12 Angry Men- Analysis
12 angry men is a 1957 classic
directed by Sidney Lumet. It is films set in a New York showroom where there
are 12 jurors are at a trial where this 18 year old boy from the slum is
accused of stabbing his father to death. Final closing arguments are presented
and the judge then instructs the jury to decide of the boy is guilty of murder,
if he is found of being guilty then there will be a mandatory death sentence along
with it. The way everything else shapes up now inside in the jurors room is
where the rest of the story is formed where one juror (8) says that the victim
on trial is “not guilty”. The only one to say so, how the rest of the plot
forms the story is something to watch out for. How the boy gets freed from all
charges and his verdict is “not guilty”.
The movie becomes a perfect example
of Yalom 's factors as well as group therapy as the dynamics that occur within
the group slowly shows how each person 's subjective psychology and personality
is brought into the interaction of the group which eventually finalizes the
decision of the group
Four of Yalom 's factors are most
apparent in the movie - Group Cohesiveness , Interpersonal Learning , social
influence
Group cohesiveness. There are two
kinds of cohesiveness and what differentiates the two is the reason for which
that group stays together . The two kinds are emotion-related and task related
Emotion-related is the kind of group cohesion founded on emotional connection
and feelings members have for the other members of the group Task-related
cohesion is founded on the goals that the group has set for themselves and the
achievement of these goals is what makes the group cohesive
In the case of 12 Angry Men, the
only similarity that these 12 men have is that they are all members of the jury
for this particular case . In the beginning, as each member enters the room , a
discussion of past jury duties are discussed and this duty served as a
commonality between all the members of the jury . This commonality is a
superficial factor that added to the group 's cohesion . The main factor is
that they all share the same goal which is to reach a verdict . The cohesion of
the group is further enforced by the fact that the door is locked and the group
cannot leave until such time that they all agree on the verdict without contest
. The locked door forced them to become cohesive as well as the duty...
Henry Fonda’s vital role
Henry Fonda plays an architect, and
is juror number eight. His job of architect is apparent in the way in which he
treats the case. He suggests that something just doesn't "fit". He
begins to examine every little piece one by one, instead of simply looking at
the big picture. As he discredits each fact of the case, he gains more and more
support.
Fonda's character is perhaps the
strongest in the movie, as he resists the ever-powerful forces of conformity
and peer-pressure. During the first vote eleven jurors have already voted
guilty, but Fonda stands his ground and does not give in. He is wary of sending
somebody off to die before it has been discussed. He is suggesting that maybe
the experts are wrong. Throughout his argument, he constantly says "I'm
not saying that's how it is, I'm just saying it's possible."
In sum, there are many different factors that lead
us to behave the way we do. Things such as our upbringing, our jobs and ranging
as far as to what we had for breakfast may influence the ways we respond to
situations. Our system of justice understands this, and that is why the jury of
our peers has the number of members that it does. All it takes is one person
sometimes to speak out against something in order for others to see the error
of their ways. Luckily for the boy in this movie, Henry Fonda's character was
just such a person
good of you henry fonda
ReplyDelete