TWELVE ANGRY MEN

Twelve Angry Men

Twelve Angry Men

Introduction

This paper examines the theories of leadership in 12 Angry Men and Dead Poet Society. Moreover, the paper also recognizes the perception of Aristotle's with reference to the significance of rhetoric (speechifying) approach the leader should adapt to influence and lead. Rhetoric is to visualize the possibility of persuasion in every given case; not that convincing is to be influences under all circumstance. The story of the movie is based on the consequences faced by a teenager after he commits the murder of his father, and the effort of a courageous person against the injustice. The eighteen year old was proven guilty by the court; now the decision regarding the teenager's fate is in the hands of twelve men. The decision regarding the young boy's fate is going to be made inside the deliberation room by the juries of twelve men. From the outlook of the story, it is observed that the decision is to be made against the teenager, and he will eventually be punished (electric chair) till death. All the jurors are casting guilty votes to agree on an unkind decision, except one, who is against the decision.

Discussion & Analysis

The movie Twelve Angry Men is the reflection of the leadership style and traits that a person adapts in order to influence other to support a positive and rational decision. The story of the movie is the interpretation of the two characteristics of an influential and inspiring leader, one related to those who are opted as leader and the other related to those who are considered influential. In Twelve Men, Henry Fonda plays the role of an inspiring and influential. He does not only have leadership abilities but also have the communication skills to resolve even the trickiest issues. There are some substantial factors attributing to the influential leadership qualities of Henry Fonda, the most prominent is at the beginning of the movie, in which she displayed task-related functions by proposing new thoughts and scheme plan to the group. He also opened different dimensions for the character development of the jurors by offering up his creative ideas and opinions, which eventually resulted in the creation of new processes for the group to explore (Phoebe, 2003).

On the other hand, his action also generates secondary stress and new power struggles. Henry Fonda was of the opinion that, although he had no relevant evidence to ...