The film 12 Angry Men is considered a masterpiece by many. Despite its short running time (only 90 minutes), it tells a compelling narrative of a jury deliberating on the fate of an 18-year-old man accused of killing his stepfather. Reginald Rose, the screenwriter, received the concept for the film while sitting on a jury. The intricacies of a jury deliberation had never been shown in film before until that point.
Expert Power
Expert Power combined with Referent Power is one of Henry Fonda’s power bases, in my opinion. Having knowledge or experience in one specific field confers expert authority. These individuals are highly sought after by companies due to their ability to solve problems. Reference Power
When people regard and like someone, they have reference power. At a critical moment, Henry’s character took command and saved a life. If he had wanted to, he might have chosen to follow the other jurors’ lead and not object. Taking charge came naturally to him since he made it clear that individuals must be free to ask questions and get appropriate responses. It would not be easy to go back on their choice (Jaya, 392) That is why he suggested that they conduct a comprehensive investigation of the material and testimony provided to them. Fonda’s actions may have worked to his advantage because of his character and how he treated other individuals.
Although women had served on New York City juries for twenty years before the film’s setting, all twelve jury members are males, as the film’s title indicates (McCambridge, 389). However, they were often exempted due to their “particular role as the heart of home and family life. “] Even though some high schools are currently staging the play under the more politically correct title of 12 Angry Jurors, the testosterone-fueled competition among the twelve participants adds an extra layer of suspense to the proceedings. The 1997 reimagining is decent, but it falls short in terms of quality.)
12 Angry Men is a remarkable film about leadership because it was shot in black-and-white to underline the binary choice that every jury must make, frequently against a backdrop of many shades of grey. A case study of Socratic leadership, which involves asking a series of challenging, penetrating questions to get individuals to reexamine their assumptions and beliefs, is particularly relevant here (Buchanan 313). Henry Fonda, the only non-voting member of the jury, has no power or control over the others. No one even calls him foreman. However, he succeeds in persuading his colleagues to change their minds about the accused. It serves as a timely reminder that leadership does not need a formal position of authority.
Furthermore, No. 8‘s argument relies on intellectual humility rather than arrogant certitude. His ignorance is just as dangerous as his knowledge. Sincere doubts rather than a firm belief in the accused’s innocence fuels the other jurors’ critical thinking, leading them to reexamine their views. Socratic leadership turns out to be a surprising yet effective strategy.
The key trait that made Juror Eight a leader among his peers: his willingness to study the circumstances at hand to a greater degree than what the other jurors believed was required. This intrinsic impulse to confront the full ambiguity of the issue and drown his awareness under the pressure that maintained a human life finally prompted Juror Eight to cast light onto the inadequacies in the evidence and discover an opinion worthy of acting upon. By closely assessing the witness’s testimony and weighing the repercussions of his choice, Juror Eight evaluated the scenario before him deep within the dimensions of empathy and skepticism. The brains that can go on such trips via labyrinthine conjecture
Works Cited
Buchanan, David, and Andrzej Huczynski. “Images of influence: 12 angry men and thirteen days.” Journal of Management Inquiry 13.4 (2004): 312-323.
Jaya, Rendra Novian Rizan. “Interruption in Lumet’s 12 angry men movie: A conversation analysis.” Sastra Inggris-Quill 6.2 (2017): 202-214.
McCambridge, Jim. “12 Angry Men: A study in dialogue.” Journal of Management Education 27.3 (2003): 384-401.
