...“Guilty”, echoed throughout every juror, except for one, juror eight, played by Henry Fonda, the true hero of the film “12 Angry Men”. A jury was faced with a murder trial in which an eighteen year old boy killed his father. As the jurors entered the room, they were already beginning to anticipate leaving. In the room, there was no air conditioning to go along the sudden heat wave in the area. Eleven of the twelve jurors had already made up their mind about the trial, eleven of the twelve had decided that the boy was guilty. Juror 8, played by Henry Fonda, was the exception of the twelve. He believed with the boy’s life in their hands, they needed to be certain of their verdict. Juror 8 began his discussion by bringing the weapon into question. The one of a kind attributes the switchblade knife possessed posed as a definitive evidence until...
Words: 733 - Pages: 3
...Small Group Analysis of ’12 Angry Men’ Interpersonal and Group Dynamics – SOSC 301 Instructor: Mr. Crisp Bryant & Stratton College October 31, 2012 A Small Group Analysis of ’12 Angry Men’ Set in a large U.S. city, in the 1950’s, Twelve men of a jury are sequestered in a room and are unable to leave until a weighty decision is made, one that will either condemn a young man to death or set him free. The twelve strangers are trapped within the confines of the jury room until the goal is achieved. They melt in the hot humidity, which is worsened by the room's stuffiness and by the stress as they grapple with each other and with their responsibility (Lumet,1957). The characters of each of the twelve men was carefully crafted into a particular role within the group dynamics. A complete spectrum of issues among the different characters was developed to add chaos to the group decision-making process. From the bigotry of Juror No.10, to the coldly analytical No.4, each character brought good and bad qualities to the jury room; they all had to be addressed to reach an outcome (Lumet,1957). At the beginning of the movie, as the twelve men sit down to begin the deliberation process, there is no discussion and they decide to begin by a vote of guilty or not guilty. Eleven of the jurors quickly vote ‘guilty’ and try to leave the room. Nobody even bothers to think what their decision means for the accused. Juror No. 4 is too rigid to change and Juror No. 7 just wants to...
Words: 1787 - Pages: 8
...12 Angry Men Film Analysis 25 October 2010 Film Analysis The film, 12 Angry Men (1957), is a drama about a jury that was to decide the fate of a teenaged boy who was facing the electric chair for supposedly killing his father with a switchblade knife. The twelve men were locked into a small, claustrophobic jury room on an unbearably hot summer day until they came up with a unanimous decision - either guilty or not guilty. Over the course of the film the votes went from eleven guilty and one not, to a unanimous vote of ‘not guilty’. The movie provides many examples of persuasive speaking, group communication and conflict, and different communication climates. In the movie Henry Fonda’s character made good use of his persuasive speaking skills. He personally had nothing to gain from either verdict, but found the ease with which the others were willing to sentence a young man to death disconcerting. He was firm, but not confrontational when he gave his reasons for voting not guilty. He simply said that he was not convinced ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that the boy had committed the crime and asked that they review the evidence. With each piece of cosmetically ‘concrete’ evidence he discredited, he slowly placed doubt within the minds of his fellow jurors. He never out-right said he thought that the defendant was innocent, only that he believed there to be some doubt as to the certainty of his guilt. “It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this...
Words: 525 - Pages: 3
...12 Angry Men Analysis In the movie “12 Angry Men” there is a young man on trial for murder. The year is 1957, so the jury consists of all white, middle class to upper class, middle aged and up men. Some of their occupations consist of architect, salesman, broker and a man in advertisement. Which if you know anything about a jury today it is completely different. You have many different people of all race, gender, and social class, within that community, to receive a more fair trial. Also you can’t bring in any previous information into the trial or bring any emotional attachment into the case. Having a jury like in the “12 Angry Men” is not having a fair jury or trial what so ever, they are either going to all agree with each other, persuade one another or think like each other. One of the characters played by Henry Fonda goes against the grain, and votes not guilty. This really sends the other jurors up the wall, more particularly the head strong jurors. They want nothing to do with him and don’t want to listen to what he has to say. Henry Fonda speaks out and votes the opposite of all the other jurors. He does so because he wants to discuss the facts and the evidence, he isn’t convinced he is guilty or he is innocent. Fonda wants to do so because he does not want to but a boy to his death without discussing this matter into more depth. This is the boy’s life they have in the palm of their hands after all, and he couldn’t live with the guilt if he would have been peer pressured...
Words: 1022 - Pages: 5
...An Analysis on Ek Ruka Huwa Faisala from Communication Perspective Submitted to: Course Instructor Managerial Communication Apex College Submitted by: Laxman Aryal Roll no. 8 Manikkya Apex College 2012 Ek Ruka Hua Faisala is a Bollywood movie directed by Basu Chatterjee inspired from Hollywood film 12 Angry Men. We the student of MBA are shown this movie to learn some lesson of Managerial Communication. Altthough this is a movie about different organizational behavior, it also gives a strong example of effective communication. This is a movie about 19 year old boy who was a suspect for murder of his father. There was a committee of 12 people assigned to decide whether boy was culprit or not. All 12 jurors must agree whether a young man is guilty or not of murdering his father. In this movie we observe the entire decision making process. Where each individual had different perception and different behavior in particular situation. Their personal opinion leads them to one wrong decision first but later on with just one leading, convincing, neutral and practical individual, they were able to think on the other side of the case and finally they reached to right conclusion. A switch from 11-1 to 0-12 is very rare in real life juries, but Ek Ruka Hua Faisla very convincingly depicts the switch. It achieves this by staying true to the realities of group dynamics through effective and proper communication. Once the objective of the group is established, they start...
Words: 2494 - Pages: 10
...of the dynamics that plays in a jury room in the 50’s in the United States. The action revolves around the opinions, perceptions, reason and logic 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 work will explore some elements of critical thinking and creative thinking found within the context of this remarkable movie. Critical thinking involves the use of a group of interconnected skills to analyze, creatively integrate, and evaluate what you read and hear. To become a critical thinker you must be able to decide whether an author’s opinions are true or false, whether he or she has adequately defended those ideas, whether certain recommendations are practical, as well as whether particular solutions will be effective. The characteristics of that kind of thinking are: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. Within that movie, there were three points raised in the trial that juror #8 believed argument analysis: 1- The knife that was the murder weapon was unique and the boy was seen with it, although he said he had lost it. 2- The old man gave evidence that he heard the boy say “I’ll kill you” from his apartment below and he saw the boy running from the down stairs of the apartment after rising from bedroom. 3- That the old lady saw the boy kill his father through her window...
Words: 813 - Pages: 4
...definition is one whose heroic actions, qualities, or achievements live on with acute, significant recognition. Susan B. Anthony is appropriate example of an unsung hero. Anthony was born on February 15, 1820, and died on March 13, 1906. She was the second out of seven children. Anthony was raised in a quaker household that promoted women's rights.Lastly she devoted her life to the rights of others. One can argue that Susan B. Anthony is a hero because she is determined, courageous, and altruistic due to her life experiences. Susan’s selflessness helped to further solidify activism in Slave/Women’s rights. From an early age, she was raised to respect...
Words: 769 - Pages: 4
...12 Angry Men PROC 5840, Negotiations, Midterm Case Analysis Table of Contents Table of Contents……………………………………………………….……………………………….…2 Character Listing…………………………………………………………………………………………...3 Major Case Issues…………………………………………………………………………………………..5 Analysis of Juror Number Eight……………………………………………………………………………7 Analysis of Juror Number Four…………………………………………………………………………...13 Analysis of Juror Number Nine…………………………………………………………………………...17 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………………….19 12 Angry Men Character Listing Juror Number One (Martin Balsam): The jury foreman, he got off to a shaky start. However, he took his role seriously and facilitates voting. He was generally passive. Outside of the jury room he was an assistant high school football coach. Juror Number Two (John Fielder): This shy bank clerk was initially reluctant to participate and seemed intimidated by other jurors. Although he exhibited a tendency toward avoidance, eventually he contributed to the discussion. His opinion was easily swayed and he appeared to parrot other jurors. Juror Number Three (Lee J. Cobb): This small business owner shared the story of his turbulent relationship with his own son. He was aggressive and confrontational, using hard bargaining tactics such as intimidation, threats, and insults to influence others. He was the last juror to change his mind. Juror Number Four (E.G. Marshall): A calm, rational, and self-assured stockbroker, he concentrated...
Words: 3945 - Pages: 16
...unanimous decision. He is non-confrontational and lets others express their opinion. * John Fiedler (Juror #2): He is the typical "avoider". He is easily persuaded and is the most timid of the group. He prefers to avoid angering the other members of the jury and cannot express his opinions. * Lee J. Cobb (Juror #3): He is biased and confrontational when other members disagree with his opinions. He believes that the defendant is guilty and is the last one to change his vote. His initial decision is mostly based on his poor relationship with his own son. * E. G. Marshall (Juror #4): He is a very calm and logical stock-broker. He bases his decision on facts and does not change his vote until the end when there is doubt about one of the witness's testimony. * Jack Klugman (Juror #5): He is a young man that is not comfortable expressing his opinion in front of the older members of the jury. He grew up in the slums and takes offense when other members try to stereotype people from the slums. * Edward Binns (Juror #6): He is an honest man that does not trust people easily, but listens to others and is fair. He bases his decisions on reasonable doubt. * Jack Warden (Juror #7): He is a salesman that does not like the idea of being part of the jury. He wished he was not there. * Henry Fonda (Juror #8): He is the protagonist and is convinced that there is reasonable...
Words: 4472 - Pages: 18
...Repudiating women’s traditional subservience to man, the Suffragette’s embodied an alternative female, one with the courage to confront the patriarchal society, and the resilience to endure the repercussions. In the radical pursuit for the parliamentary vote, the Suffragette Movement is often regarded as a single-issue campaign. However, the subversion of gender roles expedited by the use of militancy fuelled a revolution on a grander scale. One which moved beyond the exterior mask for the pursuit of the Vote, towards a dissipation of conventional Victorian ideals of femininity. The term ‘Suffragette’ was coined in 1903, as Emmeline Pankhurst led a movement that has often been interpreted as a ‘sex war’. Such can also be said for the divisive...
Words: 407 - Pages: 2
...Memorandum This memorandum will elicit the implied lesson regarding effective leadership as portrayed in the film “12 Angry Men” through a dissection of the film’s characters and storyline. The following topics will be considered in our analysis: * Descriptions of characters * Analysis of informal leaders’ tactics * Assessment of the formally assigned leader * Factors for effective persuasion * Integral traits of a leader Descriptions of characters The twelve jurors come into the trial from different backgrounds and inevitably view the trial through different colored lenses. To analyze such deviation in perspective, it is necessary to briefly understand the psychological architecture and identifying any potential personaly biases of the following jurors: * Foreman * Vacillating and humble juror * Loud-mouthed and bigoted juror * Factually analytical juror * Empathetic shanty-town-raised juror * Honest and slow-thinking craftsman * Distracting baseball fan * The opposing architect * Late old man * Antagonistic old man * Impressionable justice-driven immigrant * Indecisive marketing executive Foreman This fair-minded individual is easily frustrated, sensitive about how others perceive his ability to lead, and really motivated to ensure that the process of jury deliberation is conducted properly. His desire to be perceived as worthy of the leadership role he has assumed leads him to side with the majority...
Words: 2119 - Pages: 9
...old boy. As the title suggests that there are 12 men in the jury who do not know one another, and do not know the defendant, but these jurors have to work as one united group to argue and reach an agreement. They all have to be convinced wither the boy is guilty or not. The trial is about a sixteen year old boy accused with the murder of his father. The story has no plot because it tells us how these 12 jurors argue about the case in a small room and reach the final decision. They have to think as a group because, otherwise, it could not work, that means that they will get to the wrong decision, and cause or the release of a killer or the death of an innocent young man. The play emphasizes how they deal with the case and how they make a decision vital for the boy’s life. The jury is actually a group of randomly chosen members of society. Each one of them represents a particular class of the society, not only as a mass of people, but also the way this class of society thinks and behaves. Therefore, every one of them is sensitive to different issues and social norms and also each one of them confirms to different society standards and values of society. It is very important to note that each one of the characters- the jurors- is an ordinary person, has an ordinary life, problems and family and is surrounding by an ordinary people. They exhibit different perspectives, points of view, analysis and behavior in specific situations they experienced at the trial. Although...
Words: 1913 - Pages: 8
...4 December 2013 Lincoln and White Privilege: How does a Man so Powerful not have the Right to Stop it? “Privilege is driving a smooth road and not even knowing it” – Ampersand. Ampersand is saying how privilege in general is taking over and people don’t even know it. So how do you define the word ‘privilege’? According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, privilege is described as, “a right or benefit that is given to some people and not to others.” That being said, white privilege occurs when people of Caucasian or white decent receive more rights or benefits than another racial group such as African Americans. In Steven Spielberg’s 2012 film, Lincoln, white privilege can not be surpassed without the support of a higher leader, such as Lincoln and his colleagues. Thus being said, there are two specific scenes in the movie where racial problems occur leading to the idea of white privilege and how it prevails. Lincoln has always supported the abolition of slavery and we can see that in the first few minutes of the Lincoln film. However, at the beginning, there is an incident that exemplifies how Lincoln treated the African Americans he is fighting for and how white people treat the blacks. The movie starts out with a battle scene and right after we see Lincoln under a canopy talking to two black soldiers, Ira Clark and Harold Green. Green says to Lincoln, “Us 2nd Kansas boys, whenever we fight now we-…” and Clark jumps into the conversation and says, “Another three dollars subtracted...
Words: 1002 - Pages: 5
...Madison Gensurowsky Film analysis Steven Spielberg’s film “Lincoln” begins at the time of the Civil War when President Lincoln was demanding the war’s end. Within the first scene the brutality of the war is shown, mainly against black soldiers. Race was a huge issue at the time the film takes place and that was Lincoln’s largest struggle as he tried to keep the nation as one. The film takes place in the 1860’s and reveals that white privilege was a central belief at the time. However, the way that white people are portrayed in the film suggests that not much has changed in that respect. The idea of white privilege suggests that white people see themselves as just humans, people without a race. Privilege is a way of thinking that “generally allows people to assume a certain level of acceptance, inclusion, and respect in the world, to operate within a relatively wide comfort zone” (Rothenberg, 103). At the time of the civil war, white people took it upon themselves to decide who gets taken seriously and who is accountable to whom for what. They assumed superiority among every other race, as they were humans who had no race, they were simply humans. White people, men in particular, were entitled to any and every freedom that the Constitution allowed. In this film, Lincoln is fighting to pass the thirteenth amendment, which would free the slaves and end the devastation of the Civil War. The white soldiers are praised in the film for the battle that they are fighting, although...
Words: 1343 - Pages: 6
...questions at the end of the document) General Resources: For each concept below, provide a one to two sentence summary of each key resource. LINK: http://tinyurl.com/kv9gr2h General Resources: Greek Citizenship: Since Greece was not a unified country traditions and laws about citizenship varied. In most city-states, male citizens were involved in such shared civic responsibilities as jury duty or military service in time of war. Every polis had resident aliens, foreign merchants, and others, and on occasion, those people would be made citizens; however, that eventuality was rare. Some women might’ve...
Words: 1496 - Pages: 6
