12 Angry Jurors is a play that took place in the early 1970’s. The entire play consists of 12 jurors discussing a murder case and the individual who is ‘guilty’ is an African American man in a time where African Americans were still discriminating against. Overall, this production was one worth watching. The play started with a character exposition and then had rising conflicts. One of the best conflicts was the conflict with time and getting to see juror three retrace the steps of the man in questioning. It was a high-tension point. But in my opinion the climax was right before the intermission when juror three said “I am going to kill you” and juror eight said “But you aren’t really going to kill me are you?” To me, this was the climax…show more content… From watching her preform, as a student I learned that the character motivates movement and it has to be believable. All her movements felt as though they were coming from her character and not from a script. She would cross her arms, roll her eyes, purse her lips, avaoid eye contact and have snarkey remarsk, all of which were small but effective character traits. One the flipside two characters who could have done a bit more were juror 2 and juror 6. Both characters were shy, timid and did not want to offer their opinion and upset the jury. I felt as though they were the same character and it was hard to follow then because they were not as believable as some of the other characters. My favorite moment from the show was when after intermission, the video on civil rights played as the jury walked back onto stage and got into their same positions. I wish the jury members had stayed a bit longer in their positions to establish what was going on before in the scene. Playing the civil rights and black-face video in the beginning of the play was an interesting moment as well, but the voice over took away from it a bit. I also enjoyed the ‘hung jury’ conversation because it kept me interested throughout the rest of the second