In the movie Twelve Angry Men, Henry Fonda plays a character known as jury member number eight, otherwise also known as Mr. Davis. Henry Fonda’s role in the movie for many, may be thought of as the most important character in the entire movie. Though this statement may be true, the movie also involves eleven other characters who have huge contributions to the story line. Throughout the movie, the audience watches twelve jury members discuss the alleged murder trial for an eighteen year old boy who is being accused of murdering his father. All men, but one agree that the boy is guilty. The movie 12 Angry Men may cause some people to question their own morals and beliefs, however the overall outcome of the movie truly shows the importance of optimism, honesty, and standing up for what you think is right. Henry Fonda plays the roll of jury member number eight, also known as Mr. Davis.
This character that Henry Fonda plays believes that the boy on trial is not guilty. When questioned by the other eleven men, Mr. Fonda’s character never argued, yelled, accused, or even acted as if he was right. He remained very optimistic and open mined throughout the entire movie. These qualities his character plays can be things some people can apply in their own lives and use in everyday situations. The next character that many people might think of as extremely important would be jury member number five. This character is important because he relates to the eighteen year old
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
12 Angry Men are in a 1950’s courtroom, where 12 men from various backgrounds and different personalities, find themselves deciding the fate of a teenage boy accused of murdering his father. The vote must be unanimous, with a guilty verdict resulting in the death of the young man facing trial. Juror #8, (Fonda), was not the assigned jury leader, but emerged as the primary leader within minutes of the group sequester, when juror #8 was the only no vote. Fonda’s situation allowed his leadership traits to apply with success. Fonda’s leadership was due to his ethical need for a jury decision. Fonda’s character combines his goal of having a fair deliberation concerning the young man accused of murder (task Behavior). Fonda was trying to help the eleven other jurors to feel more comfortable with thinking critically and to examine the facts closely (relationship behavior). Now that I have discussed the behavior traits of the two movies, we will discuss the Trait approach in leadership.
In the film 12 Angry Men, a group of twelve jurors are deciding the fate of a young boy accused of murdering his father. Throughout the juries dilleration, one man exhibits all of the qualities of leadership. This man is juror number 8 played by Henry Fonda. Fonda not only exhibits the the 10 qualities of a leader but he uses these qualities to lead the entire jury to a vote of not guilty (Fonda & Lumet, 1957).
The Fonda character states, “We're talking about somebody's life here.” “We can't decide in five minutes. Supposing we're wrong?” This statement has a large impact on the other 11 jurors. The old man whom is sitting next to the Fonda character sides with the Fonda character. The Fonda character made sure he pointed out that the person of interest was from a broken home, and was hit on top of the head every day for most of his life. The person of interest was born in the slums and had a hard life, his mother was dead and now his father had been murdered.
An example of one such juror is George C. Scott, better known as juror #3. He started the film with a strong opinion that the defendant is guilty. He was
From there the viewers see that the 12 Jurors retire to a private room where they briefly become acquainted before the deliberation begins. It is clear to the viewers that even before deliberation begins that there are clear biases among the Jurors. The Jurors number off and give their verdicts, and almost right off the bat all the Jurors, aside from one (Juror #8), vote guilty – and they also make it clear that they plan to deliver said verdict without forethought, on Henry Fonda (Juror #8) is the opposing vote of not guilty. His vote of not guilty
The classic movie 12 Angry Men opens with clips of a courthouse, ultimately panning to a specific court room where an 18-year-old boy is on trial for killing his father. Despite the case being the central point which the story revolves around, the movie isn’t about the boy or even his father. The movie is about the 12 jurors who are in charge of the boy’s fate. If they decide he is guilty, he is sentenced to the death penalty, which meant death by the electric chair.
“A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a 19-year-old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are shaky include the height of the father, the woman who saw from the el train, and the old man who saw the boy running down from the stair. Based on these, the boy is not guilty.
In the movie 12 Angry Men, juror number 8 (Henry Fonda) was not sure if evidence presented...
The reason I have for not believing the boy is guilty is that the old lady evidence was not well enough to prove that the boy was guilty. The old lady said she saw the boy kill his father with her bare eyes, but later on, one of the Jurors concluded that she did have glasses.
He plays the role of 'appointed leader', or the individual who is assigned the leader position from the onset. A simple man who clearly does not understand the complexity of the task that lies before him but is trying to do everything not to let anyone else find this out. He appears at ease only once during the film ' when he talks about football. He has the misfortune to be selected Foreman of the jury ' a task he clearly does not enjoy. Juror #2 is a small, quite man who is clearly unaccustomed to giving his own opinion much less to expecting his views to be of any importance. In his subdued 'observer' and meek 'information giver' role, No. 2 apparently finds comfort in his job ' he is an accountant. Juror # 3 is probably the most complex personality in the film. He starts off like a pleasant self-made successful businessman, analyzing the case impartially, explaining the arguments well and is reasonably self-assured. As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate exploding in disbelieving anger and seems somehow to be personally involved with the case. His motivation for behaving as he does is revealed when he discloses that he's not on good terms with his own son. Illusions to his animosity toward youth were made when he says that kids today have no respect and that he has not see his son in over a decade. No.3 namely plays the 'aggressive', 'dominator' and 'blocker' roles. His personal baggage with his own son 'blocked' or
Reginald Rose’s ’12 Angry Men’ brings 12 jurors together in a room to decide whether a young foreign boy is guilty of killing his father. The play is interwoven with dynamic characterisation, striking symbolism and intense moments of drama. Although Rose positions Juror 8 as the hero, the strongest character is in fact Juror 4, who is an independent thinker, rational and calm even as tension begins to build. Although Juror 4 initially votes guilty, he is able to admit his fault and change his vote.
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.
The character of Davis, played by Henry Fonda, used persuasion to help convince the other jurors of why the defendant was not guilty. He was able to read the other jurors, and actively listened to what was being said. He was able to establish credibility by maintaining his composure, he gave a positive impression of himself to the others, and establish his trustworthiness. He would