12 Angry Men Movie Review

The exercise is engaging hence promoting dynamic knowledge and information processing. This film wasn’t made particularly to exhibit sociological standards, the illustrations are indeed not evident but are regularly "chaotic," and expect students to contemplate the issues. Finally, this film enables scholars to look at the way situational forces can influence the conduct of people although the people have powerful and diverse characters. The main actors in this film are; Henry Fonda who acts as juror that votes ‘not guilty’, Jack Klugman who is the man who was brought up in the slums, E. G. He bases his vote to create a discussion. Furthermore, the judges have to be certain the accused is guilty. As the thoughts unfurl, the story rapidly takes a new turn where it now begins to study of the juror's complicated personalities which vary from brilliant, compassionate, wise to proud, merciless and prejudiced, their misconceptions interactions and background.

This gives Fonda the backdrop attempts at persuading the rest of the jury that the boy could be innocent. A great feel of this film is overcome by the time and period it occurred in. The day was extremely hot, and the fan was not working nor would the windows open. No man wanted to spend more time than what they thought would be efficient to decide the verdict. Some even talked about their plans for later, thinking it would be a certain bet they'd be gone soon with the entire night ahead of them. They were all wrong; from there onwards, the film transformed into a case straight out of sociology textbook. Everyone didn't stray from the standard of the group.

The reason behind most jurors stereotyping the activities of the accused boy is due to socialization. The method for transmission was undoubtedly through media; crimes shown through television are often from a neighborhood of low financial matters standing. Abnormality This is a sociological perspective that can be analyzed in this film. It is an extremely relative term where relying upon the gathering and circumstance it varies. Juror no. The only juror who endures this primary pressure is Fonda. In the jury, room conformity is seen as a risky element. This film represents the intensity of social impact information and normative social influence. Conformity is portrayed inside the main snapshots of the film. Inside the jury room, heated discussion is blocked by a primary vote which taken openly, was prone to normative social influence due to fear of seeming deviant, Moscovici, S.

The eagerness he portrays to convict the criminal is revealed in a rambunctious way that could be termed as powerful. Age The age concept is highlighted inside the film as well. As indicated by Solomon Asch, a prominent social psychologist, older people are more averse to conformity. The oldest juror is the first to part from conformity and changes his vote to not guilty. Attitude Change and Persuasion Persuasion can be termed as a component of attitude that is an indispensable feature in the captivating nature of this film. They must demonstrate that the respondent is guilty past sensible doubt if they don't, the accused can't legitimately be convicted. It turns out to be clear that the prosecutors were not ready to do as such because the jurors find that there was reasonable doubt.

Minority Influence Fonda turns out as a powerful influence for the minority, while Cobb bombs hopelessly as an influencing force, the moment he goes down from his majority position. Fonda lacks ulterior intentions; he’s consistent and fearless and withstands individual assaults from others. Fitsakis, (2007). Positive Leadership and Group Practices The three leaders, i. e. , Fonda, Cobb and Martin Balsam, can be used to illustrate cases of how leadership can reduce rivalry, coordinate contradicting views in a useful way, and create powerful alliances. The primary affirmative step Fonda's character took in incorporating differing views was the way he dealt with the whole situation. The conflicting jurors’ views were used to comprehend varying viewpoints. Maybe the absence of cohesiveness of ideation and the absence of a solid unified leader kept groupthink from happening.

Without Fonda's influence, these pressured, all-white males, isolated by environment would participate in groupthink. Conclusion Over 50 years after this film was produced, it still has extraordinary significance because of the ideas exhibited. Extraordinarily, this film was used to talk about the capacity to make agreeable networks among cooperative communities. The aptitude of one man to stand up with an end goal to generate a powerful discussion and the ideal result ought to motivate every one of us, about the colossal factors that can emerge out of different points of view. Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 31-35. Cialdidi, R. B. Influence: Science & Influence 3rd ed. Newcomb & E. L. Hartley (Eds. ) Readings in Social. Psychology. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds. ) The Handbook of Social Psychology.