Film Analysis : Twelve Angry Men

The play “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a drama about twelve jurors deciding on whether a nineteen year old boy is guilty of murdering his father. The boy has a lengthy list of criminal changes, three witnesses testifying against him, and a weak alibi. This compels eleven of the twelve jurors to detect him as guilty. However, one juror believes that the others are not deciding fairly and are stereotyping. Juror eight, the one who names the boy not guilty, spends the entirety of the play persuading and arguing with the extremely irritable and opinionated juror three.

Juror 8 had many chances to change his opinion about the boy’s case, and yet he never did. Throughout this whole play, Juror 8 stood his ground and was

Twelve Angry Men was written over half of a century ago but still baits thought as to one’s true character. Screening the process of twelve jurors determining a young boys fate in a murder trial, the picture dissects individuals and begins to uproot prejudice and biases a few of the jurors were at first uncomfortable to admit. The 1957 MGM film Twelve Angry Men provokes thought through twelve on-screen characters by displaying their skills in empathy, personal priorities, and self-control.

In the film Twelve Angry Men, a young boy is charged for killing his father meanwhile he is on the line of life or death. His faith is dependant on the selected twelve men in jury, who have been placed all together in a room, to decide whether the boy will be proclaimed as guilty or not guilty. During this process, we encounter one out of twelve jurors, which comes to be juror number eight, opposes in favor of the defendant's guilt. Soon, complications between the men begin to arise as the boy’s future is foreshadowed throughout the film. While discussing the case, the evidence that was pronounced led to my decision as of why the defendant is guilty of the murder on his father.

2). In this movie, juror number eight is the one who is outstanding. When everyone else believes the eighteen year old boy was guilty of the murder he is on trial for, Davis does not. He stands up for what he believes in because this is someone’s life that is being affected. He does not think that this boy truly is guilty of this murder.

The group type presented in the film 12 Angry men appears to be a task group. Task groups typically come together to accomplish a specific charge. In this case, their task was to decide a verdict of guilty or not guilty for the boy on trial. According to our text, some feature of this task group would include those listed under the “teams” category such as appointed leadership and focus on a specific task or charge. The members’ bond is simply there interest in the task, as they have no previous relationship. The composition of the group is based on their common interest, shared purpose, and investment in community through their task on the jury. The communication style began as being relative to the task and low member self-disclosure. I believe near the middle and end of the movie the communication moved into more informal member-to-member discussion, formulation and implementation of tactics and strategies for change. We began to see higher member self-disclosure in relation to social problems – both under the teams approach. (Toseland & Rivas, 2012, p. 30)

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.”

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.

Twelve Angry Men, a play by Reginald Rose, was written in 1955 at a time when America was involved in a cold war with communist countries. It shows the strength of a deliberative process that enables individuals, who have “nothing to gain or lose,” to reach a verdict. In the American jury system “everybody deserves a fair trial” and in Twelve Angry Men the defendant gets a very fair trial. All the jurors have their own opinions on the case but in the end a decision is made. The jury, and the audience, never discovers if in fact the defendant did murder his father. His guilt or innocence seems to be almost

The movie 12 Angry Men takes place in a room of 12 jurors as they discuss the guilt of a boy charged with the murder of his father. The facts of the case have been laid out, and each juror already has decided how they feel. Initially the vote was 11-1 guilty. The one vote for not guilty came from Juror Number Eight, Mr. Davis, played by Henry Fonda. Mr. Davis voted not guilty because he had reasonable doubt about evidence presented by the prosecution. As Mr. Davis explains his reasoning behind his reasonable doubt, the core values of himself and other jurors are displayed. As the movie continues, the vote slowly turns from 11-1 guilty to 12-0 not guilty. Mr. Davis brings up point after point that force his fellow jurors to analyze themselves and in the end, change the way they vote. Ultimately, the 1957 film 12 Angry Men forces the audience to look inward after watching the juror’s words, manners, and priorities change throughout the jury session.

The 1957 movie version of 12 Angry Men, brings twelve people together with different personalities and experiences to discuss the fate of a young boy that allegedly killed his father. At the very beginning, many agree that the boy is guilty except for one man. Juror #8 votes not guilty and pushes to have the evidence talked through. After reviewing all the evidence carefully, the tables turned from guilty to not guilty. Each juror brought different experiences and personalities to the jury room. The two that were forceful with their opinions and their reasonings to decide either way we're jurors #8 and #3.

Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, is a play about a jury trying to come to a verdict that will determine whether or not a teenage boy will be put on death row.

12 Angry Men is a 1957 American courtroom drama film adapted from a teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose. Written and co-produced by Rose himself and directed by Sidney Lumet, this trial film tells the story of a jury made up of 12 men as they deliberate the guilt or acquittal of a defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt, forcing the jurors to question their morals and values. In the United States, a verdict in most criminal trials by jury must be unanimous. The film is notable for its almost exclusive use of one set: out of 96 minutes of run time, only three minutes take place outside of the jury room.

In tough times, it is easy to forget what is right and wrong. The movie Twelve Angry Men is a very clear demonstration on right and wrong. The film is about twelve jurors who are deciding the fate of a young man accused of killing his father. These twelve men all vote for guilty, except for the eighth juror, who votes innocent. It seems very clear that the suspect is guilty, and the eighth juror goes against everyone to give the young man a fair chance. Although all other jurors try to pressure him into voting guilty, he sticks to his gut and eventually proves the suspect innocent. In the 1957 film 12 Angry Men, the eighth juror, Mr. Davis, sticks to his core values of honesty, fair judgement, and hard work to prove the young man accused of killing his father to be innocent.

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).