12 Angry Men Movie Analysis Essay Example for Free

12 Angry Men Movie Analysis Essay After the jurors go to the meeting room to discuss and arrive at consensus whether the young boy is guilty or not, we get to see different personalities combined to form a group to resolve the issue. Initially 11 out of 12 jurors voted in favour of boy being guilty. Therefore, first prominent thing I noticed was that there was lack of conviction about the criticality of the issue. People had already formed their judgement before they stepped into the meeting room. They believed the testimonies of several eyewitnesses and the arguments of the prosecutor leading to the conclusion that the boy was guilty. In the beginning, 11 out of 12 jurors were not sensitive about the seriousness of the decision they were going to make and the impact it was going to have on the young boy’s life. They were not ready to waste any time over discussing that issue because they had already perceived the young boy guilty based on his background and crimes he committed before as well as the jurors’ previous experiences in life. See more:Â  Manifest Destiny essay When the protagonist in the movie showed opposition to agree the boy’s guilt, then the rest of the people became frustrated since they had to come to consensus to give a judgement. This showed the conviction and thoughtfulness of the protagonist to the criticality of their objective as jurors. It was also evident that being a minority does not mean you have to go majority’s way under the influence or pressure of majority against your wish. After listening to the protagonist, juror started changing their original guilty decision one by one. This showed their willingness to change their stance having been convinced by the protagonist’s logic. Protagonist stuck to the practicality of the situation and logic in order to bring the possible flaws in the testimonies of the eye witnesses by reproducing the situations and verifying the possibility of authenticity of the testimony. In doing so, he influenced the members of the group that there are lacunae in the testimonies, and the benefit of doubt needs to be given to the boy when it is a matter of his life and death. The various people in the group started applying their mind and making sense of the possible flaws in the testimonies. Many started to pitch in their ideas and the protagonist was listening to them all and using them to strengthen his hypothesis of uncertainty about boy being guilty. Now they started utilizing the resources in the group to make the most informed decision. The group dynamics was at work the best. They were supplementing each other’s logic by their own logic in order to make a conclusion of the veracity of the evidence and its testimony. There were a couple of aggressive people in the group. When one of them lashed out at the old man in the group, another person intervened and warned him not to repeat insulting behaviour. Thus, along the way the group stated forming norms about the behaviour in the group. Also, when one man changed his judgement just for the sake of it in order to come to consensus sooner than later, then another person made it a point to him by saying that he needed to present his logic for changing his decision and he did not want to accept his ‘yes’ or ‘no’ just for the sake of it. Some people engaged themselves in social loafing without regard to the seriousness of the objective; they were reminded of the objective by others. Last person son left so he was seeing his son in the young boy.