...Perception is the New Truth Growing up, we were all taught that we live in a world which is in black and white, where there is a clear evil and a clear good. Unfortunately, this is not true; and the distinction between what is the truth and what is false is sometimes very vague. Thus, more often than not, I find myself struggling to distinguish what is the truth and what is not, and I’m often stuck in an unclear grey area where it could be either one; or it could depend upon the person’s perspective. While there are some universal truths that we cannot deny, such as stealing being bad, and helping animals being good, some truths can be up to the person’s perception depending on the circumstances. For instance, we would all agree that it was...
Words: 986 - Pages: 4
...1304-001 Name Ankit Gupta PGDM – P/T – 2013-2016 2nd Term Individual & Group Dynamics Dr. Hardik Shah Leadership Role in Management of Change 1 12 Angry Men Note: 1. The document should reach via e mail - assignments@imt.ac.in or through the Class Representative on USB or CD Rom before the deadline (As advised by the course faculty and/ or before August 28, 2013). 2. Max file size should not exceed 5 MB. 3. File Name: Course Code_Sec_Group No_Program_Batch (For e.g. BGSI_A_5_PGDM_2012-14) 4. Send one file or report in one mail. Like for sending three different report you need to send three different emails. 5. Email subject name: your file name should be the subject name. 6. Send only one email for a subject. No second submission will be accepted. 7. There should be only one file either a MS Word or PDF. If there is a annexure, adjust in your word file only. 2 12 Angry Men 1. What qualities did Juror #8 have (Henry Fonda) that made him such a strong leader? Juror 8 is a masterful negotiator. His personality and charisma aside, he skillfully employs several negotiation techniques. He builds :o alliances o used brainstorming o offered concessions o anticipated offer o reframes and masters the factual information Against what seem like over whelming odds, one juror has managed to dominate this group of twelve men. The strategies and tactics of this successful negotiator are impeccable. He gradually and carefully gains control. As the negotiations proceeds the...
Words: 1464 - Pages: 6
...12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, is a play that has the basic plot line of jurors deciding the fate of a defendant. But, simple as it may sound, the book actually highlights many issues within our society. One of the underlying motifs of 12 Angry Men is prejudice obscuring the truth. Each of the jurors has a distinct personality and unique traits that they bring to the jury room. Rose uses each of the jurors individual personalities and backstories to illustrate that prejudice obscures the truth. Before the jurors even begin to discuss the case, the foreman calls for a vote. Eleven of the jurors voted, “Guilty”, while Juror Eight voted, “Not guilty.” Juror Eight and Juror Three seem to have opposing views on the defendant on trial....
Words: 491 - Pages: 2
...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
...A View of 12 Angry Men The movie 12 Angry Men is a snapshot of many of the changes going on in 1950’s- 60’s America. The movie begins by introducing the viewer to a, seemingly, open and shut case about a teenager from the slums murdering his father. It is revealed to us that it is the job of the twelve jurors who have heard the case to deliberate over all the evidence and return a, unanimous verdict to present to the judge. We quickly find out that all of the “evidence,” heard in the courtroom seems to be pointing squarely at the boy being guilty; and most of the jurors are happy to take the evidence at first glance clearly indicating the boy as the murderer. However it is when juror #8 protests: “that the jury should at least review the evidence,” before, for all intents and purposes, the boy is sentenced to the death penalty, when the men begin to be overcome by their prejudice towards the boy and his lifestyle. While the “villains,” such as juror 3 and juror 10,are quite obviously overwhelmed by their own strong feelings of prejudice; for many of the men it is a general prejudice toward the American Justice System which serves to blind them from the truth. They are supremely confident in the system working correctly every time, that they miss obvious mistakes and loose ends going on throughout the trial. With a few exceptions, it is the faith in the American System which contribute the original overwhelming feeling of prejudice in the room, all causing...
Words: 596 - Pages: 3
...12 Angry Men: An Illustration of Concepts of Organisational Behaviour Introduction In 1957 Sidney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men was published (Lumet, 1957). Now, 55 years later, the movie’s teachings still hold most of their truths. The events shown in the movie can be scientifically explained using concepts of organisational behaviour. Although some of these concepts did not even exist by the time the movie was made, the movie still is an excellent case to study and illustrate them. The reason for this is the isolation of the movie’s characters. All events in the movie are triggered by the characters only. There are no external influences nor is there the possibility for the characters to leave the scene. This essay will apply concepts of organizational behaviour to events of the movie. Particular attention will be paid to the concepts of perception, attribution biases, decision making, leadership and group dynamics. In order to do so, the essay will move along the plot of the movie and apply concepts where there are fit. None the less for the purpose of referencing a brief introduction to the movie and its characters is given here: The plot of 12 Angry Men describes the events that take place as a jury has come to a unanimous decision. The defendant is accused of homicide. If the jury decides upon a verdict of ‘guilty’ the judge will inevitably sentence the accused to death penalty. In the beginning all jurors but juror no. 8 are willing to verdict ‘guilty’ without debating. However...
Words: 2175 - Pages: 9
...12 Angry Men Briefly summarize each act of the play. Act I: After hearing a case of a young man who is accused of killing his father and is now on trial, the twelve jurors enter a vacant room to discuss the trial. If the twelve jurors find him guilty the mandatory sentence is the death penalty. The twelve men take a vote and they all find the young man guilty except for one juror… the 8th juror. The other jurors become angry with him for making it a difficult process but decide to go around the table to discuss why they think the young man is guilty in attempt to change the 8th jurors mind. The 8th juror is still sure in his decision and explains to the other jurors that the murder weapon could've been available to anyone, it wasn't one of a kind. He proves this by displaying his own replica of the murder weapon, shocking the other jurors....
Words: 957 - Pages: 4
...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
...Twelve Angry Men – Book Report How does your background and peer pressure influence your opinions and decisions? The play we read “twelve angry men” shows how a jury makes such an important decision of either sending the defendant to his death or keeping him alive – the jury determinates the fate of a 16 year 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...
Words: 1913 - Pages: 8
...Opposing Thoughts in a Coexisting World The foundation of life of this world, is coexisting with one another at the same time or in the same place in peace. In the story “Twelve Angry Men” written by Reginald Rose, he creates a theoretical question, if opposing ideas can coexist as well. Justice verses mercy and certainty versus doubt is the underlying conflict throughout the story displayed by each juror with their personal backgrounds either leading to condemning or saving a teen’s life. After act one, we see the struggle between each juror going from certainty and pushing for justice only to be later filled with doubt and demanding mercy. These opposing ideas disrupt the vary balance of peace leading for any coexisting out the door. The Idea of justice versus mercy is constantly questioned and played out by juror number eight and juror number three. The struggle for justice by juror number three using laws to fairly judge and punish the teen for his father’s murder is contradicted by juror number eight as he seeks for merciful truth. In act one, juror number three says, “I never saw a guiltier man in my life. You sat right in court and heard the same thing I did. The man’s a dangerous killer…”(Rose 3) followed by juror number eight explaining his not guilty vote saying, “… this boy’s been kicked around all his life. You know, living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine … I think maybe we owe him a few words, that’s all” (3). Juror number three is an extremely opinionated...
Words: 622 - Pages: 3
...most people live their own world and don’t pay attention to other people and their truths. People remain oblivious to other people’s truths or the world’s truth. Andre Bryant, a character in the Freedom Writers , describes his class as all dumb kids that will never go anywhere. He fails to believe in himself or his classmates. Andre’s own mom does not even look at Andre because she believes he will be in prison like his father. Since so many people doubt Andre, Andre doubts himself. Andre Bryant starts to break his chain when he firsts receives his journal. When Andre first meets Mrs. Gruwell, he asks her why does she deserve his trust? But, by the time he receives his journal, he trusts her enough to let her read his journal, which contains extremely private thoughts. Andre changes when a drug dealer asks him to make a deal for him, but Andre declines so he can go to the Holocaust Museum. Andre benefitted attending the field trip immensely because for him and all of the students, it opened their...
Words: 427 - Pages: 2
...Similarly, Sidney Lumet’s 1957 film ‘12 Angry Men’ visually portrays a representation of the ‘truth’ by contrasting each conflicting perspective of the jurors with each other on whether the 16 year old boy murdered his father. Extreme prejudices are stated ironically - Juror 10 is prejudiced against anyone coming from a slum ‘the kids who crawl outa those places are real trash…these people are born to lie.’ This is juxtaposed with Juror 8’s comment near the end of the film with “no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth.’ The film plays off the two-sided nature of justice by each character wanting justice, but ‘justice’ becomes unclear and fluid throughout the course of the drama. Juror 8 dismisses the guilty verdict with the exclamation ‘it’s possible’ demonstrating the need for objectification in finding the ‘truth’. The film does not reveal names of the jurors that serve to distance us from each jury member thus inviting us to objectively scrutinise their individual prejudices and character traits. The camera angles explicitly represent and emphasise the evolving change in perspective of each juror as the ‘truth’ unfolds with low and wide-angle shots eventually replaced by close-ups all serving to emphasise the difficulty in obtaining ‘truth’. This is highlighted in the knife scene, where for Juror 3 the knife is ironclad evidence functioning as proof of the boy’s guilt, reinforced by the exclamatory statement “You all know he is guilty! together with...
Words: 284 - Pages: 2
...Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose Structure, Language and Genre Structure • Twelve Angry Men follows a two-act structure, with the action running continuously rather than being broken into scenes. The second acts takes up exactly where the first left off – there is no change in chronology. • With no scene divisions, the progress of the play can be measured by the votes which take place, functioning as a kind of pulse, reminding the audience where the jury’s opinion stands on the defendant’s conviction. These moments serve as markers for the audience on the journey through the play, helping to structure the action. • The play follows the three classical unities of theatre derived from Aristotle: - Unity of action: there should be only one central plot (the jury’s deliberations and decisions). - Unity of time: In real and continuous time where there are no shifts in chronology (no breaks in play). - Unity of place: Action occurs in only one single location (the jury room). • Allows the audience to feel very close to characters, their relationships and the conflict and challenges with which they are faced in deciding the defendant’s fate. • Intensifies sense of realism and is particularly effective because of the claustrophobic nature of the setting. Language • Rose’s characters use naturalistic, everyday language appropriate to the times and for the audience. • Heightened poetic or symbolic language is rarely used, instead speaking in concrete terms about the...
Words: 8042 - Pages: 33
...him of his own son, from whom he is estranged. On the other extreme, 8th Juror is prejudiced to give the defendant special consideration because he had a hard upbringing and comes from a poor background. recently auditioned for a local theater production of Twelve Angry Men. As a jury researcher, how could I resist? Although I did not get a part, I still went to a performance, and I was struck by how powerful and instructive the play still is, more than 50 years after its premiere. TAM was originally written for television by Reginald Rose and broadcast live on September 20, 1954. Rose then rewrote it as a stage play in 1955, and Sidney Lumet turned it into a 1957 film starring a veritable who's who of leading men of the day: Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Jack Klugman, Jack Warden, Martin Balsam, E.G. Marshall, Ed Begley. This is the version that most people associate with the play. William Friedkin (who also directed The French Connection and The Exorcist--how's that for a curious portfolio) did a TV remake in 1997, with Jack Lemmon in the Henry Fonda role; Friedkin also had a couple of jurors be African American, which added a layer of complexity to the already present racial overtones. A Russian version, entitled 12, appeared in 2007 (Russia is one of several countries that has recently adopted or expanded its use of juries). That same year TAM was added to the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress. It has been popular since its premiere and is one of the things that...
Words: 1096 - Pages: 5
...Barriers in Communication: 12 Angry men Juror 1: He tries to organize the entire discussion and give it a structured approach. He facilitated the entire proceedings of the discussion be it casting a secret ballot or allowing everyone to voice their opinion. However he did not provide with any specific inputs to the entire discussion. Juror 2: He just went with the flow with a lack of ability to reason out of his own. Because it was his first time and was nervous to be on a murder trial jury. He said it was obvious that the boy was guilty from the word Go, as nobody proved otherwise. But as the discussion proceeded he took a stand and gave an insight to the way the stab wound was made. Juror 3: He was an Egoist. He had a personal prejudice that the case is crystal clear. He declared the kid as a dangerous killer, although there was no evidence given to even consider anyone else involved. He wanted to slap the kid down before the trouble starts as he had prior bad experience with his kid. He even supported his bias against kids by how he use to call his father 'Sir' and now his kid had left him after they had a fight. He presented the facts first in the discussion and narrated the fall of events as he wanted to hear it and deemed him guilty. He was so determined to have the boy guilty that he could not accept anybody switch votes and also called it 'Love my underprivileged brother week' in anger. Juror 4: He is the one who thought the entire story was flimsy. He based all...
Words: 1224 - Pages: 5
