personality he is despised by other members of the jury.
• Juror 12- Juror 12's indecisiveness and distraction from the case results in him changing his stance on the case several times. His decision to change his vote causes disagreement and anger.

What other factors contribute to the building tension?

Many factors contribute to the building tension within the play including personal conflict. Each juror is different and has individual differences in terms of background, race and age. Each person’s individuality contributes to the growing tension. For example, juror 3 experiences conflict with his son, which adds to his prejudice and stance on the case and ultimately the building tension. Each juror’s sense of justice and willingness to thoroughly look at all the aspects of the case also contributes to the growing tension. As seen throughout the play, some jurors are apathetic towards the case. Juror 7 merely his vote to 'not guilty' to advance the case. 

What issues or discussion topics cause tension amongst the jurors?

A number of issues and discussion topics cause a reasonable amount amongst the jurors. In the beginning of the play, where a vote is taken, tension arises due to the fact that the vote is 11-1 guilty. Juror 8's decision to vote not guilty surprises everyone and results in anger and frustration from some of the jury members. Some of the jurors had other plans or just wanted the case to conclude (Juror 7 has his baseball game). Tension arises as many of the jurors believe that he is guilty and don't understand why juror 8 doesn't think he is. 

When the juror 8 tries to indicate how loosely the phrase 'i'm gonna kill you' is used in society and how its severity and seriousness is lost, juror 10 reacts negatively and causes tension amongst the jurors. 

2) The progression of the narrative.

What characters have been introduced?

Besides the twelve jurors, two witnesses have also been introduced. The first witness is an old man who drags one leg. In his witness testimony he said that he walked from his bed to the front door within fifteen seconds just in time to see the boy '[race] down the stairs]'. He also stated that he heard the defendant say 'I'm going to kill you' and the sound of a body hitting the floor. Although so, juror 8 indicates that he couldn't have heard anything as an elevated train passed at that time. 

The other character who was introduced was the female eye witness. She claimed to have seen the murder through the last carriage of the passing elevated train. 

What specific traits do we learn about the characters?

We learn that the old man drags a leg when he walks and why he may have lied in his witness testimony. Juror 8 points out that it would be almost impossible for the old man to walk from his bed to the door in fifteen seconds by doing a reenactment. The old man's testimony is not reliable and that he may have lied to feel important.  

Juror 4 raises the point about the deep impressions on the female eye witness' nose. During her testimony in court she didn't wear her eye glasses, this then leads to whether she actually saw the murder happen or not as she wasn't wearing her eye glasses whilst in bed on the night of the murder.

Along what path is the jury debate travelling?

The members of the jury are gradually gaining reasonable doubt and are changing there votes to 'not guilty'. Juror 8 has made some good points and indicated that the some of the evidence given is not accurate and hence, there isn't enough evidence to proof that the defendant is guilty.

3) Predictions regarding the plot development.

What do you think will be the next area of discussion regarding the defendant?

I think the next area of discussion will be why the defendant could not remember the name of the film he saw at the theatre or the names of the actors. I think this will be the next area of discussion they will look at as it will proof whether the defendant was actually at the theatre or not. 

Who do you believe will be the next juror to change their mind?

I think that the next juror to change his mind is juror 6 or 7. Juror 6 is willing to look at the case methodically and examine the evidence thoroughly. I think he may be the next juror to change his mind as juror 8 has made some good points in term of the accuracy of the possible evidence against the defendant and I think that will raise some reasonable doubt about the case. Juror 7 may also be the next juror to change his mind as he wants the case to end before his baseball match. The votes are currently about 5-7 guilty, I think he will change his mind to speed up the deliberation. 

4. Possible viewer responses to the action and character development.

How would an audience viewing the play at the time it was written respond to the action on stage?

People were becoming more educated and less conservative therefore it would be likely that the audience were interested in the play. Members of society were becoming intellectual and hence were likely to show interest in regards to justice and law.

How does this differ from audiences viewing the play today?

Audience responses at the time the play would be different to responses today due to changes in society. People nowadays tend to be more educated and are willing to question issues in society compared to during the 1950's. 

Is there a difference between audience responses here in Australia versus locals in the United States?

I don't think that there would be a significant amount of difference between audience responses in Australia and America. Both the United States and Australia operate on a jury system so it would be likely that audiences would have similar reactions and queries. Both countries have a lot in common in terms of the way it is run now. Multiculturalism is exhibited in both countries and hence the motive of absolute justice is present within the play. Juror 11, is a German migrant and as seen throughout the play he wants the case to be looked at thoroughly to ensure that absolute justice is achieved.