Twelve Angry Men is a play that is set in a New York Courthouse in 1957. A boy is accused of killing his father and faces the death penalty if found guilty. The story revolves around a jury of men that struggle to reach a verdict, as all but one of the members votes not-guilty. On one of the hottest days of the year, and air conditioning broken, the room is filled with an air of tension and confrontation. After several failed attempts, one of the jurors, who challenges the rest, is able to rationally discuss each argument against the accused. He eventually gains enough support to convince the rest of the jury, to all vote not-guilty.
In this paper I will be discussing the analysis of the jury, and how they should address the five issues, but first, let me enlist the five issues, along with specific examples that will support my conclusion.
The five issues are as follow:
127 our experts are availableright now
Leadership- There are many different approaches to leadership represented by the Jury. Specifically, Jury member 8, Henry Fonda exhibits the most effective form of leadership. Henry Fonda influenced the Jury to use the Socratic method and got support from Jury member 9, who was the first to side with him, and vote not guilty in support of Fonda. He showed Facilitative Leadership by encouraging the other Jury members 2,5, and 11 to participate as well. Henry Fonda can be viewed as the leader or the main protagonist, as by the end of the movie, he convinces the other member to show compassion for the victim, and recognized that the situation is more important, than getting the opportunity to go home early. The entire Jury showed a democratic style by constantly holding votes the entire time once new points or evidence was brought up. Everybody was given the chance to reconsider their opinion, even though it started out as very hostile and unapologetic.
Participation- Participation and development of the group as a whole, is one of the most important themes and roles in the movie. In the beginning, most of the jurors are very anxious to leave for home and get on with their day, rather than being bound to jury duty. This creates an environment of hostility, as the room is also causing discomfort, being one of the hottest days of the year. Despite this, the foreman continually tries to keep the group on the right path, and bring order to the group of angry men. Because the group doesn’t have time to form a relationship with each other, there are constant confrontations between the group of men, which causes a storming phase.
The men begin raising their voices and shouting at one another in anger, trying to convince Henry Fonda that the boy is guilty. However, Fonda keeps attempting to explain and show the group, they cannot make a proper decision, as they do not believe they victim is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Eventually, Fonda gains more support, and cooler heads begin to prevail, pushing events into the norming stage. The consequences are dire, as a boy’s life hangs in the balance, and eventually the men realize that their responsibility to this victim, is of the utmost importance, and to allow one another to really reflect and listen to the facts of the case. The group finally moves into the performing stage of group development, where they can come up with a decision, and get real work done.
Climate- The climate is very hot, both literally and figuratively speaking. The director of the movie does very well to set the mood of the climate and scene with his use of camera angles and focusing shots. It’s almost as if the camera is a main character, and we are viewing it from their perspective. Commutation is not very smooth, as the men have to constantly bicker, fight, and oppose one another due to the climate of hostility. The point of introducing such a climate, is to work through the madness, not even necessarily concerned with answering the questions that are raised. Verbal behaviors are obviously present with raised voices, and sometimes even threats of violence. However, the nonverbal behaviors such as confrontational posturing, and looks of despair, were also present which helped to shape the overall climate of the group and jury room.
Conflict- Between the 12-man jury, there is no shortage of conflict. The very setting sets the tone for and feeling of conflict being bound in a rectangular shaped room, while the men lose their patience in very hot room. There is basic conflict that is shown, when Henry Fonda presents an identical switchblade explaining that it is possible that a different switchblade was used during the murder, and it could not have belonged to the victim. Procedural tensions arise from a perception that the group is not being productive.
You can see this countless times during the movie, when various jury members argue with each other, that they are not getting anything done or making progress, and it is just causing more time wasted. Affective tensions occur when teams do not like each other, and this causes even further difficulty to communicate with one another. This is not hard to find at all, as nobody really likes Fonda in the beginning as he is seen as the one obstacle that is needed to be overcome, so that everyone can return home and be done with their jury duty. Fonda presents the group with reasons to stay longer, and thoroughly discusses the situation which, because of the hot climate, causes the other members to automatically resent him as they perceived him to be wasting their time, when they already believe the victim is guilty.
Argumentation- There are 4 main arguments against the boy to be used as proof of guilt. The 1st one, is an old man who lives beneath the boy’s house. He said that he heard the boy shouting “I’m gonna kill you” and a body hitting the ground. This is one of the most compelling arguments. However, Fonda soon realizes that the old man could have simply mistaken the boy’s voice. The second major argument, is that a woman who was living across the street, said that she saw the boy kill his father through the windows of a passing by train. The third argument, is that the boy claimed that he had been at the movies during the time of the murder, using that as an alibi, but the boy is unable to remember what movie he saw.
The last argument against the boy, is that the night of the murder, the father hit the boy twice after an argument, and the boy also has a record of prior offenses, one of which included cutting another teenage boy with a knife. Each of these arguments are evaluated by the jury, and most seem as a way to prove the guilt of the boy, but Henry Fonda thoroughly goes through each argument, and slowly picks holes and inconsistences for each of them. Eventually it is shown that the arguments against the boy are not strong enough to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In conclusion, Twelve Angry Men is a classic film, that has stood the test of time, because of its compelling plot and characters, that show different personality types. There are many argumentative themes that can be observed from the group’s interactions. The plot also shows how cooler heads can prevail when the stakes are very high for a stranger’s life.
