Analysis on Twelve Angry Men

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.

Unlike Juror 3 Juror 8 is open and even welcomes others’ opinions. He was the only one to vote not guilty at the beginning of 12 Angry Men. He was not an appointed leader and throughout the course of this film he develops into an emergent leader. Juror 8 uses democratic leadership as he focuses on serving the needs of someone else and pointing out the severity of the issue they are deciding on and that a life is at stake. A democratic leader “understand(s) that these challenges are being made to present all sides of the issue and arrive at a better answer” (Kraemer, 2011). Juror 8 wants people to talk it through and make sure they have properly evaluated every side of the reason for being guilty or innocent and a just decision is made. He used

Twelve Angry Men, a play by Reginald Rose, follows the plot of twelve jurors in a courthouse jury room. They are attempting to decide on a verdict for a 16 year old boy on trial for the murder of his father. It is one of the hottest years on record in New York and these jurors just want the case to be over. They all decide on leaving the boy guilty except for one, juror eight. He follows through on the honesty that is supposed to be shown in the judicial system, but not like juror ten who uses prejudice to persuade the other jurors to reach the verdict of guilty.

This courthouse drama is to determine a man guilty or not of murder, however the context has a stronger meaning. In the film, we are introduced to the jury, but there is not an abundance of character development at the time. In many movies, we learn the character’s name and their role throughout the movie. 12 Angry Men fails to cordially introduce their characters and instead assigns each man a number such as juror one or juror two. Although, the men lack a personal identity their personas are very contrasting from one another. This feature plays an important part in developing the tense conflict present in the film. Despite the film’s lacking in personal identity of its characters this concept seems to be insignificant as the plot of the film emerges. After all, it is not the individual lives of the jurors that matter, but their viewpoint for deciding the defendant guilty or

Oftentimes in life, people are faced with situations in which they must work together as a group, with the intention of solving a particular problem. This is seen throughout “Twelve Angry Men” as the jurors collaborate, in an attempt to find a verdict for the murder case. Even though these people have never met each other before, it’s necessary for them to cope with one another and their thoughts, so that they can come to an agreement. In order to come to a conclusion, the jurors had to grow as a group through the five stages of development.

I believe the ideological message this film conveys is that our criminal justice system needs to do a better job instilling fairness and justice in the court system. Therefore, social status or social conditions will not be the determining factor for conviction based on inequality beliefs. I think this film being made in the early 50’s, is still in line with the issue of race relations as we encounter discrimination even today.

In the movie, the jury has to come to a unanimous decision on the boy’s innocence or guilt as stated by the judge in the beginning of the film and that any decision that is not unanimous will result in a hung jury where they will most likely schedule for a retrial. While most of the characters of the jury seem adamant about the eventual result of the kid and how his fate should pan out, juror number 8 decides that he is going to vote for not guilty in order to have a reasonable discussion about the trial instead of immediately sending the defendant to the chair to be executed. This is met by the initial outrage of the group at the thought of someone going against what was the norm of the group, which is very uncommon for someone to do especially in a murder trial where people tend to be very opinionated and set in stone about their ideas. This unflinching and unresolving attitude is shown throughout the movie as juror number 8 slowly and methodically uses both central and peripheral route persuasion to

When analyzing the film, 12 Angry Men, one will notice the reasoning is not consumed by the story, but by the characters and their involvement and interaction. In a brief summary of the film, it contains twelve jurors who are all participating in a trial. The trial is concerning a young adolescent who is being appointed for the death of his father. “Credit the power of this lucid study to the fact that the attributes, failings, passions and prejudices of these tales men is as striking and important as the awesome truth that they hold a boy's life in their hands” (Weiler). Through out the story, the juror’s personalities and qualities are shown, each having their own opinion of the plea bargain. Identified in detail through this analysis, one will be able to clearly depict the different characterization of the jurors. Along with their individual personas, all of the juryman fall under the category of either being Socratic or a sophist in Aristocratic terms. When looking at the arguments among the jurors one can see the different logical styles utilized, and which were effect versus the not effective approaches. Progressively through the movie, the argument grows and each juror becoming their own. When criticizing and evaluating the content of 12 Angry Men, the real meaning behind the story becomes apparent. The connotation of this film is studying the actions of the jurors and what each one brings the case in terms of rhetoric and Aristocratic style.

12 Angry Men, a 1957 film directed by Sidney Lumet, based off of a teleplay by Reginald Rose, exemplifies various forms of human communication amongst a small group of men. After the court dispute, the jury had been announced to their destination. Twelve strongly expressive men accumulate into a small group in the court where they will all come to a consensus on whether a boy is to be charged guilty or innocent. The group of twelve men that gathered into this small room, all displayed unique and strong personalities—whether it was a strong aggressive attitude, a strong devoted will, or even a strong mouse personality. Their objective was to all agree towards one single decision—guilty or innocent. If only one person decides to say

Daily there are thousands of people being found guilty for a crime they did not commit because of a prejudiced judge.Sidney Lumet and Reginald Rose the writers and directors of 12 Angry Men wrote and produced a play about 12 jurors that briefly discuss a trial and come to a verdict , personal issues develop which causes conflict and only makes the process more grueling. The accused boy is being found guilty for murdering his father, 12 jurors are put in a hot room in New York and spend hours briefly viewing the scenario. Although one might think that the justice system should be left in the hands of citizens ,the director and writer of 12 Angry Men , Sidney Lumet and Reginald Rose demonstrate that the United States justice system is unfair and is simply corrupt , inefficient , and injustice due to the jurors biases minds, ignorant attitude ,and the lack of time and energy put in the trial while trying to decide a verdict.

12 Angry Men is a film that plays on show many features of Organizational Behavior. The jurors of 12 men are locked in a room to deciding the future boy who is being accused of murdering his father; the movies show the four stages of Bruce Tuckman’s Group Development Model of Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing. With this model, the movie also show difficulties and cohesiveness that the 12 different men experience as they must come together to make a single decision. While attempting to make this decision, they show several examples of influential behavior being highlighted throughout the film, as each member of the Jury experience using reason, assertiveness, coalition building, higher values and bargaining tools.

Stop for a moment and think how many times have you said “I'll kill you” to a person and actually killed that person? Two times? Three times? We all know that the answer is never unless of course you're actually a killer. This is what might or might not have happened with the boy who was accused of killing his father in the movie 12 Angry Men. Firstly, let's consider on the title of the movie itself which says “12 Angry Men.” Twelve is indicating the number of group members, angry is indicating the state of their temper, and men indicating their gender. So the title of the movie strongly connects to the name of the class “Group Communication Studies” because both involve a group, a goal and communication among the group members in order

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.

What seems like solid and compelling evidence at first, turns out to be faulty after a deep analysis and logical application. By exposing the audience to the logical discoveries made by the jury, 12 Angry Men truly displays a sense of realism throughout the film (Weiler). Perhaps the most realistic aspect of the film is best described by critic Mark Nunez, where:

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.”