If Rose’s dialogue makes one wish occasionally for the more clipped speed of cop-show patter on today’s u, his story’s construction s impeccable. This is thrilling drama. Full Text (356 words) (Copyright Financial Times Ltd. 2004. All rights reserved. ) Such is the intensity of America’s presidential campaign that almost any play can seem loaded with topical meaning.
With Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men, a Roundabout Theatre revival, the idea that in 90 minutes one man could persuade 1 1 fellow jurors, many of them at first dogmatic, of his views in a murder case seems fantastical. In an era of excruciating partisanship, such a faith in rhetoric, in the swaying power of evidence, appears antediluvian. Yet such is the force of Scott Allis’s production that we not only accept such a situation but even, occasionally, are tempted to cheer it.
Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!
There is something restorative about the triumph of decency, even though our faith in it may have evaporated by the time we step outside the theatre. As the initial dissenter in the case – which involves a 16-year-old who has allegedly knifed his father to death – Boyd Gaines, as Juror Number Eight, oozes forthrightness, and as usual the actor puts one in mind of Jimmy Stewart – which at least distracts us from comparing him with the role’s movie interpreter, Henry Fond. I have never en the story’s original incarnation, a TV movie of 1954.
In the feature adaptation, as in a 1 997 remake with that avatar of earnestness, Jack Lemon, Juror Number Eight tended to dominate. Not so at the Roundabout: it is the excellence of the ensemble that makes the evening succeed. Though all 12 jurors are white men, they are a varied crew. They attempt to sit still around the heavy table at the centre of Allen Mower’s set, but in their passion keep leaping up to pace the room, mop their brows and peer out at an oppressively humid New York day.
Relying on their analytic abilities – this is ore clipped speed of cop-show patter on today’s W, his story’s construction is impeccable. This is thrilling drama. Tell +1 212 719 1300 More on Ft. Com/ arts: ‘Oriole’, Vienna Folksier, and the Hong Kong Philharmonic Orchestra This article describes the use of selected vignettes from the updated version of the film 12 Angry Men in a facilitated discussion to teach the principles of dialogue.
Dialogue is a process for transforming traditional conversation bactericides by defensive routines, agendas, and ineffective listening practices]into a communication strategy that can help individuals and organizations. The exercise may be tailored for use with undergraduate and graduate students, as well as practicing managers and executives, to illustrate barriers to effective communication and decision making and to identify strategies to overcome those barriers. Journal of Management Education, Volvo. 29, NO. , 792-815 (2005) DOI 10. 1177/1052562905277183 0 2005 The Organizational Behavior Teaching Society Using Motion Pictures to Teach Management: Refocusing the Camera Lens Through the Infusion Approach to Diversity Imminent A. Bumps Howard University Motion pictures and television shows can provide mediums to facilitate the earning of management and organizational behavior theories and concepts. Although the motion pictures and television shows cited in the literature cover a broad range of cinematic categories, racial inclusion is limited.
The objectives of this article are to document the exclusivity, provide possible explanations for the exclusivity, expand the current literature by providing motion picture options that feature actors of color in leading roles, demonstrate that movies with actors of color in leading roles are applicable for teaching topics other than diversity, and advocate an infusion approach to perversity. Key Words: communication D diversity D leadership L] motivation U indentures C] perception 0 role conflict 12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men, starring Henry Fond, was shot in black and white and runs for 92 minutes.
The plot concerns a jury of 12 White men discussing their verdict in a trial in which an 1 8-year-old Spanish American boy is accused of murdering his father. The prosecution case is strong; the defense is weak. Initially, 11 jurors vote guilty. One (Fond) feels that there is reasonable doubt. A guilty verdict will lead to a mandatory death sentence. The jury eventually decides not guilty after Fond persuades each of the jurors in turn to change their minds. The achievement of Fond’s character generates the plot Of the film and provides the basis for an analysis Of the interpersonal influence process.
Apart from the conceptualizing sequence at the beginning and the final courtroom and departure scenes, the action takes place around the table in the jury room. Most characters are identified by occupation or personal characteristics rather than by name and represent a broad social mix: sports coach (jury foreman), bank clerk, owner of messenger service, dockworker, man from slums, house painter, baseball fan, architect (Fond), old man, garage owner, watchmaker, and advertising man. Following our critical interrogation approach, what is the thesis of this film?
The central thesis appears to be that jury decisions are not based exclusively on a rational consideration of the evidence presented but are colored by contextual, temporal, processors, social, and emotional factors and on a range of overt and covert influencing tactics. The event sequence of the film revolves around a series of influence attempts, through which Fond’s character gradually urns the jury to deliver a not guilty verdict, thus saving the defendant’s life. The explanation for this outcome lies with the combination of factors summarized in Table 2.
Enlarge 200% Enlarge 400% Table 2 The Thesis of 1 2 Angry Men The evidence to support this thesis is compelling. The physical setting is significant. The jurors are sequestered in a small, hot, locked, and guarded room. Later, a storm rages outside, encouraging joint action to adjust ventilation. They are uncomfortable and irritable. There is no escape, until a verdict is reached. The time frame is significant. Some jurors just want to eave; others want to discuss the issues. The more prolonged the discussion, the more frustrated some jurors become, making them more susceptible to influence attempts.
The decision-making process is significant. This takes the form of a secret ballot, followed by discussion punctuated by further ballots. Sometimes, this discussion involves the whole group, sometimes a subset. The group dynamics are significant. Some group members are antagonistic toward others, rejecting their views out of hand, whereas others are prepared to establish friendships and listen to the opinions of others. The atmosphere of debate is significant. This is sometimes cool and rational, on occasion highly emotional, verging on violence, sometimes evidence based, sometimes based more on perception and prejudice.
Fond deploys an array of influencing behavior: preparation, nationalization language, dramatic timing, physical positioning, exposing contradictions, and conflicts through careful questioning, using questions to encourage self-doubt and self- realization, signposting contributions, using a secret ballot to avoid group pressure, exposing views at other times to public scrutiny, encouraging public commitment, interpreting and representing facts in an advantageous manner, challenging opinions to destabilize the majority view, self-disclosure, attentive and sympathetic listening, accepting tokens of friendship, offering token assistance, demonstrating proof through reconstruction, playing on personal preferences, exploiting group mood, and slowly building a powerful coalition. Some tactics fail and are either abandoned or are repeated with greater effect at another time. To what degree does this argument generalize to other settings and to practice?
From a naturalistic perspective, it is not difficult to see how one’s opinions and decisions are colored not only by the information with which we are presented but also by the characteristics (pleasant or otherwise) of our physical surroundings, timing (pressured or relaxed), the sequence of events (and our engagement in this flow), group dynamics (the quality of relationships), feelings (friendly, antagonistic), and influencing tactics deployed by others. From an analytical perspective, theories that are dyadic, episodic, and decentralized appear to offer partial accounts of the influence process. With respect to jury behavior, recent research offers support for the thesis of 1 2 Angry Men. Seekers and Seekers (2001) argue that although most court cases appear to be decided on evidence, training can improve the credibility of witnesses and the effectiveness of lawyers who often test versions of the evidence with focus groups to establish the best trial approach.
Basing his account on participant observation as a jury foreman in a murder trial, Burnett (2001 ) reveals how the verdict was influenced by a combination of factors, including a tyrannical judge, mediocre contributions from police and layovers, the composition and intellectual capabilities of the jury, physical isolation, group dynamics, and a angel of intimate and violent emotional displays, in addition to the evidence of the case. Pedagogical implications. Conventional accounts tend to focus on one-on-one or dyadic influence attempts, advocating the use of a relatively narrow range of techniques, the choice of approach being contingent on the characteristics of the person to be influenced. Spins, Schmidt, Swift-Smith, and Wilkinson (1984) identify eight influencing techniques, including assertiveness, ingratiation, rational appeal, sanctions, exchange, upward appeal, blocking, and coalition.
Calling (2001 ) offers a similar analysis based n what he calls “weapons of influence,” prescribing different forms of words to use with different influence targets. Williams and Miller (2002) recommend tailoring influence attempts to the decision-making style of the target. The unit of analysis in these accounts tends to be the influence attempt or episode. Although valuable, these dyadic-episodic perspectives do not account for the wider contextual, temporal, processors, social, and emotional factors that can condition influence or persuasion attempts. By conceptualizing the influence process, 12 Angry Men offers a more rounded and complex perspective on the use Of influence tactics.
Although we know that this is fiction, it is tempting to conclude that this film offers a more realistic portrayal of the process of interpersonal influence in organizational settings than many textbook accounts. Twelve Angry Men is a very interesting play about an unfortunate young man, who was convicted of killing his dad. The worst part was, the young man was only nineteen, and his life was just starting. The jurors listened to all the evidence, then came the hard part, making the decision: guilty, or innocent. Eleven jurors said guilty and only one said innocent. There was a lot of peer pressure involved. I decided to write about different peer pressures three of the jurors used. The three jurors I picked are juror #10, juror #7, and juror #8.
The first juror I want to write about is #10. Juror #10 was using a lot of sarcasm, whenever he was trying to prove his point, or prove someone else wrong. Think that this method of peer pressure is one of the most powerful ones. I believes so, because when you are embarrassed in front of 11 other people (in this case jurors) you do not know, really lowers your self-esteem. It may lower it to the point where you will say guilty, eve though dive.. Altos very art to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth. ‘ Juror 8, page 53] Perhaps this best sums up the basis of twelve Angry Men’ by Reginald Rose.
This play is about a young delinquent on trial for the murder of his abusive father. The jury must find him guilty if there is no reasonable doubt, and in turn, sentence him to death. Del don’t envy your job. You are faced with a grave responsibility. ‘ [Judge, page 1] People’s bias and predispositions can affect their opinion of different circumstances and different people. This is very evident throughout the play. After the first group vote and juror 8 votes not guilty, a discussion ensues. It is there that the jurors’ personal prejudices come out and we the readers/ viewers are able to see how this has influenced and shaped what they think. There are many examples Of this.
Juror 3 is perhaps the most prejudiced of all the jurors, fighting every argument… Twelve Angry Men is a wonderful film that dramatists the “imperfections” inherent in the American jury system. Simultaneously, it delivers the powerful message that because we are human beings and not machines, it is in the nature of things that justice demands such a system. At the outset, eleven jurors vote in favor of convicting the accused without even discussing a single shred of the evidence presented at trial. Only one brave juror refuses to vote. He openly admits that he does not know whether the accused is guilty or innocent and that he finds it necessary to simply talk about the case.
What follows is not only a discussion of the particular facts of the case, but an intense examination of the personal baggage that each jury member brings to the room. It’s great that the film is not overtly critical of the fact that the juror’s personal baggage is not checked t the door. Many critics argue that the jury system works against justice because a jury is not trained to d… Twelve angry men After seeing the film twelve angry men just recently, I have been very impressed by the way the film shows how many flaws there are in the juror system of America. The flaws were shown by the jurors bringing their own values and beliefs into the jury room and causing prejudice and racism which clouded their judgment. After watching this film, it lead me to wonder about the racism and Prejudice in Australia.
The twelve angry men showed a lot of prejudice and racism from the jurors. Juror #10 was very Prejudice when talking about the kid. He kept saying “them” and “they”, referring to slums, he was saying that because one person born in a slum environment does something wrong they all do. Juror #3 was trying to punish the kid because his own son needed to be disciplined. Juror # Despite its flaws, the jury system is our best guarantee that justice will prevail. The flaws which jurors potentially bring to their duty are apathy and antipathy. But the line… Movie: Twelve Angry Men The movie Twelve Angry Men begins with an eighteen year old boy from the ghetto who is on trial for the murder of his abusive father.
A jury of twelve men are locked in the deliberation room to decide the fate of the young boy. All evidence is against the boy and a guilty verdict would send him to die in the electric chair. The judge informs the jurors that they are faced with a grave decision and that the court would not entertain any acts of mercy for the boy if found guilty. Even before the deliberation talks begin it is apparent most of the men are certain the boy is guilty. However, when the initial poll is taken Juror #8 (Henry Fond) registers a shocking not guilty vote. Immediately the room is in uproar. The rest of the jury resents the inconvenient of his decision.
After questioning his sanity they hastily decide to humor the juror #8 (Henry Fond) by agreeing to discuss the trial for one hour. Eventually, as the talks proceed juror… 12 Angry Men Essay Juror#3 In a crowded jury room in downtown New York, opinions collide as discussion about the innocence of a young boy is decided. The dark and foreboding storm clouds that hang over the heads of the jurors are beginning to lift as time progresses and new facts are presented. One juror is not happy about this stay of execution and is holding fast his opinion of guilty. Juror three, the president of his business, refuses to alter his vote or opinion in any way.
Still haunted by his own son, juror three verbally assaults the group with a forceful tone and a taciturn attitude. One footnote, Reginald Rose created them all from the same pen and ink, and they could all be no more different. Juror three is angry, bitter man who has spent his entire life forcing his opinions unto others, and has most likely succeeded in this endeavor. As head of his own company, he isn’t he used to the resistance he is getting from the group. To help his arguments, he uses the Para… BIJOU’S Organizational Behavior – 12 Angry Men Analysis The 1957 film 12 Angry Men is about a group of twelve jurors who are brought together to decide the fate Of a minority teenage boy accused of stabbing his father to death.
It IS a hot day in New York City which adds to the tension that builds up between the jurors in the small deliberation room. The jurors are all male, mostly middle-aged, white, and middle class. The film examines the jurors own experiences and views as they expose themselves, which ultimately plays a role in how they vote in the case. We see why people make the decisions that they do and what in their life drives them to make retain judgments. Each juror had his own personal prejudices and biases, weaknesses, cultural differences, ignorance and fears that impaired their decision making skills and cause them to ignore the real issues of the case. Each juror played a role in the final verdict. Juror No. Is the appointed foreman of the group who… The jury in a trial is selected to examine certain facts and determine truth based only upon the evidence presented to them in court. It is assumed that the jurors will judge fairly and without any personal bias. In spite of this assumption people will be people and in some cases, OIC and emotion will collide. An excellent example that shows precisely what I’m talking about is in the movie Twelve Angry Men. Twelve men who initially are strangers to each other have the fate of a young boy resting in the palm of their hands. In the beginning everyone is convinced he is guilty except one who has one reasonable doubt in his mind.