Running head: MOVIE ANALYSIS 1

"Twelve Angry Men" Movie Analysis

Students Name

Institutional Affiliation
MOVIE ANALYSIS 2

"Twelve Angry Men" Movie Analysis

Introduction

The film starts with an eighteen-year-old ghetto boy on trial for the murder of his abusive

father. The young boy's fate is being decided by a jury of twelve men in the deliberation

chamber. The proof is stacked against the child, and if he is found guilty, he will be sentenced to

death by electrocution. The judge warns the jury that they are about to make a life-changing

decision and that if the boy is found guilty, the court will not grant him any mercy. Even before

the deliberations begin, it's clear that most men believe the boy is guilty. However, when the first

poll is taken, Juror 8 votes shockingly "not guilty," causing the room to erupt in laughter. The

other members of the jury are annoyed by his decision because it is inconvenient for them. They

attempt to entertain juror 8 by agreeing to debate the case for an hour after questioning his sanity.

As the trial progresses, juror 8 gradually erodes their confidence by claiming that the murder

weapon is readily accessible to everyone and that the main witness' evidence is suspect. His

claims gradually win them over, and even the most adamant of his fellow jurors reluctantly sides

with him. Their decision is now a resounding no. It is not easy to reach a unanimous not guilty

verdict. The jury faces many challenges in learning to connect and deal with one another. As

deliberations begin, what appears to be a certain guilty verdict gradually morphs into a dubious

"not sure." Even though the film deals with successful communication problems, this paper will

focus on the factors they face challenges and how they solve them.

Analysis

Leadership

One of the approaches employed in the movie is the laissez-faire approach. This approach

described the tendency of leading against the norm (Yang, 2015). when the jury entered the
MOVIE ANALYSIS 3

room, eleven of them decides to rule the victim guilty quickly. These jurors had decided on this

verdict since they wanted a quick end to the process. This is a clear depiction of laissez-faire

since it very much a hands-off method. This type of leadership is not good, as depicted in the

movie. However, the charismatic form of leadership as displayed by juror 8 when he goes

against other jurors and their opinions by arguing and questioning them is the best form of

leadership style. He unveils various good points that slowly begin to change the minds of other

jurors about whether the suspect is guilty or not. Moreover, the transactional type of leadership is

also displayed by the foreman of the jurors. For instance, he sits with the jurors explaining to

them how things should go. He states that every juror will vote, and there will be 100 percent

agreement. He, therefore, keeps them focused on the topic at hand. Thus leadership is

demonstrated throughout the entire movie.

The theory explaining the leadership of the jury is the contingency theory. This theory is

when success relies on the particular situation and how particular determinants help determine

failure or success (Fiedler, 2015). This theory best explains the leadership of the groups in the

movie. For instance, juror 8 demonstrates this theory all through the film. He had no idea about

the other jurors; however, he understood he would be looked down on for opposing the majority

vote. Therefore, he listened to what the other jurors said and the suggestions they had and

consequently adjusted his leadership style depending on the reactions of the other jurors. This

made juror 8 gain significant success in the movie.

Participation

Task roles are roles focused on completing certain tasks. Juror 8 is depicted as the

primary task role in the movie. This is because he initiated a deeper conversation regarding the

case when he voted not guilty. He vailed significant information supporting his vote. On the
MOVIE ANALYSIS 4

other hand, self-centered roles are roles focused on persons themselves ('Group member roles,'

n.d.) These roles are not focused on the task and issue at hand. For instance, juror 3 in the movie

was self-centered when he attempts to block others from participating and thinking. Juror 6 was

also self-centered since he makes unfitting comments and also distracting others. Moreover, the

maintenance roles include roles that affect how the jury gets along. In the movie, juror 9 played

the maintenance role since he encouraged comments from others and agreed with everyone. He

listened to the other and made comments where necessary. Further, the foreman would also step

in and break up arguments and therefore playing a maintenance role. Some of the participation

problems facing the group in the movie are selfishness and one-sidedness. At the start, the jury

felt their opinions was the one that counted. However, juror 8 was able to persuade the other to

change their stance. The group evaluated the concerns led by juror 8, and consequently, the

jurors were able to get on the same page.

Climate

The communication climate during deliberations of the jury was mixed. While part of the

jury in the movie was more vocal about the opinions and views, others kept quiet and laid back

during most of the conversation and preferred conforming to a particular side. Since every

member forming the jury came from various backgrounds, they experience varying and

individual frustrations and prejudices, which hampers their ability to make the right and

appropriate decisions because of irrational thinking. Nonetheless, both verbal and nonverbal

group behaviors added to the communication climate of the jury. The verbal behaviors include

identification, interdependence, and investigative language, while the nonverbal communication

entailed body language, eye contact, defensive and supportive behavior (Forward et al., 2011).

For instance, juror 7 demonstrates a lack of interest while attempting to reason out and attain the
MOVIE ANALYSIS 5

appropriate and right decision, while few of the other members felt that jurors 5 and 7 did not

contribute much due to the backgrounds from where they originated.

Conflict

Task-oriented conflict is described as the disagreement among members of a given group

because of varying approaches about how to view objective concerns. On the other hand,

personal conflict is described as the disagreement between two or more people due to varying

personalities and interrelationships. In the movie, these two types of conflicts are visible. For

instance, the conflict between juror 9 and other jurors captured in the movie is because of

varying perspectives of either voting guilty or not guilty. This represents the task-oriented

conflict. Moreover, the egoistic trait of juror 3 made him vote not guilty, and therefore, he is

described as a sadist. He voted due to his sour association with juror 8. In addition, procedural

conflict occurs due to variation in arriving at one technique or procedure of attempting to find a

solution. This conflict is also evident in the movie since the jurors try to argue about making the

best judgment with others being prejudiced.

The management of conflict occurs using various strategies to ensure the safe, efficient,

and sensible handling of conflicts. The jurors employ various strategies to solve the procedural,

personal, and task-oriented conflicts that ensued between the jurors within the movie. For

instance, the issue of egocentrism resulted in conflict between juror 3 and other jurors. Other

judges solved the resulting conflict by calming juror 3 and politely dissuading him from ruling

the young man guilty. Consequently, the jurors notice the conflict was never personal, and

therefore, his ego subsides, and the conflict is resolved.

Argumentation
MOVIE ANALYSIS 6

Argumentation is defined as the process through which systematic ideas are generated to

support an idea, theory, or action. In the movie, there are numerous ideas and arguments brought

up by the jury. One of the argument analyses included in the movie is the knife that the suspect

used to commit the murder. The pawnshop declares it was a unique knife and that they had sold

it to the suspect. The suspect argues he had lost the knife from his jeans in a hole in the grass.

Juror 8, therefore, pulls a knife from his pocket after having bought it from the store and says

there were others like the knife. Thus, the knife is not unique to the region.

Moreover, another interesting argument analysis is employed when the older woman

states that she witnessed the boy kill the father through the train windows while the train passes

by. Consequently, juror 8 argues that it was impossible to see through the windows of a moving

train, and therefore, the view could not have brought a clear picture due to the speed of the train.

Additionally, the last argument I have noticed is when the older man living next door states he

heard the suspect scream he would kill the father and then heard the fall of a body, and the boy

ran down starts and out of the house. The older adult argues that within a second, he had heard

the body fall on the ground. According to juror 8, there would have been at least ten seconds

pause, and with the noise of the train passing by, there would be no substantial proof that it was

the victim's body falling to the ground.

Conclusion

In the movie, every juror evaluates the situation distinctly because of the varying

personalities of the jurors. Juror 3 is very judgmental towards the suspect due to the relationship

he has with his son. Other jurors, however, had not absorbed the idea that they were ruling and

deciding on the rest of the child's life. They felt they should be quick and move out of the

courtroom. However, juror 8 thought critically about the case and the fact that their decision
MOVIE ANALYSIS 7

would impact the life of the 18-year-old. It would be inappropriate to send him to jail if he had

not been guilty. At the end of the movie, juror 8 gets all the others to rethink the fact that they

were ruling and deciding on the case of an 18-year-old. Therefore, from the movie, I have

learned about the significance of articulating issues conclusively, especially when offering a

judgment that would impact the life of an individual. There is a need to be patient and understand

all sides of the story and make rational judgments free of prejudice and biasness. The movie

analysis will help me as a student and other jurors as they try to understand the significance of

relying on evidence to offer a ruling. Additionally, this analysis will help me in my future work

as I ponder the importance of rational judgment.

MOVIE ANALYSIS 8

References

Fiedler, F. R. E. D. (2015). Contingency theory of leadership. Organizational Behavior 1:

Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership, 232, 01-2015.

Forward, G. L., Czech, K., & Lee, C. M. (2011). Assessing Gibb's supportive and defensive

communication climate: An examination of measurement and construct

validity. Communication Research Reports, 28(1), 1-15.

Group member roles. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/a-primer-

on-communication-studies/s14-02-group-member-roles.html

Yang, I. (2015). Positive effects of laissez-faire leadership: Conceptual exploration. Journal of

Management Development.