Movie: 12 Angry Men by Sidney Lumet
Dani Byck Market Management H
Period 7 12 Angry Men
1. The leadership problem that which the movie presents is that there was no one main leader. The group of men was completely unorganized and couldn’t control themselves. Had there been one guy to take charge and make things run smoothly, the may have been quicker and a lot more efficient that it had been,
2. Each juror changed his mind at one point because they all contained doubt. One of the first man to present doubt was the architect who was the first man to bring upon the idea that the boy might, in face, be innocent. He did an outstanding job of bringing to the table all of these reasons why the kid is innocent and as a result, the men in the room slowly began to agree with him. Some of the reasons he believed the kid was innocent was because of the time it took the old man to reach the door to see the boy, the loud train in the back round, the old lady’s bad eye sight, the fact that he couldn’t remember the title of the movie, etc. By the end, there was only one guy left who would not believe this mans thoughts and it turns out it was because he had a bad relationship with his some that which scarred him. Finally he accepted the fact that the kid was innocent.
3. The fact that each juror’s name was not given at any point at the movie caused the movie to be more realistic. After all, none of these men were friends and the not using of the names reminded us throughout the movie that these fighting men are just strangers to one another and need to work together to solve this crime. It’s just like in real juries that a group of strangers are pulled together to work side by side to solve something that is very important.
4. Having woman and/or minorities in the jury, the deliberation would have been completely different for both good and bad. It could be good because woman
Period 7 12 Angry Men
1. The leadership problem that which the movie presents is that there was no one main leader. The group of men was completely unorganized and couldn’t control themselves. Had there been one guy to take charge and make things run smoothly, the may have been quicker and a lot more efficient that it had been,
2. Each juror changed his mind at one point because they all contained doubt. One of the first man to present doubt was the architect who was the first man to bring upon the idea that the boy might, in face, be innocent. He did an outstanding job of bringing to the table all of these reasons why the kid is innocent and as a result, the men in the room slowly began to agree with him. Some of the reasons he believed the kid was innocent was because of the time it took the old man to reach the door to see the boy, the loud train in the back round, the old lady’s bad eye sight, the fact that he couldn’t remember the title of the movie, etc. By the end, there was only one guy left who would not believe this mans thoughts and it turns out it was because he had a bad relationship with his some that which scarred him. Finally he accepted the fact that the kid was innocent.
3. The fact that each juror’s name was not given at any point at the movie caused the movie to be more realistic. After all, none of these men were friends and the not using of the names reminded us throughout the movie that these fighting men are just strangers to one another and need to work together to solve this crime. It’s just like in real juries that a group of strangers are pulled together to work side by side to solve something that is very important.
4. Having woman and/or minorities in the jury, the deliberation would have been completely different for both good and bad. It could be good because woman