12 Angry Men Film Review

* The foreman should’ve been more involved when conflict rose between all the men. Thirty minutes into the movie, an insensitive comment was made by one of the jurors. Another juror found his comment unnecessary and believed that it shouldn’t be joked about. As he looked at the foreman and told him this, the foreman simply said with an (I don’t care attitude), “now what do you want me to do about that?” It seems to me that while arguments got out of hand, the foreman didn’t care to mediate the situation. I believe he needed to be a little more proactive.

Twelve Angry Men was written over half of a century ago but still baits thought as to one’s true character. Screening the process of twelve jurors determining a young boys fate in a murder trial, the picture dissects individuals and begins to uproot prejudice and biases a few of the jurors were at first uncomfortable to admit. The 1957 MGM film Twelve Angry Men provokes thought through twelve on-screen characters by displaying their skills in empathy, personal priorities, and self-control.

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.

One of the characters in the story that plays a important role is the Foreman. The Foreman helps maintain between the jurors. The Foreman makes sure the jurors are acting in a organized manner according to the rules. In the Drama “Twelve Angry Men” page 100 paragraph 9 - 11 it states “ I was thinking we oughta sit in order, by jury number. Two, Three, Four and so on and so on, if thats ok with you gentlemen?” This evidence claims that the Foreman thinks in a democracy thinks that you should act in a organized manner. The Foreman thinks that in a democracy obeying the law is important and all must be on the same page when doing so. In the drama “Twelve Angry Men” page 102 paragraph 58 - 59 it states “ This has to be a twelve or nothing vote any way. Thats that law ok, are we all ready?” This evidence states that the Foreman takes democracies seriously, even though he is the reason that a boy might die he still acts calmly.

The classic 1957 movie 12 Angry Men delves in to a panel of twelve jurors who are deciding the life or death fate of an eighteen year old italian boy accused of stabbing his father to death. The twelve men selected as jurors are a diverse group, each coming to the table with their own socioeconomic backgrounds, personal experiences, prejudice’s, and all of this plays a role in the jurors attitudes and/or misconceptions of the accused young man. How each of the jurors, all but Juror Eight played by Henry Fonda, experiences and personalities impact their original vote of guilty is clear at the beginning of the movie with the first vote. However, from the start, Juror Eight displays confidence, and demonstrates leadership abilities utilizing

In the play 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose there are many fallacies that shape the deliberations of the case. One of the most important elements of the play is the relationship between Juror 3, Juror 8 and Juror 10 at times. The constant conflict between the jurors is the main drive of the drama. Juror 10 was bitter and prejudice right from the start, it was not until Act III when he unleashes his bigotry. Juror 3 was always the antagonist from the beginning, he is quick to lose his temper with number 8 and the rest of the jury at times.

12 Angry Men depicts twelve jurors deliberating on the life of a young man accused of murdering his father. In the beginning, Juror 8 (Henry Fonda) stands alone against eleven other jurors with the sole plea of not guilty. Throughout the film, Juror 8 brings other jurors to his opinion with the use of multiple argumentative tactics. More and more jurors join the side of Juror 8 until just one juror remains with a plea of guilty. Eventually, Juror 3 (Lee J. Cobb) succumbs to an emotional breakdown and pleads not guilty, saving the defendants life.

The 1957 movie version of 12 Angry Men, brings twelve people together with different personalities and experiences to discuss the fate of a young boy that allegedly killed his father. At the very beginning, many agree that the boy is guilty except for one man. Juror #8 votes not guilty and pushes to have the evidence talked through. After reviewing all the evidence carefully, the tables turned from guilty to not guilty. Each juror brought different experiences and personalities to the jury room. The two that were forceful with their opinions and their reasonings to decide either way we're jurors #8 and #3.

Twelve Angry Men is a drama written by Reginald Rose concerning the jury of a homicide trial that was later turned into a movie. The movie shows the deliberations of a homicide trial in New York City in 19157. At the beginning of the movie eleven of the twelve jurors decided the boy on trial as being guilty. The one man, juror number eight, that did not agree that the boy was guilty felt that he needed to be sure without a doubt that the boy killed his father before sentencing him to the death penalty. Throughout the play the juror eight convinces the rest of the jury of the boy’s innocence through ethics, advocacy, and the establishment of a verbal contract.

While watching the movie, 12 Angry Men, I saw many of the different things we have been discussing in class. The jurors all took different roles throughout the movie. These different roles contributed to the communication the group had, the stages of development, and how they came up with a consensus.

Twelve Angry Men is a courtroom drama that was brought to the big screens in 1957. The storyline follows twelve men selected for jury duty, who are trying to reach a verdict on a young man’s trial following the murder of his father. Throughout the debates and voting, the men all reveal their personalities and motives behind their opinions. Because of all the differences of the men, their communication skills lack in some ways and are excellent in others. The three small group communication variables that I found portrayed throughout the movie were prejudice, past experience and preoccupation.

According the five Methods for Influencing Other Group Members - use of reason, assertiveness, coalition building, higher values, and bargaining - when Juror Eight said: “we are talking about somebody life here, we can’t just decide within five minutes, suppose we are wrong”, he used the youth human-being life’s important and the danger of a false decision as good reasons to force other jurors in analyzing the facts carefully. He then talks about the boy’s backgrounds for appealing to logic and rational thinking of other jurors. Juror Three was overt prejudice, hostility, and used “assertiveness” to influence the other ten jurors of jury provided an antagonist for juror Eight. Juror eight used “coalition building” method to seek alignment with other group members. He never says that he believes the defendant is innocent but his mantra throughout the movie was “it’s possible!” referring to the reasonable doubt, which he convinced others’ thought. Juror Eight continued to appeal other eleven juror’s higher values by repeatedly reinforcing their moral and judicial obligation to convict only if there was no reasonable doubt. He challenged each juror to look at the facts more thoughtfully. “Bargaining” is offering an instrument exchange. Juror 8 used this method when he said: “I want to call for another vote… If there are 11 votes for guilty, I won’t stand alone… But if anyone votes not guilty, we stay here and talk it out.”

Watching movies has permanently been part of my life. I find great comfort in a good movie and am never bored when I am watching. My love for watching movies and reading stories enriched my life in so many ways. Through movies and books, I learned so much about the world, about life, and got to escape the real world's trials and misfortunes. It would be impossible to list all the books I've read through the years. But everyone has added to my life in some way. Watching movies is such a learning experience from learning new things to learning about new places, peoples, and experiences.

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.

It is uncommon to hear of many people our age raving about black and white film, or how they are dying to see them in theaters. But I think the movie 12 Angry Men would surprise most people our age. The film 12 Angry Men is definitely something to rave about. The movie is filled with a quality plot, acting, suspense, and good composition. The movie was made in 1957 and was directed by Sidney Lumet. The movie is a courtroom drama with a crash course on how the constitution and jurors can make for a fair trial. The film does this by having the plot revolve around a murder case that was blown over to what they thought was a conclusion, but after the jury carefully looked over the facts they came to a different conclusion. As the film progresses it reveals the workings of our constitution and the right to a fair trial. 12 Men must gather to decide if a boy is guilty of the murdering his own father. Most jurors before evening entering the room to discuss the trial had made up their mind the boy was guilty. All it took was one juror to be indecisive about the trial to spark a conversation about the trial and talk it over.