Influencing an Entire Crowd in 12 Angry Men

1016 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Small group communication concept

Twelve Angry Men is a movie that was made in 1957. The movie is a classic showing how one person can change the minds of an entire crowd. In this group of a dozen jurors you have very different personalities and also you have some men that want to be leaders and some that do not. Also the movie demonstrates that actions and behaviors of the twelve jurors. This is an example of small group communications.

The juror that was the Architect in the suit was probably the strongest leader in the group. (12 angry men, 1957). Before the twelve jurors started to deliberate they were all very nice to each other. Then when they started to talk about the trial they all where ready to convict the boy. From the beginning the Architect was not convinced that the boy was guilty. When a group has trouble communicating they sometimes will make an irrational decision because they want to come to a decision in a hurry.

The Architect tries to convince the other jurors with an impulse appeal. He tells the other jurors that the impact of their decision as a group will affect the boy’s life forever. He keeps his emotions in tact because he decides that he will concur with the group about the guilty verdict if they can convince him that it is the right verdict.

Also, he uses consultation to try to help the group come to a consensus. The architect tries to seek group participation to make the ultimate decision. He can see that the others are set in their opinion because they want to fit in with the rest of the group. But his main goal is to find what each individual juror believes. He is willing to change his decision after they all have a discussion on the facts. (12angry men, 1957).

Next, the angry father is also an i...

... middle of paper ...

...ty. It was noticeable that the Architect and the angry father were needed to represent the opinions of the entire group. The Salesman was needed to keep the bored jurors on task and make them feel comfortable. Then of course the Foreman was there to be the leader of the meeting. Last but not least was the Old Man that became a leader by speaking up for himself and changing the whole trial to be in favor of the boy. By having each one of these leaders shows how important it is in our environment today to have different people in a group to be able to voice their opinions.

References

12 Angry Men (1957), Review by Tim Dirks, Retrieved 13 December 2009,

http://www.filmsite.org/twelve.html

Lumet, S. (Director), Rose, R. (Writer), (1957) 12 Angry Men [Motion picture]. United Artists.

Rose, R. (2006). Twelve angry men. Penguin Books

Show More
Related

  • Justice was Served in the Film Twelve Angry Men

    386 Words  | 1 Pages

    The jurors took a vote and saw the ratio at eleven for guilty and only one for not guilty. When they repeatedly attacked his point of view, his starting defense was that the boy was innocent until proven guilty, not the opposite as the others had seen it. After Henry Fonda instilled doubt in the mind of another juror, the two worked together to weaken the barriers of hatred and prejudice that prevented them from seeing the truth. The jurors changed their minds one at a time until the ratio stood again at eleven to one, this time in favor of acquittal. At this point, the jurors who believed the defendant was not guilty worked together to prove to the one opposing man that justice would only be found if they returned a verdict of not guilty. They proved this man wrong by using his personal experiences in life to draw him into a series of deadly contradictions.

    Read More

  • Uncertainty In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

    980 Words  | 2 Pages

    Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three

    Read More

  • Twelve Angry Men - Juror 3

    724 Words  | 2 Pages

    Juror three is angry, bitter man who has spent his entire life forcing his opinions unto others, and has most likely succeeded in this endeavor. As head of his own company, he isn’t he used to the resistence he is getting from the group. To help his arguments, he uses the phrase “know what I mean” at the end of almost everything he says, putting any juror with an opposing argument in an awkward position. As the play wears on and his reliable witnesses were called into question, and more speculation was put upon the table, he begins to become more forceful in his arguments, raising his voice much more often than usual. He firmly believes in the guilt of the accused, no matter what the other jurors say or do. There are ...

    Read More

  • Prejudice in 12 Angry Men

    1000 Words  | 2 Pages

    12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are the jury for an 18 year old accused of murder. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home. The prosecutors have several eye witness testimonies, and all of the evidence that they could need to convict the 18 year old male. In the movie it takes place on the hottest day of the year in New York City. There are 12 jurors whom are to decide if the evidence is enough to convict the teen of murder in the first degree. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. The only way that the jurors could turn in their votes was if there was unanimous vote either guilty or not guilty among the 12 jurors. As the movie progressed the jurors ended up changing their minds as new evidence was brought to their attention by simple facts that were overlooked by the police and prosecutors in the initial investigation. Tempers were raised, and words flew, there was prejudice and laziness of a few of the jurors that affected the amount of time it took to go over all of the eye witness testimonies and evidence. The eye witness testimonies ended up being proven wrong and some of the evidence was thrown out because it was put there under false pretense.

    Read More

  • Intolerance And Prejudice In The Play Twelve Angry Men

    1285 Words  | 3 Pages

    The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground

    Read More

  • Compare and Contrast Play and Movie Versions of 12 Angry Men

    1039 Words  | 3 Pages

    This essay will compare and contrast the protagonist/antagonist's relationship with each other and the other jurors in the play and in the movie versions of Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men. There aren't any changes made to the key part of the story, but yet the minor changes made in making the movie adaptation produce a different picture than what one imagines when reading the drama in the form of a play. First off, the settings in the movie are a great deal more fleshed out. In the play, the scene begins with the jurors regarding the judge's final statements concerning the case in the courtroom and then walking out into the jury room. In the movie, the audience is placed in the role of the invisible casual observer, who for perhaps the first 5 minutes of the movie, walks throughout the court building passing other court rooms, lawyers, defendants, security officers, elevators, etc.

    Read More

  • Crimical Justice System: The Beauty of Detail

    1512 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...s from The Prosecution Function to a real life setting. My tainted movie perception of the criminal justice system no longer exists. While the process does not necessarily always have an unbelievable climax, the excitement lies in the subtle details the opposing counsels must recognize in order to gain an advantage; it truly is a mind game. The immense amount of time and effort that is put forth makes me appreciate the quality of art that lawyers possess. The knowledge and preparation it takes to be successful is astounding, and it is a pleasure to watch.

    Read More

  • Stereotypes In The Play '12 Angry Men' By Reginald Rose

    911 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the play, 12 Angry Men, written by the well-known writer and producer, Reginald Rose, sets the scene in a stuffy jury room on an extremely hot day where 12 jurors must deem whether a boy is guilty for the murder of his father. The jurors struggle to reach a unanimous decision, as tension between the jurors builds up. The author delivers several clear messages through his play such as standing up for what you believe in, and always pursuing the truth. Often times personal feelings, prejudices, and fear of voicing opinions prevent the truth from being exposed.

    Read More

  • Comparing and Contrasting Juror 3 and Juror 8 from Twelve Angry Men

    1056 Words  | 3 Pages

    These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his wishes and views upon others. On the other hand, Juror 8 is an honest man who keeps an open mind for both evidence and reasonable doubt. Since these two people are indeed very different, they both have singular thoughts relating to the murder case. Juror 8 is a man who is loyal to justice. In the beginning of the play, he was the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ the first time the twelve men called a vote. Although his personality is reflected on being a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, he is still a very persistent person who will fight for justice to be done. Juror 8 is a convincing man who presents his arguments well, but can also be seen as manipulative. An example would be when he kept provoking Juror 3 until he finally said “I’m going to kill you" to Juror 8. He did this because he wanted to prove that saying "I’ll kill you" doesn’t necessarily mean that Juror 3 was actually going to kill him. Juror 3 is a totally different character. He is a stubborn man who can be detected with a streak of sad...

    Read More

  • Analysis of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men

    617 Words  | 2 Pages

    Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.

    Read More

  • The Problem of Groupthink in 12 Angry Men

    947 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...a unanimous vote of not guilty. The final scene takes place signifying the "adjourning stage". Two of the jurors, eight and three exchange the only character names mentioned during the film. The entire process of groupthink occurs in multiple ways that display its symptoms on individual behavior, emotions, and personal filters. These symptoms adversity affected the productivity throughout the juror's debate. In all, all twelve men came to an agreement but displayed group social psychological aspects.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Persuasive Essay

    445 Words  | 1 Pages

    The problem that has been tormenting the eight juror is that no other jurors, other then the fifth juror agree with him. The eight juror claims that the boy is not guilty, but since everyone believes that he committed the murder, he has to convince them that he's right. Everyone is also accusing him for his opinion, which is making him frustrated.

    Read More

  • Stereotypes In 12 Angry Men

    723 Words  | 2 Pages

    The film 12 Angry Men depicts the challenge faced by a jury as they deliberate the charges brought against an 18-year-old boy for the first-degree murder of his father. Their task is to come to an impartial verdict, based on the testimony that was heard in court. The group went through the case over and over while personal prejudices, personality differences, and tension mounted as the process evolved. While the scorching hot weather conditions and personal affairs to tend to led the juror to make quick and rash decisions, one juror convinced them the fate of the 18 year old was more important than everyone’s problems an convinced them that they could not be sure he was guilty. Juror three took the most convincing. After fighting till he

    Read More

  • Movie Analysis: Film Analysis Of 12 Angry Men

    1670 Words  | 4 Pages

    Especially in the start when juror#9, the old man votes non guilty in order to extent his support for the protagonist, juror#8. He did that because he felt that juror#8 was the only one standing against the decision and if pitches in, the jury might face it difficult to convince two people, therefore will start looking at the evidences more deeply and clearly. The protagonist influenced every single person in the jury one after the other with his logical capability. He was consistent with his thought of discussing the evidences so that justice is given to the boy. He corners few people in the jury with his logical ability, so that the statements about the case which the jury believed as facts, goes haywire. He as a single person had minority influence in many occasions in the

    Read More

  • A Summary of 12 Angry Men

    1009 Words  | 3 Pages

    Juror#12 was the peacemaker of the group. When he sees’s others fighting, he tries to break them up and solve the problem. He goes around and talks with some of the jury’s, but they all ignore him. His first vote was that the boy was guilty, but after listening to what guy number 8 had to say he changed his vote.

    Read More

More about Influencing an Entire Crowd in 12 Angry Men

Open Document