Movie Analysis: 12 Angry Men - Essay Example

Movie Analysis: 12 Angry Men Affiliation: Introduction Evidence decision-making processes and organizational behavior is observed in the movie 12 Angry Men (1957). A recap on the film shows 12 men deciding the fate of an 18-year-old man accused of killing his father. These men, jurors, give their opinions and vote (guilty or not guilty) based on rational and irrational reasons. As observed within the movie, a variety of evidence-based analysis of the case lead to their decision as observed through the use of verbal and non-verbal communication cues. Movie Analysis Conflicts According to the movie, Juror # 10 is convinced that people from slum backgrounds "are liars and are wild and dangerous" (Lumet,1957). This portrays the organizational behavior he familiarizes himself with socially. Cultural, economic and psychological factors are also portrayed in this film. The different forms of conflicts revealed in the movie 12 Angry Men are as following; • Man vs. Man • Man vs. Society • Man vs. Self • Man vs. Nature The instance of man vs. man conflict is revealed when juror 10 expresses the opinion that the accused is guilty just because he is from the other side of town. He already made up his mind based on the opinions he has about people from the slums. The man vs. society conflict is revealed when juror 8 holds higher standards of justice and convinces the other eleven jurors that the accused deserves a fair chance at justice hence following the due process. The man vs. self-conflict is revealed in the movie where juror 5 is at first convinced that the accused is guilty but then changes his mind and says the boy is not guilty. Then changes his mind again and says the boy is guilty and lastly votes not guilty. This reveals the instance of self-conflict by the juror. The man vs. nature conflict is projected in the case where the 8th juror is determined to change the minds of the other jurors by highlighting facts about the circumstantial evidence presented. He is fighting against nature since it is evident that the rest of the jurors are not determined to offer the defendant a fair trial. Communication There are two types of communication in the film; Verbal and Non-verbal communication. The verbal communication is evident when the jurors begin by interacting and making small talk about their occupations, and then they get personal when they start giving their reasons and opinions on why the accused is guilty or not. The process of finding a verdict in the movie starts as a normal discussion with the jurors deciding to use their assigned numbers as opposed to using their names, giving the sense of neutrality and balance. Later on in the discussion, prejudice is revealed as juror #10 offers his judgment based on the negative perception he has regarding the defendant’s home place. The rest of the jurors verbalize their opinions by ignoring juror #10 as he rants about where the accused comes from. In this case, non-verbal communication is portrayed. He notices the non-verbal communication from fellow jurors and figures out that they have realized his decision was based on prejudice. We can tell from his expression that the message hit home and from this single act, he decides to change his verdict from guilty to not guilty. Again, non-verbal communication is witnessed in this case. At the beginning of the film, the non-verbal communication reveals the nerve-wrecking pressure experienced by the jurors in the deliberation room. The discomfort caused by the heat is one of the driving forces of the decision-making among the jurors. The jurors are seen literary wiping sweat from their face in desperation to reach a unanimous decision as soon as possible. Verbal communication is used throughout most of the film. Firstly, when juror #8 uses his words wisely by persuading the jurors to deliberate on the case for an hour and succeeding. Juror #8 is determined to convince the rest of the jurors that they should only vote guilty if they prove with no reasonable doubt that the accused killed his father. He does this by contradicting all the prejudicial assertions that had been presented as evidence. Towards the end, juror #8 convinced the other jurors by using facts provoking some of them to prove his point, that the accused was innocent. They managed to reach a unanimous decision through his communication skills; he made them see facts. Juror #3 realized that his anger was caused by his personal experience with his son and juror #10 realized his verdict was influenced by his ignorant mentality of the boys background. Shifting Perspective Shifting perspectives are observed within the movie as bad decisions were reconsidered and amended. These are observed when the oldest juror who is expected to be more difficulty to conform with, as stated by Solomon Arsh, becomes the first to change his vote to not guilty (Peterson, & Thomas, 2007). The social impact and majority theory comes to play where the majority always wins. Despite the 11 jurors being the majority, Juror #8 manages to convince them to switch their votes to not guilty. The sickly juror, #10, uses prejudice that people of color are, by nature, attracted to crime and therefore the accused was guilty. In 1957, cases of racism were widespread, a fact that is expressed in the film where the juror used racial profiling to offer his opinion on whether the defendant was guilty or not. He stereotyped the accused without considering the facts. In the film, the executive advertiser, who was among the jurors, was unable to explain his reasons for voting ‘guilty’. This proves his over-reliance on the decisions of others. He is socially-challenged and lacks the sense of responsibility with making decision. Organizational behavior can be portrayed by the impact of. This film portrays different types of leadership styles. The film begins with a tired judge who sends off the jury to the deliberation room to decide the fate of the accused. He does not even look at his subjects when he reminds them that a guilty vote will mean the accused has been sentenced to death. The judge portrays the role of leader by reminding the jury that the decision they will make will be the decision to save or kill the accused. In this case, the jury is tasked with the responsibility of making rational and conscious decisions. Jurors #7, #3 and #10 show examples of toxic leaders. The three jurors have moral impurity in common. Juror #7 is only concerned about a Yankees Game hence gives a flawed judgment in hurry to leave the deliberation room to attend the game. Juror #3 reveals his anger towards his son and the younger generation in the film. His is releasing his anger towards his son on the accused hence his guilty verdict is a case of the systems theory which shows that experiences that members of the society undergo affect their development as well affect their decision making conscious. Juror #10 bases his verdict on prejudice as he keeps referring to the accused as ‘those people (Robbins, & Judge, 2014). Juror #1 is seen as being a capable leader at first. However, his lack of authority becomes alarming when he is more concerned with proving juror #7 wrong rather than exploring the probable chance that the accused on the movie might be innocent. His lack of leadership skills is also portrayed when he is asked to give direction, and he tells the rest of the jurors that he doesnt care what they do. To escalate the problem, he shows the willingness to give up his position as foreperson claiming that it is not easy to be in his position. This shows his poor leadership skills based on negative attitude, an effect described in social sciences as burnout and in management as under motivation (Northouse, 2012; Robbins & Judge, 2014).). Juror #8 portrays strong leadership qualities. Through his communication skills, persistence, and fairness, he managed to give the rest of the jurors reasons based on verbal and non-verbal communication, to exonerate the defendant. His persistence automatically made him the leader of the group as he went as far as drawing the group and physically demonstrating how the murderer used the switchblade to kill the deceased. Juror #8 is, therefore, coming out as a transformational leader who stood out as critically rational (Robbins, & Judge, 2014). Conclusion 12 Angry Men is a film that highlights challenges faced in decision making processes. It also shows how different opinions and experiences influence the decision making process. Given that many organizations rely on decisions to stay functional and running, lacking sync in the decision making process delays a verdict while at the same time influencing personal decisions. The fate of an 18-year-old boy is placed in the hands of 12 jurors. A jury of 12, decide if he lives or dies depending on their rational and non-rational reasoning. Their reasons behind their guilty or not guilty vote are influenced by social, cultural and psychological factors, just as it is today. Juror #8 works hard to prove, with no reasonable doubt, that the accused is innocent hence upholding the principle that applies to the Justice Department that “...a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt (ProQuest, 2008).” References Lumet, S. (1957). 12 Angry Men. [Motion Picture] N. A. (2008). The Will to Power and the Evolution of Morality. ProQuest. Northouse, P. (2012). Leadership: Theory and Practice. (6 ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publishing. Peterson, M., & Thomas, D. (2007). Introduction: Organizational Behavior in Multinational Organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28(3); pp. 261-279. Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2014). Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. p. 8 Read More