12 Angry Men Movie Review

Document Type: Movie Review

Subject: Management

Number of Words: 750-1250 words or 3 to 5 pages

Citation/Referencing Style: Havard

Attached are instructions for the final paper. So basically we have to watch this movie (12 angry men) and then answer the questions provided  and turn those questions into the 3 to 5 page paper.

Week 5

Video: 12 Angry Men (1997)

The movie 12 Angry Men was originally filmed in 1957 with an all-white male jury and a male judge. The remake was made in 1997 with a diverse jury (still male) with a female judge. The cost to rent the movie is the same with either version or the outcome was the same – so select either version (choose the one that is the easiest to obtain).

You can rent it from Amazon Video for $2.99, YouTube for $2.99, Google Play & TV for $2.99 or iTunes for $3.99.

In the 1997 version the jurors are as follows:

• Juror # 1 – Courtney B Vance
• Juror # 2 – Ossie Davis
• Juror # 3 – George C Scott
• Juror # 4 – Armin Mueller-Stahl
• Juror # 5 – Dorian Harewood
• Juror # 6 – James Gandolfini
• Juror # 7 – Tony Danza
• Juror # 8 – Jack Lemmon
• Juror # 9 – Hume Cronyn
• Juror #10 – Mykelti Williamson
• Juror #11 – Edward James Olmos
• Juror #12 – William Petersen

Watch the movie 12 Angry Men and discuss the following:

1.  In the beginning of the movie, the foreman (#1) suggesting a process (straw vote) and providing instructions on the process. What behavior(s) did the foreman use and what impact did they have on the remaining jury?

2.  Initially several jurors, hesitated at his suggestion of a straw vote. Why is that and if you were the foreperson what might you have done differently?

3.  The foreman suggested, the 11 jurors convince juror # 8 “why he’s wrong” while another juror suggests juror #8 “should be the one who tries to convince us” (of the defendant’s innocence). Both strategies provide value. How would help the group choose between both strategies? How would you have handled persuading the others to his guilt or innocence?

4.  We get to see the jurors, different personality styles. How would you use these differences in a positive way that enables members to benefit from rather than being aggravated and frustrated by those same differences?

5.  Using your personality style, strengths and weaknesses, identify the juror by # and explain how might you counteract, convince, persuade or communicate to the following dysfunctional styles:

• Talker/Monopolizer (always has something to say)
• Heckler/complainer (combative; tells team members why strategies will never work)
• Silent member (withdrawn, doesn’t participate)
• Side tracker (discusses items not on the agenda)

6.  If you were on the jury, is there anything you would have done differently to get the remaining members to agree on the same outcome?