Name: Ms. Fittz English 2 14 January 2015 English 2 Agenda Wednesday, January 14 Bell-Ringer. 1. Good Morning! Who is the defendant in Twelve Angry Men? Describe what we know about the defendant. _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 2. The Jurors. How would you describe the jurors’ attitude toward the case so far? _________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Witness. What evidence does the “Old Man” witness provide about the case? (2 things) ______________ ___________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Witness. What evidence does the “Woman across the train tracks” witness provide about the case? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ II. Trial Vocabulary: Reasonable Doubt, Deliberate, Premeditated III. Characterization with Selma https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6t7vVTxaic IV. Characterization in Twelve Angry Men {Direct & Indirect} a. Character List vs. Play ! Choose Roles for {acting} Act 2 V. Read & Analyze Twelve Angry Men, Act 2 VI. Exit Ticket: Act 2 Homework #2: Due Friday || Quiz #2 Friday Learning Objectives *We will… ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *We will… ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Announcements: Soccer on Fridays @ 2:30. Grass field behind auditorium. Do YOU have what it takes to beat your English teacher? ☺ Tutoring Thursday ONLY 2-4. Soccer Friday ☺ [email protected]* text/call 615.543.6260 * fittz.weebly.com
Transcript
Name: Ms. Fittz English 2 14 January 2015
English 2 Agenda Wednesday, January 14
Bell-Ringer.
1. Good Morning! Who is the defendant in Twelve Angry Men? Describe what we know about the defendant.
2. The Jurors. How would you describe the jurors’ attitude toward the case so far? _________________ _______________________________________________________________________________
3. Witness. What evidence does the “Old Man” witness provide about the case? (2 things) ______________ ___________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________
4. Witness. What evidence does the “Woman across the train tracks” witness provide about the case? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
II. Trial Vocabulary: Reasonable Doubt, Deliberate, Premeditated III. Characterization with Selma https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6t7vVTxaic IV. Characterization in Twelve Angry Men {Direct & Indirect}
a. Character List vs. Play ! Choose Roles for {acting} Act 2 V. Read & Analyze Twelve Angry Men, Act 2 VI. Exit Ticket: Act 2
IV. Characterization in Selma: What type of characterization (direct or indirect) is used to characterize Martin Luther King, Jr. in Selma? How do you know?
VII. Analysis Questions: Twelve Angry Men Act 2 (page 232-244)
1. What causes the conflict between jurors Three and Five at the opening of this scene? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Why does Juror Nine change his vote? Describe Juror Nine’s character. ____________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Explain Juror Nine’s comment about courage on page 233. ________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Explain Juror Eight’s point about a passing elevated train in terms of the old man’s testimony. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. How does Juror Nine explain the old man’s testimony? _____________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6. Eight does a lot of measuring. Why does he do this? _______________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7. What does Juror Eight demonstrate about the Old Man’s testimony? _______________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 8. Why do you think it is so important for Three that the boy be convicted? ___________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9. On what dramatic note does this act end? Why is this significant? __________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ! Early Finisher: Does it seem like the “facts” or each person’s perspective determines the opinion of each juror? Could it be both?
