The Movie 12 Angry Men Philosophy Essay

The movie 12 Angry Men depicts the story about 12 people serving as jury who have completely different attitudes, personalities, emotions and approaches in judging this premeditated homicide case. These attributes have affected them to deliberate the case and they are facing with a “grave responsibility” so, a unanimous verdict needs to be achieved. The main idea of this movie is to display and determine whether those men have acted as a team and to analyze whether they are practicing the group dynamics as they weighed testimony, evidence and personal agendas.

In the organization behavior perspective, individual personality, mood and emotions are among the barriers and constraints in making decision. By referring to this movie, we have further analyzed each and every one of them. This movie applies whole related-concepts especially in organization environment and how this aspects influence them. This is the responsibility of them on how to encounter such differences – either decision, or argument.

We aim to explore further about the differences of group and team, to examine their commitments, and how related barriers such complementary skills, justification, personal agendas being utilized before achieving their team goals and overall team member performance. Besides, we will further elaborate errors or biases in making decision and how the group use equal part discussion, argumentation and peer pressure to guide individual members toward a consensus with specific approach.

Juror #1: Courtney B. Vance

He acts as a leader or foreman. The personality of this juror demonstrates how agreeable and conscientious he is. For example, he considers to all opinions explained by all jurors carefully and full of attention. Beginning of the story he succeeded to control the atmosphere in the room till the peak of the plot, he has fought with juror number 10 who argued his leadership.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

The quality or real value that able to justify about him is collectivism. It can be proved when he asked every juror to involve the discussion give individual explanations and justification of the case. In the aspect of his attitude and overall emotion are he is very control- emotion person during deliberation process. He tells slowly and makes all understand about the situation until the end of the discussion. For instance, when first round deliberation had only one jury voted for not guilty, even he voted for guilty but he kept it as challenge and solves it professionally. He controls the situation rationally, and sometimes becomes problem-solver. At one point, his emotion has been challenged, where he refused from becomes a foreman and he asked 10th juror to replace his place. It shows how serious he is to encounter such problems.

Personality, attitude and values of someone can influence the decision making. How all these can affected, we can see in this situation when 1st juror controls all the situations perfectly even sometimes it is not. He tried to be fair and his attitude makes at the end of the decision making became easily and consistency. Stable emotion makes he decided slowly and not too follow angry mood. He is tried be the best attitude during the discussion and ii considered as success because he can controls 11angry men at one time.

Barriers also can affected decision making when emotions, attitude and personality can’t controlled consistent. An example when 1st juror be mad to 10th juror and situation automatically the whole room became disturbance. It is not good attitudes for foremen in organized all the jurors. It can be role to be foremen or handle something big.

Juror #2: Ossie Davis

This juror is more silent and easily persuaded by the opinion of others. We can see when majority of jurors raise their hand for guilty, he simply voted for guilty just to ensure the case received a unanimous decision an ended early. Anyway, he was definitely wrong. When 1st jury asked him to justify his verdict, he failed and looked clueless. He replied. ‘It is the weakness of the man’. He had no concise neither relevant explanation to defend his statement perfectly.

From the beginning until the end of the discussion, the juror #2 didn’t participate much preferably listening to others arguments. We can say that the personality of this jury is passive and sometimes he had no idea from what he argued. For example, when 7th juror showed a knife, situation became chaotic but he didn’t bothered much. One of the reasons why this juror became passive is probably because of he never be experienced become juror entire of his life.

All these factors are interrelated and relatively affect decision making process because it may influence to reliable and a quality decision. Therefore, when this juror became over-passive, he decision making would be affected by whole.

This juror has more barriers compare to 1st juror. This is because the he has more bad things compared the positive things. The decision also not tough enough because of the case is about murder and not talking about the simple case. Therefore, this juror can’t make his own decision and this is can be big mistake when he just voted for the wrong one.

Juror #3: George C. Scott

Emotions and mood are also displayed clearly visible and important to the film. Each juror is in a somewhat bad mood due to the heat and lack of air conditioning in the room. This adds to the conflicts. At various moments in the film, the juror seems to remote their feelings when someone says something they do not agree with.

George C. Scott has a bad emotion and he also in high negative effect of emotional stage. His anger we find the fact his son, who he feels is a coward. He also mourned the distance that has grown between him and his son. Scott believes that his son should respect him the same way he honors his father, and rose with an iron first. He never questioned that maybe so should see the relationship with his son from another point of view.

In many ways, he is the antagonist to the constantly calm Juror #8. Juror #3 is immediately vocal about the supposed simplicity of the case, and the obvious guilt of the defendant. He is quick to lose his temper, and often infuriated when Juror #8 and other members disagree with his opinions. He believes that the defendant is absolutely guilty, until the very end of the play. During Act Three, Juror #3’s emotional baggage is revealed. His poor relationship with his own son may have biased his views.

George C. Scott is very emotional and that emotion affected his decision making. The painful memory of his own inspires his decision and as a result he voted for guilty. His anger grows as the play progresses and several times he makes reference to his own son. Perhaps it is for this very reason that Scott is so determined to vote not guilty no matter how convincing facts were. He remained stubborn to the very end until 8th jury reminded him that the defendant was not his son. By the past experience prevented him from making logical decision.

Other barrier that will affect the decision making process by Scott character is selfish, over confident and think that he is always at the right way. Because of his attitude, other cannot communicate smoothly with him.

Juror #4: Armin Mueller-Stahl

A stockbroker; he is very eloquent and looks at the case more coherently than the other jurors through facts and not bias. It seems that this role is a character that attention getter. He is steadfast in the belief that based on the fact that the defendant is “guilty”, but he did not try to persuade others to change their minds forcibly. In contrast, when given the opportunity he has expressed his opinion Mueller-Stahl’s character will repeat information already known intellectually. He will take a little longer to quote facts right time and statistics to show that he is an expert.

The ability to remain independent proves to be the most important character trait 4th jury. Throughout the film characters Mueller-Stahl is able to think independently, and never let personal bias or peer-pressure affect his decision-making. When the 4th jury finally changed his vote not guilty, this in itself is enough to put the mind at ease about the other person their own indecisiveness. He is one of the few characters in the story that does not take sides, make alliances, or look for approval right off the bat. It is clear that he was there to seek the truth, and everybody will listen twice to make sure he has done just that. However, to think independently and without prejudice is not the only asset Mueller-Stahl.

He is a businessman who is rational and reasonable, which allows him to look the case with an open mind. Unlike 3th jury, George C. Scott, Mueller-Stahl is able to communicate the ideas and thinking he was such a professional and do so in an organized fashion. He analyzed every piece of evidence carefully and uses logic to guide his vote. It is important to note that he was the second last jury to change their vote to not guilty. He tried his best to make a good decision making and finally he chooses to vote not guilty for defendant.

The barrier that will affect the 5th jury decision making process is the environment at the jury room and he has to deal with the other jury’s attitude before make a good decision. It is not easy to settle the case because everyone has a different view and different personality.

Juror #5: Dorian Horewood

Health care worker (possibly an EMT); he is from the Harlem slums; he connects with the man at trial and is disgusted at the bigotry of Juror Ten. Initiating Horewood’s character was a follower of the group. He voted “guilty” during the first vote, and then showed reluctance to discuss the case. He contributed to group by demonstrating how to use the knife during a fight, and spoke up to Mykelti Williamson and George C. Scott characters.

This vital information juror gave concerning the use of a knife which helped the jurors to better understand the concept of how the fatal wound was inflicted. Horewood’s character used his own experiences as a guide to find a connection with the topic at hand for the jurors. He seemed to compare the case to his own life experiences, giving everyone a different point of view.

Dorian Horewood experience makes him doubtful slum boy’s guiltiness. His upbringing in the slums assisted him in thinking the other jurors of the innocent defendant. It is for this reason that he was able to explain how to tell a switchblade knife. Perhaps with the knowledge he had accumulated by living in a slum gives the upper hand throughout much jury because he can relate to it. Naturally background jury five assists him in making a wise decision.

Experience will make good decision making. But, not all of the experience can apply in the dependant case. That is the barrier was happening to this character. He has to find other information and take others view as advantage to make a right decision.

Juror #6: James Gandolfini

He is a house painter, a respectful person who sometimes displays professionalism in receiving ideas – towards the end of the movie. Personality- He is showing a stable emotional stability which sometimes he can control his emotion in dealing with numerous and various behavior inside the jury room. At the beginning, he amongst the lesser contributor (less participate) to the group decision making process. He gives a quit good argument by looking at “motive perception” but this fact has been argued as weak motive by juror 8.

At first he voted for guilty. But when asked for clarification, he simply answered his evaluation is based on the motive that he holds since the beginning of the discussion. He made the decision based on his feeling and intuition. What I found is he is making confirmation bias, where every decision should be considered to all relevant and dependable factors and not solemnly confirmed factor per se, which exactly came from testimonies.

He showed inconsistency in making decision where finally towards the end of the movie he switched his verdict to not guilty .It happened after he listened up to some useful and some reasonable doubt raised by juror 8 and strong facts raised by all non guilty-related jurors. The uncertainty avoidance is so high where environmental factors such as peer pressure really influence in his decision making.

Juror #7: Tony Danza

He is a salesman. He less concerned and less committed in this premeditated homicide case. His participation is merely to say his stands and how his personal judgments toward the deliberation process. He is mostly concerned of his baseball tickets and sometimes ignores what is happening in the room. Instead of yelling nonsense and unreliable facts just to express his stands, he is frequently argued to anyone that tries to give point of view. He always rising up irrelevant and non-concrete arguments and sometimes his emotions of anger and disgust, influence his decision making. His personalities display his actual behavior, thus influences his decision making. For instance, he is impatient, hot tempered, some extend of irrationality, rude especially to those jurors older than him.

Next, he frequently used shortcuts in judging the case. For instance, from halo effect, he did mention the kid had bad history since the kid was small and the kid had committed some serious cases before murdered case. It is indeed part of error in making decision where he supposes to consider other factor as well. His mental ability means the way he is solving any issue arises is unethical and not applies professionalism at all. For instance, he cannot accepts any opinions plus he simply leaved the chair while juror 9 giving an arguments. It had shown how selfishness he was. Through the end of the movie, after a concrete and acceptable arguments delivered by ‘non-guilty’ juror, he is finally changing his verdict towards to not- guilty.

Now, his assumption depends on his institution where I believe it’s due to a lesser number of ‘non-guilty’ voters. In addition, it shows inconsistency (dissonance) and overconfidence bias as part of his verdict. These attributes has contributed to a very fundamental decision making of him.

.

Juror #8: Jack Lemmon

An architect: He is indeed the main protagonist of the film. At the very first minute and stage of the movie, he is the only juror who voted not guilty. Each and every word delivered by him shows how precisely and concisely determined. He always equipped himself with strong views (when dealing with different arguments) and holds his concrete philosophy of being positive and protagonist. He showed his seriousness to deliberate the case thoughtfully and honestly as proposed by head-judge earlier. For instance when he says “I just don’t find it easy to raise hand and send a boy to prison for life”. He is always being attacked with “dangerous bullets” from those jurors who voted differently, but has shown an ethical and extraordinary feedback. His emotional intelligence has successfully closed the barrier of differentiation. Such determination (non-guilty decision) has brought to an issue of re-deliberation of the case.

At the middle of the film, his character is ready to acquiesce and will only switch his verdict, if other jurors believe guilty would be the best decision to be imposed. The presence of juror 9 just make the movie became more interesting where he suddenly change his mind to vote not guilty. This show the power of influence contributes to change in perception and behavior of individual. He found reasonable doubts about the case and it has astonished juror no 8 who obviously thankful with the decision. Then, it keeps the debate alive till the end. He has proactive personality where he always identifies opportunities, show initiatives, take action and preserve until meaningful change occurs until meaningful change occurs, compared to most jurors who passively react to situations. For instance, he tries to demonstrate the actual action (probably the time of murdered) in a jury room .Even though it looks cynical, but it gives a biggest wakeup call ever in history or case deliberation process. Other than that, he succeeded to raise reasonable doubt to the cases and manage to answer those jurors’ arguments accordingly to the principal of law and rational- thinking based judgment. He has good emotional stability, where even though he has been accused to deliver sanctimonious talk, not behaving like reasonable man, loves to make up wild stories. Anyway, he believes, he needs to be more persuasive, consistently producing rational decision making to ensure that right decision is to be executed.

Jury’s #9: Hume Cronyn

Mc Ardle was acted by Hume Cronyn is the real name for his character. He is a wise old man who firstly decides that the kid was guilty. But later on when he heard some logic thoughts and clarification from jury’s number 8, his verdict turn into not guilty. Then, he becomes close friend with jury’s number 8. In this movie, the personality that we can see in Jury’s number 9 is he such an openness guy, he displayed kindness personality as the oldest in jury’s meeting; he also has curiosity to further “develop” the case. For example, when he decided to change his mind into not guilty.

He also has an agreeableness personality which he states his sympathize to the old man who attends as a witness for that case. He is conscientiousness as he always pays attention throughout the “journey” of the case. He unexpectedly came out with such concrete evidence when he mentioned “he realized how the dress up of the testimony” and” he saw the marks of spectacles in the woman eyes”. The value for jury’s number 9 shows is the honesty in giving opinion and professional as being a 12 jury’s. As a personality and value that is show, the jury’s number 9 attitudes and behavior is mostly based on his personality. He always be a professional, by talking and behave in manner. He tried to explain in good manner without hurting everyone with a softer voice.

Jury’s number 9 shows his emotion which is anger by raising his voice when one of the jury’s ignored and leave the meeting because of him. We can say most of the time he had a low negative effect mood which is calm, relaxed in this meeting. All the personality, values, attitudes, emotions and mood, which is show by this jury’s, is that it does not give the bad impact in decision making. But it might smooth the process of decision making. Because all the personalities, values, attitude, emotions and mood that being mention is positive. The jury’s help to solving the problem, he gives the idea and he also gives all the explanation for every situation in detail. Other barriers that might be affected in decision making is, fear to be failure. Every person have fear, because sometime people start to rejecting a good idea just because it shows that the result might be 100% failure, although its only come from their thought, but because of fear to taking the risk, they tend to avoid the idea that might bring into successful. The reason that they try to reject risk is because they cannot handle when someone’s telling them “I told you so, don’t do this, don’t do that.”

Jury’s #10: Mykelti Williamson

Ultimately shunned by the others, because of his loudmouth, narrow-minded bigot, extremely rude and often interrupt people. Someone who feels that there will be no good outcome, this is a type of man he is. Lastly he was ordered by jury’s 4 to “sit down” and to “not open his loudmouth again.” He is jury’s number 10 the owner of carwash shop acted by Mykelti Williamson.

Most of the personality within jury’s 10 is reversed, first he score low on openness to experience. He do not have a good in imagination, that he cannot imagine and cannot understand easily what the others think, he tend to think that he is the only one who are right, he cannot except his mistake and tend to stick with his answers.

Other than that, he also score low in agreeableness when always insulting others and disrespect the elders. He tends to show that he not interested with others people problem and also with a filthy mouth he talk recklessly about everything. For example he says that kid should be destroying because they always give trouble to other people and that is why he sticks to say guilty.

He also a neurotics’ type that irritated person and always get stressed easily, we can see every time everyone changes their vote. In value perspective, jury’s number 10 is unprofessionalism; he does not know how to control his emotion. He is rude to older jurors than him. In emotion, it is obvious that he such an anger person. He rose up his voice and scolds everyone when his opinion is rejected. Who influences him in decision making? It’s hard to find the solution when a person cannot listen and accept others opinion and always think that he the only one who is right. It leads to tight arguments within them. For example in this movie, we can most of them feels dissatisfy to jury’s 10- in terms of his overall attributes.

Irrelevant idea- this is also one of the factors that create the barriers into decision making. Some people might fail to generate a good idea at the certain and specific time. They not even helping when they try to produce the idea that we know is irrational, but because they want to perceive as idea provider, they tend to raise argument-able ideas which is just make decision making process complicated.

Jury’s #11: Edward James Olmos

Jury’s number 11 acted by Edward James Olmos, who work as watch maker most of the time is doing an observant in this movie; He is an immigrant based on his essence, possibly from Europe country. He believe and hopes that America can give a justice and he want to see how it done. We can see for Jury’s 11 that jury’s 11 have conscientiousness personality, he always pay intention in every detail, for example when he asking the question ‘why that kid go back home after 3 o’clock’ it shows that he listened very well from jury’s 8 opinion and theories. In addition he also introverts person because most of the time in the meeting, he just being quiet. He is not an integrity person, which he cannot decide where he stands with, weather with guilty or not guilty side; this is the answer for his value.

For attitudes, we can say that jury’s 11 is not confidence in what he do, we can see when he looks hesitate to give his opinion, because most of the time he do the observation, but lastly he also try to give his opinion and give a question for everyone to think. He does not really shows his emotion in this movie, but only a fatigue mood that is low positive affect.

How this factor affect decision making? It also affect the smoothness of producing idea, because most of the time, the person cannot generate a good idea that can support the decision making. It also does not help because not participate in the process of decision making, as it look that this person are not there.

Insufficient information is always happen in decision making. Final verdict cannot be made when there is no information applicable. For example in purchasing decision, to buy Ferrari car instead of BMW- because lack of relevant information, we don’t know which one is better and gives highest satisfaction. Decision making is always with useful information;

Juror #12: William Pettersen

He is among the juror that portrays no-interested, passion about the case at the beginning. He is busy about his own personal matter rather than further participating in the discussion. He is marketing agency and sometimes demonstrates his arrogant in this movie. His personality would be narcissisms where he liked to make people looking at him not for the quality of the job. For example when he talked to 11th juror, he told that he is marketing agency and trying to find everything that related to it. This is to portray he is better than anyone else.

When we know about his personality, we already mentioned early that this person arrogant. This attitude makes his mood in the discussion distracted from the case. It can be proved that his attitude is not good and like selfish because just think about him but not think about the case that really heavy to make decision.

When the individual personality and attitude are way control by emotion? The mood and atmosphere in the room affects the decision making from him-summer time. It contributes to no-quality decision. His judgment is based from what he heard from the other jurors not and try to figure out to find other alternatives. Sometimes, he always busy with his career rather than the case. He gave his logic opinions to ensure he participated but actually he just came to fulfill the condition.

Conclusion

Film 12 Angry Men displayed strong, clear example of a group that formed to meet the tasks / purposes and subsequent issues involved in completing a given task. 12 members of the jury experience through the process of being formed, attack, norm, performing and postpone. Although short lived, cohesiveness takes several different aspects. First, it is shown by 11 members initially voted guilty. Then, the progressive group dynamics change throughout the film as the jury began to question their initial decision of guilt and, one by one, began to agree with those voting not guilty.

As a member of the group communication, strengthen cohesion as the whole of the opinion the jury. In addition, members of the jury have focused more on the task-oriented behavior of social behavior, which might have blocked a lot of arguments. This group was formed for a specific purpose, a time, so to build and strengthen the relationship is not a priority for the dissolution occurs when the issue decision. Although challenged by the dynamics of the group itself, it was finally able to perform a given task and postpone.

However, despite the short life of this group, we see an excellent example of the process of the formation of groups and group dynamics. Each of the 12 jurors plays different but important roles throughout the film. We see the power of informal leadership, the cycle of the changing role of leadership, and great effort it takes to change a random collection of individuals into a winning team.

We consider this to be a successful group because the task has been completed, social relationships have been developed to maintain the group and help them work together, and we see evidence that the individual jurors find satisfying personal experience. At the end of the film, we believe that each member reflects on developments since the initial vote and leave the court with a new vision and a feeling of satisfaction that was released a fair decision