Imagine watching twelve jurors walk into the jury room. They don’t know you, you don’t know them and now your life is in their hands. The people that looked friendly to you are now voting guilty, you hear shouting and you hear whispers. Their tempers are getting short. There is more tension in the air than oxygen. Suddenly one man votes not guilty. Rose develops character and tension by engaging the reader in the case through intense actions and dialogs.
In Twelve Angry Men, Rose develops each character through intense actions and long dialogs. For example in Act Two, Juror Three certainly states his mind about the kid on trial “This kid is guilty! He’s got to burn! We’re letting him slip through our fingers” (42). This intense remark indicates that he is clearly involved in the case but not because of the facts, but through personal reasons. Seconds later, Juror Three is
…show more content…
In Act One Juror Nine is telling the audience what he thinks about the kid on trial, he is being very uncivil and also not fair to the boy: “I don’t mind telling you this, mister. We don’t owe the kid a thing. He got a fair trial, didn’t he? … You’re not going to tell us that we’re supposed to believe him, knowing what he is. I’ve lived among them all my life. You can’t believe a word they say. You know that” (16). This shows that Juror Nine is a disrespectful racist who does not even know “them” that well because he seems to have believed one of the eyewitnesses who is one of “them”. Juror Nine replies in a conscientious way “I don’t know that. What a terrible thing for a man to believe! Since when is dishonesty a group characteristic? You have no monopoly on the truth!” (16). Juror Nine’s defense indicates that he is a very honest and open person who is still reposeful after being provoked by Juror Ten. He does not like the way Juror Ten is treating the kid and the other jurors that have a different opinion than