"Twelve Angry Men"

Résumé du document

The jury is an artificial group with no appointed leader. We may first think of one juror as the leader; however, as the movie goes on we discover that a leadership fight arises. Indeed, we can notice different kind of leaders during the movie.
The juror number one who decided to play the role of the leader and to organize the group embodies the first leader type. This role was accepted naturally among the group members when he asked them to take a seat and to respect the order. The second leadership style to appear is very destructive and taken by a very aggressive and persuasive juror. This juror also led the group and dominated the conversation as his view of the defendant being guilty was almost shared at unanimity. The last leadership kind appeared slowly and was the most effective one; it took power away from the two others. Henry Fonda gradually gained power as he stayed quiet, accepted to share opinions and opened the discussion.
The main leadership problem is thus a power struggle. Some jurors try to lead the group thanks to their own strategy, aggressiveness or listening. Consequently the juror number one who tried to be a leader by organizing the group is not really able to play his role until the end. While his organizational decisions were not contested, he lost his leadership as this basic organization was set and each one had a seat. His actions were not necessary anymore. The leadership fight ended when juror chose their side and abandoned aggressiveness.

Extraits

[...] Secondly, he was not in hurry and very patient. Henry Fonda managed to convince the other jurors by explaining his opinion and having arguments based on facts, which he tried to demonstrate. In contrary to having a ‘black and white' opinion like others, he expressed ‘room for doubt'. This phrase was the strength of his strategy. By joining him, the jurors were not saying guilty' right away, a position very difficult to take in this situation, but just showing they were ready and opened to discussion. [...]

[...] During the movie, the jurors changed to a guilty' vote one by one until a last juror stands alone. This resistance could have been peaceful if this last juror was calm and expressing his arguments. However, he was more and more violent, rejected every opinion, and did not listen to others. As a result, the entire group stopped arguing with him and preferred to spontaneously turn back him. The group rejected him as he created disruption. [...]

[...] While his organizational decisions were not contested, he lost his leadership as this basic organization was set and each one had a seat. His actions were not necessary anymore. The leadership fight ended when juror chose their side and abandoned aggressiveness Why did each juror change his mind? Which strategies did Henry Fonda use to make them change their mind/attitudes? The movie starts with the twelve jurors entering the room and taking place. It's a very hot day and they are not very inclined to take time around a table to discuss. [...]

[...] The presence of minorities in the jury would have greatly influenced the course of the discussion. In the movie, the jurors firstly preferred to vote ‘guilty'. They did not feel concerned with the case and believed that, because the boy was from a poor neighborhood, he was absolutely able to kill is father. If some of jurors were from a similar neighborhood they would have considered the case differently and their opinion would not have been based on some prejudges. [...]

[...] They would have taken into account details that the jurors would personally know. For example, some of the jurors could have been closed to the family, known one of the witnesses The impact of personally knowing the neighborhood where the murder happened was demonstrated in the movie when the juror number five expressed some hesitations. He was not considering only the facts from the case, but also some of his experience Why do none of the characters have names? Because none of the character have name, the audience can concentrate on the discussion of the case only. [...]