The Movie 12 Angry Men Review

Summary
In summary, this film is about twelve men answerable of deciding whether or not an 18-year-old
Hispanic boy is guilty of first-degree murder…of his father. The film starts within the courtroom with the
judge stating that it’s the juror's duty to “sit down and separate the facts from the flamboyant.” The jury
retires to debate the seemingly unanimous verdict of guilty. After the primary ballot, all vote guilty —
virtually one: Juror #8, our main character one might say. Juror #8 votes acquitted strictly because he
isn’t sure…and that’s all it takes. After he expresses his desire for discussion, Juror #8 slowly convinces
more and more of the jury to listen to his side of the arguments, swaying them to believe the boy isn't
guilty because the film progresses — due in large part to reasonable doubt.

Prejudice
In the early discussion of the decision, Juror #10 asks “What are we sitting here for?” Juror #8 states that
“I just think we owe him some words that’s all.” After telling Juror #8 he believes they don’t owe the
accused a thing, Juror #10 makes a tiny low speech:

“You’re not visiting tell me that we’re speculated to believe this kid knowing what he is? Listen I’ve lived
among all my life you can’t believe a word they assert you recognize that. I mean, they’re born liars.” —
Juror #10

Juror #9 responds by saying, “Only an ignorant man can believe that” and that’s the last we hear of Juror
#10’s prejudice for ages.

Near the top of the film, the foremost powerful scene — objectively, is when Juror #10 rants about the
incredibility of the accused supported his own personal prejudice. As Juror #10 rants to the remainder of
the jury, all of them retreat. They don’t speak, they don’t argue. Their silence speaks volumes.

We aim to explore further about the differences of group and team, to look at their commitments, and
the way related barriers such complementary skills, justification, personal agendas being utilized before
achieving their team goals and overall team member performance. Besides, we are going to further
elaborate errors or biases in making decision and the way the group use equal part discussion,
argumentation and peer pressure to guide individual members toward a consensus with specific
approach.

Juror #1: Courtney B. Vance

He acts as a frontrunner or foreman. The personality of this juror demonstrates how agreeable and
conscientious he's. as an example, he considers to any or all opinions explained by all jurors carefully
and stuffed with attention. Beginning of the story he succeeded to manage the atmosphere within the
room till the height of the plot, he has fought with juror number 10 who argued his leadership.
The quality or real value that ready to justify about him is collectivism. It may be proved when he asked
every juror to involve the discussion give individual explanations and justification of the case. within the
aspect of his attitude and overall emotion are he's very control- emotion person during deliberation
process. He tells slowly and makes all understand about things until the top of the discussion. as an
example, when first round deliberation had only 1 jury voted for guiltless, even he voted for guilty but
he kept it as challenge and solves it professionally. He controls matters rationally, and sometimes
becomes problem-solver. At one point, his emotion has been challenged, where he refused from
becomes a foreman and he asked 10th juror to exchange his place. It shows how serious he's to
encounter such problems.

Personality, attitude and values of somebody can influence the choice making. How of these can affect,
we will see during this situation when 1st juror controls all the situations perfectly even sometimes it's
not. He tried to be fair and his attitude makes at the tip of the choice making became easily and
consistency. Stable emotion makes he decided slowly and to not follow angry mood. he's tried be the
simplest attitude during the discussion and ii considered as success because he can control 11angry men
at just one occasion.

Barriers can also affect higher cognitive process when emotions, attitude and personality can’t control
consistent. An example when 1st juror be mad to 10th juror and situation automatically the full room
became disturbance. it's not good attitudes for foremen in organized all the jurors. It is role to be
foremen or handle something big.

Juror #2: Ossie Davis

This juror is more silent and simply persuaded by the opinion of others. we are able to see when
majority of jurors raise their hand for guilty, he simply voted for guilty just to confirm the case received a
unanimous decision an ended early. Anyway, he was definitely wrong. When 1st jury asked him to justify
his verdict, he failed and looked clueless. He replied. ‘It is that the weakness of the man’. He had no
concise neither relevant explanation to defend his statement perfectly.

From the start until the tip of the discussion, the juror #2 didn’t participate much preferably taking note
of others arguments. we will say that the personality of this jury is passive and sometimes he had no
idea from what he argued. for instance, when 7th juror showed a knife, situation became chaotic but he
didn’t bothered much. one among the explanations why this juror became passive is maybe due to he
never be experienced become juror entire of his life.

All these factors are interrelated and comparatively affect higher cognitive process process because it
should influence to reliable and a high quality decision. Therefore, when this juror became over-passive,
he deciding would be stricken by whole.

This juror has more barriers compare to 1st juror. this can be because the he has more bad things
compared the positive things. the choice also not tough enough due to the case is about murder and not
talking about the straightforward case. Therefore, this juror can’t make his own decision and is} can be
big mistake when he just voted for the incorrect one.

Juror #3: George C. Scott

Emotions and mood also are displayed clearly visible and important to the film. Each juror is in a very
somewhat bad mood thanks to the warmth and lack of air-con within the room. This adds to the
conflicts. At various moments within the film, the juror seems to remote their feelings when someone
says something they are doing not trust.

George C. Scott includes a bad emotion and he also in high negative effect of emotional stage. His anger
we discover the actual fact his son, who he feels may be a coward. He also mourned the gap that has
grown between him and his son. Scott believes that his son should respect him the identical way he
honors his father, and rose with an iron first. He never questioned that perhaps so should see the
connection together with his son from another point of view.

In many ways, he's the antagonist to the constantly calm Juror #8. Juror #3 is straight away vocal about
the supposed simplicity of the case, and therefore the obvious guilt of the defendant. he's quick to lose
his temper, and sometimes infuriated when Juror #8 and other members afflict his opinions. He believes
that the defendant is totally guilty, until the very end of the play. During Act Three, Juror #3’s emotional
baggage is revealed. His poor relationship together with his own son may have biased his views.

George C. Scott is extremely emotional which emotion affected his higher cognitive process. The painful
memory of his own inspires his decision and as a result he voted for guilty. His anger grows because the
play progresses and a number of other times he makes relevancy his own son. Perhaps it's for this very
reason that Scott is so determined to vote innocent irrespective of how convincing facts were. He
remained stubborn to the very end until 8th jury reminded him that the defendant wasn't his son. By
the past experience prevented him from making logical decision.

Other barrier which will affect the choice making process by Scott character is selfish, arrogant and think
that he's always at the proper way. due to his attitude, other cannot communicate smoothly with him.

Juror #4: Armin Mueller-Stahl

A stockbroker; he's very eloquent and appears at the case more coherently than the opposite jurors
through facts and not bias. It seems that this role could be a character that focus getter. he's steadfast
within the belief that supported the very fact that the defendant is “guilty”, but he didn't attempt to
persuade others to vary their minds forcibly. In contrast, when given the chance he has expressed his
opinion Mueller-Stahl’s character will repeat information already known intellectually. He will take a bit
longer to quote facts right time and statistics to point out that he's an expert.

The ability to stay independent proves to be the foremost important character trait 4th jury. Throughout
the film characters Mueller-Stahl is ready to think independently, and never let personal bias or peer-
pressure affect his decision-making. When the 4th jury finally changed his vote clean-handed, this in
itself is enough to place the mind comfortable about the opposite person their own indecisiveness. he's
one amongst the few characters within the story that doesn't take sides, make alliances, or seek for
approval right off the bat. it's clear that he was there to hunt the reality, and everybody will listen twice
to create sure he has done just that. However, to think independently and without prejudice isn't the
sole asset Mueller-Stahl.

He is a businessman who is rational and reasonable, which allows him to appear the case with an open
mind. Unlike 3th jury, George C. Scott, Mueller-Stahl is in a position to speak the ideas and thinking he
was such an expert and do so in an organized fashion. He analyzed every bit of evidence carefully and
uses logic to guide his vote. it's important to notice that he was the second last jury to vary their vote to
acquitted. He tried his best to form a decent higher cognitive process and at last he chooses to vote
clean-handed for defendant.

The barrier which will affect the 5th jury higher cognitive process process is that the environment at the
jury room and he needs to pander to the opposite jury’s attitude before make a decent decision. it's
tasking to settle the case because everyone features a different view and different personality.

Juror #5: Dorian Horewood

Health care worker (possibly an EMT); he's from the Harlem slums; he connects with the person at trial
and is disgusted at the bigotry of Juror Ten. Initiating Horewood’s character was a disciple of the group.
He voted “guilty” during the primary vote, so showed reluctance to debate the case. He contributed to
group by demonstrating the way to use the knife during a fight, and spoke up to Mykelti Williamson and
George C. Scott characters.

This vital information juror gave concerning the employment of a knife which helped the jurors to higher
understand the concept of how the fatal wound was inflicted. Horewood’s character used his own
experiences as a guide to search out a reference to the subject at hand for the jurors. He perceived to
compare the case to his own life experiences, giving everyone a unique point of view.

Dorian Horewood experience makes him doubtful slum boy’s guiltiness. His upbringing within the slums
assisted him in thinking the opposite jurors of the innocent defendant. it's for this reason that he was
able to explain a way to tell a pocketknife. Perhaps with the knowledge he had accumulated by living in
an exceedingly slum gives the favorable position throughout much jury because he can relate thereto.
Naturally background jury five assists him in making a wise decision.

Experience will observe higher cognitive process. But, not all of the experience can apply within the
dependent case. that's the barrier was happening to the present character. He has got to find other
information and take others deem advantage to form a right decision.

Juror #6: James Gandolfini

He is a painter, a respectful one that sometimes displays professionalism in receiving ideas – towards
the top of the movie. Personality- he's showing a stable emotional stability which sometimes he can
control his emotion in addressing numerous and various behavior inside the jury room. At the start, he
amongst the lesser contributor (less participate) to the group higher cognitive process process. He gives
a quit good argument by observing “motive perception” but this fact has been argued as weak motive by
juror 8.

At first he voted for guilty. But when asked for clarification, he simply answered his evaluation relies on
the motive that he holds since the start of the discussion. He made the choice supported his feeling and
intuition. What I found is he's making confirmation bias, where every decision should be considered to
all or any relevant and dependable factors and not solemnly confirmed factor in and of itself, which
exactly came from testimonies.

He showed inconsistency in making decision where finally towards the top of the movie he switched his
verdict to guiltless .It happened after he listened up to some useful and a few reasonable doubt raised
by juror 8 and powerful facts raised by all non guilty-related jurors. The uncertainty avoidance is so high
where environmental factors like peer pressure really influence in his deciding.
Juror #7: Tony Danza
He is a salesman. He less concerned and fewer committed during this premeditated homicide case. His
participation is simply to mention his stands and the way his personal judgments toward the
deliberation process. he's mostly concerned of his baseball tickets and sometimes ignores what's
happening within the room. rather than yelling nonsense and unreliable facts just to precise his stands,
he's frequently argued to anyone that tries to convey point of view. He always rising up irrelevant and
non-concrete arguments and sometimes his emotions of anger and disgust, influence his higher
cognitive process. His personalities display his actual behavior, thus influences his deciding. for example,
he's impatient, hot tempered, some extend of irrationality, rude especially to those jurors older than
him.

Next, he frequently used shortcuts in judging the case. for example, from halo effect, he did mention the
child had bad history since the child was small and therefore the kid had committed some serious cases
before murdered case. it's indeed a part of error in making decision where he supposes to contemplate
other factor yet. His ability means the way he's solving any issue arises is unethical and not applies
professionalism in any respect. for example, he cannot accepts any opinions plus he simply leaved the
chair while juror 9 giving an arguments. It had shown how selfishness he was. Through the top of the
movie, after a concrete and acceptable arguments delivered by ‘non-guilty’ juror, he's finally changing
his verdict towards to not- guilty.

Now, his assumption depends on his institution where i think it’s because of a lesser number of ‘non-
guilty’ voters. additionally, it shows inconsistency (dissonance) and overconfidence bias as a part of his
verdict. These attributes has contributed to a really fundamental deciding of him.

Juror #8: Jack Lemmon

An architect: he's indeed the most protagonist of the film. At the very first minute and stage of the
movie, he's the sole juror who voted clean-handed. Each and each word delivered by him shows how
precisely and concisely determined. He always equipped himself with strong views (when addressing
different arguments) and holds his concrete philosophy of being positive and protagonist. He showed his
seriousness to deliberate the case thoughtfully and honestly as proposed by head-judge earlier. as an
example when he says “I just don’t find it easy to lift hand and send a boy to prison for life”. he's always
being attacked with “dangerous bullets” from those jurors who voted differently, but has shown an
ethical and extraordinary feedback. His emotional intelligence has successfully closed the barrier of
differentiation. Such determination (non-guilty decision) has dropped at a problem of re-deliberation of
the case.

At the center of the film, his character is prepared to acquiesce and can only switch his verdict, if other
jurors believe guilty would be the simplest decision to be imposed. The presence of juror 9 just make the
movie became more interesting where he suddenly change his mind to vote acquitted. This show the
ability of influence contributes to vary in perception and behavior of individual. He found reasonable
doubts about the case and it's astonished juror no 8 who obviously thankful with the choice. Then, it
keeps the talk alive till the top. He has proactive personality where he always identifies opportunities,
show initiatives, take action and preserve until meaningful change occurs until meaningful change
occurs, compared to most jurors who passively react to situations. for example, he tries to demonstrate
the particular action (probably the time of murdered) during a jury room .Even though it's cynical, but it
gives a biggest wakeup call ever in history or case deliberation process. apart from that, he succeeded to
lift reasonable doubt to the cases and manage to answer those jurors’ arguments accordingly to the
principal of law and rational- thinking based judgment. He has good emotional stability, where while he
has been accused to deliver sanctimonious talk, not behaving like reasonable man, likes to compose wild
stories. Anyway, he believes, he must be more persuasive, consistently producing rational deciding to
confirm that right decision is to be executed.

Jury’s #9: Hume Cronyn

Mc Ardle was acted by Hume Cronyn is that the real name for his character. he's a wise old man who
firstly decides that the child was guilty. But shortly when he heard some logic thoughts and clarification
from jury’s number 8, his verdict grow to be innocent . Then, he becomes close friend with jury’s
number 8. during this movie, the personality that we are able to see in Jury’s number 9 is he such an
openness guy, he displayed kindness personality because the oldest in jury’s meeting; he also has
curiosity to further “develop” the case. for instance, when he decided to alter his mind into acquitted.

He also has an agreeableness personality which he states his sympathize to the old man who attends as
a witness for that case. he's conscientiousness as he always pays attention throughout the “journey” of
the case. He unexpectedly came out with such concrete evidence when he mentioned “he realized how
the dress from the testimony” and” he saw the marks of spectacles within the woman eyes”. the worth
for jury’s number 9 shows is that the honesty in giving opinion and professional as being a 12 jury’s. As a
personality and value that's show, the jury’s number 9 attitudes and behavior is generally supported his
personality. He always be knowledgeable, by talking and behave in manner. He tried to elucidate in
good manner without hurting everyone with a softer voice.

Jury’s number 9 shows his emotion which is anger by raising his voice when one amongst the jury’s
ignored and leave the meeting due to him. we will say most of the time he had an occasional negative
effect mood which is calm, relaxed during this meeting. All the personality, values, attitudes, emotions
and mood, which is show by this jury’s, is that it doesn't give the bad impact in deciding. But it would
smooth the method of higher cognitive process. Because all the personalities, values, attitude, emotions
and mood that being mention is positive. The jury’s help to solving the matter, he gives the concept and
he also gives all the reason for each situation intimately. Other barriers which may be affected in
deciding is, fear to be failure. every body have fear, because sometime people start to rejecting a decent
idea simply because it shows that the result can be 100% failure, although its only come from their
thought, but thanks to fear to taking the danger, they have a tendency to avoid the concept which may
bring into successful. the explanation that they struggle to reject risk is because they can not handle
when someone’s telling them “I told you so, don’t try this, don’t do this.”

Jury’s #10: Mykelti Williamson

Ultimately shunned by the others, due to his loudmouth, narrow-minded bigot, extremely rude and
sometimes interrupt people. Someone who feels that there'll be no good outcome, this can be a kind of
man he's. Lastly he was ordered by jury’s 4 to “sit down” and to “not open his loudmouth again.” he's
jury’s number 10 the owner of carwash shop acted by Mykelti Williamson.

Most of the personality within jury’s 10 is reversed, first he score low on openness to experience. He
don't have an honest in imagination, that he cannot imagine and can't understand easily what the
others think, he tend to think that he's the sole one who are right, he cannot except his mistake and
have a tendency to stay together with his answers.
Other than that, he also score low in agreeableness when always insulting others and disrespect the
elders. He tends to point out that he not interested with others people problem and also with a grimy
mouth he talk recklessly about everything. for instance he says that child should be destroying because
they always give trouble to others which is why he sticks to mention guilty.

He also a neurotics’ type that irritated person and always get stressed easily, we will see whenever
everyone changes their vote. In value perspective, jury’s number 10 is unprofessionalism; he doesn't
understand how to manage his emotion. he's rude to older jurors than him. In emotion, it's obvious that
he such an anger person. He rose up his voice and scolds everyone when his opinion is rejected. Who
influences him in decision making? It’s hard to seek out the answer when an individual cannot listen and
accept others opinion and always think that he the sole one who is correct. It ends up in tight arguments
within them. as an example during this movie, we will most of them feels dissatisfy to jury’s 10- in terms
of his overall attributes.

Irrelevant idea- this can be also one among the factors that make the barriers into deciding. Some
people might fail to get a decent idea at the certain and specific time. They not even helping after they
try and produce the concept that we all know is irrational, but because they require to perceive as idea
provider, they have an inclination to lift argument-able ideas which is simply make higher cognitive
process complicated.

Jury’s #11: Edward James Olmos

Jury’s number 11 acted by Edward James Olmos, who work as watch maker most of the time is doing an
observant during this movie; he's an immigrant supported his essence, possibly from Europe country. He
believe and hopes that America can provides a justice and he want to determine how it done. we are
able to see for Jury’s 11 that jury’s 11 have conscientiousness personality, he always pay intention in
every detail, for instance when he asking the question ‘why that child return home after 3 o’clock’ it
shows that he listened alright from jury’s 8 opinion and theories. additionally he also introverts person
because most of the time within the meeting, he just being quiet. he's not an integrity person, which he
cannot decide where he stands with, weather with guilty or innocent side; this is often the solution for
his value.

For attitudes, we are able to say that jury’s 11 isn't confidence in what he do, we are able to see when
he looks hesitate to provide his opinion, because most of the time he do the observation, but lastly he
also attempt to give his opinion and provides an issue for everybody to think. He doesn't really shows his
emotion during this movie, but only a fatigue mood that's low positive affect.

How this factor affect decision making? It also affect the smoothness of manufacturing idea, because
most of the time, the person cannot generate a decent concept can support the choice making. It also
doesn't help because not participate within the process of deciding, because it look that this person
don't seem to be there.

Insufficient information is usually happen in higher cognitive process. Final verdict can't be made when
there's no information applicable. as an example in purchasing decision, to shop for Ferrari car rather
than BMW- because lack of relevant information, we don’t know which one is healthier and provides
highest satisfaction. deciding is often with useful information.
Juror #12: William Pettersen
He is among the juror that portrays no-interested, passion about the case at the start. he's busy about
his own personal matter instead of further participating within the discussion. he's marketing agency
and sometimes demonstrates his arrogant during this movie. His personality would be narcissisms
where he liked to create people viewing him not for the standard of the task. as an example when he
talked to 11th juror, he told that he's marketing agency and trying to search out everything that
associated with it. this can be to portray he's better than anyone else.

When we realize his personality, we already mentioned early that this person arrogant. This attitude
makes his mood within the discussion distracted from the case. It is proved that his attitude isn't good
and like selfish because just consider him but not consider the case that actually heavy to create
decision.

When the individual personality and attitude are way control by emotion? The mood and atmosphere
within the room affects the choice making from him-summer time. It contributes to no-quality decision.
His judgment relies from what he heard from the opposite jurors not and take a look at to work dead set
find other alternatives. Sometimes, he always busy along with his career instead of the case. He gave his
logic opinions to make sure he participated but actually he just came to satisfy the condition.

Conclusion
Film 12 Angry Men displayed strong, clear example of a bunch that formed to fulfill the tasks / purposes
and subsequent issues involved in completing a given task. 12 members of the jury experience through
the method of being formed, attack, norm, performing and postpone. Although short lived,
cohesiveness takes several different aspects. First, it's shown by 11 members initially voted guilty. Then,
the progressive social psychology change throughout the film because the jury began to question their
initial decision of guilt and, one by one, began to consider those voting clean-handed.

As a member of the group communication, strengthen cohesion because the whole of the opinion the
jury. additionally, members of the jury have focused more on the task-oriented behavior of social
behavior, which could have blocked lots of arguments. This group was formed for a selected purpose, a
time, so to make and strengthen the connection isn't a priority for the dissolution occurs when the
problem decision. Although challenged by the dynamics of the group itself, it absolutely was finally able
to perform a given task and postpone.

However, despite the short lifetime of this group, we see a wonderful example of the method of the
formation of groups and social psychology. Each of the 12 jurors plays different but important roles
throughout the film. We see the ability of informal leadership, the cycle of the changing role of
leadership, and great effort it takes to alter a random collection of people into a winning team.

We consider this to be a successful group because the task has been completed, social relationships are
developed to take care of the group and help them work together, and that we see evidence that the
individual jurors find satisfying personal experience. At the tip of the film, we believe that every member
reflects on developments since the initial vote and leave the court with a replacement vision and a sense
of satisfaction that was released a good decision.