12 Angry Men The Film Essay

In check overing the film 12 Angry Men, I bemuse identified many types of stoop evasive action being utilized by the jurywomans. The five tactics that I recollect were close to used in this film were reason or shrewd persuasion, coalition building, insinuation, inspiration and pressure. Although there were several jurors throughout the film who whitethorn have turn out mistakable tactics at various times, it is my t genius that the majority of the influencing throughout the reckoning came from juror 8. I do think there were former(a) jurors that attempted to influence with the equivalent amount of tenacity, however, their tactics were less affective as proven by the outcome of the deliberation and verdict decided by the jury.As the jury amazes their deliberation very early on in the film, a word takes place where it becomes unvarnished rough of the jurors atomic number 18 speaking as though it will be a quick unity which will result in a guilty verdict. When the first vote takes place and juror 8 is the only(prenominal) one to vote not guilty, he begins to demonstrate some of the influence tactics discussed above. I believe that juror 8 himself demonstrated reasoning, coalition building, innuendo and inspiration tactics. He reminded the other jurors that he was not unavoidably saying that the boy was not guilty, however, he did not believe the evidence was strong enough to take away reasonable distrust that possibly the boy didnt commit the crime. He insisted that they tout ensemble review the evidence and discuss it in more detail. He was reasoning with the other jurors and stating a circumstance about what they should be basing their vote on. It is clear that juror 8 was exhibiting effective rational persuasion by presenting factual information, make very clear, specific, and relevant orients. Reasoning is the most commonly used influence tactic in general as well as the most commonly used tactic in this film.Once juror 8 was a ble to convince a few of the other jurors to too headland the evidence, they started to build a coalition where multiple individuals were now also dispute the guilty verdict and some of the evidence. This may not have necessarily been a conscience decision to form a coalition, as one may chance with a typical example such as a union, however, the simple fact that there were now several individuals all aligned on a decision seemed to be enough to bear others to explore additional scenarios and feelcomfortable questioning the evidence.There were also times in the film where juror 8 gave credit to another(prenominal)(prenominal) juror and made him feel like their opinion real numberly mattered. When juror 8 t aged(prenominal) juror 9 that he had a right to be heard and asked that he explain why he thought the old man would be lying is an example of the ingratiation influence tactic. Although this wasnt outright flattery as a more pointed example of ingratiation might be, telling someone their voice counts is enough to boost their vanity and could result in influencing their decision to side with the person using the ingratiation tactic.Lastly, it seemed apparent that most of the jurors in that room whether they were at a point where they agreed with the not guilty verdict or not, seemed somewhat divine by juror 8s willingness to stand alone for what he believed was the right thing to do. Taking a lone stance in the beginning of this deliberation and continuing to question the evidence to induce discussion is something that I believe the other jurors admired. Throughout the film, juror 8 continues to demonstrate leadership characteristics by challenging the status quo and never losing control of his emotions. He never seemed to be taking a stance for any in the flesh(predicate) reasons, he never demonstrated any prejudice and he came crosswise very authentic. This influence tactic, although not intentional, can be descri crinkle as inspiration.Juror 3 is the loudest and most adamant juror in advance of a guilty verdict along with juror 10. Juror 3 grows increasingly angry throughout the film as other jurors begin to change their vote from guilty to not guilty. Throughout the film he can be seen using the pressure influence tactic, attempting to strong-arm, threaten and restrain the others into agreeing with him. He used an aggressive tone and an unnecessary high plenty when speaking to the group. This type of tactic may work well in environments such as military basic training, along with a legitimacy tactic, but not amongst peers or in situations where the person doing the pressuring does not make any real authority or pose any real threat to the group. There were no real consequences for the other jurors to be forced to succumb to juror 3s pressure tactics.At one point in the discussion, the foreman states, All of this fighting is getting us nowhere. It is my opinion that this statement couldnt be further from the truth. For juror 8 to take a jury of 11 men believe the boy is guilty to having every one of those 11 men lastly change their decision based on the discussion he combust shows that all of the fighting or discussion was very necessary and really did result in a different outcome because of the issues that were brought out during the conflict. In most cases where the stakes are high, discussions are necessary to ensuring that all of the facts are laid out.To demonstrate specific examples of where discussion was impactful to the deliberation, a few tell apart scenes can be sited. One of the first scenes where the audience can see this shown is when juror 8 asks to see the knife that killed the man. During the trial it was stated that this was a rare switchblade and when juror 8 produces a very similar knife that he picked up from a store in the same neighborhood as the father and son, doubt is now starting to return in with some of the other jurors which then causes them to reconsider their p osition. Other get a line scenes where their disagreements resulted in a robust discussion that ultimately swayed jurors decisions include a re-enactment of the old man getting out of bed to witness the boy running out of the apartment.Without a full on debate, they would have never figured out that this was genuinely impossible to do in the 15 seconds that the old man said it took. In another scene the jury also discussed the old womans affirmation that she saw the murder take place through the el train. If they had not gone through this in detail and figured out that she actually wore glasses and couldnt have seen the assailant very clearly, some jurors would have still been convinced that the only eye witness did in fact see the boy murder his father. These extremely important details were sight through a robust discussion or conflict and were short pertinent in the ultimate decision to acquit the boy in the murder.Works CitedEdrogen, T. B. (2013). Organizational Behvavior v 1.1. Flatworld. Rose, R. (Director). (1957). 12 Angry Men Motion Picture.