Overview of Communication in the Film
The interaction between the jury members in the film “12 Angry Men” was very compelling. Eleven out of twelve people initially thought the accused boy was responsible for the crime. Juror 8 had an opposing viewpoint and demanded that the others debate it. To determine whether or not the boy was guilty, he coerced them into deliberating and honestly considering all aspects of the case. This young man has been accused of a crime for which the maximum penalty is death, and the purpose of this jury was to decide what would happen to him. The jury eventually accomplished its goal, which was only possible through consistent collaboration on all fronts and clear communication with the guidance of juror 8.
Analysis of Communication Skills Presented in the Film
Initial Communication Style
Throughout the film, there are numerous nonverbal cues for communication. Except for juror number eight, who appeared to be silent at first, every other juror acted loudly and confrontationally. Juror 7 is uninterested, and his communication demonstrates an agitated man who is more concerned with the baseball game he intends to attend than with the decision (Lumet, 1957). He had already made up his mind because he needed to get to the game as soon as possible.
Despite this, juror 8 faced additional difficulties persuading his colleagues of his vote since the jurors were of varying ages and backgrounds. Individual factors, such as distinct cultural backgrounds, contributed to the men’s inability to connect in the end. The lack of communication among the twelve men indicated the presence of these barriers. By Juror 8 coercing to engage in open and sincere dialogue, they eventually broke down the barriers and identified a solution to the problem.
The sole juror, number 8, who initially returned a not-guilty verdict, used “I” statements effectively. The eighth juror described his emotions, principles, ideologies, and opinions as they related to the situation at hand (Lumet, 1957). He appeared to be more committed than the other jurors and to have a better understanding of the implications. He shared his thoughts on the events and how he felt about various aspects of the case with the other jurors. He stuck to his plan until he had persuaded every juror, including the lone remaining juror.
Juror 3, who delivered the deciding not-guilty verdict, effectively employs “I” statements. Whatever the circumstances, this young man had to be found guilty. Even as reasonable doubt became clearer, he remained firm in his feelings, ideas, and beliefs that a guilty verdict was the correct decision. As a result, this shows how two distinct individuals used the “I” pronoun for two radically different purposes.
How Communication Skills Develop Throughout the Deliberation
The jury members’ bond was impersonal and fleeting since there was no interpersonal communication. Everyone on the jury panel knew each other only for a specific purpose. However, given the significance of their decision, a more thorough investigation was required. It would be an excellent solution to urgent problems.
Throughout the film, their relationship evolves as they develop mutual respect and reliance (Lumet, 1957). They became increasingly annoyed and contemptuous at times, making the interaction between all twelve of them incredibly intriguing. All of this was possible due to effective communication that they embraced to reach a consensus through the effective communication employed by juror 8. They overcame initial communication challenges and reached reasonable, well-reasoned conclusions about the assignment.
The Juror’s Communication at the End of the Film
In the end, juror 8 employed an audacious persuasive strategy. He bought the same knife from a pawn shop around the corner the night before the trial to refute the witness’ claim that the murder weapon was unique and had never been seen before. He persuaded the other jurors to reject the testimony by using visual effects. He successfully got the other jurors to communicate and discuss with him.
Finally, the jury members may have reasonable doubts about the admissibility of the evidence presented against the young man. One by one, they concluded that the young man was possibly innocent of the crime. Even the most self-assured juror, number 3, could set aside his reservations and reach an objective decision that was in everyone’s best interests.
Reference
Lumet, S. (1957). 12 angry men. Vimeo. Web.