ipl-logo

12 Angry Men Analysis

837 Words4 Pages

Many of the issues that were present in this film, such as discrimination, can relate to a lot of the same issues we are still dealing with today. This film was very realistic in illustrating the dialogue that occurs between jurors including the disagreements. Moreover, it showed a variety of different communication skills that we all use. In the beginning of the film, the judges’ countenance was very somber which I think reflected accurately on the attitudes of the other jurors. Many of the jurors were not really concerned with the seriousness of the case especially since some of the jurors had other obligations outside of the case. The judges’ posture and monotone voice that he displayed while he was giving the instructions gave the impression …show more content…

I often felt that throughout the film that juror number three and ten teamed up to become the focus of all of the debates and tried hard to discredit anyone else who had a different opinion than theirs. Overall, I think juror one did his best to defuse any arguments that arose during the deliberation. Juror number eight also took a lead due to his unpopular opinion. He gave a great example of cognitive complexity, and showed empathy towards the boy that was accused of this horrendous crime. He also influenced the others jurors to reevaluate their decisions and reconsider some of the testimonies by the witnesses. He looks at a lot of the points brought up critically and challenges the other jurors and hear their reasons as …show more content…

They stereotyped the defendant based off of his ethnicity and the neighborhood where they assumed he lived. They let their own generalizations cloud the actual facts—or lack thereof, and instead, almost had a boy sentenced to death for a crime they really were not sure he committed. With the exception of juror eleven and juror six there was not much of a difference, culturally. The two jurors that grew up in a culturally different environment became defensive regarding the stereotypes that were being spoken as facts. Although, jurors number three and ten waived the two of them off as ‘exceptions,’ and to not take their invective remarks as a personal attack. However, that just further proved their points, that you cannot generalize a group of people you deem as inferior simply based off of what you assume they are

Open Document