“12 Angry Men” Movie Paper

The movie 12 Angry Men created over 50 years ago still helps today to describe group dynamics. This jury was given a task which could take a man’s life, or set him free. The mood is apparent at first when the majority of the men vote “guilty” and it almost seems as this man’s fate is sealed. Juror #8 was the only man to vote for “not guilty”. The movie goes on as Juror #8 sticks to his guns, and insists on a thorough deliberation on the case. This is the perfect atmosphere to see each man’s perspective, and how they articulate it in the group dynamic. I will analyze these members participation in the deliberations and the climate they produce. Finally I will use this analysis to better highlight their decision making process and the final verdict.

12 Angry Men‘s characters encompass a vast breathe of human personalities some more notable then others, but none more so then Juror #8. Without him the movie would not exist he is the catalyst that helps bring out this deconstruction of barriers that made the jurors vote “guilty”. He emerges as the leader of the group. Giving new ways of looking at ideas that would never of been explored. He meets his fare share of difficulty though. Juror #7 would could care less about this case just wants to get out of there, and talks more about baseball and the heat then the facts. This classic distracter derails the leaders efforts to have a constructive discussion. I found this task extremely interesting as I find myself rushing through important tasks, because I have perceived better things to do. Then there is the opposite maintenance role of Juror #9. He tries to help the leader by giving his own unique perspective to aid in the effectiveness of the deliberations. His wisdom and age gives more legitimacy to the “not guilty” verdict. Juror #4 the arrogant stockbroker was so involved in the logic of the events that it made him close minded. He became such a cynic to new ideas that it was hard to move along the discussion. He had to be confront about his attitude so that the group could move along. My favorite character was Juror #3 as he in the most crazy out of all of them. He is logical to a degree, but becomes entrenched in the case and its details. He becomes delusional at points and is a real hindrance to the deliberations. His rants helped to get other jurors to disagree with him and view the other side of the coin. Theses personalities created a groups climate that was very excitable and dynamic.

The communications climate throughout the entire deliberations was extremely hostile once the polarization was established. This was made worse with jurors who verbally trashed the defendants race, and others utter indifference to the whole process. This made for a very defensive climate as people attacked each other’s position. No one was more attack the Juror#8 who started the group climate. He by making them deliberate forced out their inner thoughts on the matter. His intentions was for a supportive climate, but instead he was met with personalities the conflicted with his own and others. He found some support as he made his claim, but only a few independent wise minded fellows. This shows though that one man can make a difference. He had to endure attacks, but his perseverance paid off. He one by one gained all their votes for “not guilty”. This ability to take a inherit defensive climate and turn it into a supportive effective decision making group is the true sign of a great leader.

The decision making process in this group was constantly changing. The beginning of the film decisions were made off very little deliberated ideas. The complexity arose when the deliberation was forced into their laps by Juror # 8. He said, “we owe it to him” he felt morally obligated to at least review the case. This caused all sort of defensive reactions from the jurors as they sough to justify their votes. This was very bad for the decision making process as a defensive climate never produces productive goals. These men had to decide whether to put a man to death or not, and they couldn’t even communicate efficiently at first. It took more independent thinking wise jurors to come to the side of Juror #8 and gain group clout. This help to give better balance to the discussion and effectually led to a supportive climate where the jurors all decided to vote “not guilty”. The group collectively looked at the trial to find a reasonable doubt in the prosecutions case. Now that the group was working effectively by getting rid of negative group influences, they could better grasp the case. One by one they changed their votes.

12 Angry Men‘s dynamic group environment was due to many factors. The unique situation and the diversity of personalities of the men involved created a great model for group communications analysis. This was apparent in the many informal roles each member fell into. They each participated in the group climate to accomplish a goal. This goal was very lofty at first as it seemed polarizing, but as the climate was diffused by certain group task roles the decision making process of the group created great synergy. This could only of been created through effective leadership in this case by Juror #8.