12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men Analysis

The movie 12 Angry Men is a very abstract movie. It gets the audience thinking about the clues and the fact of the matter which is if the boy is actually guilty. This movie shows many of the concepts that are talked about in our book and in our class. The movie is about an 18 year old boy whose mother has died when he was 9. He has lived in many orphanages and has a juvenile record. His father has been in and out of jail for many things, and on one night that the boy apparently kills him they have gotten into a terrible argument. The jury has to deliberate on whether or not the boy is guilty of killing his father. The minute the jury got into the holding room to talk about it, they immediately wanted to charge him with the guilty verdict so they can get out and about. Something that's done often in small groups so the situation is solved fast. This movie is mainly about prejudice and how they take a toll on our decision making and views.

When the jury first gets together, there is obviously primary tension. This is due to interpersonal sources which are expected when there is a group of people that do not know each other and are uncomfortable for the very first time. There were many interventions between the group concerning jokes, shyness, and most importantly the primary tension to be the appointed head foreman. This role is classified as a designated role. This role is very demanding and at some point overturned to Peter Fonda's character without even knowing. Nonverbal communication actually gives the new role an affirmative response due to the responsiveness of the other jurors and the eloquent listening participation and new found respect they have for Peter Fonda's character. This is a characteristic of emergent leadership. One of the communication concepts that Fonda demonstrates throughout the movie is the contingency concept. This holds that attaining appropriate leadership behaviors depends on the situation. Fonda attained this concept very eloquently. He had to take into consideration that he was going to be facing very tough ridicule and since he knew nothing of the other jurors, he had to keep an open mind about all of their suggestions as well. Nonverbal communication is displayed throughout the deliberations. Approving smiles for Peter Fonda from the other jurors and vice versa, looks of anger and rage, and of course the impatience of one juror with the other jurors persuading them to vote guilty so they can finish quicker. Many of the characters displayed ethos, pathos, and logos. Peter Fonda's character heavily relied on ethos and logos to make his point throughout the film by analyzing everything