12 angry men movie evaluation essay

Introduction:

This kind of movie analysis will concentrate on the movie doze Angry Guys. There will be comparisons between the film and the distinct negotiation methods used in the movie and even in school. There were lessons learned from this movie and it offered new ways of thinking. This kind of movie does a great job of using settlement to make an impression on a case if you are the odd man away.

Summary:

This movie is targeted on a jury deliberating a first-degree murder charge with an eighteen yr old boy.

The boy is definitely accused of stabbing his father to death. If found doing the charges, the eighteen year old boy will face the death sentence. There are many reasons as to why the boy looks guilty. He has a fragile alibi, he claims to have misplaced the knife he bought, which was the same knife found at the murder picture, and there are witness’s saying they either noticed the eliminating or noticed the young man leaving the apartment.

Out of the 12 jurors, 11 of them believe the boy is guilt ridden, except 1. This is juror number ten. He claims this individual just will not know if the boy is definitely guilty or not guilty, and wants to talk.

The entire juror’s quickly commence naming every one of the reasons why the boy is guilty. For every reason, juror number ten questions each reasoning the other jurors bring up. This individual states a lot in the film “is it possible?  This question starts to put doubt inside the other juror’s minds regarding the boys’ guilt. As well as the ongoing deliberation, the jurors are starting for more information on themselves and their personalities and this is triggering them to vote “not guilty”. Some understand they are prejudice or are possessing grudges, or perhaps they are simply voting accountable because of their qualification. With every single reason and deliberation, juror number eight continues to make an attempt to convince the other jurors that voting “not guilty may not actually be correct.

Juror eight is hesitant regarding sending boys to perish without speaking about it first. He does think that in the trial the boy can be guilty, yet he’s just not too sure about it. This individual remains quiet throughout the whole deliberation. The sole time he shows signs of anger is when two other jury members start playing tic-tac-toe. This disturbs him since everyone must be paying attention to what is going on and not playing games. He questions every incident with “Is it feasible?  The very best negotiators spend some time asking concerns, staying wondering, and discovering the additional side’s opinions of the condition, facts, pursuits, and goals. Throughout the deliberation, he unearths information under no circumstances presented in the trial, and helps the various other jurors to consider that it simply may not be feasible the boy could be responsible.

Characters & Personalities:

Every single character in the movie provides a different individuality about them which influences all their decision for the verdict and they each communicate their own viewpoints based on all their characteristics. Every juror leads to00 the movie in which their personas reflect backside on a certain argument in the case.

Juror one particular (Martin Balsam) is also referred to as foreman of the group. He is placed in charge to perform the deliberation between each of the jurors. This individual likes that he offers authority to run the group, but just isn’t very aggressive in doing and so.

Juror two (John Fiedler) is peaceful and goes along with what everyone else says. He changes his vote early on, though, never to guilty. This individual mentions regarding the height difference between the daddy and the youngster, and how the boy would venture about stabbing him.

Juror three (Lee J. Cobb) is the irritated member of the group. He is convinced the boy is guilty whatever anyone says. He recognizes no reason for discussing the boy’s purity. There comes a time in the movie where he discusses that whenever his boy was twelve to fifteen, he acquired in a battle with him great son struck him. This individual hasn’t viewed his kid ever since. Juror three is usually angry with his son pertaining to his activities and for departing, that he could be taking out this anger on the boy in trial.

Juror four (E. G. Marshall) is very certain that the young man is responsible. He reveals no sign of sentiment and is capable to recall most of what happened over the trial. This individual gets worried though, when he cannot recollect a certain movie he observed the other night, as the young man could not the actual same.

Juror five (Jack Klugman) is a shy man. He lived in a slum all his life and can almost relate with the young man on trial, for this individual lives in a slum too. He is an expert at using a switch cutlery, which also comes in handy through the deliberation.

Juror six (Edward Binns) is quite during the deliberation. He inquiries the boys’ motive pertaining to wanting to kill his father.

Juror seven (Jack Warden) wants the deliberation to get over as quick as is feasible because he offers tickets to a baseball video game later that evening. This individual votes simple and does not desire to discuss so why or really want to.

Juror 8 (Henry Fonda) votes not guilty from the start with their meeting. This individual doesn’t find out for sure in case the boy can be not guilty; he just wants to talk about this. He manages to ensemble reasonable uncertainty with the jurors on the boy’s innocence based on many aspects with the trial. This individual remains clam and individual throughout the deliberation.

Juror eight (Joseph Sweeney) is a well used man. He is the second person to have your vote not guilty, for he wants to hear more about the case. He is extremely observant, when he notices something about one of the witness’s during the trial.

Juror five (Ed Begley) is also a great angry guy. He is hurtful, and also extremely prejudice against people who are derived from a slum, which is why he believes the boy is definitely guilty.

Juror eleven (George Voskovec) takes the trial seriously. This individual stands up for what he features. He queries the kid’s actions a whole lot; such as in the event he really would have delivered the his house three hours after the murder happened.

Juror 12 (Robert Webber) is a smart person. He performs for a marketing agency and has a hard time explaining his choice pertaining to changing his vote to never guilty.

During the deliberation, selected parts of the character’s individuality play a part for different concepts. One example is with Juror five. During the trial, the boy was convicted of murdering is definitely father by using a switch cutlery as the weapon and stabbing his father down in the chest. Juror two makes a point on the height difference between your boy fantastic father, and just how the young man would proceed to kill his father, that means how he’d have stabbed him. Juror five talks about that this individual used to play with switch knives when he was around the boy’s age, and knows how to employ one.

During the trial, it absolutely was stated the fact that boy was an expert at using a switch knife. Juror five goes toward demonstrate precisely how the son would have picked up the knife and stabbed his father: via underneath. He said it would take too much time to switch hands and stab down in his chest. Devoid of Juror five having the understanding and his personal characteristic of using a move knife, the jury may have never discovered how an experienced knife handler would have used the system.

Tactics:

In this section all of us will speak about a few of the techniques that we acquired the actors/characters using through the film. Some of this strategies were brought up during our class and case studies sometimes of the methods were widely used in every day negotiations by everyone. All of us talked about electrical power and how you could utilize power to get your way; you can use facts resistant to the other party because facts are a thing you cannot disregard and thoughts. Emotions are a hard tactic to master because you need to set aside your emotions to help you make a reasonable and honest judgment or perhaps answer.

Electricity:

Juror 8 shows electrical power over the additional jurors. This individual has details the different jurors have no idea about, and he is able to discuss with all of them more. Details power is derived from the negotiator’s ability to put together and organize facts and data to compliment his or her situation, arguments, or desired effects. The various other jurors simply listened to what was presented in the trial. But Juror 8-10 actually contemplated the facts offered, and went out to look for more information. One way this individual did this was with the blade. The youngster had bought the same knife used to kill his dad the same night the killing happened. The boy believed he had dropped the knife, mainly because it had chop down through his pocket on his way for the movies.

The master of the shop where he experienced bought surgery claimed it was very one of a kind, and he had never found any other kind like it in his store. Juror eight demands to see the blade found at the crime landscape. Everyone else is definitely convinced this can be a same knife the boy had bought, until Juror eight surprises them and pulls out your exact same cutting knife. He says that he went down walking the previous night in the boy’s neighborhood and discovered a shop simply two prevents away from the boy’s house. He saw a similar knife and bought it at a cheap cost. He demonstrated to the additional jurors that it must be possible the boy would have dropped his knife, since that knife isn’t while unique since the thought.

Another part where Juror ten has electrical power is when they are debating regarding whether or not the old fart heard the boy shout “I’m gonna kill you!  According to the account, the son had screamed those words and phrases right because the L-Train was transferring by the home window. Is it possible the man noticed the boy scream that? Juror 8-10 stated that he had lived in an apartment following to the D tracks just before and the appear of a train passing by is intolerable. Another juror said he had just finished painting among the apartments and agreed the fact that sound is incredibly loud. Juror eight acquired power within the others for he him self knew the sound was very loud and it might not be likely the old gentleman heard the boy say these things.

Business presentation of Details:

The way the facts were presented during the video were all facts the jurors identified themselves when deliberating, and never during the trial. There were various unanswered questions during the trial which brought on Juror eight to query whether the youngster was accountable or not. The defense attorney ignored a lot of important information that was discovered during the jury’s deliberation.

One of these facts handled the old gentleman who said he observed the son running down the stairs via his apartment. The more the jury talked about the old person and what he explained, the more Juror eight asked if he had really viewed the son or not. One of the jurors pointed out that the person was pulling his remaining foot behind him, but trying to cover it up because he was embarrassed. During the trial, the old man stated this individual heard a body hit the floor, and someone needs to run. He then said it was a little while until him at most 15 seconds following he heard the body struck the floor to perform out of his apartment and to the steps to experience the youngster running straight down them. Juror 8 thought then whether it really could have taken him 15 seconds in the event he was transferring his left leg.

This is when the jurors played out your scene to figure it out themselves. They were capable to get a picture of the flat and assess out the proportions of the room they were in. Juror 8 walked the size of the room and back, while Juror two timed him. As he approached the end, Juror 2 said it took 41 seconds to walk the space they had measured out. Simply by playing out the scene with the old man, this kind of proved the fact it could not have taken the person 15 seconds, and he could hardly have seen the boy working down the stairways.

Another important simple fact happened through the very end of the deliberation. At this point, everybody but a couple believed the boy was innocent. Juror four says his reasoning for trusting the youngster is guilt ridden is because of the woman across the street who have claims your woman saw the murder himself. As he can be talking, this individual takes his glasses away and commences rubbing the outdoors part of his nose in which his eyeglasses lay. Juror nine updates this, and asks him why this individual rubs his nose like that. Juror four says it can be from his glasses, that they can bother his nose, therefore he rubs him. Juror nine sees the marks on his nose area from his glasses, and recalls the girl had the exact same markings on her behalf face. Then he asks Juror four if you have any other likely way to get those self same markings on his nose, and he response no . Juror eight after that starts to declare the woman was lying, for she did not see the youngster kill his father, for she was trying to get to sleep, and she wouldn’t end up being wearing her glasses to bed.

Both of these examples display how concealed facts little by little come out. This can be information left out from the trial that everybody missed, until now. After demonstrating these statements, the jurors started to have question in their heads about the boy. You have to look at every part in all the detail as is possible or you can miss out on some thing. Sure, the man can say it took him 15 seconds, but as it turns out, it was a little while until him longer than that. And sure, the woman know she noticed the young man kill her father, nevertheless really almost all she noticed was a obnubilate, for the lady did not have got her glasses on. Weight loss always go by what you hear. You have to dig deeper to learn any concealed information that could help against your situation. It’s this that Juror eight did and it helped support his case.

As well from the two of these examples, that goes to show that you can’t constantly believe everything you hear. The witness’s the two were underneath oath as they spoke in trial, nevertheless they could just be carrying out that intended for attention. Juror nine points this to the old guy, as he can relate. He’s old and unnoticed. He just wants attention, so he would have made himself believe he saw the man if he really didn’t. As for the lady and the glasses, she failed to wear her glasses to the trial mainly because she desired to upgrade her appearance. Thus she stated she saw the youngster, seeing as in the event she don’t wear eyeglasses at all, although really the girl did to get she experienced the markings on her nose area.

Emotions:

Transactions often stimulate a variety of feelings, especially dread and anger. Emotions could cause intense and irrational tendencies, and can trigger conflicts to escalate and negotiations to be able to down. Juror three from the beginning showed angry signs of sentiment throughout the entire deliberation. This individual stated how he hadn’t seen his son in two years, and his anger from his son is taken out for the boy about trial. Juror three would like everyone to agree with him. No matter what data is presented, he sticks with his vote of responsible. He gets mad whenever evidence is definitely brought up or someone proves something wrong. His emotions reach a optimum whenever Juror eight calls him a sadist.

At this time, Juror 3 lunges toward Juror eight saying “I’ll kill him!  In that case Juror 8-10 replies, “You don’t really mean you are going to kill me personally, do you?  This shows his level about how at times people say things they will really don’t imply. His thoughts got the best of him, and he realized that he really would not kill the juror. Having your emotions from your personal lifestyle come into perform during a negotiation is not always a good thing. Juror three must not have taken his anger out on the boy or even upon Juror 8 because of his son. He was angry for his son for departing, but this individual should have place that besides for the deliberation. Your emotions lay out like that available can cause happened to think about the top facts that need to be focused on.

Juror eight shows emotion within a positive approach. He stays very relaxed throughout the entire deliberation. By showing zero sign of angry emotion, this allows him to keep his composure and control of what he is trying to get across. In the event negotiators truly feel positively captivated, they are more likely to feel self-confident and, as a result, to persevere in hoping to get their worries and issues addressed in the negotiation and also to achieve better outcomes

Prejudice:

I’d like to spend time discussing a concern that I truly feel is very important to identify when it comes to talks. This is the concern of bias. We had a lot of discussions in class about prejudice. The thing that many fascinates me about the idea of bias, is the fact everyone has a tendency to have a different sort of opinion about that. It can be a very grey place, and many people have varying feelings on the presence as well as effect on peoples’ behavior.

Privately, I feel that you will never completely remove all opinion from a situation. Even when taking a look at something objectively, bias continue to exists. It is about from personal characteristics, encounters, and thoughts. This film does a great job of demonstrating how opinion can impact negotiations.

I’d like to cite the from the film regarding juror number ten. This juror is a classic man who is very emerge his techniques. He is among the eleven jurors who found the son guilty of homicide. However , his reason for voting guilty originates from a very different place than the others. The evidence generally seems to favor a guilty have your vote, but the film shows all of us that this gentleman’s vote was sealed the minute he learned the son was via a informelle siedlung. During the deliberations, this juror seconds a spat made by a fellow juror. He says, “Brother, you can say that again. The children who spider out of the places will be real waste.  Regardless of this data, this shows a bias against the young man from the start. This man is usually allowing his prejudice against “slum dwellers to affect his decision about the verdict.

The juror over the table after that takes crime to this comment. “I’ve occupied a slum all my lifestyle,  says the juror. This would quell this man’s debate, but it doesn’t. He nonetheless feels highly about his position, though a man by a similar qualifications clearly hasn’t followed a path that “trash may well follow. This demonstrates the strength of bias.

The greatest example of beating bias through this film takes place in the incredibly last mins. By this level, the court has come to a have your vote of 11 to 1 intended for “not responsible.  The lone juror who still maintains the boy’s guilt is definitely juror number three. This is the man who also hasn’t found his individual son in over 2 years. Earlier inside the deliberations, he explained just how he wonderful son had a fight when the youngster was still a youngster. His kid hit him, and things were hardly ever the same between them. As the talks between the jurors proceeds, it becomes more and more evident that the man includes a bias against the boy upon trial as a result of what happened with his personal boy. This individual wants to see this son killed as they resents his own boy for what happened between them. The initial juror who have voted “not guilty gone as far as contacting him a “sadist and a “public avenger.  In the final scene, that juror demands the man to protect his arguments one last time. There is also a reasonable hesitation in the minds of 9 jurors, and he would like to know how come there isn’t one out of his.

Juror number three begins describing, yelling all the time. You can see him getting more plus more upset as he continues to put over evidence that the additional men have currently proven shaky. Finally, he rips the picture of him great son that has slid away of his wallet on the table. He then bursts into cry and cries, “Not responsible, not guilty.  It was plainly painful for him to face what happened with his son go on like that. It was creating his bias always. When the facts appeared to support the boy’s guilt, his bias was less prevalent. But when evidence that started off convincing became questionable, his bias began to show. He still needed the young man to be found guilty because of that. This actually makes you question how often this occurs in the real world. How many blameless men and women have been completely sent to jail because of prejudiced members of any perceived “impartial jury? Is actually an imperfect system, dealing with a very inexact science. Spotting this is very important.

Out of this course, and from analyzing this film, I have strengthened my idea that tendency can’t be taken away. All a negotiator may do is definitely recognize that opinion is constant, and do their best to minimize its effect on their decision making process. If a negotiator recognizes this kind of, they can perform more discussing based on facts and figures rather than personal biases and opinions.

Power and Marketing:

An interesting facet of this movie, as it is constantly on the relate to this program, is the use of power and persuasion. What I find most interesting about power, is the myriad of ways through which it might be obtained. In the lecture, we mentioned several ways in which power is definitely obtained, and also how you can use it. In this movie, there are many circumstances where the jurors attempt to work with power to convince one another.

Probably the most prevalent example at an attempt to employ power to persuade the others is definitely shown by juror quantity three. This kind of juror generally exudes electrical power when discussing down the circumstance with the man who hasn’t turned in a “guilty decision. He starts by detailing all of the proof again. This individual discusses the old man who claims this individual heard the boy, this lady does anyone say she noticed the young man, and the cutlery discovered by the police who have arrived at the murder landscape. He is incredibly confident through this evidence, and feels that he has the strength because of that. After acquiring this course, I find that this is the best way to achieve power within a negotiation. The greater information you need to support your argument, a lot more power you may have. In turn, this often leads to achieving aims in the discussion.

However , since the process carries on, the juror voting “not guilty starts to sway the area. The oldest man for the jury is a first to modify his political election. The juror from the slums changes his vote not long after that. Since this is happening, it appears that juror quantity three seems as though he’s losing electrical power in this negotiation. To table this, this individual begins bringing up his tone of voice when discussions. Before long, he’s all but yelling at the various other jurors who have changed their votes. He attempts to retain his power through violence once he sees which the evidence, which he believed was solid, is been shown to be shaky and imprecise.

One other example of just how power is used to persuade others with this film is demonstrated by stock broker, otherwise called juror number four. It seems that this juror feels an instantaneous sense of power with this scenario because he is one of the many, if certainly not the most, accomplished gentleman from the crew. He seems that he could be probably the most brilliant man on this jury, and demonstrates that after talks. He recalls much of the information from the trial very accurately, and with no notes. He also talks about very obviously why he feels how he seems. Power through intellectual brilliance can be very influential, and powerfulk. The man he could be attempting to convince does a extremely good job to stay his composure.

He doesn’t challenge the broker’s electrical power. In fact , this individual affirms that. He appears to respect the juror is definitely making valid points and supporting his argument. He goes a unique route. He simply will take an issue and asks, “Is it conceivable?  Even though the other jurors refute this kind of claim, the broker remains quiet. Since the man slowly and gradually begins to disprove some of the account from the circumstance, you can see the broker wondering his decision more intently. Finally, this individual changes his vote to never guilty. This is when everything becomes. The different jurors acquired on the calm power exuded by the broker, and respected everything along. Once he completed a “not guilty election, it was just a matter of your energy before the other folks joined him. This is effective tell that man a new great deal of electric power in this negotiation.

In a fewer successful try to gain electrical power, the irritated old man efforts to influence the man in the boy’s remorse through a “power in numbers technique. This individual feels incredibly comfortable with his verdict of “guilty as the others feel the same way. During the initial discussion posts in the deliberation room, he continuously says, “You know very well what I mean?  This is an effort to keep other folks on his area while this individual tries to convince the dodgy juror to vote “guilty.  He feels he has electrical power in this settlement because he has got the majority on his side. This is a common technique in discussions. As the film advances and more and even more jurors modify their consensus, you can easily start to see the power leaving the irritated old man. He is forced to confront his prejudice and accept that having been wrong. When he is no longer in the majority, his sense of power quickly fades.

He becomes defensive and weak as more and more people leave his side. This is certainly most common in the scene where he endeavors to defend his “guilty political election one previous time. He stands up, and continues yelling and yelling his slim minded thoughts, much because he’d performed the entire time. His arguments, today more than ever, will be being totally disregarded, and then for good reason. Each point he’s making is located solely upon prejudice. He thinks he can powerful, but nothing to he is declaring is based on reality, or really has everything to do with all the case.

One by one, the various other jurors begin getting up in the table and ignoring him. Even the juror who was regularly making smart cracks throughout the deliberations searching for away from him. Soon, nobody in the room is definitely backing him. He then retires to the spot, alone. This individual not only lost the majority, this individual lost the support of the other men who were still submiting a “guilty vote. This is a great example of power shifting, which we discussed in the lecture. You asked us whether it’s possible for power to shift within a negotiation, which is a good demo of how it may.

Works Offered:

Ang, H., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. K. T. (2006). Personality correlates from the four aspect model of cultural intelligence. Group and Organization Management, 23, 100-123.

Diamonds, S. (2010). Getting More: How you can Negotiate to Achieve Your Goals in the Real World. Nyc, NY: Crown Publishing Group.

Earley, S. C., & Ang, S i9000. (2003). Ethnic intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Tranca Alto: Stanford University Press.

Gates, S. (2011). The Negotiation Book: Your Certain Guide To Powerful Negotiating (1st ed. ). United Kingdom, UK: John Wiley and Daughters LTD.

Layer, R. G. (2006). Bargaining for Benefits: Negotiation Techniques for Reasonable Persons 2nd Copy (2nd education. ). Nyc, NY: The Penguin Group.

Thompson, M. L. (2008). The Truth About Negotiations. Upper Saddle River, NJ-NEW JERSEY: FT Press.

1