12 Angry Men 1954, Movie Review Example

Overview of the Plot

12 Angry Men was originally written as a stage play by playwright Reginald Rose in 1954. The original classic version of this film was produced in 1957 with Henry Fonda in the lead role as Juror #8 who throughout the film attempts to persuade the other eleven jurors that there exist reasonable doubt related to whether the defendant is guilty of first-degree murder. Basically, the plot of this film involves twelve men who must decide the fate of the defendant. At the beginning, all of the jurors except for Juror #8 (Fonda) are convinced of the defendant’s guilt and simply wish to wrap things up quickly without even deliberating whether the defendant is guilty or innocent of the charges against him.

Through a slow process, Juror # 8 attempts to convince the other jurors to vote not guilty by forcing them to consider all of the evidence presented by the prosecution in the courtroom. For example, Juror #8 openly questions the reliability of the two sole witnesses to the crime, and questions whether the murder weapon (a switchblade knife) is special to the case. As Juror #8 presents his arguments against a guilty verdict, all of the jurors become convinced of the defendant’s innocence except for Juror # 3 (Lee J. Cobb) who at the conclusion of the film breaks down and reluctantly changes his vote to not guilty. Overall, 12 Angry Men, directed by Sidney Lumet, is a powerhouse of interpersonal communication between the jurors and demonstrates how the communication abilities of one individual, being Juror #8, can change the opinions and attitudes of others under extreme pressure, prejudice, and defiance.

Interpersonal Concepts Defined

In 12 Angry Men, there are many instances of interpersonal communication concepts. By definition, interpersonal communication is a “transactional process that occurs when two people (or in this case twelve) use verbal and non-verbal messages to create understanding and influence” one another, such as convincing a person to change his mind about a topic or situation, in this instance, changing a guilty verdict to not guilty (“Interpersonal Communication and Personality”).

Three of the most important concepts found in 12 Angry Men includes 1), self-disclosure or “intentionally allowing a person to know who you are by communicating self-revealing information,” such as relating how one feels about a specific subject or telling a story about one’s personal background; 2), power or the “ability to control what happens or to create things you want to happen,” such as convincing eleven jurors to change their minds about the guilt of the defendant through reasonable doubt and by using common sense; and 3), bullying or physically/verbally attacking another person (“The Concepts of Interpersonal Communication”).

There is also a sub-category related to the power concept, being expert power or the capacity of a person (such as Juror #8) to “influence another person because of the knowledge and skills” possessed by the first person, being Juror #8 who expresses his confidence by utilizing reasonable doubt approaches that eventually convince his fellow jurors that there does exists reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant (“The Concepts of Interpersonal Communication”).

Concepts Evidenced in the Film

Within the film, the concept of self-disclosure is the most apparent, due to the fact that most of the jurors reveal their feelings and opinions on the possible guilt of the defendant through verbal and non-verbal means. For example, Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) directs a question to Juror #10 (Ed Begley), one of the original jurors who was at first convinced of the defendant’s guilt simply because of his cultural and ethical background:

Juror #8: “Let me ask you this. Do you really think the boy would have shout out a thing like that” (i.e., “I’m gonna kill you!”) so the whole neighborhood could hear him? I don’t think so. He’s much too bright for that.”

Juror #10: “Bright? He’s a common ignorant slob. He don’t even speak good English.”

This exchange of dialog discloses the fact that Juror #8 considers the defendant, a Hispanic boy about fourteen years old, as too intelligent to simply scream out loud that he is going to kill his own father with a switchblade knife. It also discloses that Juror #8 has a keen sense of reasonable doubt and knows how to use common sense to arrive at a conclusion. As to Juror #10, his response discloses that he is highly bigoted and prejudiced against the defendant, due to calling him a “common ignorant slob.” It also reveals that Juror #10 is not too proficient with the English language, due to using “don’t” instead of “does not.”

Another scene of self-disclosure occurs when Juror #8 explains his reasoning for suspecting that the man who claimed to have witnessed the murder is not telling the truth:

Juror #8: “Here’s what I think happened. The old man heard the fight between the boy and his father. . . Then, when he’s lying in his bed, he heard a body hit the floor in the boy’s apartment, heard the woman scream from across the street, got to his front door as fast as he could, heard somebody racing down the stairs, and assumed it was the boy.”

Juror #6 (Edward Binns): “I think that’s possible!”

Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb): “Assumed?. . . I’ve seen all kinds of dishonesty in my day, but this little display takes the cake. Y’all come in here with your hearts bleedin’ all over the floor about slum kids and injustice. . . Well, you’re not getting through to me. I’ve had enough.”

Obviously, Juror #6 is open-minded enough to realize that Juror #8’s analysis of what might have happened makes sense. However, Juror #3 who turns out to be the sole holdout at the end of the film, discloses his bigotry and prejudice in very clear terms, especially when he uses body language (waving his hands, staring at Juror #8, constantly standing up and then sitting down in his chair) and when he laughs at Juror #8’s “assumption.”

As to the concept of power, Juror #8 after furrowing his brow (an indication of non-verbal communication) manipulates Juror #3 by accusing him of being one of the defendant’s “executioners” and then remarks “Perhaps you’d like to pull the switch?” a reference to the electric chair. Juror #3 then explodes and replies “For this kid? You bet I would!” Juror #8 then baits Juror #3 by declaring “I feel sorry for you. What it must feel like to want to pull the switch!. . . You want to see this boy die because you personally want it, not because of the facts! You’re a sadist!”

In addition, Juror #3 acts out his tendency for bullying when he jumps out of his chair and lunges at Juror #8 in an attempt to physically attack him. Then, some of the other jurors seize Juror #3 in order to hold him back from attacking Juror #8. Juror #3, now seething with anger, screams out “I’ll kill him!” in reference to Juror #3. In some ways, Juror #8 is also a bully, due to telling Juror #3 that his arguments against a not guilty verdict are too weak:

Juror #8: We want to hear your arguments. We’re not convinced. We want to hear them again. We have as much time as it takes.”

At this point, Juror #3 uses non-verbal communication by pausing before answering with his face flushed with anger. He then replies “Everything, every single thing that took place in that courtroom, but I mean everything, says he’s guilty. What d’ya think, I’m an idiot or somethin’?” Overall, this piece of dialog exchange discloses Juror #8’s incredible patience and determination to arrive at the truth and reveals that Juror #3 is highly prejudiced against the defendant, due to reminding him of his own son who walked away from a fight, making his father “So embarrassed I almost threw up.”

Conclusion

As a classic film, 12 Angry Men is a showcase for interpersonal communication, due to the verbal and non-verbal exchanges between the various jurors and in the way in which Juror #8 slowly brings understanding to all of the jurors through his influence as a level-headed man with compassion and a powerful trait for using common sense.

Works Cited

“Interpersonal Communication and Personality.” 2012. Web. 14 September 2014.

“The Concepts of Interpersonal Communication.” 2014. Web. 14 September 2014.