1957 Film Review : 12 Angry Men

1197 Words5 Pages
The 1957 film, 12 Angry Men showcases several forms of leadership in action. With twelve men deliberating on the outcome of a young minority who is on trial for the suspected murder of his father, there is ample opportunity to witness different styles of leadership. Each character is dynamic and they show a range of personalities. From the juror number eight’s questioning nature to juror number ten’s bigotry, they all are quite diverse. However, one of the main things this film showcases is the need for a high level of morality. This is personified in juror number eight. Juror number one is the designated foreman of this group and he is utilizing a democratic form of leadership, though in all actuality he is more of a manager than a…show more content…
Juror number three is a high-strung older man, who appears to be an upstanding citizen owning his own business, a messenger service called the Beck and Call Company. Juror number three, who seems to believe in family and respect, revealed by his letting his wife name his company and by the fact that he carries a picture of his son in his wallet. However, he criticizes the younger generations’ lack of respect, stating how they do not even call their fathers “sir” anymore (Lumet, 1957). He projects his anger for his son’s refusal to speak with him, and the younger generation in general at the young defendant, and lets this be the main factor that sways his reason. In the end though, he is the last one to change his vote to not guilty. Juror number seven is an interesting character. A salesmen by trade, he is self-assertive in a rude and overbearing way. He is impatient and just wants to be done with the entire process so that he can get to a baseball game. He seems to enjoy arguing with anyone who opposes the young boy’s guilt, and gives the impression that he has a personal stake in finding him guilty. He regularly attempts to tell the others how to vote, giving one the impression he is an authoritarian leader. Only then, he starts to waver on his conviction that the boy is guilty, not because of the facts, or lack thereof, but because he is just ready to leave, showing that he may use the authoritarian
Open Document