COM113 12 Angry Men Paper PDF

Preview

Summary

These are the responses to the given discussion questions that were to be posted every week in the online discussion forum. This COM113 course was taken the last eight weeks of the semester purely online in accelerated format with Dr. Joshua Rockey. Use for reference only....

Description

Running Header: 12 ANGRY MEN PAPER

12 Angry Men Paper Paige Hutton COM113-CE California Baptist University

Hutton 1

Running Header: 12 ANGRY MEN PAPER

Hutton 2

Introduction In the 1957 film 12 Angry Men, Juror #8 who was played by Henry Fonda, manages to flip the near unanimous jury vote from guilty to not guilty for a murder case. The main character, Henry Fonda’s role, is able to slowly create a domino effect within the jurors by swaying them from a guilty to not guilty verdict. The manner in which this is achieved to attain a unanimous not guilty vote is clever, but extremely logical. Analysis of this film proves to show that speech ethics can be extremely significant to persuading audiences. Personal Connection to Jury Member Henry Fonda, who played Juror #8 in 12 Angry Men, would be the character that I identify with the most. Generally, I tend to be a “what if” type of person, in which question situations based upon the facts. In this film, Henry Fonda’s character is the lone wolf who initiates the domino effect of jurors siding with him by conducting his own investigation of the trial. Juror #8 questions the evidence they are given and the reenacted situations they were presented with during the trial in order to come to a decision. While Juror #8 could have rolled over and let the majority of the jury rule, he stood firm in his beliefs— in that a person who could not be convicted without a single doubt, should not be executed. If I were in a jury for murder, I would make inferences based upon television shows or movies I had seen before to attempt to discredit witnesses or debunk evidence, if possible. Therefore, I feel that I would be able to make the most educated decision and feel confident in it, as Henry Fonda’s character did. Impact of Jury Demographics In the jury featured at the heart of 12 Angry Men, the demographic was predominantly white, middle-aged American men. There were several outliers to his demographic classification, as there were several members of the jury that were past middle-aged years, such as Juror #9

Running Header: 12 ANGRY MEN PAPER

Hutton 3

who was the old man and Juror #10 who was the prejudiced man, and there was also an Italian immigrant who served as Juror #11. During the movie, there were mentions of how the court system works and things that certain people are or are not entitled to, which was primarily discussed by the white, middle-aged American men, also referred to as “old money” (Bell, 2017). Around the time that this movie was set, this specific demographic was considered privileged, meaning anyone who was an immigrant or from the slums, were to be below them in social classes. If there were more women or people of other cultures serving in the jury, Fonda’s character may have needed to employ more pathos in his claims. The reason for this would be that women are typically more receptive to emotional arguments, and people of other cultures would not have had the snobby type of attitude that some of the jurors had. Key Communication Techniques and Speech Ethics According to O’Hair in our textbook, an appeal to logos “targets audience members’ rationality using factual evidence and logical reasoning,” (O’Hair, 2019). Speech ethics, such as logos, are essential to persuasive messages or arguments in that it gives the speaker a leg up on reaching their audience. Logos was a major key of persuasion that Henry Fonda’s character used frequently. I believe that he used it correctly and it proved to be very effective, enough for them to change their votes from guilty to not guilty. For example, when testing if the old man’s testimony about seeing the boy run downstairs, Juror #8 reenacted the scene as told by the witness. This appeals to the logic and reasoning of the jurors in order to get them to sway over to his side. It could be argued that this usage of speech ethics was not used correctly in that not all of the jurors immediately flipped, but I think winning over one or two votes would still be a success in that situation. Therefore, I think that speech ethics are incredibly important when it comes to persuading audiences, and it is even more important that it be done efficiently.

Running Header: 12 ANGRY MEN PAPER

Hutton 4

What have you personally learned from this movie about speech ethics? Personal Takeaways One of the biggest takeaways that I had from 12 Angry Men is that it is important for the speaker is important to stay true to their stance without being pushy, and also to conform the message to the audience. If Henry Fonda’s character had gotten more pushy or forceful about trying to persuade his audience, it may have rubbed them the wrong way and strayed them even further away from convincement. Therefore, it can be noted that it is important to get your point across to the audience, but equally important to not shove your ideas down their throats until they accept them as their own. Another important takeaway I had from this movie was to utilize speech ethics based upon the audience. In essence, it is crucial to consider the individual situation and unique audience to decipher what the best approach of speech ethics would be to persuade them. For example, as previously mentioned, if the audience had comprised of mostly females rather than men, pathos may be a more powerful route to take for persuasion. As Zigarelli indicated in his instructional video, pathos is so powerful that it can even persuade people to believe or claim certain things that they would not normally. Biblical Connection and Conclusion Connecting this film back to the Bible, I can compare Henry Fonda’s speech ethics to those that Jesus used. For example, Jesus had many critics, but He always stayed steadfast in His preaching, attempting to reach people of all nations. Jesus would often ask questions regarding why they felt the way they felt or what they believed what they believed. In a similar sense, the rest of the jury is against Fonda’s ideas, but he sticks to his guns in his jury votes. Juror #8 shows perseverance and attempts to pick the other men’s brains to figure out what their mental processes are so he can target his audience more efficiently. The same goes for Jesus in that His

Running Header: 12 ANGRY MEN PAPER

Hutton 5

preaching was never random, it was specifically to a certain audience at a certain moment in time. This goes to show that what is said is significant, even in the slightest degree, to anyone and it is important to address your audience efficiently.

Running Header: 12 ANGRY MEN PAPER

Hutton 6

Works Cited

1. Lumet, S. (Director). (2020, November 1). 12 Angry Men [Video file]. Retrieved 2020,

from https://youtu.be/GwIxcEvRq0g. 1957 version. 2. O'Hair, D., Rubenstein, H., & Stewart, R. A. (2019). A pocket guide to public speaking (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins. 3. Bell, R. (2017). Social Class in America, 1957. Retrieved December 05, 2020, from

http://livingstingy.blogspot.com/2017/06/social-class-in-america-1957.html 4. Zigarelli, M. (Director). (2014). An Introduction to Ethos, Logos and Pathos [Video file]. Retrieved 2020, from https://youtu.be/9L_G82HH9Tg...