in

An Interesting Film – The Twelve Angry Men

“If there’s an inexpensive doubt in your minds regarding the regret of the implicated, an reasonably priced doubt, then you must convey me a choice of harmless … nevertheless you decide, your verdict needs to be consentaneous.” The motion image, The Twelve Angry Men, was an interesting movie. Surprisingly, it was actually intriguing and interesting despite the fact that it was in black and white and made in 1950. This movie was a perfect presentation of how people who fulfill in a aim orientated group fulfill roles, develop norms, have status, purchase power, and turn out to be leaders, and how a group picks an unanimous end result.

Don’t waste time Get a verified expert to help you with Essay


Each of the twelve jury members fulfilled a perform ultimately within the motion picture. They happy job features, maintenance features, and self-indulgent roles. They needed to be taught to work together in spite of the functions they performed to come to a consentaneous alternative. The Forman (Juror # 1) satisfied one group upkeep function (tension reducer) and two group job roles (procedural specialist and initiator).

As a stress reducer, the Forman told Cobb to soothe down when Cobb began on his tirade. He sometimes tried to ease stress in circumstances with conflict. As a procedural service technician, Forman highlighted teamwork by asking the group to vote a number of instances in a couple varied ways, singing tallies and quiet tallies. This helped the group stay on observe. He likewise ran errands for the group, like retrieving the knife and the condo or apartment blueprint.

As an initiator, the Forman initiated the discussions after the jurors would break in the beginning of the film.

Whimpy (juror #2) fulfilled a gaggle upkeep function as a supporter. Once Whimpy modified his vote to not responsible, he supported Fonda’s ideas. When Fonda was conversing with Cobb concerning the glasses, Whimpy supported Fonda’s perspective and informed Cobb, “You can’t ship somebody off to die on proof like that!” Lee J. Cobb (juror #3) played three particular person roles (blocker, dominator, and confessor) and one group task role (opinion giver). Cobb performed the position of the blocker most frequently. From the start to the top of the film, he disagreed and ignored any of the jurors’ statements which are different from his opinion. At one point, Cobb shut down Whimpy who needed to speak up. As a dominator, Cobb belligerently yelled at anyone who voted non guilty. He usually started on a rant of his opinions and refused to let any of the other jurors speak. Cobb played the function as a confessor towards the start of the film when he shared the picture of his son.

As an opinion Giver, Cobb mentioned again and again that he was constructive the boy was guilty and deserved the death penalty. He repeatedly said by way of out the movie, “he (the boy) has to pay for what he did.” E. G. Marshall (juror #4) played a gaggle task role. As an opinion giver, Marshall was loyal to his vote. His opinion in path of the end of the movie was still not responsible because of the eyewitness testament from the women across the road. He was firm in this belief till the eyeglasses truth was introduced up. Jack Klugman (juror #5) fulfilled a group task role. As an elaborator, he often in contrast and contrasted the case to his own life on the road. Specifically, he introduced priceless data to the case when talking about the proper way to use a change knife and how this info in comparability with the father’s stab wound. The painter (juror #6) was an info seeker, a group task function. It seemed as if the painter was uncertain of where he stood for almost all of the film. At one level he mentioned to Fonda, “Supposin’ you talk us all out of this and, uh, the kid really did knife his father.” He was seeking data that would make him certain of his choice. Jack Warden (juror #7) performed a group-building and upkeep function (follower) and a person function (Joker).

He wished the jurors to achieve a conclusion as soon as potential. He had tickets to see a baseball sport, and did not need to miss it. He followed and switched his vote to regardless of the in style vote was, so that he might leave as quickly as possible to get to the baseball recreation. As a joker, he mentioned nothing that contributed to creating a decision. He largely joked or complained that the process was taking too lengthy. Henry Fonda (juror #8) fulfilled many group task roles on this movie including informational seeker, informational giver, and initiator. As an informational seeker, Fonda asked for important information that would help persuade the jurors that it was potential the boy was not responsible. For instance, when the aged man identified that the witness had dents on the perimeters of her nose, Fonda asked for an explanation and clarification on what the elderly man meant by pointing this out. As an informational giver, Fonda demonstrated this position when he reenacted how long it will take the crippled old man to get across his bedroom, down the corridor to unlock the door, and to see the boy run down the stairs. As the initiator, Fonda proposed new concepts and suggestions that there was a risk that the boy was not responsible. He was the primary individual to suggest that the boy was not responsible. He initiated many of the conversations that lead to their verdict of not guilty.

The aged man (juror #9) fulfilled a gaggle task position and a group-building and upkeep function. As an data giver, the aged man was the one to note that the witness had notches on the facet of her nostril the place typically eyeglasses normally sit. He was the one to level this out to the group. As an encourager, the elderly man was the primary to know and settle for the not responsible vote that Fonda made. He agreed with Fonda’s ideas and ideas that there’s affordable doubt that the boy will not be responsible. Archie (juror #10) played an individual position of special-interest pleader. At the top of the movie, Archie had a soften down. He yelled and offended most of the jurors together with his unnecessary crude insults and racist remarks. He was attempting to sway the group based mostly on his personal private biased opinions as an alternative of the details of the case. The watchmaker (juror #11) fulfilled one group task role as a recorder. At one point in the film, the watch maker stood up and informed the group that he had been listening and taking notes of what the other group members have been saying. Slick (juror #12) played a group building and maintenance position as a follower. He didn’t communicate up much about the case. When he did converse, it was about his ad company. He thought very extremely of himself and his job. He modified his vote forwards and backwards several occasions. Additionally to roles, there were many social norms that developed through out this film.

All of them have been violated by at least one individual at some point. Sometimes, the jurors who violated the norms had been punished and other occasions they were not. The first social norm that was created was to vote responsible. Fonda was the first to violate this norm by voting not responsible. Eventually the relaxation of the group slowly changes their vote, and the group created a model new norm of voting not responsible as a substitute of guilty. Another social norm that was created by the legal system was that the jurors’ decision needed to be unanimous. Fonda violated this norm by voting towards the group. As punishment for violating the norm, the group verbally attacked him earlier than they gave him a chance to clarify his reasoning. Because of this, a norm developed that it was okay for the jurors to harass and belittle Fonda for his not responsible vote. The elderly man violated this norm. He was subjected to harassment and belittlement in addition to his punishment. After time went on, extra folks began to agree with Fonda’s ideas, and the group didn’t observe this norm any more. An further social norm was to make a decision based on information, not prejudice or stereotypes. Those who obeyed the norm, like Fonda and Marshall, have been appeared to as leaders. The juror that made arguments primarily based on stereotypes, Archie, was eventually ignored. From this, a norm that no racial prejudices can be tolerated was created. Archie violated this norm when he mentioned that he knew folks of these kinds very well.

As punishment, one by one group members left the desk and turned their backs on him. In every group, there are members of excessive standing and of low standing. In this movie, there was virtually an equal steadiness of high standing jurors and low standing jurors. The status of the jurors developed once they assumed a job inside the group. The excessive status members included, the Foreman, Cobb, Marshall, Fonda, the Elderly Man, and Archie. The Foreman assumed a high status role as a outcome of he organized where everybody would sit, passed out the ballots, and was able to rein the jurors again in to vote when needed. Cobb could be thought of excessive standing as a outcome of he dominated a lot of the conversations. He communicated more than different group members, and different jurors listened to him in the beginning of the film. Marshall is a stockbroker and was seen as excessive standing due to his education. Fonda was positively a excessive standing member. Over the course of the film, he satisfied the opposite eleven jurors to vary their vote by stating new ideas and recommendations. The elderly man proved his excessive standing when he identified the information about the witness carrying eyeglasses.

That swayed the relaxation of the jurors. The low status members included, Whimpy, Klugman, the painter, Warden, Archie, the watchmaker, and Slick. Whimpy tried to voice his opinion, but was rarely listened too. Klugman was seen as low standing due to his life on the streets. The painter, Warden, the watchmaker, and Slick were all considered low status, because they barely contributed to the group’s choice. Archie is taken into account low standing because of his racial insults. None of the jurors listened to him as a outcome of they had been all offended by his speech. In addition to status, energy can be a giant a part of the movie. Every highly effective particular person was thought of to be excessive standing. Some people used their energy for the good, others for the bad, and one particular person utterly gave up his energy.

As the jurors start their deliberation, the foreman was chosen to be the leader of the group. He had respectable power. He informed the jurors that the vote must be unanimous, that they’ve to take a seat in juror number order, and he tried to maintain the group on task.

After the foreman stopped using his power, Fonda and Cobb turned extra powerful. Fonda had an professional energy. He instructed concepts and information that the opposite jurors listened to. He influenced the group by way of their information, thus an professional power. Cobb, nevertheless, had a coercive energy. Cobb thought he could he might “punish” the opposite jurors into thinking his way. He would “punish” the opposite jurors by manipulating and belittling them.Also, Klugman had expert energy for a couple minutes in the film. His road data in regards to the knife and the way it was used positive aspects him this power. Although he had an skilled energy, he was not seen in the same regard as Fonda.

Most of the low status member didn’t have any power in any respect. Whimpy, the painter, Warden, Archie, the watchmaker, and Slick lacked the status to realize power. However, they did play an important function in energy, because in a way, they gave the ability to the people who had it. In a method, management and energy go hand in hand. In this movie, the powerful individuals had at least a couple of management characteristics. The foreman had a chance at leadership, however he gave it up. Cobb had some adverse management qualities that have been ultimately rejected.

Fonda was the most important chief in this movie. He took over as a leader after foreman stepped down. He attended to upkeep wants, he proposed legitimate data, and was passionate toward swaying the group not to condemn the boy to demise. As a pacesetter, Fonda listened to the low status individuals after they had data to give. For example, Klugman had details about the knife that may have been missed if Fonda was not respectful of him.

In the top, the group did arrive at a top quality determination. Although the case within the courtroom appears crystal clear that the boy was responsible, there have been some deceptive facts that got. The jurors unanimously voted not responsible; however, they were not optimistic the boy was not responsible. There was not enough substantial evidence to show if the boy did or didn’t stab his father.

If the jury had voted guilty, the boy would have been condemned to demise. This was a life or dying decision, not only a responsible or not responsible. When the Fonda and some of the different jurors began to break down the proof and the facts, they found the evidence to be misleading to the purpose were it won’t be factual.

Although the boy might have killed his father, there was affordable doubt within the proof to make the jurors consider the boy could additionally be innocent. Even the potential of condemning an innocent boy to demise is horrifying. The group made the right top quality decision.

Written by Essay Examples

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

An Investigation into Perceptual Set

An Inspector Calls essay