Movie Analysis 2

Chris Roehrich

Small Group Communication (SPCH 370)

 Move Analysis 2

Introduction. Sidney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men is a 1957 black and white film production

starring Henry Fonda. This movie follows the 12 men of the jury who just sat through six days

of court for the 1st degree murder charge of a 18 year old boy accused of stabbing his own father.

The film is primarily shot in the jury room, there’s very little “action” by today’s standards but

there is plenty of drama and high-stakes tension with this group of 12 angry men. In this paper I

will consider the following topics: the team formation, leadership and followership,

communication, social influence and power, diversity and inclusion, and decision making. As

one watches this film, you may think this group of 12 men is by no means a team or an

organization, but I think there is more than meets the eye with this group of men.

Team Formation. Our textbook identifies the following as the five stages of group

development: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning (Levi & Askay, 2021,

p.49). In my opinion, these five stages are quite evident in this film. This is a team of men, not

by choice, not by creed or calling, but strictly because they have answered their citizenly duty to

stand jury duty at a trial. The initial stages where the group was forming and getting to know

each other in the early parts of the film were the least intense of the whole film. In many ways it

seems the team never makes it out of the storming phase, the group of men seemed to always

have conflict and disagreements with each other. Our textbook tells us that this storming phase

is healthy for the team in its initial development (Levi & Askay, 2021, p.48). This team did

transition through all the stages of development though they fought the entire way.

Leadership and Followership. One of the intriguing parts of this film was the constant

question of who was actually in charge of this group of 12 men. According to the structure given

by the court, the foreman of the jury was in charge; according to the actions taking place in the
jury room, one could think differently. Our textbook tells us there are as many definitions of

leadership as there are leaders, yet it gives this general concept: “a goal oriented influence

process between a leader and followers” (Levi & Askay, 2021, p.194). I think the movie

depicted a couple of good leaders; I thought the foreman of the jury was a good leader and I

thought Henry Fonda’s character was a good leader as well. The foreman of the jury nearly lost,

or gave up, his position early on in the film when the group was going through the storming

stage of development. The foreman was entirely unsatisfied, and his goals and needs were not

being met so at one point he crosses his arms and goes quiet in a fit of disgust for the group. I

enjoyed how the film drew out the difference between who was in charge, the foreman of the

jury, and who had the best ideas or knowledge for the situation, Henry Fonda’s character. This

was a great balancing act to watch the whole time.

Communication. Suffice to say, this team had trouble communicating effectively for

most of the film. Communication involves a sender’s attempt to produce a message that conveys

an internal state (Levi & Askay, 2021, p.106). Additionally, the content dimension focuses on

what is said verbally and the relational dimension focuses on how it is said through nonverbal

cues (Levi & Askay, 2021, p.107). I thought the film did a great job of showing these points; the

team did communicate enough to transition through the stages of development. There was a

great disconnect between what was said and how it was said throughout the entire movie. I think

the scene that best summarized this was when Henry Fonda’s character confronts Lee J. Cobb

and calls him a sadist. This really let the audience know exactly what Henry Fonda’s character

was understating every time Lee J. Cobb’s character had a blow up. Once the team made it

through the forming and norming stage, communication had gotten to a point where there were

some ground rules established and the team could communicate sufficiently to begin making
decisions. I think one thing this group could have learned from the beginning was to treat each

other with respect no matter and to be polite in how they respond to others’ ideas and thoughts.

Social Influence and Power. Power is an individual’s ability to exert influence on

others (Levi & Askay, 2021, p.169). Power and social influence were on great display in this

film. A number of the jury members used aggressiveness and harsh power, which came from

their experiences in life, in an attempt to influence the other jurors. Others, like Henry Fonda’s

character, used soft power to have a respectful conversation. The movie did a great job of

adding some physical characteristics to this power dilemma to really show the gap that existed

between jurors. Again, all this power and communication was an attempt to exert influence on

each other’s vote. The methods had the same goal, to affect another person’s vote. The results

speak for themselves in this film, the boy was innocent of the charges. The film did a great job

of playing out the full results of using harsh power in a team environment, eventually each of the

team members lost respect for those that used harsh power. For this team to improve, ideas need

to be treated respectfully. The team can draw upon their past experiences and beliefs to affect

the situation; however, all discourse needs to be respectful. Had the team been more respectful,

then the one juror with ballgame tickets may have made the game.

Diversity and Inclusion. At first glance, this team may not appear to be very diverse;

they were all men, primarily Caucasian, and none of the jurors were the defendant’s age. But as

we learn about the three different types of diversity; variety, separation, and disparity, then we

can start to see just how diverse this group of guys were (Levi & Askay, 2021, p.260). All three

of these forms of diversity were present in this jury room; which resulted in the team eventually

making the correct decision to pronounce the defendant as not guilty. The movie did an

excellent job of showing how each of these areas of diversity could also be a hinderance as well,
many of the comments made in the jury room were out of personal bias based on select

individual’s experiences. Many times these statements were not made with any respect, nor did

the speaker even attempt to consider another person’s interpretation of how their comments

could sound. Our textbook says diversity can be one of the greatest things about a team (Levi &

Askay, 2021, p.259). The jurors in this movie did not immediately capitalize on their diversity;

again, a little respect for each other would have immediately changed the course of this jury

deliberation.

Decision Making. Our textbook says decision making is the central activity of a team

(Levi & Askay, 2021, p.172). Indeed, in this film, the entire point of the jury was to decide if the

boy was guilty or not guilty; nothing else mattered. And the door was locked to keep them in to

make a decision. The jurors had to make a consensus decision, where all the members

collectively agree with the decision (Levi & Askay, 2021, p.181). I chose this topic last because

this is the one sole purpose of the jury. Initially, none of the above paragraphs mattered to the

jurors, but by the time a decision was made, all of the above paragraphs were discussed. And it

was all in an attempt to make a single decision. Given the nature of the situation and need for a

full consensus, this was no easy task for the jury. The failures to have polite and respectful

conversation, and the failure of some to overcome some personal biases really hampered the jury

from making a decisions much quicker. For this team to be more successful, again, they need to

be more respectful of each other. This would allow for them to capitalize on their differences as

positive things instead of continually trying to beat each other up or claw for power and self-

worth.

Conclusion. The film 12 Angry Men was quite an intense film with very little real

action. The film did a great job of drawing out how our individual beliefs, biases, and values
have an effect on each other and our communication with each other. For me, the single best

learning point from this film was to be more respectful of each other’s ideas and to show a little

respect for ideas that are different from our own. Had this group of 12 jurors been able to do that

they would have arrived at the same conclusion but in a much faster and less stressful way.
 References

Lumet, S. (1957). 12 Angry Men [Film]. Orion-Nova.

Levi, D. (2017). Group dynamics for teams. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.