Twelve Angry Men
Critical Analysis of the Film: “Twelve Angry Men”
Twelve Angry Men (1957) is a classic film where twelve strangers are brought together into a hot and humid New York jury room, to negotiate and decide on the fate of a poor, young Latino boy who is accused of killing his father (Lumet). These twelve jurors come from diverse backgrounds, and throughout the film exhibit behaviors that demonstrate their cultural, economic and social differences. In the beginning of the film, these dissimilar viewpoints, prejudices and biases become a barrier in their decision-making but as the film continues their conflicting personalities help to enrich the actions and decisions in the jury room, resulting in a unanimous not guilty verdict. The film …show more content…
It appeared that this change initially was motivated by his desire to support Davis, therefore acting as an accommodator. He wasn’t convinced either way in the beginning but as additional facts were revealed McCardle joined Davis as a collaborator. The fifth character to change his vote to not guilty was the bank clerk (juror # 2). This character was captured as a timid and unsure loaner that combined three resolution strategies throughout the film. In the beginning he mainly tried to avoid the arguments by saying very little, during the initial voted not guilty just to accommodate the rest of the jury, and about mid film he realized there was reasonable doubt and compromised for the sake of the boy. The last two jurors to vote not guilty were the stockbroker (juror #4) and the distraught father (juror #3). Over the course of the film, these men drastically changed their resolution strategies. The stockbroker was a very controlled and self-confident character, and remained quite silent in the beginning of the film. During the first half of the film he sat quietly gathering the facts while avoiding the arguments inside the jury room. As more and more jurors favored the non guilty verdict the stockbroker began to open up and share his opposing viewpoints, which eventually led to a competitive argument with McCardle. Although the stockbroker fought …show more content…
The four sources of conflict discussed in the Albright and Masters (2002) text are environmental, workplace, individual and organizational (p. 33). In this film all except one conflict source, the individual level, were consistent for all the jury members. They were all physically in the same environment; a hot jury room, filled with impatient men who were pressured by the courts to find a fair verdict. The workplace factors were also the same, the were all strangers so no relationships existed and the nature of their jobs were identical. From an organizational standpoint, they all had the same vested interest in the case, they all acted on behalf of the same legal system and their pressures were fairly consistent. It was the individual factors that truly fueled the fire in the jury room. I found the following quote from Albright and Masters (2002) to be a accurate depiction of how personal conflicts are many times
Twelve Angry Men (1957) is a classic film where twelve strangers are brought together into a hot and humid New York jury room, to negotiate and decide on the fate of a poor, young Latino boy who is accused of killing his father (Lumet). These twelve jurors come from diverse backgrounds, and throughout the film exhibit behaviors that demonstrate their cultural, economic and social differences. In the beginning of the film, these dissimilar viewpoints, prejudices and biases become a barrier in their decision-making but as the film continues their conflicting personalities help to enrich the actions and decisions in the jury room, resulting in a unanimous not guilty verdict. The film …show more content…
It appeared that this change initially was motivated by his desire to support Davis, therefore acting as an accommodator. He wasn’t convinced either way in the beginning but as additional facts were revealed McCardle joined Davis as a collaborator. The fifth character to change his vote to not guilty was the bank clerk (juror # 2). This character was captured as a timid and unsure loaner that combined three resolution strategies throughout the film. In the beginning he mainly tried to avoid the arguments by saying very little, during the initial voted not guilty just to accommodate the rest of the jury, and about mid film he realized there was reasonable doubt and compromised for the sake of the boy. The last two jurors to vote not guilty were the stockbroker (juror #4) and the distraught father (juror #3). Over the course of the film, these men drastically changed their resolution strategies. The stockbroker was a very controlled and self-confident character, and remained quite silent in the beginning of the film. During the first half of the film he sat quietly gathering the facts while avoiding the arguments inside the jury room. As more and more jurors favored the non guilty verdict the stockbroker began to open up and share his opposing viewpoints, which eventually led to a competitive argument with McCardle. Although the stockbroker fought …show more content…
The four sources of conflict discussed in the Albright and Masters (2002) text are environmental, workplace, individual and organizational (p. 33). In this film all except one conflict source, the individual level, were consistent for all the jury members. They were all physically in the same environment; a hot jury room, filled with impatient men who were pressured by the courts to find a fair verdict. The workplace factors were also the same, the were all strangers so no relationships existed and the nature of their jobs were identical. From an organizational standpoint, they all had the same vested interest in the case, they all acted on behalf of the same legal system and their pressures were fairly consistent. It was the individual factors that truly fueled the fire in the jury room. I found the following quote from Albright and Masters (2002) to be a accurate depiction of how personal conflicts are many times