12 Angry Men Film Analysis

Recently in my AP English class, we watched The film “Twelve Angry Men”. The film was unique in the fact that it only had one setting, the Jury Room. The film showed no one else but the jurors and the warden, who all remained completely nameless throughout the entire movie and we're only identified by their juror numbers. The jurors were drastically different which I believe added more diversity and made the plot more complex and intriguing to the audience. I don't believe the film had a specific intended audience, I believe that this show can be appreciated by all audiences because it shows that reasonable doubt is a much easier state of mind then certainty.

In analyzing the differences in the antagonist's and protagonist's relationship with each other and the other jurors, it too held to the play's guidelines with the various alliances and verbal sparring making sense in light of each juror's moral alignment and personality. There was one difference, a minor or major one depending how it was viewed. Detached from the ending, Juror 3 being more humanely portrayed in the movie than in the play was a minor change. Seen in relation to the movie's ending, Juror 3's inner conflicts and humanness is a very a major change.

Throughout the film, the audience becomes familiar with each of the jurors and is quickly introduced to topics at issue such as discrimination, iniquitous motives, and concerns about the American judicial system. As the twelve jurors deliberate to reach a verdict, the film epitomizes the validation and condemnation of the American justice system. There are many responsibilities of a jury: to achieve fair and impartial decision, determine guilt or not guilt, give people voice in the government, and to protect the

The personality of juror # 10 was one of hatefulness and anger. This juror was prejudice against the kid because he was from the slums. Juror # 10 said something in the movie about not being able to trust people who are from the slums. Juror # 10 had several outbursts and had a heinous attitude through most of the movie. Juror # 10 was the one who did most of the talking, when it came to trying to convince Juror # 8 that the kid was guilty. There was another Juror that had a roundabout same type of personality coming into the juror’s room as juror # 10. The juror # 3 was also bitter and obstinate towards the others, specifically when it came down to several of the other jurors changing their opinion of guilty to not guilty. Juror # 3 became hot headed and very loud and obnoxious towards everyone. Both Juror # 10 and juror # 3 were only looking at the eye witness testimony,

12 Angry Men is a film originally produced in 1957 by Henry Fonda and Reginald Rose. It is about the journey 12 jurors go on to determine if a defendant is innocent or guilty. 12 Angry Men is a classic movie that is great for people learning different leadership styles, verbal and nonverbal cues, constructive/destructive conflict, and how ‘sidebar’ conversations impact a group’s ability to achieve their goal.

This technique dehumanises them so the only way to characterise them is by their personalities and reactions to the evidence of the murder case. Only after the first vote for guilty or not guilty with a tally of 11 for guilty and 1 for not guilty is the personalities of the jurors shown. The only person to vote not guilty is the 8th juror. He is immediately criticised by his fellow jurors but he holds his ground as he thought there were too many holes in the evidence. "8th juror well I guess we talk " "10th juror boy-boy!" " 3rd juror the man's a killer" These quotes tell us that the 10th is rude and the 3rd juror is stubborn. But the personalities of all the jurors are shown when all the jurors are questioned for why they chose guilty or not guilty. The playwright has intended to have many different people with various past experiences placed on a range for justice or personal needs so that when they clash, all the human emotions are portrayed in a striking way.

Idealized Influence – defined by the values, morals, and ethical principles of a leader and is manifest through behaviours that supress self interest and focus on the good of the collective.

As far as prejudice goes, there is one juror that sticks out the most as being the most bigot-like, that is juror #10. Many of his comments throughout the movie demonstrate a feeling of white supremacy, and no empathy towards the young man on trial, being that he is African American. In one scene he proclaims, “Well don’t you know about them? They’re a danger here. These people are dangerous. They’re wild. Listen to me. Listen to me!” Following that he continues to make more stereotypical comments about blacks, calling them drunks and saying that human life does not mean as much to them. After so many of his racist comments, the other jurors tune him out and disregard his opinions. This affects the overall communication of the group because it angers the other members and distracts from the goal at hand which is to come to a decision. We also see prejudice get in the way of solving

When they all came into the deliberation room, everyone seemed to be getting along together. After the first vote, eleven of the twelve jurors turned against the one who voted not guilty. This one juror slowly begin to gain relationships with the other jurors and begin to win their trust in what he was saying. There were also points when relationships were troubled due to prejudice. The juror who was not from the United States and the juror from the poorer part of town were both discriminated against due to where they were from hindering the relationship of the group. In the end, I think they had a built a relationship that trusted each other.

For this project I decided to watch 12 Angry Men, a story that focuses on a New York City jury's deliberations in an intense murder case. The movie is set in the 1950’s where a jury of twelve men is sent to deliberate in the first-degree murder trial of an eighteen-year-old from a bad area of town and it is hinted that his ethnicity is not white. If the jury were to decide a guilty verdict, it would mean an automatic death sentence for a child. When the jury begins discussing the trial, it appears to be an open-and-shut case: the defendant has an almost unbelievable alibi with no proof that he was not at the scene of the crime and not even being able to say what movie he had gone to see or what it had been about, a knife that

In the classic film, 12 Angry Men, Henry Fonda influences the heterogynous group that have very different personalities. Fonda becomes a strong leader to change the minds of the juror’s to plead not guilty for the boy who is getting charged for murder. Twelve juror’s with such contrasting characteristics wail over the final decision over this young 18 year old boy. The film is based in a small jury room that is filled with such characterization such as benevolence, conceit, evil and good. With the foreman showing a democratic style of leadership, he is very convinced on the boy being guilty along with the rest of the juror’s. Fonda steers clear of stereotyping the young boy and looks at the big picture; the facts from the witnesses that didn’t add up

The beliefs of the individual characters can say a lot about them because it reinforces their prejudices. Juror ten

In the beginning of the film, conflict between the jury members arise when the initial vote was taken and only one member of the jury voted that the verdict was not guilty (Juror 8). Because Juror 8 did not agree with the other jury members, Juror 12 suggested that the group should try and convince Juror 8, why they think defendant is indeed guilty. Conflict also increases when it was decided that each Juror should give a reason for why he initially voted that verdict is guilty or not guilty. In the process of discussing the reasoning behind each members vote, the preconceptions of some Jurors, namely Juror 10, lead to the conformity of other group members, namely Juror 5. During the film, miscommunication between the members leads to further misunderstanding which eventually resulted in role conflict. Simple conflict also took place when the jury members could not agree on a certain issue. Ego conflict occurred because of the group members personality disagreements.

The movie Twelve Angry Men is about the twelve jurors that could adjust their influence in a decision-making process for conviction an eighteen years-old boy, whether the boy guilty or not guilty in murdering of his father. It represents a perfect example for applicable of a work group development framework. It also has examples of influence techniques among a group’s members. This paper is looking at those specific examples in the movie and focusing in analysis the reasons why Juror 8 is so much more effective than others in the meeting.

12 Angry Men is a 1957 American courtroom drama film adapted from a teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose. Written and co-produced by Rose himself and directed by Sidney Lumet, this trial film tells the story of a jury made up of 12 men as they deliberate the guilt or acquittal of a defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt, forcing the jurors to question their morals and values. In the United States, a verdict in most criminal trials by jury must be unanimous. The film is notable for its almost exclusive use of one set: out of 96 minutes of run time, only three minutes take place outside of the jury room.