12 Angry Men Movie Review

Small group conversations can either be immensely helpful or go terribly wrong as it is presented in “12 Angry Men”. In the film “12 Angry Men”, there is a jury trial involving an 18-year-old boy being convicted of the murder of his father. The 12 jurors must come to a 12-0 vote on whether the boy is guilty or innocent. There were 12 jurors: (1) the foreman (meaning he oversaw votes and keeping everything on track), (2) young banker who was unconfident in his votes and opinions from the beginning, (3) very aggressive owner of a messenger business, (4) logical stockbroker who was guilty for a majority of the vote, (5) was raised in the slums and knew everything to know about the streets, (6) painter who was working around the tracks, (7) was rushing trying to get to his baseball game, (8) an architect who was the first man to vote not guilty starting the debate, (9) elderly old man who was observant to little details during the trial, (10) very opinionated but very bias about the case, (11) European who made watches and stood up to juror seven who was being inconsiderate about the case, and (12) very impressionable and changed his mind multiple times on if the boy was guilty or not. Everyone thought the decision would be quick and everyone would vote guilty. To their surprise the vote was 11-1. Juror eight felt like he would be guilty if he did not discuss what happened and all the evidence before sending the boy to death. After a second vote over general details juror nine agreed he was not guilty. With the votes being 10-2 they conversated about the weapon; the switch blade. The boy supposedly used a specific knife that they could not identify, turns to find out juror eight went to his neighborhood and bought the exact model just by his house. Now this information gave juror eight receives more assistance on the boy being not guilty. There were two witnesses, an older man, and a woman. The man claims he saw the boy running away and the body dropping, and the woman claims she saw the boy kill the father. After a lot of thinking juror eight realized that the man had a stroke and a bum leg meaning he would not be able to walk the distance to see the boy by the time he heard the sound, none of that matched up. Not so long after that the vote was 6-6. The next thing they talked about was the woman's testimony. The woman claimed that she the boy stab the dad but the way you use a switchblade is upward not downward like she said. They also noticed the glasses imprints on her nose. Since the murder was at night, she would not have been able to have time to get her glass or see that far away without them on. After that realization, the vote was back to 11-1 but in favor of not guilty. Juror three had an extraordinarily strong feeling about this case and how the boy should die but eventually gave up and said not guilty, making the final vote   12-0 in favor of being not guilty. Throughout the film we see how small group communication works and how Small group communication can ultimately be impacted by age, prejudice, and personal experiences.  

When one is put on jury trial it does not matter what their age is, but age can affect the way people view the facts. Jurors two and twelve are younger than some of the others on the panel. The reason you can tell is by how they let others influence them. Juror two is not confident in his opinions and typically goes along with what most people think. This shows how in a small group some people are afraid of sharing their own ideas or opinion because of what others may think. Something similar happens to juror twelve. Juror twelve changed his vote a couple of times during the film based on other people's opinions and being pressured into it. When the panel was discussing the woman's testimony and he thought that the woman seeing it was solid enough for the boy to be guilty. Age also affects older people on the jury. Juror nine is an older man who pays remarkably close attention to details during the examination process. Some men thought he was going to be easy to leave an impression on but really, he had good observations. In small groups the older or younger a person may be the more authority one may think they have, or someone may also think they are easy to manipulate. In today's time people can be peer pressured into doing something. Being peer pressured is where someone listens to the other person in order to prove they can do the action or show that they are better.  

Prejudice is a predetermined dislike or opinion decided before knowing any background information, thought, or reason. There are times where the jurors put their judgment over the facts just because that is how the view the situation. An example of that is when juror 10 goes on a rampage exclaiming about how “these people”,”they don’t need no reason to kill someone either", and "that's the way they are”. By him saying they, them, these, he is making it seem like younger people do not have any idea what they are doing and all they do is bad things. This makes the audience think that something happened to him or a family member to have a preconceived notion against the boy. Eventually Juror eight says “It’s always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this.” This is true. This can affect how people view your ideas in a small group setting. If someone believes in one thing and a group member believes another and that person does not change their mind it is pointless to conversate with them. You also see prejudice another time in the film with juror three. Throughout the film juror three stays very vocal about how the boy guilty. He believes that the boy should be sent to death. At first, the jury thinks he has valid reasons until we see his behavior towards the group. Juror three starts shouting and getting defensive about how the boy deserves it and that is when it all comes together. He likes the power of being in charge and pulling the lever and controlling what happens. In a group setting he would want to be a leader and force people to do his job and boss them around. This also affects how the rest of the jury looks at him as a person. Prejudice happens more than one would expect. Most people who have a prejudice against an idea or group normally do not change their mind causing more problems than solutions  

Personal experiences can impact a person views or says something. Juror five had a different lifestyle growing up unlike others. He was raised in the slums of town and saw everything that happens in the town. This affects the trial because he knows how to use the weapon found at the crime scene. Personal experiences can cause tension in a group conversation. If one member of the group says something wrong that may make someone who relates have a different reaction, then what they expected. It also may have people look at someone differently if they do not fit in. Jorur six also has a similar experience. When they are talking about the train tracks juror six can describe what happens when the train is moving and a genral idea for the time frames. This helps the panel understand how the testimony's line up and even how they are inconsistent. In a small group all details are helpful to problem solve by adding in additional information.