12 Angry Men Analysis Essay

12 Angry Men Analysis
Ebisindei Adegbe
Professor Davis
Management 191
23 September 2014
Within various aspects of life, we as individuals are forced to make decisions on
things such as what to eat for dinner and even what we believe to be just and unjust.
What makes some decisions easier than others are the values one was raised on that can
influence our ultimate decision. The film, 12 Angry Men, reflected a lot about how a
group dynamic can influence an individual's decision. Amidst the jury's deliberation in
the murder case, Mr. Davis, Juror 8, refused to base his vote on just hard–core facts. His
decision to rule not guilty spurred a rise out of the remaining 11 jurors, who strongly
believe the defendant is guilty. Mr. Davis's initialverdict formed a cooperative
community within the jury waiting room that allowed for each of the jurors to present the
basis of their decisions. His willingness to stand–alone proved to be a key decision in the
film, which provided the backdrop for ultimately trying to convince the other jurors of
the appropriate decision to make.
Despite the other juror's strong objections, they begin to discuss the facts in
correlation to their decision, a vital step in creating effective debate. In addition to Mr.
Davis standing by his decision of not guilty, the requirement for a unanimous jury forced

each of the jurors to come together toward a solution. The jurors discussed how each
piece of evidence supports their
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

The movie "12 Angry Men" by William Friedkin, was a movie that's purpose was to send the
viewers a message and that message was to have the audience ask themselves "are facts really
facts?". At the beginning of the movie 11 out of the 12 jurors were confident and sure that "the kid"
was guilty of stabbing his father to death, but as the movie continues they start to actually realize that
the facts may not be facts after all. The director also plays with the background affects (lighting) to
show a change in behavior and attitude in the characters throughout the film, by doing this it allows
the audience to become captured but the setting and dialogue. As the jurors enter the hot and small
jury room, they open the windows and find that the ac cooler doesn't work and the mood was "it's
too hot, let's get this over with, the kid is guilty", but one man (#8) was unsure about how he felt.
That caused an automatic uproar in the room among the men. This is where the director starts
using the heat to manipulate the jurors minds. Heat in this case was when everyone was getting
agitated and annoyed, the only thing keeping them sane was the water cooler and the bathroom
faucet. As the 11 men urged to hear why #8 was being foolish and not cooperative it was getting
hotter by the second and this made the men say rude and smart remarks. One of the men had a
baseball game to get to (#7) and was watching his watch as the time kept ticking by. The other men
were just ready to leave and get on with theirs life's. #8 just needed more facts evidence to make up
his mind if the kid was guilty or not. Tension rose among the men and they decided to take a quick
break from the conversation, during this break a few of the men go into the bathroom. The
bathroom was a spot to get away from the others and talk about what they thought with one other
person and still try to convince them that the kid is guilty. After the break the men come back and
#9 has decided to change his vote because he respected the fact that #8 chose to "stand alone against
the voices of others". As the movie continues, a storm comes along and the room becomes dimmer
with only the fluorescent lights keeping the room visible and mood the in the room takes a

Twelve Angry Men Rubbing Off On The Audience
The jurors in the 1957 film Twelve Angry Men, have a strong impact on the way the audience views
their self–image by showing them their personality, their actions in the court room and their own
personal beliefs if the boy should be charged guilty or not guilty. Each word that comes out of the
juror's mouth could either be a honest statement or a complete lie. It is the audience choice weather
to believe it or to not believe it. The 1957 MGM film entitled Twelve Angry Men forces the
characters and audience to evaluate their own self–image through observing the personality, actions,
and beliefs of the jurors. At the beginning of the jury meeting there were 11 men who said that the
young boy was guilty of murdering his father. Although there was still one person in the room
who said that the boy was not guilty. For a decision to be made all jurors had to agree to one side.
In a book written by a very wise man named Bernard Roth called "The Achievement Habit, stop
wishing, start doing, and take command of your life. Roth says, "It is easy to avoid having
conversations that deeply go into your feelings and tough issues (Roth 145)." The best way to talk
about hard conversations is to put oneself personality into every piece of evidence. At the end of the
jury meeting everyone agreed with Henry, the one man who said that the boy was not guilty, because
Henry showed his personality in his statements. Henrys personality is strong but

Twelve Angry Men is a film that was produced by Reginald Rose demonstrating a jury at work in
a murder trial. The entire film consists of the dialogue of jury members convening to render if a
delinquent, teenage boy is guilty of the first degree murder of his father. The jury sways from an
initial 11–1 "guilty" vote to a final "not guilty" vote of 12–0 by the end of the film. Throughout the
dialogue, important decisions were made due to groupthink and cognitive dissonance. In the end, the
jury was persuaded to look at the case from a different light.
The film revolves around a jury that must reach a verdict in a murder trial. Every member must agree,
be uniform, and reach a consensus together about either being guilty or not guilty. Groupthink, "the
mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence–seeking becomes so dominant in a
cohesive in–group that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action"
(Meyers, 2013, p. 290), is evident immediately. The jury at large, hastily makes the decision that the
boy is guilty of first–degree murder of his father. They have preconceived notions regarding the boy
that led to their immediate decision. They appear to be more interested in their own agenda, with
one juror in a hurry to get to a baseball game and others explicitly showing little interest to their duty
as juror. Other jurors joke about topics not even related to the trial. At the beginning, the jury is
confident that this is a cut and dried

12 Angry Men The movie 12 Angry Men directed by Sidney Lument in 1957 was sure to make
whoever saw it reexamine the ways they processed information throughout their daily life. This
movie is focused around an 18 year old boy who is on trial for stabbing his father to death. The
jury, who is made up of 12 men, have the immense responsibility of deciding whether this boy is
guilty of being a murderer or that he is innocent for the crimes he is accuse of. For some
individuals in the jury this was a swift decision to make but for others this situation was too
serious to not be examined with an extremely observant and unbiased mindset. This movie really
struck me because it definitely made me consider how I judge situations regularly with only a
shallow understanding of what is truly happening. Also the thought of individuals allowing bias to
affect major decisions in their community, which occurs a lot in this movie, boggles my mind even
though it occurs to the majority of people unintentionally. During this movie, the viewers notice
that as the jury spends time discussing the case, the deeper they dive into the details of the
witnesses providing evidence that the 18 year old defendant may not be the killer after all. This
shows how dangerous the modern day mind can be. In the beginning of this discussion period
between the jurors, most of the individuals only cared about continuing their daily life regardless of
what their impact would be on the boy's life. For example, one of

12 Angry Men
Introduction
12 Angry Men (1957) is one of the most acclaimed feature films of all time. It was produced at a
time when the United States was just twelve years out of World War II and "Leave It To Beaver"
and "Father Knows Best" broadcast across television airwaves the perfection, conformity and
affluence of American life that had been generated by the Great War. Additionally, this film was
listed on the university syllabus as one of three films to see in regard to this course, Management 610
– Contexts of Contemporary Management here at the University of Redlands. (1957, http:/
/www.normandyhigh.com/1957/timeline_1957.html) ed Spawn from the 1954 play by the same
name and the screenplay also written by Reginald Rose, its original writer,...show more content...
in approaching management of people, judgmental listening to issues and closed–mindedness. The
classroom points made are:
В·Thinking critically, analytically and synthetically (Processing information from more than one
point of view, picking apart and studying information and working within a context of synergy)
В·Recognizing and understanding emotions (Being open to and evaluating emotions to understand
their meaning – Who, What, When, Where, Why and displays)
В·Functioning in a context of differences (Being operative in place where people are different, have
different points–of–view and behave differently)
В·Direct personality – related energy toward decision–making and information acquisition (Being
able to project one's personality into situations to the positive)
В·Reflection of one's values (Showing high standards of values and beliefs)
В·Carrying out one's occupational destiny (Managing in a situation that constitutes the place that is
perfectly in sync with one's career path)
(MAM Class Notes, 20th Century and 21st Century Management Styles, Tuesday, October 14, 2008 )
In every way, 12 Angry Men (1957) was ahead

12 Angry Men Movie Analysis Essay
Course: HRMG6200 Organization in New Economy Assignment: Twelve Angry Men Movie 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. According to Bruce Tuckman,
healthy work groups need to go through four stages of development: Forming, Storming,...show more
content...
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."

Throughout the film 12 Angry Men, Juror #8 argues eleven men to prove the innocence of the
young man who is on trial for the murder of his father. In the beginning of the film, the vote is
guilty, eleven and not guilty, one. But as time goes on, Juror #8 has strong evidence to prove his
point that the young man is not guilty. He takes into consideration that the decision these men
makes is life or death, if they agree that he is guilty then he will be sent to the electric chair. After
several hours of arguments and review of evidence, they unanimously chose not guilty. The film ends
with Juror #8 and Juror #9 introducing themselves and then going their separate ways, never finding
out if the young man was prosecuted as guilty or not guilty. This cliffhanger leaves the audience to
decide for themselves, guilty or not guilty? Even though Juror #9 had strong evidence and influenced
the whole jury, I believe the young man is guilty. There is more evidence proving that he is guilty,
than he is not guilty. The first piece of evidence that helps prove that the young man is guilty is
the testify of the old man who lived downstairs. He heard the young man scream at the top of his
lungs, "I'm going to kill you!", a body hitting the floor, and then saw the man running downstairs
out of the house. Juror #8 argues that he could not have possibly heard a scream with the L train
making a loud noise. Living in San Francisco, I have been near BART and Muni my whole life,
and both of those public transportation systems make loud noises when passing by, but not loud
enough that I cannot not hear someone above me screaming at the top of their lungs, especially a
threat like that. Also if the old man could not hear what was going on because of the train, then
why did he get out of his bed and go to the door at around midnight? He was obviously woken up
by the loud thud and the yelling and was curious to see what was happening. Another argument
that Juror #8 had about the old man was that the old man could not have walked to the door in
about 15 seconds because of the distance and a limp in his left leg due to a stroke. His reenactment
preceded him to believe it would take around 40 seconds to get to the door. The old man's

Twelve Angry Men Discussion post
Discussion 1
Identify what you believe to be the most important specific critical incident having to do with
conflict in the film and develop questions, comments, or interventions that might have facilitated the
group's understanding of the conflict and/or changed the outcome of the incident.
I thought the point of the movie was all about reasonable doubt, and how its better 10 guilty men go
free than one innocent man pay the price, that whole thing. I thought his innocence of guilt was
rather immaterial; the whole point was he deserved a more fair trial than he was getting. I was under
the impression that the process of arriving at the verdict of the jury is what's important in the film,
rather than that the verdict is correct.
12 Angry Men isn't about the Kid's guilt. It's about the jury's process. And by the end Juror #8 outs
several other jurors for having personal motives for wanting to convict, like racism, baseball
tickets, and an unhappy relationship with their own son. None but E.G. Marshall can argue
objectively the certainty of his guilt, so when he caves it becomes pretty clear what the verdict will
be. All it took was for Marshall to not have seen the glasses marks and the verdict could have swung
the other way.
Discussion 2
Identify and describe roles you see the various group members taking on in the group portrayed in
the film "Twelve Angry Men."
Juror 1 should have called for the bailiff and had Juror 8 dismissed the moment he brought the
knife into the deliberation room. Jurors are not supposed to perform independent investigations
during trial proceedings. I think Juror 8, taking the view that the defendant's counsel was
insufficient, decided to assume those duties himself. It's about the jury's process. By the end, Juror
#8 outs several other jurors for having personal motives for wanting to convict, like racism,
baseball tickets, and an unhappy relationship with their own son. None but E.G. Marshall can argue
objectively the certainty of his guilt, so when he caves it becomes pretty clear what the verdict will
be. It only took Marshall to not have seen the glass marks and the verdict could have swung the
other way.
Discussion 3
Keeping in mind the terms

12 Angry MenDaily 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 thejustice
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.
Lumet and Rose the director and writer of 12 Angry Men reveal that the justice system simply
unfair,corrupt, inefficient, and injustice, as they show the justice system simply being unfair,corrupt,
inefficient, and injustice ;when they demonstrate the prejudice , ignorant attitude , and lack of time
put in deciding a verdict . Juror #7 choice to act short tempered , impatient , and ignorant conveys
that he is callous towards the trial when he states ," This better be fast I got tickets to–Hamilton– for
tonight. I must be the only

Lea Ismayilova The classic film 12 Angry Men details the power of group dynamics which can lead
to complacency, conformity, and lack of clarity in decision–making. Many concepts associated with
organizational behavior are epitomized in the film. The main character – played by Henry Fonda and
referred to Juror 8 and Davis at the end of the movie – is the only person who wants to at least
consider the innocence of the accused. The rest of the jurors have conformed to the opinion of the
most dominant, boisterous, and direct members of the group, who essentially serve as leaders and
hold that the accused is guilty. It becomes evident throughout the rest of the movie that many of the
jurors who agree to conform to the wants of the most outspoken and aggressive members have
hesitations about their decision, which highlights the power of conformity and group think
(Robbins et al., 2013). The initial vote is 11 guilty/ 1 not guilty (Juror 9); therefore, Juror 9 has to
use his persuasion skills to convince the rest of the jurors that there is a doubt about the accused's
guilt. Slowly and methodically, Juror 9 begins to poke holes in the prosecution's argument and show
the fallacies in the arguments offered. He demonstrates how the weapon used is common and easily
obtained; therefore, the fact that the accused has one in his possession does not imply guilt. Also,
Juror 9 shows that the timing mentioned by the lone eye–witness did not match up with the actual
events. Through

Introduction The 12 Angry Men is a 1957 classic film that has been important in the study of
group concepts and dynamics in decision making. The film is about the deliberations that a
group of juries have to make in determining a case of murder. They need to establish beyond any
reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the murder. During the determination, eleven out of
the twelve juries in the case are ready to convict the suspect without discussion among themselves
since there is overwhelming evidence against him. The twelfth juror, however, votes that the
accused is not guilty in order to stir up further discussion. The case is supposed to be determined
unanimously. During this discussion, various concepts and theories of group dynamics are
portrayed (Forsyth, 2014). Group dynamics involves the structure of groups and their functioning
considering the individual roles played by the characters. Understanding juries Jury is a group
that in this case is designed to come up with carefully made decisions that have considerations of
all viewpoints. This means that the decision finally arrived at by the jury not only depends on the
evidence presented but also has some social influence. In order to better understand the jury we
have look at the group member's roles and characters. Some of the most important characters
among the jurors in this case include; juror eight or Davis who is the initiator of the discussion.
He decides to stand against the rest of the jurors in order to more carefully analyze the dynamics of
the case (Forsyth, 2014). He is a critical thinker who takes into consideration what the verdict meant
for the accused. He plays a major role towards completing the task in the best way possible. Other
characters play self–centered roles such as juror three or the angry man and juror six or the
baseball guy. Juror three is disagreeable on almost everything and does not compromise other
people's opinion. He prevents the participation of the others and forces his own ideas. On the other
hand, juror six is not a serious member of the group. He constantly engages in inappropriate jokes
and commentary which often distracts the group from what they were discussing. This character
also details the

One Good Man
Cinema is a canvas that enables the director to address very different and often touchy subjects in
a unique light. In this movie the audience is faced with 12 jurors who hold the fate of a young
man on trial for murder in their hands. It is supposed to be that one is innocent until proven guilty;
however that is not the case in this movie. The Jurors are very prejudiced and closed minded
throughout most of the movie for the most part. However, the one juror who is not that way is
number 8. In the 1957 MGM film 12 Angry Men Juror number 8 relies primarily on his core values
of honesty, reason, and his leadership skills to talk about the case and eventually acquit the young
man of murder. Movies are a medium that can truly bring out human emotions, both good and
bad. One thing that 12 Angry Men does a good job of is using juror number 8 in a way in which
he was in very stark contrast to the other jurors; and by doing this it really goes on to bring out the
good qualities in this juror. By simply wanting to talk about the case he ends up creating a very
vibrant discussion that ends up saving the young man's life. "You can't find the answer, it is often
because you are not asking the correct question" (Roth). The jury in this movie for the most part
thought that the kid was guilty right away and did not care at all about the fair and honest trial
process. The only juror who had a heavy heart about the whole case was number 8. Out of 12 people
only one

Matter of Perspective: Heads or Tails The 1957 film 12 Angry Men is based around a group of
twelve jurors as they decide the fate of a boy accused of murdering his father. From the very
beginning the group is divided between those that think he is guilty, and those that don't know. Every
juror has their own opinion and reasoning behind their position, but there are two men that seem to
become the backbones of their respective arguments. For the majority voting guilty, Juror #3 is the
the critical thinker who tries to look at details and stresses the importance of the facts while Juror #8
is his counterpart on the side of voting not guilty. Both men use the most cogent critical thinking of
any member of their respective sides and the...show more content...
Likewise, Juror #8 takes the information that was presented in the case, cross examines different
pieces to see which pieces of information are cohesive and what information conflicts with the rest.
Juror #8 takes the testimony of the accused downstairs neighbor and the woman across the street
and tries to see if they line up stating, " let's take two pieces of testimony and try and put them
together". In his argument he points out the contradictions of the two pieces of testimony and uses
the discrepancy to start convincing people to see his doubts that the boy is guilty. Even though
both Juror #3 and Juror #8 are on opposite sides throughout the entire film, they both try and stay to
the facts and keep personal emotion out of their decisions. An example of this is how both of them
can understand when they have been proved wrong. For Juror #8 it is when Juror #3 proves that a
person of the defendants hight would make the stab wound found on the victim. For Juror number
#3 iit is when Juror #8 finally gets through to him that he has had an unconscious bias against the
defendant because of his relationship with his own son. After making this realization, Juror #3 buries
his head in his hands and changes his vote to not guilty.
Even though both of Jurors don't agree with each others points of view, they do not want personal

12 Angry Men Film Analysis
12 Angry Men is an example of the role cinematography can play in creating the atmosphere of a
film. This film is set almost entirely in one room, but is still able to construct extreme tension like
few other films have been able to do. It establishes this partly through the brilliant dialogue and fiery
performances of its twelve actors, but also through powerful use of cinematography that helps in
creating the gradually–festering atmosphere of the film.
The opening scene of 12 Angry Men is a low–angle shot of a courthouse. The camera begins to pan
through the courthouse, following people it runs into along the way and finally ends up in the
courtroom where a jury is hearing a murder trial of someone who is barely a legal adult. The jury
...show more content...
As the day drives on, the temperature rises and the jurors are sweating more profusely. As each juror
takes off his outer layers of clothing to adjust to the rising temperature, his stance on the defendant's
innocence switches from 'guilty' to 'not guilty,' and gives them a lighter colored costume like that of
Juror #8.
The last third of the film was shot below eye level, with recurrent close–ups of the jurors' faces that
draw the audience into the scene as if they are seated at the table with the jury. The ceiling is seen
in many shots and the walls close in, amplifying the claustrophobia of the atmosphere and swelling
the tension. The jurors are drenched with sweat and practically always shouting, and every emotion
of their performances are captured with facial shots that fill the frame. It is so intense that you can
almost smell the sweat and confusion in the room by the end of the shot, when the points and
arguments of the film are tied together and brought into view. As the final jurors holding on to a
'guilty' stance reveal their real reasons for upholding a guilty verdict, the film hits its climax and the
men break down. The very last shot in 12 Angry Men is a wide–angle shot on the outside of the
courthouse. The wide–angle shot is perfect closure. The jurors have reached a verdict, the men are
disseminated, and we can all finally breathe again. This openness in this shot represents a relief in
the tension that we saw rise in the previous shots. This film

The movie, 12 Angry Men, encourages the audience to fully develop their own ideas and find a
logical reason behind something before jumping to conclusions. The 12 jurors participate in a group
discussion over the trial of a young man charged with murdering his father. At many points, this
discussion becomes hostile and provokes feelings of disdain and frustration among the jurors. Mr.
Davis, Juror Eight, displays his core beliefs of open– mindedness, work ethic, and ability to think
logically to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the other jurors.
Mr. Davis, in the movie, maintains an open mind and pulls on the other jurors to have an open mind
as well because the "boy may die" (Rose, 12 Angry Men). Having an open mind is important in
the movie because the facts and evidence can be interpreted in many ways and it is always good
to see something from a different angle. While Davis remains open to the ideas of other, Juror
Three and Four, throughout the movie, argue that the boy is guilty only on two pieces of evidence
without looking at the rest of the evidence or from a different angle. This idea of looking at the
evidence they believe is "likely support those beliefs" (University Of Pennsylvania, Authentic
Happiness) is named selective exposure and for good reason. Juror Three and Four provoke distain
among the rest of the jurors through this selective exposure. Open mindedness "has been touted by
philosophers of education as a vital characteristic of the educated mind" (Taylor, Openmindedness)
and is crucial to being able to fully conclude whether or not the boy is guilty in the trial. A required
skill for living a full life and properly understanding certain topics is being open minded. Mr. Davis
exemplifies an understanding for this concept and applies it to the trial that could result in the boy
being executed.
Work ethic is required to get something done and Mr. Davis exemplifies a strong work ethic in
order to convince the rest of the jurors that there is "reasonable doubt"(Rose, 12 Angry Men). There
are multiple times throughout the movie that Mr. Davis and Juror Nine discuss how it is "only one
night"( Rose, 12 Angry Men) and that they will "do whatever it takes"( Rose, 12 Angry Men) to
make the

12 Angry Men Analysis Essay

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Paper Writing Service Superiorpapers

More from Paper Writing Service Superiorpapers (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

12 Angry Men Analysis Essay