Twelve Angry Men - Essay Example

?570323 12 Angry Men Order At the beginning of the movie, Twelve Angry Men, a juror of twelve men are assembled to decide the death penalty case of ayoung Latino man who is being prosecuted for killing his father. The story is not really about the defendant though. It is about the group dynamics of the jury and how they change throughout the movie. To start with, the group comes from a wide range of backgrounds and beliefs, but what is more important is how they view the purpose of their task. Most want to just “get it over with” regardless of the outcome. Because it does not affect their lives in any significant way, they do not apply much critical thought to the evidence. Instead, they assume because the police and courts are prosecuting the young man, he must be guilty. Thankfully for the defendant, one man, Juror #8, uses critical thinking and takes the instructions from the judge seriously. Twelve Angry Men can be divided into five sections of group development. The first stage, known as “forming,” begins the dynamic and usually involves working out of purpose, structure, and leadership. In the movie this part of the group development is portrayed at the beginning of the jury deliberations. Juror #1, the jury foreman (Martin Balsam), is ready to start and seems unclear on how to proceed. He clearly demonstrates that he is not really a leader type. He politely asks two of the jurors to have a seat so they can get started without seeming the least bit managerial. Then when the men assemble around the juror’s table, the foreman hesitantly discusses the various ways to proceed. He says he is not sure which is best and readily accepts the suggestion of one of the other men, a much more authoritarian type, that they take a vote so they “can all get out of there” (Henry Fonda). The foreman readily concedes and the vote is eleven to one in favor of guilty with Juror #8 (played by Henry Fonda) being the holdout. One of the more extroverted jurors says, “Boy oh boy, there’s always one,” which seems to imply that Juror #8 is only voting not guilty to cause trouble, gain attention, or for some reason other than the fact that he truly believes the defendant is not guilty. The juror who implies this accusation acts passively aggressively to bully Juror #8. He wants Juror #8 to feel like everyone is against him, so that he will change his vote and then they all can “get out of there.” Yet, he does not come right out and say it directly. This leads directly to the next stage of group development, “storming.” Storming involves intergroup conflict and disagreement over who should be in control of the group even if it is not blatantly exerted. Juror #10 (played by Ed Begley) challenges the authority of Juror #1, the jury chairman, and Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb) tells Juror #2 (John Fiedler) "to keep silent." Both Jurors #3 and #10 intervene when Juror #9 (Joseph Sweeney) wants to give his opinion. Then, Juror #6 (Edward Binns) physically threatens Juror #3 because he does not think he is showing Juror #9, who is the oldest of the group, due respect. Another instance that reveals the personalities of the group occurs when Juror #11 (Georg Voskovec) says, “I beg pardon. To which Juror #10 says, "I beg pardon? What are you so polite about?” And, Juror #11 answers, “For the same reason you are not: it's the way I was brought up” (Henry Fonda). This clearly demonstrates that there are vast differences in background and personality in the group. From the revelation of these differences and likenesses, as with any group, small cliques begin to form. “Norming” is this clique forming stage and occurs when the group begins to develop close relationships among its members. Most of the group participants are encouraged to participate. In Twelve Angry Men, even the more silent members of the group (Jurors 2, 5, 6) were encouraged to contribute their opinions to the discussion. During norming, groups will generally demonstrate cohesiveness, yet in the movie, total unity never quite develops. In fact, the group has divided into three subgroups: those with reasonable doubt (Jurors 2,5,6,8, 9 and 11); those who really do not care what happens to the defendant one way or another (Jurors 1, 7, and 12); and those who fervently, bordering on violently, want to send the defendant to the electric chair (Jurors 3, 4, and 10). Because agreement cannot be reached right away, the atmosphere becomes even tenser. Then the next stage of the group development occurs. The fourth stage of group development, “performing,” happens when the group does reach agreement on one point, and that is that they must complete the task to create the desired end. In Twelve Angry Men, the jurors must reach a unanimous verdict. However, each of them has a more personal reason to want to complete the task. Some of them want this unpleasantness to end; others want to avenge whatever wrongs they believe have occurred in society. Juror #7 just wants to go because he has tickets to a baseball game. He says, “I don't know about the rest of them but I'm getting a little tired of this yackety-yak and back-and-forth, it's getting us nowhere. So I guess I'll have to break it up; I change my vote to ‘not guilty’" (Henry Fonda). Juror #3 accuses him of changing his vote because of the tickets, and Juror #11 asks, “What kind of a man are you? You have sat here and voted ‘guilty’ with everyone else because there are some baseball tickets burning a hole in your pocket? And now you've changed your vote because you say you're sick of all the talking here?” (Henry Fonda).  Juror #11 not only questions Juror #7’s motives for changing his vote, but also questions his manhood in a thinly disguised attempt to bully him into agreement. Because that is the dynamic in the group, the pressure to sway those who still have doubts increases. This demonstrates even more clearly how logical arguments will usually triumph over unsupportable emotional arguments. Juror #8, for instance, promotes an unpopular view to begin with and others, like Juror #3 vehemently oppose him to the bitter end. Juror #3 is clearly a bigot, and Juror #8 addresses him in the most leveled –headed way one can when dealing with such irrationality. “It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth” (Henry Fonda). Juror #3 and those who side with him attempt to bully Juror #8, which could have ended the minority opposition had another Juror, Juror #9 decided to support him. Jurors #3 and #10 and even Juror #7 (Jack Warden) could have “bullied” the group into seeing the events their way using direct pressure on Jurors #11, #2, and #1 had Juror #8 not used some expert negotiations. For the negotiations to be successful several characteristics came into play. Obviously, one characteristic is the ability to be able to take charge, but another is likeability. Juror #8 seems rational—he demonstrates that he has thought through the evidence, confident, and not prone to getting overly emotional like those who disagree with him. Those who disagree demonstrate extreme emotions with Juror #3 almost strangling Juror #8 at one point while shouting, “I’ll kill you! I’ll kill you!” (Henry Fonda). Juror #8 maintains flexibility. He always considers the other points of views that are offered and he does it fairly without making the promoter of the view feel uncomfortable for holding the opinion. The other “likeable” jurors (2, 6, 9, and 11) are ambivalent at first, but Juror 8 slowly persuades them using logic rather than emotion. They also each add a perspective that helps to sway the collective group. This seems to prove that more information and consideration is best in a group format, and that two or more heads contributing information is always better than one. Another shrewd negotiation tactic that Juror #8 uses is waiting until the point when he has a majority of the jurors really considering his views, and then he begins to probe the true motives for the jurors who refuse to reconsider. When he starts to reveal prejudices and other ulterior motives, this causes their credibility to wane even further and those jurors who were “on the fence” previously begin to see how there is sufficient doubt about the guilt of the defendant that they should vote “not guilty.” Juror #3 and Juror #8 reverse their positions in the end. Juror #3 becomes the only hold out for a “guilty” verdict after Juror #8’s rational deliberation persuades the others that there is reasonable doubt. Juror #3 finally concedes also because his argument has repeatedly been proven illogical and not based upon the facts of the case but rather on his own personal experiences. Twelve Angry Men seems to demonstrate that popularity may have something to do with leadership, but that being able to present a reasonable argument does too. While it also seems to say that bullying will not work, that is not always true, as at the beginning of the movie the majority of the jurors either did not care or wanted to be agreeable and not be bullied. Had there not been one reasonable hold out with leadership and negotiation skills, the group would have sent the defendant to the electric chair seemingly without a second thought. Clearly the point is made that discussion and agreement are important in any group dynamic and that power should be given to the most reasonable of the group. On a larger basis in society though, that is not the case. Power is given to the one with the best resources. While Twelve Angry Men shows how a jury should behave, and by extension larger groups, when a real life jury emulates them like the Casey Anthony jury did, the consequences may be dire. Many of those jurors fear for their lives because they deliberated in a reasonable fashion. Perhaps most of society now sadly subscribes to the bullying tactics that Juror #8 showed to be so irrational. Work Cited Twelve Angry Men. Dir. Sidney Lumet. Perf. Lee J. Cobb, Jack Warden, Jack Klugman Henry Fonda. 1957. Read More