ANALYSIS OF 12 ANGRY MEN

Analysis of 12 Angry Men

Analysis of 12 Angry Men

Introduction

Twelve angry men is a movie about twelve jurors who have to decide whether or not to convict a boy of murdering his father. The physical aspects that affected the entire discussion about the murder case had to of been the enclosed room they were debating in. The room was like a jail cell; no one else left or came in. The room served as a thinking place for the jurors, and as they all had their own opinions on the matter.

Discussion and Analysis

Juror 8 was the outspoken man who thought the boy was innocent; he eventually convinced the rest of the jurors to think outside the facts, and look within themselves to find a reason of innocence. Another juror was acting like a fool, he couldn't see passed the crime because he was caught in between a scandal with his own son. He was the very last juror to accept the fact that the boy might be innocent, and had to put away his feelings he felt towards his son to come up with that conclusion.

The designated leader, juror number 8, was a great leader. He influenced the others to come to an agreement, but emphasized to only do so if they themselves felt it was justified, and only if they truly felt that way about their opinion. The leader's behavior changes at the end of the debate, when everyone finally comes to an agreement. He felt very satisfied with the outcome and his predictions. The leader forms a sort of coalition when the rest of the jurors start to give their positive opinions about the murder investigation (Ellsworth, 2003). That's when everyone starts to come together to form an agreement and acknowledge the fact that juror 8, the main leader is doing the right thing. Each and every one of the jurors starts to put in their facts about the case and come together to form an agreement. The group responded very well to the information each one of the jurors were giving. It made the group stronger and made them think more positive, rather than fight amongst each other and forget about what their really fighting for.

The deviant had to of been the juror that had problems with his son. He just couldn't let go of the fact that he neglected his son and didn't really try to help him in any way. So, juror 8 was always giving off a negative vibe and never understood why they were helping the boy. He just thought that the boy who committed the murder was innocent, because he wasn't thinking straight, he kept picturing his son and how bad he treated him that definitely blocked his views towards the murder case. Towards the end of the debate, the deviant juror was finally sanctioned. The rest of the jurors finally got through to him, he totally understood that the problem wasn't him, it was towards losing his ...