Most likely the extent of these feelings and the effect it has on his perceptions is unconscious to him. In the movie, one of the jurors is of a dissenting opinion and passionately attempt to free the accused. Words: 964 - Pages: 4. Where this group of eleven found it so easy to convict him jointly, it becomes harder for them, as their individual beliefs and motivations are put on trial. As the movie demonstrates prejudice can distort our views and greatly affects our ability to make accurate assessments.
He focused to his objective and responsibility. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty; only Juror No. The movie starts off with the Judge instructing the jury regarding the procedure of deliberation. After a brief argument, 8th Juror brings into question whether or not the downstairs neighbor, an old man who had suffered a stroke and could only walk slowly, could have gotten to the door to see the boy run down the stairs in fifteen seconds, as he had testified. Juror 8 cannily asks Juror 4 if he wears his eyeglasses to sleep, and Juror 4 admits that he does not wear them nobody does. His speech offends Juror 5, who turns his back to him, and one by one the rest of the jurors start turning away from him.
Group dynamics relates to the functioning, structure and the roles individuals play in a group. This essay will explore some of the elements of Critical thinking found within the context of this remarkable movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgement that can be prevalent in a population. Being aware of this is the first step to better understanding. He proposes that he will abstain from voting, and if the other 11 jurors are still unanimous in a guilty vote, then he will acquiesce to their decision. Words: 787 - Pages: 4.
It got ecstatic reviews and a spread in Life magazine, but was a disappointment at the box office. We identify these as thinking errors because it demonstrates how our faulty judgment just like the case of the jurors are influenced by their background to erroneously judge the case of the boy. Secondly, it allows him to vent his frustrations. Russian director also made a 2007 adaptation,. His eyes are ringed with dark circles, and he looks exhausted and frightened.
Representatives of different social classes: a successful businessman, architect, coach of the school football team, temporarily unemployed, single pensioner — typical social archetypes. Juror 11 also changes his vote, believing the defendant would not likely have tried to retrieve the murder weapon from the scene if it had been cleaned of fingerprints. Immigration and diversity seem to have plagued the world now more than ever and it is no surprise that the business world has been changed tremendously. The advent of color and widescreen productions may have contributed to its disappointing box office performance. The net result is a large blind area. The purpose of this paper is to explore the creation of cooperative communities as well as positive leadership in group settings and additional practical implications. He never out-right said he thought that the defendant was innocent, only that he believed there to be some doubt as to the certainty of his guilt.
The film is notable for its almost exclusive use of one set. His vote annoys the other jurors, especially Juror 7 Jack Warden , who has tickets to a baseball game that evening; and Juror 10 Ed Begley Sr. Three claims an interest in the facts, but more often restricts his arguments to verbally supporting Four when he presents facts and logical reasoning. His outburst has caused quite a disturbance in the room. The play also showed a powerful leader who fought till the end. The case appears to be open-and-shut: The defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Cobb3A businessman and distraught father, opinionated and stubborn with a temper; the antagonist12th E.
We get the impression that he has made his mind up and has settled on a verdict of guilty to satisfy some personal feelings. A case that after hearing all of the evidence they assumed it was an open and closed case. Sotomayor noted that events such as Juror 8 entering a similar knife into the proceeding; performing outside research into the case matter in the first place; and ultimately the jury as a whole making broad, wide-ranging assumptions far beyond the scope of reasonable doubt such as the inferences regarding the woman wearing glasses would not be allowed in a real-life jury situation, and would in fact have yielded a assuming, of course, that applicable law permitted the content of jury deliberations to be revealed. If we analyze the Johari grid of each juror we see a large hidden area in the case of all of the men. The film has also been subject to parody.
By gradually lowering his camera, Lumet illustrates another principle of composition: A higher camera tends to dominate, a lower camera tends to be dominated. In 2011, the film was the second most screened film in secondary schools in the United Kingdom. An effective authentic leader solicits opposing viewpoints and considers all options before choosing a course of action. These men were not respectful with one another when it came to speaking their turn due to their difference in opinions; which led them to lash out at one another. The film is about the court trial of an 18 year old Spanish-American boy who is accused of murdering his father. The underlying theme that seemed to be presented in the film was that the addition of multiple perspectives would provide different points of view that would eventually lead to the best solution. The Foreman continues that his friend served on a jury where they found the defendant not guilty, but later learned that he really did the murder.
Authentic leaders encourage others to question or challenge their values. The Foreman then comments that he had a friend who wanted to be on the jury instead of him. The rest of the film's focus is the jury's difficulty in reaching a unanimous verdict. However, the most powerful example was when all but two jurors left the table and turned their backs to Juror 10 during his prejudicial rant. Luckily, they are provided with a leader who maintains organization, order… 1423 Words 6 Pages Ebisindei Adegbe Professor Davis Management 191 23 September 2014 12 Angry Men Analysis Within various aspects of life, we as individuals are forced to make decisions on things such as what to eat for dinner and even what we believe to be just and unjust.
His opinion was easily swayed and he appeared to parrot other jurors. He is appalled at some of the behavior of the other jurors especially Jurors 3, 7, and 10. The jury retires to a private room, where the jurors spend a short while getting acquainted before they begin deliberating. Unfortunately, leaving our prejudices outside the court room door is near impossible. During the jury deliberation, we can identify and address the six steps of the group problem solving process and leadership.