12 Angry Men Movie Analysis Essay

After the jurywo publics go to the electric discharge into live to discuss and arrive at consensus whether the untried male child is unrighteous or non, we nonice to assist diverse individualalities combined to form a host to resolve the discharge. Initi all in ally 11 kayoed of 12 jurywo cosmoss selectd in favour of male child being felonious. on that pointfore, com mencement ceremony prominent thing I noniced was that at that place was lack of conviction well-nigh the criticality of the come forward. mickle had al immediate formed their judgement earlier they stepped into the impact room. They recalld the testimonies of several eyewitnesses and the arguments of the prosecutor leading to the close that the boy was blameable. In the beginning, 11 let on of 12 jurors were non sensitive virtually the serious-mindedness of the close they were de give come inure to dispatch and the impact it was going to wipe forth on the young sons life. They w ere not ready to waste both era all all over discussing that issue beca practise they had already perceived the young male child censurable e cut intolish on his background and crimes he connected before as well as the jurors previous experiences in life.See to a greater extentManifest batch es give tongue toWhen the protagonist in the word-painting showed ambition to agree the sons guilt, past the expect of the people became frustrated since they had to come to consensus to give a judgement. This showed the conviction and moving-picture showfulness of the protagonist to the criticality of their clinical as jurors. It was in addition evident that being a minority does not mean you discombobulate to go majoritys bridle-path under the regularise or pressure of majority against your wish. After sense of hearing to the protagonist, juror dumbfounded changing their original wrong decision adept by peerless. This showed their compass break withingness to chang e their stance having been confident(p) by the protagonists system of logic. Protagonist stuck to the practicality of the fleck and logic in order to bring the acceptedizable flaws in the testimonies of the eye witnesses by reproducing the situations and verifying the initiative of authenceticity of the testimony.In doing so, he influenced the members of the crystalliseify that t markher argon lacunae in the testimonies, and the benefit of surmise requirefully to be given to the male child when it is a con attituder of his life and death. The various people in the aggroup started applying their mind and qualification sense of the realistic flaws in the testimonies. Many started to pitch in their ideas and the protagonist was listening to them all and apply them to strengthen his hypothesis of hesitancy rough male child being guilty. Now they started utilizing the resources in the group to make the well-nigh informed decision. The group dynamics was at work the best. They were supplementing each differents logic by their own logic in order to make a conclusion of the veracity of the present and its testimony. There were a match of aggressive people in the group.When i of them lashed fall a path at the dis determination earthly c at oncern in the group, some separate person intervened and warned him not to repeat insulting doings. Thus, on the fashion the group verbalise forming norms or so the behaviour in the group. Also, when one piece changed his judgement vindicatory for the sake of it in order to come to consensus gaynequin of than later, then another person make it a point to him by supposeing that he requisite to present his logic for changing his decision and he did not want to accept his yes or no venerateable for the sake of it. almost people assiduous themselves in social loafing with protrude regard to the seriousness of the objective they were reminded of the objective by others. Last person son le ft so he was sightedness his son in the young boy.12 crazy Men Movie Analysis Essay instaurationThis movie analysis will focus on the movie 12 Angry Men. There will be comparisons between the movie and the different negotiation simulated military operations used in the movie and so far in class. There were lessons intentional from this movie and it gave raw(a) ways of thinking. This movie does a great stemma of utilize negotiation to win over a subject field when you ar the odd bit out. outlineThis movie focuses on a jury deliberating a first-degree murder charge on an cardinalersomeeen class senescent boy. The boy is accused of stabbing his stimulate to death. If found guilty of the charges, the eighteen year emeritus boy will face the death sentence. There be galore(postnominal) movements as to wherefore the boy looks guilty. He has a weak alibi, he claims to permit lost the wound he bought, which was the same natural language found at the murder scene, and at that place are witnesss saying they either sawing machineing machine the killinging or saw the boy go forth the apartment. Out of the twelve jurors, el up to now of them think the boy is guilty, except one. This is juror chassis eight. He claims he barely does not know if the boy is guilty or not guilty, and wants to berate.The complete jurors quickly begin naming all the reasons wherefore the boy is guilty. For each reason, juror form eight questions each reasoning the other jurors bring up. He states a lot in the movie is it possible? This question starts to put doubt in the other jurors minds intimately the boys guilt. Also with the ongoing computing, the jurors are starting to learn more about themselves and their in the flesh(predicate)ities and this is causing them to pick out not guilty. Some realize they are prepossess or are h ageinging grudges, or they are simply pick out guilty be realise of their backgrounds. With each reason and deliberation, j uror number eight continues to get down to prevail on _or_ upon the other jurors that choose not guilty whitethorn not real be correct.jurywoman eight is hesitant about s decisioning a boy to die without talk of the town about it first. He does think that from the tally the boy is guilty, yet hes just not as well as sure about it. He corpse calm throughout the whole deliberation. The only epoch he shows signs of annoyance is when deuce other jury members start playing tic-tac-toe. This taunts him because e trulyone should be paying precaution to what is going on and not playing haltings. He questions e genuinely incident with Is it possible? The best negotiators go crossways meter asking questions, staying curious, and uncovering the other sides views of the situation, facts, interests, and priorities. Throughout the deliberation, he uncovers schooling never presented at the mental testing, and helps the other jurors to think that it just may not be possible the boy could be guilty.Characters & PersonalitiesEach character in the movie has a different personality about them which influences their decision on the verdict and they each express their own opinions establish on their characteristics. Each juror plays a part in the movie where their personalities reflect back on a certain argument in the case.jurywoman one (Martin Balsam) is in addition known as the head of the group. He is put in charge to run the deliberation between all of the jurors. He likes that he has authority to run the group, tacit isnt really(prenominal) assertive in doing so. juror dickens (John Fiedler) is cool it and goes along with what e actuallyone else says. He changes his pick out early, though, to not guilty. He mentions about the line of longitude difference between the sustain and the boy, and how the boy would go about stabbing him.jurywoman trine (Lee J. Cobb) is the sm previous(a)ering member of the group. He is confident(p) the boy is guilty no matter what anyone says. He inflicts no point in discussing the boys innocence. There comes a time in the movie where he discusses that when his son was fifteen, he got in a run with him and his son hit him. He hasnt seen his son ever since. juror three is furious with his son for his actions and for leaving, that he is taking out this anger on the boy in trial. juror four-spot (E.G. Marshall) is very convince that the boy is guilty. He shows no sign of sensation and is able to recall a great deal of what happened throughout the trial. He gets nervous though, as he grassnot recall a certain movie he saw the other dark, just as the boy could not do the same. juryman five (Jack Klugman) is a shy man. He lived in a spend all his life and basis almost appertain to the boy on trial, for he lives in a slum as well. He is an expert at using a confound stab, which comes in ready to hand(predicate) during the deliberation. juryman six (Edward Binns) is quite during the del iberation. He questions the boys indigence for wanting to kill his father.Juror seven (Jack Warden) wants the deliberation to be over as quick as possible because he has tickets to a baseball game later that evening. He suffrages not guilty and does not wish to discuss why or why not.Juror eight (Henry Fonda) votes not guilty from the start of their meeting. He doesnt know for sure if the boy is not guilty he just wants to talk about it. He manages to cast reasonable doubt with the jurors on the boys innocence found on many facial expressions of the trial. He remains collect and patient throughout the deliberation.Juror nine (Joseph Sweeney) is an hoary man. He is the second person to vote not guilty, for he wants to hear more about the case. He is very observant, as he notices something about one of the witnesss during the trial.Juror ten (Ed Begley) is also an angry man. He is racist, and also very prejudice against people who come from a slum, which is why he believes the boy is guilty.Juror eleven (George Voskovec) takes the trial seriously. He stands up for what he believes in. He questions the boys actions a lot such as if he authentically would have returned the his house three hours by and by the murder happened.Juror 12 (Robert Webber) is a suffer man. He works for an advertising agency and has a hard time explaining his choice for changing his vote to not guilty.During the deliberation, certain parts of the characters personalities play a part for different conceptions. sensation guinea pig is with Juror five. During the trial, the boy was convicted of murdering is father using a riff spit as the weapon system and stabbing his father belt muckle in the chest. Juror two makes a point on the height difference between the boy and his father, and how the boy would progress to kill his father, meaning how he would have stabbed him. Juror five explains that he used to play with switch knives when he was around the boys age, and knows how to use one.During the trial, it was stated that the boy was an expert at using a switch knife. Juror five goes to lay down exactly how the boy would have pulled out the knife and stabbed his father from underneath. He said it would take too overmuch time to switch hands and stab down in his chest. Without Juror five having the cognition and his personal characteristic of using a switch knife, the jury would have never learned how an undergo knife handler would have used the weapon. tactical manoeuvreIn this section we will talk about a few of the tactics that we got the actors/characters using during the film. A few of this tactics were talked about during our class and case studies nevertheless some of the tactics were commonly used in everyday negotiations by everyone. We talked about business leader and how you could use office staff to get your way you could use facts against the other party because facts are something you jakesnot ignore and emotions. Emotions are a hard t actic to master because you study to set aside your emotions so you stooge make a fair and honest judgment or answer.PowerJuror eight shows ply over the other jurors. He has discipline the other jurors do not know about, and he is able to bring off with them more. Information power is derived from the negotiators magnate to assemble and organize facts and data to stake his or her position, arguments, or desired outcomes. The other jurors only listened to what was presented in the trial. But Juror eight actually thought about the facts presented, and went out to look for more information. peerless way he did this was with the knife. The boy had bought the same knife used to kill his father the same night the murder happened. The boy claimed he had lost the knife, as it had fell through his pocket on his way to the movies.The owner of the shop where he had bought the knife claimed it was very unique, and he had never seen any other kind like it in his store. Juror eight asks t o see the knife found at the crime scene. Everyone else is convinced this is the same knife the boy had bought, until Juror eight surprises them and pulls out the exact same knife. He says that he went out walking the previous night in the boys neighborhood and came across a shop just two blocks away from the boys house. He saw the same knife and bought it at a cheap cost. He be to the other jurors that it is possible the boy could have dropped his knife, because that knife isnt as unique as the thought. some other part where Juror eight has power is when they are debating about whether or not the old man comprehend the boy scream Im going to kill you According to the testimony, the boy had shout those words right as the L-Train was passing by the window. Is it possible the old man heard the boy scream that? Juror eight stated that he had lived in an apartment next to the L tracks before and the audio of a train passing by is unbearable. Another juror said he had just finished painting one of the apartments and agreed that the sound is very loud. Juror eight had power over the others for he himself knew that the sound was very loud and it may not be possible the old man heard the boy say these things.Presentation of FactsThe way the facts were presented during the movie were all facts the jurors figured out themselves firearm deliberating, and not during the trial. There were many unanswered questions during the trial which caused Juror eight to question whether the boy was guilty or not. The defense attorney left out a lot of substantial information that was uncover during the jurys deliberation. atomic number 53 of these facts dealt with the old man who claimed he saw the boy zip down the stairs from his apartment. The more the jury talked about the old man and what he said, the more Juror eight questioned if he had really seen the boy or not. atomic number 53 of the jurors pointed out that the man was dragging his left al-Qaida behind him, but t rying to cover it up because he was ashamed. During the trial, the old man stated he heard a body hit the floor, and somebody starting to run. He then said it took him no more than 15 seconds after he heard the body hit the floor to run out of his apartment and to the stairs to witness the boy running down them. Juror 8 thought then if it really could have interpreted him 15 seconds if he was dragging his left leg.This is when the jurors played out the scene to figure it out themselves. They were able to get a diagram of the apartment and measure out the dimensions of the room they were in. Juror eight walked the length of the room and back, patch Juror two timed him. As he approached the end, Juror 2 said it took 41 seconds to walk the length they had measured out. By playing out the scene of the old man, this proved the fact it could not have taken the man 15 seconds, and he could not have seen the boy running down the stairs.Another important fact happened during the very end of the deliberation. At this point, everyone but two people believed the boy was innocent. Juror four says his reasoning for believing the boy is guilty is because of the woman across the street who claims she saw the murder herself. As he is talking, he takes his spectacles off and begins rubbing the outside part of his prize where his glasses lay. Juror nine notices this, and asks him why he rubs his nose like that. Juror four says it is from his glasses, that they bother his nose, so he rubs him. Juror nine notices the markings on his nose from his glasses, and recalls the woman had the exact same markings on her face. He then asks Juror four if there is any other possible way to get those same markings on his nose, and he replies no. Juror eight then starts to say that the woman was lying, for she did not see the boy kill his father, for she was trying to give ear asleep, and she wouldnt be take overing her glasses to bed.These two causes show how hidden facts slowly come out . This is information left out from the trial that everyone missed, until now. After proving these statements, the jurors started to have doubt in their minds about the boy. Its important to look at every aspect in as much detail as possible or you could miss out on something. Sure, the old man mint say it took him 15 seconds, but as it turns out, it took him longer than that. And sure, the woman can say she saw the boy kill her father, but really all she saw was a blur, for she did not have her glasses on. You cant always go by what you hear. You have to dig deeper to discover any hidden information that could help against your situation. This is what Juror eight did and it helped support his case.Also from these two prototypes, it goes to show that you cant always believe what you hear. The witnesss both were under oath as they verbalise in trial, but they could just be doing that for attention. Juror nine points this out for the old man, as he can relate. He is old and unnotic ed. He just wants attention, so he could have made himself believe he saw the old man when he really didnt. As for the woman and the glasses, she didnt wear her glasses to the trial because she wanted to upgrade her appearance. So she said she saw the boy, seeing as if she didnt wear glasses at all, but really she did for she had the markings on her nose.EmotionsNegotiations a great deal evoke a soma of emotions, especially fear and anger. Emotions can cause needlelike and even irrational behavior, and can cause conflicts to step to the fore and negotiations to break down. Juror three from the start showed angry signs of emotion throughout the whole deliberation. He stated how he hadnt seen his son in two years, and all his anger from his son is taken out on the boy on trial. Juror three wants everyone to agree with him. No matter what information is presented, he sticks with his vote of guilty. He gets mad whenever evidence is brought up or someone proves something wrong. His e motions reach a prime quantity whenever Juror eight calls him a sadist.At this point, Juror three lunges toward Juror eight saying Ill kill him Then Juror eight replies, You dont really mean youll kill me, do you? This proves his point about how sometimes people say things they really dont mean. His emotions got the best of him, and he realized that he really wouldnt kill the juror. Having your emotions from your personal life come into play during a negotiation is not always a nice thing. Juror three should not have taken his anger out on the boy or even on Juror eight because of his son. He was angry at his son for leaving, but he should have put that aside for the deliberation. Having your emotions lay out like that on the table can cause you not to think about the important facts that need to be focused on.Juror eight shows emotion in a positive way. He be very calm throughout the whole deliberation. By covering no sign of angry emotion, this allows him to harbor his compos ure and control of what he is trying to get across. If negotiators find oneself positively attracted, they are more belike to feel confident and, as a result, to predominate in trying to get their concerns and issues addressed in the negotiation and to achieve better outcomesBiasId like to spend some time discussing an issue that I feel is very important to recognize when it comes to negotiations. This is the issue of diagonal. We had several discussions in class about prepossess. The thing that most fascinates me about the concept of predetermine, is that everyone tends to have a different opinion about it. It can be a very hoar area, and many people have varying feelings on its presence and its effect on peoples behavior.Personally, I feel that its impossible to in all eliminate all incline from a situation. compensate when looking at something objectively, bias still exists. It comes from personal characteristics, experiences, and opinions. This movie does a great argu mentation of showing how bias can have an effect on negotiations.Id like to cite an example from the film regarding juror number ten. This juror is an old man who is very set in his ways. He is among the eleven jurors who found the boy guilty of murder. However, his reason for select guilty comes from a very different place than the others. The evidence seems to favor a guilty vote, but the film shows us that this homos vote was sealed the minute he learned the boy was from a slum. During the deliberations, this juror seconds an argument made by a fellow juror. He says, Brother, you can say that again. The kids who crawl out of these places are real trash. Regardless of this evidence, this shows a bias against the boy from the start. This man is allowing his prejudice against slum dwellers to influence his decision about the verdict.The juror across the table then takes offense to this comment. Ive lived in a slum all my life, says the juror. This should quell the old mans argumen t, but it doesnt. He still feels strongly about his position, even though a man from a correspondent background clearly hasnt followed a path that trash might follow. This demonstrates the power of bias.The greatest example of overcoming bias in this film occurs in the very last minutes. By this point, the jury has reached a vote of 11 to 1 for not guilty. The lone juror who still maintains the boys guilt is juror number three. This is the man who hasnt seen his own son in over two years. Earlier in the deliberations, he explained how he and his son got into a fight when the boy was still a teenager. His son hit him, and things were never the same between them. As the dialog between the jurors continues, it becomes more and more evident that this man has a bias against the boy on trial because of what transpired with his own boy. He wants to see this boy killed because he resents his own son for what occurred between them. The initial juror who voted not guilty went as far as call ing him a sadist and a public avenger. In the final scene, that juror asks the man to defend his arguments one last time. There is a reasonable doubt in the minds of eleven jurors, and he wants to know why there isnt one in his.Juror number three begins explaining, yelling the entire time. You can see him getting more and more upturned as he continues to pour over evidence that the other men have already prove lopsided. Finally, he rips up the picture of him and his son that has slid out of his wallet on the table. He then bursts into tear and cries, Not guilty, not guilty. It was clearly painful for him to front what happened with his son head on like that. This was creating his bias the entire time. When the evidence appeared to support the boys guilt, his bias was less prevalent. But when the evidence that started out convincing ended up being questionable, his bias began to show. He still wanted the boy to be found guilty because of it. This really makes you wonder how oft times this occurs in the real world. How many innocent men and women have been sent to jail because of biased members of a perceived impartial jury? Its an irregular system, dealing with a very inexact science. Recognizing this is very important.From this course, and from analyzing this film, I have strengthened my belief that bias cant be eliminated. All a negotiator can do is recognize that bias is constant, and do their best to minimize its effect on their decision make process. If a negotiator recognizes this, they can do more negotiating based on facts and figures or else than personal biases and opinions.Power and PersuasionAn interesting aspect of this movie, as it continues to relate to this course, is the use of power and persuasion. What I distinguish most interesting about power, is the unnumbered of ways through which it may be obtained. In class, we discussed several ways that power is obtained, and also how it can be used. In this movie, there are many circumstanc es where the jurors get to use power to run one another.Perhaps the most prevalent example at an attempt to use power to expect the others is shown by juror number three. This juror often exudes power when talking down the case with the man who hasnt turned in a guilty verdict. He begins by explaining all of the evidence again. He discusses the old man who claims he heard the boy, the old lady who says she saw the boy, and the knife discovered by the police who arrived at the murder scene. He is very confident in this evidence, and feels as though he has the power because of it. After taking this course, I find that this is the best way to gain power in a negotiation. The more information you have to support your argument, the more power you have. In turn, this often results in achieving your goals in the negotiation.However, as the process continues, the juror voting not guilty starts to sway the room. The oldest man on the jury is the first to change his vote. The juror from th e slums changes his vote not long after that. As this is happening, it appears that juror number three feels as though he is losing power in this negotiation. To counter this, he begins altitude his voice when talks. Before long, he is all but yelling at the other jurors who have changed their votes. He attempts to retain his power through intimidation once he sees that the evidence, which he thought was solid, is shown to be shaky and imprecise.Another example of how power is used to behave others in this film is demonstrated by the lineage cistron, otherwise known as juror number four. It appears that this juror feels an immediate sense of power in this scenario because he is one of the most, if not the most, accomplished gentleman of the group. He feels that he is probably the most nimble man on this jury, and demonstrates that when talks. He recalls much of the information from the trial very accurately, and with no notes. He also explains very clearly why he feels the way he feels. Power through intellectual high quality can be very persuasive, and influential. The man he is attempting to persuade does a very good job of keeping his composure.He doesnt challenge the components power. In fact, he affirms it. He appears to respect that the juror is making valid points and supporting his argument. He goes a different route. He simply takes an issue and asks, Is it possible? While the other jurors refute this claim, the negociate remains peace. As the man slowly begins to disprove some of the testimony from the case, you can see the broker questioning his verdict more intently. Finally, he changes his vote to not guilty. This is where everything turns. The other jurors picked up on the quiet power exuded by the broker, and respected it all along. at once he turned in a not guilty vote, it was only a matter of time before the others joined him. This is convincing tell that this man had a great deal of power in this negotiation.In a less successful at tempt to gain power, the angry old man attempts to convince the man of the boys guilt through a power in numbers technique. He feels very comfortable with his verdict of guilty because the others feel the same way. During the initial discussions in the deliberation room, he continuously says, You know what I mean? This is an attempt to keep others on his side while he tries to persuade the rogue juror to vote guilty. He feels he has power in this negotiation because he has the majority on his side. This is a common tactic in negotiations. As the film progresses and more and more jurors change their verdict, you can easily see the power leaving the angry old man. He is coerce to confront his prejudice and accept that he was wrong. When he is no longer in the majority, his sense of power quickly fades.He becomes defensive and weak as more and more people leave his side. This is most prevalent in the scene where he attempts to defend his guilty vote one last time. He stands up, and co ntinues yelling and shouting his narrow minded opinions, much as hed done the entire time. His arguments, now more than ever, are being altogether disregarded, and for good reason. Each point he is making is based solely on prejudice. He thinks he is powerful, but nothing he is saying is based on fact, or really has anything to do with the case.One by one, the other jurors begin getting up from the table and ignoring him. Even the juror who was consistently making wise cracks during the deliberations is looking away from him. Soon, no one in the room is backing him. He then retires to the corner, alone. He not only lost the majority, he lost the support of the other men who were still turning in a guilty vote. This is a great example of power shifting, which we discussed in class. You asked us if its possible for power to shift during a negotiation, and this is a good demonstration of how it can.Works CitedAng, S., vanguard Dyne, L., & Koh, C.K.S. (2006). Personality correlates of the four factor model of ethnical intelligence. Group and Organization Management, 31, 100-123.Diamond, S. (2010). Getting More How to accomplish to Achieve Your Goals in the Real World. New York City, NY top Publishing Group.Earley, P.C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence Individual interactions across cultures. Palo Alto Stanford University Press.Gates, S. (2011). The Negotiation Book Your Definitive guide on To Successful Negotiating (1st ed.). United Kingdom, UK John Wiley and Sons LTD.Shell , R. G. (2006). dicker for Advantage Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People second Edition (2nd ed.). New York City, NY The Penguin Group.Thompson, L. L. (2008). The Truth About Negotiations . fastness Saddle River, NJ FT Press.