Film Analysis: Movie Analysis Of 12 Angry Men

DM16102- ADITYA R

TWELVE ANGRY MEN – MOVIE ANALYSIS “12 Angry Men” is a classic example of a movie, whose plot carries various group learning and social psychology theories. Released in 1957, the movie is about a team of 12 jurors who are totally strangers to each other, and are called upon by the judge to reach a consensus on whether to pronounce guilty or not, an 18 year old person accused of murdering his own father. A guilty verdict would lead to a death sentence and hence the onus was on the team of jurors to take a responsible call after examining all the evidences.

BRIEF SUMMARY: In the trial of an 18 year old guy, who is accused of stabbing his own father to death, the judge appoints a 12 – man jury to discuss and deliberate on the

In the end when a vote is taken there is only one juror, Juror 3, who votes guilty. Finally he too changes his opinion and realises that his strained relationship with his son shouldn’t be brought into the case and votes not guilty. Hence the Jury unanimously decides that the boy should be acquitted.

GROUP FROMATION & GROUP DYNAMICS – MAIN CONCEPT OF THE MOVIE:

The central theme of the movie is how groups function and how do group dynamics play a major role in the performance of the group. The 4 main stages of group formation viz. forming, storming, norming and performing are easily evident in the movie.

In the initial scenes the forming stage can be observed. When the jury members meet for the first time, they are not quite clear about how they are going to go about the case and are seen being polite to each other and casually interacting. Most of them feel that it is a trivial case and are not serious about the trial. This is when the foreman brings in some order and tries to get the jury working on the

A leader should be able enough to make the group work in a direction that is constructive, and avoid conflicts. In the movie there were many contrasting personalities. Juror 3 was very aggressive and stubborn. Juror 10 was very casual and didn’t present any serious point of view. Juror 7 just wanted the deliberations to end as fast as possible. Juror 8 is the person most suitable for a leadership role. He is a person who thinks before he speaks and is ready to listen to others. He is consistent and logical and at the same time democratic and hence was able to influence others.

He listened to the views of others even though he didn’t agree with them. In the end when juror 3 breaks down, he consoles him and helps him in wearing his coat, though juror 3 was the most aggressive person. This shows the quality of Empathy. He handled all the stress with ease and remained calm throughout the proceedings. He was able to communicate well, understand emotions, and thus was able to influence others. Thus all these characters are important for a person to have an influence on others and merely authority won’t be