12 Angry Men: Analysis
Tyler Streets
Dr. Lipson
Organizational Behavior 200
01 November 2009
“12 Angry Men” Analysis By the sound of it, you would think “12 Angry Men” would be a football game, but a lot can be said for a jury proceeding and this movie does a great job of showing that. Twelve different men with twelve different personalities are locked in a room until they can unanimously agree to a verdict, a decision whether to put an 18 year old boy to death for a murder charge, or let him go free. When they enter the room, the mood and feeling was nonchalant, as if it was an open and shut case, but after a preliminary vote not everyone was in agreement. The proceedings that followed were longer, and more taxing than they expected but the longer they talked about it, the more clear the picture became. The only person that didn’t vote the boy guilty was a man by the name of Henry Fonda. He was an architect, a stout man with good posture. He was the “voice of reason” for the sake of making an honest decision. He knew the magnitude of the decision they had to make, and wanted to talk it out. Mr. Fonda was rational, analytical, and became the information and opinion seeker during the proceedings. His characteristics were synonymous with the style associated with a Thinker-type personality. Throughout the proceedings sometimes the men took on multiple roles, shifting between behavior types based on the introduction of new material. Such was the case with John Fiedler, a bank teller who subtly assumed the role of the Energizer.
He was the one to see the relatedness between ideas and helped stimulate new approaches to the rest of the group. When it became clearer, he was able to reiterate what the architect was trying to convey. Mr. Fiedler helped Mr. Fonda prove his theory that the eyewitness downstairs couldn’t have made it to the door in time to see the boy run out. However, the bank teller wasn’t the first one to reverse his vote. It was Mr. Sweeney, an empathetic old
Dr. Lipson
Organizational Behavior 200
01 November 2009
“12 Angry Men” Analysis By the sound of it, you would think “12 Angry Men” would be a football game, but a lot can be said for a jury proceeding and this movie does a great job of showing that. Twelve different men with twelve different personalities are locked in a room until they can unanimously agree to a verdict, a decision whether to put an 18 year old boy to death for a murder charge, or let him go free. When they enter the room, the mood and feeling was nonchalant, as if it was an open and shut case, but after a preliminary vote not everyone was in agreement. The proceedings that followed were longer, and more taxing than they expected but the longer they talked about it, the more clear the picture became. The only person that didn’t vote the boy guilty was a man by the name of Henry Fonda. He was an architect, a stout man with good posture. He was the “voice of reason” for the sake of making an honest decision. He knew the magnitude of the decision they had to make, and wanted to talk it out. Mr. Fonda was rational, analytical, and became the information and opinion seeker during the proceedings. His characteristics were synonymous with the style associated with a Thinker-type personality. Throughout the proceedings sometimes the men took on multiple roles, shifting between behavior types based on the introduction of new material. Such was the case with John Fiedler, a bank teller who subtly assumed the role of the Energizer.
He was the one to see the relatedness between ideas and helped stimulate new approaches to the rest of the group. When it became clearer, he was able to reiterate what the architect was trying to convey. Mr. Fiedler helped Mr. Fonda prove his theory that the eyewitness downstairs couldn’t have made it to the door in time to see the boy run out. However, the bank teller wasn’t the first one to reverse his vote. It was Mr. Sweeney, an empathetic old