According to me, all of the jurors except one showed passive behavior in the start of the movie. All of the eleven jurors already made up their mind that the boy is guilty, but as the movie proceeds many changed their decisions. I think the juror # 12 displayed the most passive behavior because when majority voted the boy as guilty he also voted him guilty and when the facts were presented and most people voted the boy innocent he immediately changed his vote to not guilty. Assertive behavior was clearly showed by one juror from the beginning till the end and that was juror # 8, the architect. He eventually convinced all of the jurors by giving facts and different details about the case, but he did all of that in a
Gabriel Cardona Communication 101 October 22, 2012 12 Angry Men “If there is a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused, a reasonable doubt, then you must bring me a verdict of 'Not Guilty'. If, however, there's no reasonable doubt, then you must, in good conscience, find the accused "Guilty". –Judge. Twelve Angry Men is a black and white film from the 1950’s in which 12 men from different backgrounds and lifestyles must use group communication to decide a young, mislead boys fate. All men are lead into a jury room to cast their individual votes and determine a final verdict to the trial.
Christopher’s difficulty understanding metaphors, his passion on certain topics, and his computer-like ability with numbers, strongly suggest that Christopher has a mild form of autism. This condition has made him extremely gifted in math and science but severely underequipped socially, leading Christopher to frequent misunderstandings of other people, especially his father. As a result, he very much dislikes social interaction and avoids it when possible. Although Christopher does not mention autism by name anywhere in the novel, we see that he recognizes the ways he differs from most people and feels aware of these differences. He says, although most people enjoy chatting, he hates it because he finds it pointless.
When queried, Gandhi would reply with his characteristic mischievous smile that he had learnt better now. However, he was just an ordinary man of flesh and blood who was “killed by his own people for whose redemption he lived”, to quote the editorial that appeared in the Hindustan Standard on the next day of Gandhi’s assassination, just as Socrates and Jesus Christ had been killed by their own men, by people who could not, rather, did not want to understand them. One was poisoned and the other, crucified. Terming Gandhi’s assassination a “second crucifixion in the history of the
In the movie 12 Angry Men there are several people who could be considered a hero. Some would say that the true hero was Juror Number 6, who first doubted the guiltiness of the young man; some would say it was the Foreman who kept relative order in the room; however, Juror Number 7 should definitely not be overlooked. Number 7, along with contributing an important piece of knowledge, was the one who stopped the delivery of the guilty verdict, he was the first to vocally agree with Juror Number 6. Juror Number 6 was without a doubt one of the most important men in the room, but without the help of Juror Number 7 the guilty verdict would have been given to the judge. Number 7 was the first true believer; he went out on a limb, in wanting to find the truth, when he could have very easily anonymously voted guilty and they could have been done with the situation.
The movie “Twelve Angry Men” is about twelve male jurors, brought together in a deliberation room to decide whether a boy is guilty of killing his father. The deliberation starts with an 11-1 vote for guilty. As the movie progresses, the one man who had a reasonable doubt about the guilt or innocent of the young boy, convinces the other members of the jury to question the facts presented. This paper examines the application of leadership concepts in the characters of each juror. Throughout the movie several leaders evolved, the main one being Juror #8, the man who stood alone from the get go with a not-guilty verdict.
He tends to act dumb and do dumb things that usually have a direct impact on him or the people surrounding him. Tommy is a bigger, more heavy set male that doesn't take care of himself and thinks its funny that he has a poor diet. Throughout the ﬁlm, Tommy does realize his ﬂaws and realizes what he has to do. Tommy has always had a lot of friends because he is an outgoing and fun person to be around. From a small town there really isn't much to do so he tended to do dumb stuff like cow tipping with his step-brother.
Juror #8, played by Henry Fonda, had the conviction to stand up to the group with the initial lone “not guilty” vote that ultimately ended up a not guilty vote for the accused. Juror #9 was an elderly gentleman and Juror #10 was also an elderly gentleman who was very staunch in his argument that the defendant was guilty. He eventually would lose the support of his followers towards the end via his support of his stereotypical statements such as
Using Jurors Three, Eight, and Ten will show you whether or not they show justice. Starting with Juror 3, we can see from the beginning of Act One, Juror Three makes his decision without looking at the evidence much like the others. Yet what makes Juror 3 special is that he has a dislike for the rebellious youth. “It’s the kids… I’m gonna bust you up into little pieces… Rotten kids! I hate tough kids!”(21).
A mistake is an action that is not correct and produces a result that you did not want. It is commonly known that everyone makes mistakes, but sometimes they can be fatal for your continuous journey. Sometimes one simple mistake can shape your life into something that you never would have dreamt of. In the short story "Save as Many as You Ruin" by Simon Van Booy we meet a male character who has committed a mistake and is constantly thinking of "What if...". Our male main character, Gerard, is a fairly decent looking man and single father.