Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Social class in politics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Social class in politics
Since the 1950’s, many groups of working class/middle class writers, novelists and playwrights have been pushing to get their views and politics onto the stage; they became conspicuous at that time and were coined as the ‘Angry Young Men’. Two of the most distinctive members of the Angry Young Men were Sir Kingsley Amis (who wrote Lucky Jim) and John Osbourne (who wrote Look Back In Anger).
After the Theatres Act of 1968 had abolished censorship on stage, some of the plays that hit the stage were highly political, brutally direct and very controversial. People were writing about issues that had been ignored by the government and it was ‘bubbling away for some time in British society’ to the point in which, when the censorship of the stage was taken away, new controversial plays burst onto the stage every decade like Saved (originally performed before the censorship in 1965), Blasted (1995), Cloud Nine (1979) and Shopping and Fucking (1996). When the Theatre Act abolished the censorship, the issues of Britain flooded onto the stage in a very controversial manner; each play was addressing a different issue in Thatcher’s Britain or just generally about Britain’s problems or history. I’m going to talk about one of the plays that looked at the society in Victorian times (in which a British family live in Africa) and then how different that society was to the same characters but in 1979; or what would have been the ‘modern day’ when the play was released. I’m going to talk about the ideologies and themes in the play, Cloud Nine by Caryl Churchill.
Before the play begins, Churchill has written a note called ‘Casting and Doubling’ on what type of person needs to play what type of character. For example, she says “It is essential for Jos...
... middle of paper ...
...could push these political ideologies and issues to the stage; especially after the censorship was removed. Churchill, like the other politically fuelled writers, obviously had a sour taste in her mouth about Thatcher and the way she and the Conservative Party ran Britain. She even went on to write Top Girls that was a double sided view on Margaret Thatcher’s rise to power.
Politics had started to bubble as there was a more prominent line beginning to form between social classes. There were distances between older generational views and the view of the youths. Cultures were beginning to divide because of racism in politics. Billington was correct in saying that people did not think these barriers and divisions were necessary and they took the necessary actions to destroy these barriers; starting with showing people just how bad society was at the time; using theatre
The play is very simplistic and overtly political. It heavily features varying aspects of non-illusory theatre to semaphor Priestley's political message. When reading the play, it is important to remember that the characters are not people but caricatures Priestley employs to manipulate the reader. This combines with the artificiality of the plot to form a completely biased play, from whichever angle one looks at it. However at the time of its publication it was not so outlandish, because it upheld the New Labour government, struggling so hard to bring about its reforms and stay in favour of a people who had suffered many hardships and were now looking to more years of difficulty and discomfort.
We are all different. We are all at least biased on one topic. Some people just look at the surface, while others dig deeper into the facts that were given. Reginald Rose demonstrated these points beautifully in 12 Angry Men. All of the Jurors bring a special part of their personality to the jury room, which is the beauty of having a jury. All of the jurors are different in their own unique way,
This report is on a movie called, “12 Angry Men.” The movie is about 12 men that are the jury for a case where a young man is being accused of killing his father. A major conflict that is very obvious is the disagreement on whether the young boy was guilty or innocent. After court when all of the men sat down to begin their discussion Courtney B. Vance (#1) Took charge and respectfully was now the leader. He asked what everyone’s votes were and all of the men except for Jack Lemmon (#8) voted the young man was guilty. Because Jack was the odd one that chose differently than the rest of the men, all of the other Jures, were defensive about the evidence just because they were all so confused. Courtney B. Vance took charge once again and calmly stated that everyone has their rights and lets have everyone explain the reasons why they thing the child is guilty or not guilty. Ossie Davis (#2) explained why he voted guilty. While explaining this he was very calm and wise. HE handled conflicts in the same way. Next was George C. Schott (#3) He also voted guilty. George was very st...
These differences in character, though seemingly small, lead the audience to draw two very different conclusions about the characters’ situations and why they are placed in them. The analyzation of the characters changes from Shakespeare’s written play to Hoffman’s rendering of A Midsummer Night’s
Stop for a moment and think how many times have you said “I'll kill you” to a person and actually killed that person? Two times? Three times? We all know that the answer is never unless of course you're actually a killer. This is what might or might not have happened with the boy who was accused of killing his father in the movie 12 Angry Men. Firstly, let's consider on the title of the movie itself which says “12 Angry Men.” Twelve is indicating the number of group members, angry is indicating the state of their temper, and men indicating their gender. So the title of the movie strongly connects to the name of the class “Group Communication Studies” because both involve a group, a goal and communication among the group members in order to achieve a common goal. The 96 minute film is all about a group of jurors sitting in a room on a very hot day to decide the fate of an 18 year old boy. Each judge had to come up with a decision— either the boy is guilty or not guilty of killing his father with a switch blade knife. The entire movie theme revolves around the group and how it completes its task. The group is so much involved in the discussion and there are so many conflicts that the members even forget to introduce themselves, hence the audience has to remember them by numbers of the order of their seating arrangement. This movie is a perfect detailed and visual example of how a group forms and develops over time, and most importantly the personality and approach of Jury number 8 gives an idea about how important it is to participate, speak up, and take a stance even in the early stages of the group formation. Each member's involvement and contribution to the group goal is important as it can reshape and change the dimensions of o...
In attempts on her life, I believe Martin Crimp uses various actors that each in turn attempt to represent Anne; naturally this suggests to me that with the use of many actors, Anne will be a powerful figure whether she be dominant or absent throughout. In the 17 scenarios of the play, the text that I consider to be post dramatic generally creates ‘Anne’, who throughout remains a dubious third person, I believe Anne to be a third person as there is no single annotation of her character. This immediately challenges the theatrical conventions of character in consequence to the suggestion that Anne is not a delineate character, particularly since we are offered very little insight into her personality throughout the entire play. ‘The most striking formal feature of Crimp’s play is that it refuses to attribute character name to the spoken text’ (Barnett, 2008)
Characterisation is vastly different in the film when compared to the play. This, however, is done so as to make more sense to a modern
In viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. It is safe to say that our actions, beliefs, and choices separate us from animals and non-livings. The 20th century English philosopher, Martin Hollis, once said, “Free will – the ability to make decisions about how to act – is what distinguishes people from non-human animals and machines 1”. He went to describe human beings as “self conscious, rational, creative. We can fall in love, write sonnets or plan for tomorrow. We are capable of faith, hope and charity, and for that matter, of envy, hated and malice. We know truth from error, right from wrong 2.” Human nature by definition is “Characteristics or qualities that make human beings different from anything else”. With this said, the topic of human nature has been around for a very long time, it is a complex subject with no right or wrong answer. An American rabbi, Samuel Umen, gave examples of contradictions of human nature in his book, Images of Man. “He is compassionate, generous, loving and forgiving, but also cruel, vengeful, selfish and vindictive 3”. Existentialism by definition is, “The belief that existence comes before essence, that is, that who you are is only determined by you yourself, and not merely an accident of birth”. A French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, is the most famous and influential 20th - century existentialist. He summed up human nature as “existence precedes essence”. In his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, he explained what he meant by this. “It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will be something, and he himself will have made what he will be 4”. After watching 12 Angry Men, the prominent view on human nature that is best portrayed in the movie is that people are free to be whatever they want because as Sartre said, “people create themselves every moment of everyday according to the choices they make 5”.
O’Rourke, J. & Collins, S. (2008). Managing Conflict and Workplace Relationships. New York: Cengage Learning.
The movie 12 Angry Men depicts the story of 12 men serving on a jury who must determine the destiny of a young man charged with murdering his father (Lidz, 1995). This study represents the analysis of 12 Angry Men movie by applying Tuckman's Stages, to determine if these men acted as a group or a team, as well as analyze the dynamics of this group of men as they weighed the confirmation, demonstration, and personal agendas.
In 1979, Caryl Churchill wrote a feminist play entitled Cloud Nine. It was the result of a workshop for the Joint Stock Theatre Group and was intended to be about sexual politics. Within the writing she included a myriad of different themes ranging from homosexuality and homophobia to female objectification and oppression. “Churchill clearly intended to raise questions of gender, sexual orientation, and race as ideological issues; she accomplished this largely by cross-dressing and role-doubling the actors, thereby alienating them from the characters they play.” (Worthen, 807) The play takes part in two acts; in the first we see Clive, his family, friends, and servants in a Victorian British Colony in Africa; the second act takes place in 1979 London, but only twenty-five years have passed for the family. The choice to contrast the Victorian and Modern era becomes vitally important when analyzing this text from a materialist feminist view; materialist feminism relies heavily on history. Cloud Nine is a materialist feminist play; within it one can find examples that support all the tenets of materialist feminism as outlined in the Feminism handout (Bryant-Bertail, 1).
12 Angry men is about a group of men who are appointed as jury’s. They are put in a room until they could come up with a conclusion, on whether the boy who was convicted of murder is guilty or not.
Guilty or not guilty is the key question found stuck in the head of any juror on a murder case. It seems like such a simple question, but the twelve jurors for a murder case of a boy who may have killed his father takes the question to a whole new level. The behaviors of these twelve men are quite unique when looking at them psychologically. They can be determined by a numerous number of psychological phenomena. Some specific phenomena that can be shown using incidences throughout the movie of 12 Angry Men are conformity, stereotyping, memory, personality, and sensation and perception.
In class we have watched the movie 12 Angry Men. The movie is about a jury of twelve men deciding whether a boy will go to the death penalty or go out the doors a free man. The case seems clear to many that the boy is guilty of killing his father. Two witnesses testified against the boy, which made eleven of the men convinced that the boy was obviously guilty. When the twelve men headed inside the conference room to discuss the verdict, all of the men except one juror raised their hand for guilty. The one juror wanted to discuss the outcome before he sent a boy to die. The eleven other jurors were extremely upset because they felt as if they were wasting time discussing something that was so obvious.
Managers and associates continually face conflict in the workplace. Using the five conflict resolution styles and knowing when to use them makes resolving differences easier.