Film Analysis: Twelve Angry Men

Henry seized the initiative from an absent Wolsey and so the relationship between them worsened. He stopped listening to Wolsey and turned to other advisers and suggestions like of Crammer and

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.

Henry first displayed ethos by respecting opposing viewpoints among the hostile crowd in the House of Burgesses. He states, “But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve” (Henry 226). Patrick Henry recognizes the magnanimity of the situation at hand and is cautious towards the emotions that he could evoke from his hostile audience. To disarm the crowd and ease them into his speech, Henry displays respect towards the other arguments and gains a similar respect and attention towards his own argument in

In Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men there is a clear juror whom swayed the others and directly expressed his ideas. He is a “gentle man...who wants justice to be done.” Juror no.8 is the hero as his initial choice to vote not guilty locks in the boy's fate of escaping a life of prison and punishment; not excluding his persuasiveness and ideology of the morality of the other jurors. Juror no.8 single handedly voted against the grain and convinced other jurors of his logical reasons ‘it’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy of to die before talking about it first’. It was heroic of him to stand out against the others and the dramatic conclusion greatly attributed to his significant factor as the vote sway from 11-1 guilty to 12-0 for not guilty. Juror no.8 helped conveyed to the other jurors the boy's innocence. Persuading jurors in a chill mannerism whist jurors 3 and 10 were angry and impatient. Over the case juror no.8 was calm and reviewed the evidence taken from the prosecution and it's flaws. Juror no.8 constantly reviewed the evidence with other jurors presenting logical

Unlike Hal, King Henry’s role consist of three qualities that radiate kingship, the traits being composed, assertive and commanding. Despite these traits being essential to kingship, they ultimately lead to the court turning against King Henry and planning a rebellion against him. When discussing news of war and casualties in his throne room, Henry remains composed and finds the positive points in the situation rather the

He is a very close character but he is also the leader of the debating group. Henry applies past knowledge to new situations, for example the way he was living and the struggle he goes through to create good arguments which help him, win all those debates. He also has a very sad side, another example is when he saw and African American being burned in the middle of the road which made him really sad and cause him to drink alcohol. His prior knowledge about the life he has makes him a great and intelligent

Henry begins his argument by his use of Ethos. Henry states, “I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.” By using this sentence he uses Ethos to catch the audience and force them to believe that he is credible . It caused them to believe that what he was saying was truth. It is just such a powerful sentence that brings the whole speech together, it draws in the audience and gets him the attention; and gets the people thinking that he is true if he is willing to die for his cause.Henry also states “ shall i keep back my opinions at such at a time…”. This shows that he thinks very highly of what he is about to say and feels as though it needs to be said. Giving him more credibility because he feels that it needs to be said because if he does not he believes he will be to blame. Which really shows the audience just how strongly this man believes in his ideas and statements.

To start it off, we have juror number 2. Juror number 2 is a very hesitant man who doesn't have an opinion on his own. He is very quiet and doesn't have much to say. During the story he constantly kept changing his mind whenever the last person spoke. “Well, sure, I've heard of it. I know what it is. I . . . what I meant . . . well, anyway, I think he was guilty.” (Juror 2) This quote is the juror thinking he was guilty in the beginning but later on he changes his mind. His past experiences have influenced his opinion on the

Henry starts out having an extreme amount of self doubt and wanting to have more courage. He has a traditional view of courage, believing that he wants others to view him as courageous and get praise from them. Henry does not want to gain courage for himself, but for others to think he is strong. He is very conflicted and struggles with his emotions, worrying that he does not want others to view him as weak and a coward, when he should be focusing on just doing his job and believing in himself.

In the play, 12 Angry Men, the vote was 11-1 in favor of a guilty verdict in the case being tried. The one juror stood his ground, explained his theory as to why a guilty verdict could not be delivered, and was unwavering in his stance. The jurors went around the table twice, and ended with everyone siding with the original juror. As the deliberations played out and jurors were questioned, some jurors were not able to justify their guilty verdict, merely stating “It just is”. This statement shows the effect of the groupthink mentality, especially since one juror was considerably vocal and angered by the time being spent on deliberations. The logical discussions the other jurors had with one another displayed a positive aspect

Juror number 1 was the jury’s foreman and responsible for keeping the group under control and on task. As soon as the group entered the room he positioned himself by saying “All right, gentleman, let's take our seats” (Fonda & Lumet, 1957). When they did not follow orders he added a bit more authority to his tone and ordered everyone to sit down. Later, as things started to become unruly, he stepped in and asserted himself a bit more with the statement, “All right, let's stop the arguing, who's got something constructive to say?" (Fonda & Lumet, 1957).

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.

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.

Another individual who displayed a vast number of leadership characteristics was Joseph Sweeny (Juror 9), who was the elderly man. Courage was the first characteristic demonstrated by juror 9, as he was the first person from the eleven to switch his vote. Henry Fonda (Juror 8) was taking vast scrutiny by voting not guilty, instead of cowering, juror 9 stood up for what he knew was right and publicly stated he was the one that switched his vote (Lumet, 1957). He was also displayed other characteristics, such as broad-mindedness, transparency, and competency. He illustrated this when describing how juror 8 was standing up for his beliefs of not guilty and others should be more tolerant of them. After people were wondering who had switched votes,

Additionally, King Henry VIII is notorious for either being very generous to those that pleased him but ruthless to those that fell out of his favor. His behavior leads me to believe he practiced the Transactional Leadership, Management-by-Exception-Active style, according to the Full Range Leadership Lesson Guide. As we know from our course, “Transactional Leadership” is, “reinforcing desired follower behavior through rewards or consequences.” (BCEE, 2016, p. 7) I definitely think he took an active role in his leadership style and did not sit back and wait for things to happen. According to Jasper Ridley (1985):