Henry Fonda's Persuasive Communication In Movies

During the time Reginald Rose wrote the play Twelve Angry Men America was not an equal place for all people. A democracy is founded on the ideology that all Americans should be given a fair trial in court before being declared guilty. The twelve jurors in the play come from various backgrounds but initially, all but one vote in favor of the boy’s unforgivable sentence; while two other jurors lift two strong social stigmas and overcome their bias. One juror decided to stand up and take the time out for proper reasoning that resulted in teaching the others two jurors a lesson. Final verdicts should be made on justifiable grounds or the foundation of America’s society could be left at risk for collapse. Justifiable final verdicts are skewed

* When the 12 person jury meets in the room to vote on a guilty or non-guilty verdict, the method used to vote was 1st based on a majority decision-making process where those would raise their hands for guilty and a non-guilty verdict. Once the results were in and 11 voted guilty and 1 voting not guilty. Based on the movie, 11 members of the jury voted guilty while 1 juror voted non-guilty. The 1 non-guilty, disrupted the dynamics of everyone else’s vote; which leads to a major conflict. They now needed to illustrate the pros and cons of both guilty and non-guilty parties.

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.

People's bias and predispositions can affect their opinion of different circumstances and different people. This is very evident throughout the play. After the first group vote and juror 8 votes not guilty, a discussion ensues. It is there that

In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.

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).

In the movie 12 Angry Men, the jurors are set in a hot jury room while they are trying to determine the verdict of a young man who is accused of committing a murder. The jurors all explain why they think the accused is guilty or not guilty. Throughout the movie they are debating back and forth and the reader begins to realize that even though the jurors should try to not let bias cloud their judgement, the majority of the jurors are blinded by bias. The viewer can also see that the jurors have their own distinguishable personalities. Their personalities intertwine with each other to demonstrate how the jury system is flawed, but that is what makes it work.

“What do you want to be when you grow up?” is a question that children get asked quite frequently. Most of the time, a child aims big and chooses an extravagant career, like an astronaut, a police officer, or a doctor. Obviously, it is impossible for a child to obtain one of those jobs at such a young age. However, acting in Hollywood is a possible career for a child. If a child is talented enough to be a star, then why not let them pursue their passion? While the life of being an actor in Hollywood seems like a dream to most children, fame comes with many terrible obstacles for some stars. Over the years, there has been a large debate on whether or not acting in Hollywood as a child is as picture-perfect as it seems. Hollywood is filled with tons of secrets. Why should a child be put into such an untrustworthy environment? Acting in Hollywood is in no way safe for children.

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.

Prejudice can often be formed without one even realize they are prejudiced, many of the characters in 12 Angry Men, have done as such, allowing their prejudice to not allow them fully evaluate the case unbiasedly. Jurors three, ten and seven are swayed by their prejudiced beliefs against the accused, as the deliberate the accused fate, juror ten states “his type are no good”(12 Angry Men). This prejudice which all of them share, justifiers their neglecting to inspect the evidence and testimony given rather than simply accepting it at face value. The film 12 Angry Men conveys how difficult it can be to set aside prejudiced views through jurors three, seven, and ten. The film also enables the reader to see how prejudice such as past experiences, ingnorance or misinformation, and stereotyping can cloud ones judgement.

The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in

As the courtroom drama film 12 Angry Men celebrates its 60th anniversary, there is no doubt to why it remains a cinematic classic. Its strategic cinematography, accurate perceptions of human character, and topical issues creates an exposure of group dynamics that is still relevant today. As we see Henry Fonda’s character, Juror #8, swing the verdict of a trial away from an 11-1 vote against the defendant to a consensus for his freedom, many different elements of organizational behaviour are displayed. How the group forms, acts, and interacts as time progresses are attributed to a multitude of internal and external factors. Despite the simplicity of setting and premise, 12 Angry Men remains a beloved film. It’s authenticity of human behaviour, particularly in relation to conformity, team interaction, and leadership, resonates with its audience as it tries to, as Juror #3 would say, “talk about facts.” Ultimately, 12 Angry Men’s cinematographic balance of realism and sentimentalism in its story aptly summate the struggles of the characters as they overcome the obstacles of group conflicts while addressing their own moral qualms.

In the movie 12 Angry Men, juror number 8 (Henry Fonda) was not sure if evidence presented...

When Henry Fonda‘s character shows the use of patients and open-mindedness he also goes to prove that every life is valuable. He tells the other jours “ he’s just a kid” and that he doesn’t want to kill a kid if the evidence is not conclusive. He wants to make sure that what he is taking from evidence is not just circumstantial and that they have proof beyond any doubt. He goes to show the others that up bringing, race, or political standing has nothing to do with the fact that one life is no more valuable than another. In this quote juror #8 explains how prejudice is a hard thing to deal with but that they need to set it aside and look for the

Consider the scenario of the movie “12 Angry Men”, eleven jurors vote in favor of convicting the accused without even discussing a single shred of evidence that was presented at the trial. In the movie, if Henry Fonda wasn’t part of the jury, the boy would have been declared guilty and would have died (1957). However, Fonda decided to continue investigating and finally got to the bottom of the mystery. The boy was declared not guilty, but neither the play nor the movie tells us whether they saved an innocent man from death or whether they let a guilty man walk free. The movie emphasizes how important our judicial system is, and how much responsibility we have as citizens to become a jury of our peers and not rush into judgment, because as seen in the movie, jurors judged the accused based on their personal life