12 Angry MEN Analysis PDF

Preview

Summary

Analysis of movie 12 angry men in respect of organization behavior...

Description

12 ANGRY MEN Seldom would you come across a fantastic movie that puts you in place to think repetitively about how the incidents folded out in those 180 minutes of reel time makes it hard to pick your favorite character and makes you sympathize with more than just the protagonist? 12 Angry Men, a 1957 classic by Sidney Lumet starring Henry Fooda, is one such film that holds you to a seat and lets your mind run to observe and devour what’s coming next. The film is a courtroom drama, whereby 12 jurors were given the responsibility to decide unanimously the fate of a young boy who allegedly killed his father. Also, in the presence of reasonable doubt, the judge instructed the jury to give a not-guilty verdict. The facts of the case highlighted that the boy had the motive to kill, used a different knife as a weapon to kill, and was reportedly seen by two witnesses in conducting the crime and fleeing from the crime scene. Initially, all the members expect jurors eighth juror voted non-guilty, but after discussing the case and highlighting the small details, the group turned their decision. They found specific points to create reasonable doubt and arrived at the Non-Guilty Verdict. The film is a classic case of Group Dynamism and reveals how the groups function. This report is an attempt to highlight such behavior and dynamism.

PROFILE OF JURORS

JUROR

PERSONALITY

1

He was the self-appointed leader of the jury. He wished to conduct the discussion in calm and organized manner.

2

He was over powered by others, but eventually he takes his own stance

3

A father who shared a bitter relation with his son. He strongly proposed the guilt of young boy.

4

A stock broker who strictly believed in the facts. He paid attention to semantics of the courtroom discussions.

5

Man of humble beginnings, he got hurt from insults directed to his upbringings or similar discriminating slurs

6

A man who cares that no one is subjected to abuses or disrespect.

7

Indifferent and annoying. Someone who didn’t participate in discussions.

8

An architect whose commitment to spend time before arriving at the decision, sharp witted, and calculative.

9

A man who is detail oriented, and supports rational thinking. His observations were key to change the group decision.

10

A man of Xenophobic extremes, who lack rationality. He shouts over everyone while snatching the chances from others to talk.

11

A watchmaker who demonstrates strong respect for democratic values

12

An advertiser who did not contributed much to discussion. He was busy in his thoughts. THE ROLE OF JURORS IN MOVIE Juror1 : Juror 1 took the initiative as a moderator of the 12 juries, including himself. He also enjoys authority as he got upset when he was pointed out that he was not doing his job as a moderator correctly. He responded calmly to every statement made for or against the death penalty. He responded with the choice guilty initially without any discussion, which shows a narrow thinking style, but he was also open to every person's thoughts and took time to think about it. He was focused that everyone's given a chance to speak and no one disrespects the other. He agreed to everyone's request to count votes at a regular interval. He played the role of foreman of the jury very efficiently. Juror2 : Juror2 was a very timid person who tends to go with the flow. When asked about his reason for pleading the defendant guilty, he replied anxiously that he has a feeling about it. He followed what everyone was saying without any reason though his reason can take someone's life. He struggled to be a part of the decision-making. He was also helpful even after showing his hesitant behavior. He offered everyone cough drops and told that it was difficult for someone to stab at a very awkward height. He took time to be comfortable to participate in the discussion. Juror3 Juror3 was a person who likes to take charge and tries to be logical. He was a person who likes to make decisions on logical reasons rather than personal feelings as he was confident about the reasons, he gave to plead the defendant guilty with firm reasons rather than his personal feelings. He was emotionally unstable and reacted in an aggressive manner when other jurors did not agree with him. He was not open to other jurors and did not understand their point of view in the case. He entered the jury room with a perception that the defendant is guilty, so anyone who opposed this thought was wrong, according to juror 3. Juror 3 contradicted his statements to prove his point but always realized his mistakes regarding the same. He was also insensitive towards others' opinions. Juror4 Juror4 was more focused on factual discussion rather than arguing non constructively. He closely listened to everyone's arguments and accepted everything, which made a reason of doubt in the defendant being guilty. He did not changed his stance till he was given a proper counter of lady witness to be wrong. He was skeptical of the instances given by juror 8 and others who agreed with him. He was very well dressed and respected the rules of the group discussion. He was also sensitive towards the defendant sometimes, but it was due to his responsibility to reach a point where justice is served. He was one of the jurors who was least affected by the emotions. Juror 4 focused more on details rather than feelings or intuitions of others. Juror5 Juror5 belonged to a slum area like the defendant. Still, he didn't make this cloud his judgement and responded with "Guilty" initially. He showed a lot of patience in comparison to others when they felt attacked. Juror 3 falsely blamed him in an instance, but he did not act rashly or aggressively. Juror 5 also paid attention to details as he confirmed spectacles bridge print on lady's nose, he also

remembered it. Despite being targeted many times, he didn't lose his temper. At first he affirmed with others decision, but when juror 8 explained his perspective, he thought about it openly and agreed to him. When asked for the opinion at the first time, he did not vote and asked to exempt him from voting. He gained confidence as the discussion continued. Juror6 : Juror6 was a little confused when he was asked for the first time about the reason of his decision. He used a lot of words like "Maybe" which reflected his less confidence in his decision. He took the initiative to stop Juror3 when he got aggressive. He was open minded in the whole discussion as when authentic statements were given by juror8 , he tried to understand it and made decisions accordingly. He is a guy who changes his stance when people convince him. Juror 7: He was a Sales man. He gets directly to voting & wants to get out as soon as possible (also feels very hot, more hot then usual), doesn't want to discuss because wants to go to watch baseball game. He thinks there's nothing to talk about, didn't even think twice before voting, and says, "You couldn't change my mind if you talked for a hundred years". He also ignores the Juror-9 just because he changed his vote. He judges the kid on his prior criminal charges (bit biased, should consider but should not judge on the one thing he did in the past). Juror8: He is an Architect. The one who actually judge correctly (juries are supposed to find only one such instance where the accused may not be guilty, not that the story fits perfectly so the accused is guilty or otherwise). He was asked "You really think he's innocent?" (By Juror-3), his answer "I don't know." (Man wants to convey he is not sure if the child is guilty or not but others first thinks that he thinks the child is innocent). He puts himself into the child's shoes & understands the scenario. He analyses all the facts & questions the truthfulness.

Juror 9: He was a wise man & ready to talk but still thought that the child was guilty at first. He observed everything & had a few points that others didn't even think of. He changed his vote because he wanted to support Juror-8 & was impressed by Juror-8's courage to stand against all 11 others. Also wanted to discuss more. Juror 10: He owned three garages. First-line the man says is "there's always one" seems biased (in the beginning of the discussion). He says he couldn't trust anything that kid, says they're born liars (also partial). At the beginning of the discussion, the man starts talking about a story he heard last night & diverts the case, unless number-8 stopped him. He believes everything without questioning once in his head. At a point all the other Juror turns their back against because Juror-10 was not understanding one simple thing that he should not judge a person from where they are or where they came from. His behavior was bigotry. Juror 11: He is a watch maker. At first he voted guilty as did all. But observed the discussion & made very good points later on & combined several facts & asked questions. Which lead to proving that there was a chance that the kid was not guilty. He is against fighting & calms everyone by telling them that they are not there for fighting. Juror 12:

Works in a Marketing Company. The man couldn't care less, Interested in his business only. He starts talking about his business whenever he gets the time. This shows he is not concentrating on the case. He was not stable in his decision. He is the only person to change his vote more than twice.

THE GROUP DECISION MAKING PROCESS The 12 jurors engaged in an unstructured group decision-making process, which was moderated to some extent. Democratic voting to reflect the opinions and the unanimous decision changed how the case was solved. Initially, most of the jury concluded the kid is guilty based on his past life experiences. They have emphasized that the kid threw a rock on her teacher at the age of 10, stealing cars at the age of 14, and he was taken to police custody twice as he was trying to stab few kids with a knife. According to 11 members who pronounced him guilty had a perspective about the type of person the kid was as they saw the boy's history and the background where he came from as he was brought up without her mother since a very early age, lived in a slum, was staying in an orphanage for one and a half year as his father was in jail for cases like forgery. The role of the protagonist played by Henry Fooda changed the group's opinion. This change was achieved by his qualities of arguing in a structured fashion, keen observation skills, and predicting and provoking individuals to act in a manner to put forward his points. His ability to sympathize with the boy and understanding of the criticality of the decision pushed the discussion in the right direction. The idea to declare not guilty was subjected to reasonable doubt. Juror 8 found reasonable doubts in all the shreds of evidence presented by the prosecutor. The lady who saw the boy killing was put in doubt by questioning her eyesight, the old man able to see the boy fleeing the crime scene was neglected by his ability to walk in the mentioned few seconds, Fooda found the uniquely designed knife used for the killing to highlight the fact that knife was not that rare after all. Also, boy's statements were highlighted to be not life threats, but as common parlance used by people when angry. All this created reasonable doubt, and this all was done with practicality. And this leads the case to NON GUILTY verdict. Some Concepts of Group Behaviour.  Groupthink- As soon as the meeting started, one of the jury members who were in a hurry to leave the meeting as he needed to attend a game unintentionally was influencing all the other members to vote the kid guilty along with him and also stated that it was an open and a shut case. Another juror also brought forward all the facts on the table and said there was nothing else left that was taking them so much time to come to a conclusion. After his actions, all the other jury members were influenced by him and started raising their hands, and the jury was divided 11-1 against the boy.  Role Perception- Juror 1 assumed the responsibility of Group Moderator.  Role Expectations- Everyone on the jury was supposed to pay utmost attention and work cooperatively towards the case at hand. However, this was followed by everyone, and their indifference to the importance of human life was repulsive.  Norms- The group readily accepted the democratic methods of conducting discussions and voting. Everyone was given a chance to speak, and everyone's thoughts were welcomed. Though there was a lack of conformity as people used harsh words, high tones and interrupted others.

FEW BIASES WERE IDENTIFIED IN JURORS  Stereotype-

Jury 11 once stated that slums are the kind of places where such types of kids are raised and also is a breeding ground for them, and they possess a threat to the whole society as they are born in between all these criminals who live in that particular area, so they adapt to that situation. Along with this, he stated that kids who crawl out of these places are like trash.  Selective perceptionAll the jury members who were raising their hands to vote guilty stated that they trust the words of the two members who said that they had seen the boy running out of his house, and one of them heard him fighting when the train was passing that particular time and both the windows of the house were open during that time. Most of the members were not convinced with Fonda's theory that the old man could have clearly heard what his neighbors on the other side were talking about in that much of a noise. In the starting, everyone was accepting the fact that the switchblade was unique and didn't analyze any facts. Once Fonda gave up his points and also got a similar knife. Still, they didn't accept the fact that some other person can also buy a similar knife from a nearby area and then used that to kill the kid's father. They were not ready to listen and also counter the point by stating that it was just a coincidence.

 Confirmation BiasAs the jury was discussing, one of the jury members misquotes one of the instances in the trial by stating that the kid was punched instead of hit by his father to make his point more potent, which had a higher impact on the jury. Also, Fonda tries to bring his point where he stated that why would the kid come and show all his friends the weapon if he had any plans to kill his father. But The other jury members didn't take up his point and stated that the boy could have lied as they emphasized his background, because of which he can't be trusted. One of the jury members also noted that the boy quickly removed his fingerprints from the weapon that he used. But he was left puzzled when he was asked that how can a boy who is smart enough to remove his fingerprints but forgot the knife over there and also why he would come later to pick it up?...