Analysis of the movie 12 Angry Men - Free Paper Example

Introduction

The movie 12 Angry Men is a demonstration of various social psychological theories. It can also be described as an apprehensive and captivating film that features a group of jurors who must decide whether a suspected murderer is guilty or innocent. At the start, eleven of the twelve jurors voted guilty. However, as the discussion continued and became heated, they were influenced to make a not-guilty decision. The movie began as an open-and-shut case of murder that turned into a detective story representing a succession of clues generating doubt. There was also a creation of a mini-drama of every juror's biases and presumptions concerning the trial, the accused, and each other as well. Certain aspects will be explored in the film, and they include prejudice, conflict, ethics and values, individual style and negotiation skills, strategies, and tactics.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Understanding Negotiations Strategies, Skills, and Tactics

12 Angry Men demonstrates how prosperous negotiations require careful reflection and analysis of diverse, conflicting influences and issues by the numerous parties involved. By doing this, sentiments and positions will be successfully disconnected from the entrenched and often hidden interests. Juror #8 performed negotiations by continuing to interrogate other jurors about their motivations behind the allegation of issuing a guilty finding. According to the movie, some positions had little or no relevance in determining the outcome of the negotiation. Juror #3 and #10 lost their credibility and control in the negotiation procedure (Lumet, 1957). They concentrated on insincere statements to authenticate their positions. Also, they failed to evaluate their intrinsic beliefs and those of other jurors and inspirations for opting for the guilty alternative.

All the jurors wanted justice to be served, but Juror #8 implemented a dissimilar position from the rest of the jurors. It was inspired by his aspiration and empathy to see the teenager given a fair verdict. Juror #3 selected the guilty option and tried to resolve the wrong difficulty by having a selfish role prejudice. He had conflicts with his son, which resulted in him interpreting the trial's testimonial as evidence. Thus, the juror was determined to discipline the boy since he was intensely convinced that he was guilty of the murder of his father. However, Juror #8 asserted that Juror #3 was adopting the role of the boy's individual 'executioner' as a way of retaliating himself as a saddened father (Lumet, 1957). As such, Jurors #3 and #8 had disputing positions but managed to arrive at a mutually approved result through the use of skills and tactics.

Prejudice

One of the issues observed in the movie is prejudice. When the jury is deliberating, it becomes clear that speed is not the only way jurors can disclose their irrelevance to the defendant's predicament. Prejudice further impairs the capacity of some jurors to evaluate the case against the defendant. When a trial is ongoing, jurors are asked only to consider the proof that they are given. The entire process of decision-making is not expected to be affected by individual bias. However, it is tough to eliminate the aspect of prejudice in the courtroom. The movie shows that when there is prejudice, it can falsify our views and have a substantial impact on our proficiency in making precise valuations. An instance of prejudice in the movie is depicted in Juror #10 (Lumet, 1957). He bursts into anger as he addresses people from the ghetto. He says that they lie, and it is an aspect born in them. The juror further states that they do not need a reason to kill someone since they are always drunk, and none of them is good. Thus, based on this, it is evident that he could not view things beyond his prejudice to listen to the evidence being presented. Furthermore, Begley voted guilty immediately after he learned that the boy had a tough life in the slums (Lumet, 1957).

Also, Juror #3 is biased against the defendant since he does not have a good relationship with his son. He does not comprehend that he is condemning the defendant until after a long time. As such, all this is due to the negative affiliation with his son. Moreover, he is the last juror to maintain a vote of guilty. He knows that he is within his rights to stand firm on his vote. Eventually, he alters his vote and opts for not guilty. He finally understood that he had judged the defendant guilty due to his feelings of rage and bitterness toward his son. Juror #3 also realized that it was difficult to maintain a resistance among eleven other jurors who had confidently voted not guilty (Lumet, 1957).

Conflict

Conflict is another issue in the movie that revolves around the jurors arguing about the trial's conclusion and whether the suspect is guilty or innocent. In this case, the conflict is task-oriented since it is a disagreement between group members as a result of different tactics on the way to view impartial matters. There is also the relation-oriented conflict, which is a disparity in a group due to different traits and interrelationships. There is a conflict that takes place between Juror #9 and other jurors in the film. It was due to their different views of voting guilty or not in the case. As such, this was a depiction of the task-oriented conflict. Furthermore, Juror #3 had an egoistic nature that made him vote not guilty and can be viewed as a sadist. His vote was due to the bad relationship he had with Juror #8. Additionally, Juror #7, who is also the salesman, frequently avoids issues in the whole decision-making process. He is always discounting what is being said by everyone since he wants to go to the baseball game that has been scheduled for that night. He also walks away when they try talking to him and avoids what the rest of the jurors are telling him. His main aim was to leave (Lumet, 1957). Thus, he portrays the aspect of conflict by avoiding discussing crucial issues that are bound to help the rest of the jurors make a sufficient verdict.

Ethics and Values

Ethics denotes organizing, defending, and recommending the notions of specific and incorrect behavior. Values, on the other, are a reflection of an individual's logic of right and immoral. In the movie, Juror #8 has employed certain features to develop a community and efficiently guide the jury to make a joint resolution of not guilty by gaining trust and reliability. He used a peaceful and non-confrontational tactic to convince the jurors that it was crucial to think about the evidence past what was presented in court (Lumet, 1957). As such, he revealed to the rest of the jurors that every evidence and eyewitness explanation could be interpreted differently by considering the physical competencies of the witness and environmental elements when the murder occurred. These are a demonstration of his values and belief in following the right process while remaining rational.

Also, Juror #8 displayed certain traits that showed he was an ethical leader. He did not utilize evaluative statements and instead opted for descriptive messages. He probed for evidence to be observed in various ways and considered others' backgrounds and feelings to avoid ethnocentrism. Also, he gave people a chance to communicate liberally. There were few jurors who displayed strong dispositions and attempted to regulate the condition. Conversely, Juror #8 utilized messages that were focused on the problem. In this way, he enabled the jurors to realize that there were prospects past their original thoughts and permitted liberty to observe the freshly projected likelihoods. Additionally, Juror #8 enabled the rest of the jurors to adjust to a compassionate language instead of being intimidating (Lumet, 1957). Therefore, he depicted trust and equality by being rational, persistent, and seeking reality.

Individual Style

The element of individual style in the movie has been demonstrated by Juror #8. He had a unique attitude that aimed at driving the point that every person deserved the chance to be assessed equally and have an opportunity to speak what they thought. Juror #8 further showed the element of professionalism, which is compassionate behavior distinct from confidence. Juror #8 depicted this style among the rest of the jurors and was of the view that a person should be allowed to alter their mind when they find another sensible notion. Furthermore, he demonstrated a particular disposition to explore all possibilities and involved the rest of the jurors in doing so as well (Lumet, 1957). Through these actions, Juror #8 was thus unique and the only one able to terminate differences to disband tensions and generate unity in the group of jurors.

Conclusion

12 Angry Men has demonstrated various elements that have been analyzed. The film began with various jury members not being interested in the case, but Juror #8 intervened and ensured that they played their role effectively. The movie has further shown that every individual has a fundamental role in ensuring that true justice is passed. It has also imparted crucial lessons, such as the importance of being ethical. Juror #8 acted ethically when leading the rest of the jurors, and eventually, they reached an amicable conclusion.

References

Lumet, S. (1957). 12 Angry Men [Video].