The 1957 film 12 Angry Men is a powerful depiction of one man’s strong leadership and negotiation skills clashing with a diverse, goal-oriented group. This movie acts an excellent example and teacher for good small group communication. Many aspects of this film can pertain to realistic group communication, and three prominent subjects in the film are leadership, negotiation, and diversity in groups and teams. The film tells the story of twelve jurors who must come to a conviction on a murder case. Before the jurors leave to come to a verdict, the judge reminds them that their decision must be unanimous or a hung jury will be the result. The judge also tells them that if anyone has any “reasonable doubt,” he should vote “not guilty.” When they congregate, the jury votes almost immediately. Every juror votes “guilty” except for Juror 8, Henry Fonda. The film shows …show more content…
how Fonda negotiated with the other jurors to unanimously reach a “not guilty” decision. The rest of the film displays how Fonda and other members of the jury come to a verdict through dealing with leadership, negation, and diversity in a group setting. The leadership dynamics play a major role in this film. 12 Angry Men shows that the designated leader is not always the actual leader of the group. At first, the foreman is very hesitant and has little control over the group, but Fonda steps up and becomes a major group leader. The foreman, however, steadily gains confidence throughout the film, and he eventually becomes a very competent leader. As Fonda guides the jury members, he shows the foreman respect, and this causes to the rest of the group to give the foreman the comfort and ability to lead. Fonda and foreman’s’ leadership journey show that leadership within a group is an ever-evolving process that takes time and commitment from both the leader and the followers. Fonda meets all “three Cs” of leadership (Lumsden, Lumsden, and Wiethoff 32). He is confident in himself and the team, but he is never arrogant. If Fonda was not passionate and insistent about his views, he would have no right to expect others to listen to him. Fonda fully commits himself to his stance. Even when his view is nearly proven wrong, he still stands by it. This level of commitment greatly helps his credibility, and it even wins him some of the jurors’ votes. Juror 8 never backs down, and he never loses concentration. While some members diverge into talk about the weather and sports, Fonda remains goal-oriented. He rarely digresses. Fonda almost flawlessly maintains each of the “three Cs” of leadership throughout the ordeal, and this makes him a great leader and also helps him prove his case. The film clearly depicts how difficult it is for Fonda to negotiate with this distinct group. The jury is clearly a task force (Armstrong and Berg 139). The jurors simply wish to come to a verdict and go on their way Fonda’s nearly perfect negotiation with the group may appear to be unrealistic, but his tactics can be still be used in everyday group decisions. Juror 8 uses information, people, and instrumentalities to make his argument legitimate and persuasive; this is crucial because a solid argument must address both facts and emotions (Flouri and Fitsakis 454-455). If Fonda only presented hard facts, his argument would have immediately been shut down. His case would also fall if he solely relied on emotions. When he introduced his argument, Fonda used both fact and emotions. He presented the discrepancies he had with the case and stated that the boy on trial deserved a fair evaluation. In the film, it is evident that both parts were necessary in order for the jury to take Fonda seriously. One important tactic that Fonda uses is his attempts to make connections with the other jurors. He accepts a cough drop from the meek and timid Juror 2. Fonda does not take the cough drop because he needs one; he uses the cough drop as a way to form a relationship between him and Juror 2 (Flouri and Fitsakis 454). Juror 8 is not the only one who uses this tactic. Many of the jurors make connections with one another throughout the movie. Those connections cause each member to defend their stances with great conviction because they know they are not alone. Another major negotiation strategy that Fonda uses is active listening (Hackey 466). He tries to understand each concern and counterargument. This gives Juror 8 the upper hand for two reasons. One, he is carefully listening and can easily detect faults and fallacies in other people’s arguments. Two, Fonda’s credibility is growing once again because he is not disregarding anyone. The other jurors recognize this and appreciate that he is taking their thoughts into serious consideration. Within the first ten minutes of the film, it is clear to see that the jury consists of an extremely diverse group of people. There are people of different social classes, occupations, and worldviews. It is heartwarming and fascinating to watch these very different people finally come together and become a team. Each member also has different motives. Fonda just wants the truth. Some jurors cannot wait to leave the courthouse and watch a ball game. Others have a personal agenda like expressing their pride to be an American or taking revenge upon their own child through this verdict. These different backgrounds contribute to each juror’s views and why he stood by them so fervently. People may conform to a group’s norm in order to fit in (Sunstein 445). This is evident in several of the jurors throughout the film. Even though the group is diverse, the jury is also share several things in common. When people see other people with likeminded views, they gain confidence, and their views become more extreme (Sunstein 446). This conformity and diversity is extremely interesting and essential to learn about in order to become an excellent group communicator, like Fonda. Even though this film may offer an unrealistic or unattainable small group utopia, people can still take several aspects of this film and apply it to real life small group communication. Through this film, people can realize that everyone in a group is a leader in some way, shape, or form. There is a designated leader, but there are also leaders who are in charge of specific areas of a group project (Lumsden, Lumsden, and Wiethoff 30). Some people may become a leader in keeping the peace, while others might take over the organizational responsibilities. Even though the designated leader should be respected, other leaders arise in every group situation, whether team members realize this or not. There may also be a lack of respect of the designated leader in a real life group setting. Team members must be receptive to the chosen leader, or the group will not be cohesive. The designated leader, like the foreman, must show patience and slowly yet progressively build up his or her credibility (Lumsden, Lumsden, and Wiethoff 49-51). Trust takes time, and it is a leader’s job to earn that trust by showing competence, objectivity, trustworthiness, orientation, and dynamism. Excellent negation skills are vital for groups and teams. Groups must extend grace, like Fonda, in order to keep communication opened and positive. If people strive to build connections with their team members, the group will trust each other; they will be more adept to cooperate and complete the task at hand. Good connections lead to excellent cooperation, and excellent communication greatly helps in small group negotiation. Small groups must also utilize active listening, just as Juror 8 did. Everyone’s voice should be heard. When people feel appreciated, they care more about the group project and take the team more seriously. Active listening creates a safe environment, and that promotes more productivity (Lumsden, Lumsden, and Wiethoff 238-239). People should apply Fonda’s excellent listening skills to their own group interactions and situations. 12 Angry Men clearly shows how diverse a group can be, but the film also shows how people can work with different people. Diversity in small groups are inevitable to encounter (Lumsden, Lumsden, and Wiethoff 153). Everyone comes from a different background and culture. It is important for groups to recognize these differences and embrace them. People who are different from the norm can bring many great ideas to the table. It is important to value and understand everyone; Fonda does this, and people begin to respect him because of his unprejudiced attitude. It is also essential to realize that everyone in a group has a different motive or agenda (Lumsden, Lumsden, and Wiethoff 88-90).
In a class group, some people may be working for an A, while others might not care at all about the class. Even though this can be very frustrating, it is a fact of small group communication. 12 Angry Men displays this reality, but the movie also shows that a team can rise about these different motives. A group can still do an excellent job on a task even if some people may not very dedicated to the group or goal. People may also conform to a group’s norm, as the jury did in the film. This can be a good or bad thing, but it can also lead to closemindedness and even hostility when people become too attached to their respective views. There are times where one must take a stand for the sake of ethics in a group, but there must be a balance between open-mindedness and standing up for what is right (Lumsden, Lumsden, and Wiethoff 42). It can be difficult to decide to conform or deviate, but if people remember to be selflessness, like Fonda was, unhealthy environments can be
avoided. Overall, 12 Angry Men displays the group process of a jury or task force, and it shows the possible dynamics of leadership, negotiation, and diversity in that type of group. This film can be a model for both good and bad group communication, and people can learn how to be better group communicator through Fonda and the other jurors. 12 Angry Men is an unforgettable tale that leaves one inspired and hopeful that excellent group cooperation and negotiation is possible in real life situations.
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
My analysis is on the film The Goonies. While I view the movie and determine the various norms, behaviors, roles and interaction between group members, as well as individuals the examination within the realm of film can present many of the same components. Thus, our group selected this movie to analyze based on its formation of a cohesive problem-solving group full of unforgettable characters. The Goonies portray many different theories and aspects of small group communication.
12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are the jury for an 18 year old accused of murder. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home. The prosecutors have several eye witness testimonies, and all of the evidence that they could need to convict the 18 year old male. In the movie it takes place on the hottest day of the year in New York City. There are 12 jurors whom are to decide if the evidence is enough to convict the teen of murder in the first degree. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. The only way that the jurors could turn in their votes was if there was unanimous vote either guilty or not guilty among the 12 jurors. As the movie progressed the jurors ended up changing their minds as new evidence was brought to their attention by simple facts that were overlooked by the police and prosecutors in the initial investigation. Tempers were raised, and words flew, there was prejudice and laziness of a few of the jurors that affected the amount of time it took to go over all of the eye witness testimonies and evidence. The eye witness testimonies ended up being proven wrong and some of the evidence was thrown out because it was put there under false pretense.
People's bias and predispositions can affect their opinion of different circumstances and different people. This is very evident throughout the play. After the first group vote and juror 8 votes not guilty, a discussion ensues. It is there that the jurors' personal prejudices come out and we the readers/viewers are able to see how this has influenced and shaped what they think.
This movie goes to show how such crucial facts and minuet evidence if not processed fully and clearly can change the outcome in such a big way. In this jury you have 12 men from all different walks of life, 12 different times, and 12 different personalities. Who have an obligation to come to one conclusion and that's whether or not the young man on trial is guilty of murdering his father or is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Under much frustration and lack of patience these 12 men began to get unruly and unfocused. Throughout this distraction key terms get misused, facts get turned around and more importantly emotions start to cross making it hard for these men to produce a verdict.
12 Angry Men, a film that surprisingly caught my interest, was released in 1957. It is about a first-degree murder case against an eighteen-year-old boy from the slums. This film takes place in a private courthouse room with twelve jurors who have to decide the boys’ fate, guilty or not. From the beginning juror eight seems like the protagonist of the film, when really, juror nine is. He stands up with juror eight when nobody else will, provides perspective through his experiences, and notices details that nobody else does.
Stop for a moment and think how many times have you said “I'll kill you” to a person and actually killed that person? Two times? Three times? We all know that the answer is never unless of course you're actually a killer. This is what might or might not have happened with the boy who was accused of killing his father in the movie 12 Angry Men. Firstly, let's consider on the title of the movie itself which says “12 Angry Men.” Twelve is indicating the number of group members, angry is indicating the state of their temper, and men indicating their gender. So the title of the movie strongly connects to the name of the class “Group Communication Studies” because both involve a group, a goal and communication among the group members in order to achieve a common goal. The 96 minute film is all about a group of jurors sitting in a room on a very hot day to decide the fate of an 18 year old boy. Each judge had to come up with a decision— either the boy is guilty or not guilty of killing his father with a switch blade knife. The entire movie theme revolves around the group and how it completes its task. The group is so much involved in the discussion and there are so many conflicts that the members even forget to introduce themselves, hence the audience has to remember them by numbers of the order of their seating arrangement. This movie is a perfect detailed and visual example of how a group forms and develops over time, and most importantly the personality and approach of Jury number 8 gives an idea about how important it is to participate, speak up, and take a stance even in the early stages of the group formation. Each member's involvement and contribution to the group goal is important as it can reshape and change the dimensions of o...
...a unanimous vote of not guilty. The final scene takes place signifying the "adjourning stage". Two of the jurors, eight and three exchange the only character names mentioned during the film. The entire process of groupthink occurs in multiple ways that display its symptoms on individual behavior, emotions, and personal filters. These symptoms adversity affected the productivity throughout the juror's debate. In all, all twelve men came to an agreement but displayed group social psychological aspects.
As I planed to take this class, I thought this course would be like all other general education courses. I believed that it would be of little use to me. However, after attending the first class, my view has changed completely. I applied each and every theory to my life.
People can have a very significant effect on how a group behaves. Reason being that a person can influence another person to have a different point of view than that of which they may have previously had. A person can sway someone the other way making them see things in a way that they have never seen it. In the story Twelve Angry Men this can be showed by how each juror had a totally different verdict to begin with. But, as the facts were coming to the table and all the accusations being proved right or wrong everyones views started to change. All it takes is one person to have a different opinion then there's a conflict just because that person believes in something else.
In the film 12 Angry Men, a group of twelve jurors are deciding the fate of a young boy accused of murdering his father. Throughout the juries dilleration, one man exhibits all of the qualities of leadership. This man is juror number 8 played by Henry Fonda. Fonda not only exhibits the the 10 qualities of a leader but he uses these qualities to lead the entire jury to a vote of not guilty (Fonda & Lumet, 1957).
After watching the Pixar film “Inside Out”, it is easy to see how this film relates to small group communication. This film focuses on a twelve year old girl name Riley and how the emotions in her brain work throughout everyday experiences. The emotions Joy, Sadness, Anger, Fear, and Disgust work inside headquarters of Riley’s brain, that is until Joy and Sadness accidentally wind up far from headquarters into long-term memory. I will be analyzing this film using concepts from the textbook such as group communication, group development, group membership, and diversity in groups.
After a lot of convincing and redirecting the group was able to get through the juror. One finial unanimous vote was done and the 3rd juror who had been difficult the entire case was force to set aside his prejudice thoughts and vote not guilty. It was at the point the jurors had finally agreed on a verdict for the murder case. The Closing phase was definitely more obvious in the movie than any other stage.
People can be dangerous, show a poor attitude but, people don’t know their own personal feeling. People can make mistake and make guilty for something they never did. In purpose, it is a crash course in those passage of the Constitution that promise defends a fair trial and the presumption of innocent. We hear neither prosecutor nor defense attorney, and learn of the evidence only second hand, as the jurors debate it. Most courtroom movies feel it necessary to end with a clear cut direct.
Realizing that a group can become a high performance team is important. Accomplishing this goal is invaluable, advantageous and profitable. Once able to operate from a group to the high performing team is a great step into preparation into the big business world. Leaders and members must also realize not only how to accomplish this but that some problems will and can arise from different demographic characteristics and cultural diversity. That is if one is in such a group, which the probability would be quite high.