When a transgender black woman kills a mentally ill murderer, she is put on trial for life, the jury, who vary from rich to poor to caring to prejudiced, are caught up in a spiral of grey areas – and a case that exposes the increasingly mad world they live in.
I don’t see the conflict. She is guilty. Revenge is not an excuse for murder. If it were, we would be living in a much more dangerous society.
In “12 Angry Men” the jury debated whether the accused was guilty based upon weak evidence. In your case, the woman did murder someone in order to avenge her friend’s death. There is no question of guilt.
If you want the audience to sympathize with this woman she needs a better excuse for murder than revenge.
I didn’t get the whole revenge thing. Unless you changed the logline, it nowhere states that she killed a friend’s killer.
Curate your paragraph a bit. Cut words down. Edit. Clean up your syntax. Don’t elaborate on how diverse the jury is. It’s a jury. Show us that the protagonist is (in) the jury. Don’t mislead us to think that it may be the woman.
Write a couple of words about that protagonist. Are they a man or a woman? Are they black? Are they cis or trans? In a case against a black trans woman, a Henry Fonda protagonist would be soooooo patronising.
UNTITLED SOCIAL DRAMA:
“12 Angry Men” for the millennial age explores how far (or how little) we’ve come.
Racism, inequality, and prejudice – still rampant.
It seems only the woman and the everyman want to save this transgender woman.
1. A rock bottom singer – weathered by a misogynistic industry.
Her 15 minutes are over.
A singer who is desperate to make a difference – but is it for her career or for the world?
2. A wealthy entrepreneur/businessman. Racist? Benign? All powerful?
And it turns out the uncaring, unsympathetic entrepreneur has valid reasons to hate this transgender woman???
3. A simple hothead mechanic. – He’d have reasons to feel dislike.
A hothead who needs the money – and is bribed.
Does he still have integrity?
A man who doesn’t care about politics or even the trial – he only cares about cars. He slowly grows a heart.
4. A stuttering soft spoken everyman – from Midwest. He reveals himself to have a brain.
The honest Joe boyscout. A self righteous do gooder striving to protect this transgender woman.
Decent and honourable yet ultimately no one is listening to him.
5. A wealthy politician recovering from a health scare.
A once vain Golden boy. Healed. Found God.
Trying to figure out the man he’s going to be in phase 2 of his life. He is caught between old and new.
They are defending a transgender black woman who killed a demented (yet mentally ill) young man who raped and murdered a woman.
The mentally ill murderer is a millennial gone mad – desperate for attention, desensitised to what’s real and what he can get away with. He professes he did it for instagram/Facebook likes and is a self professed “artist”.
The transgender black woman avenged her friend’s death.
It should explore how the media manipulates and ultimately controls the trial.
Explores: celebrity culture, media manipulation, politics, racism, prejudice, class divide, inequality, toxic masculinity.
Okay – we’ll make her completely innocent… yet they still want to give her life.
What do you think of “12 Angry Men” in our day and age? I mean there’s plenty of in-built conflict. Perhaps the demented mentally ill murderer could be the son of a rich politician – add another layer?
I’m guessing that the transgender description should have some significance or why put it in there. Maybe evidence points to male and transgender person says it’s impossible as he/she is a woman. Tell me why that’s important in playing out the trial. I agree with above comments in the significance of the victim – he is both mentally ill and a murderer – how does the protagonist fit in? Is it about the the person on trial or the jury? If you want to focus on the jury, the dilemma could be from the perspective of the juror who finds conflict in the story….it depends if we are going to see the story from the trangender person’s perspective or the jurors perspective…