Society is remarkably quick to judge a situation without thoroughly investigating it. During the movie 12 Angry Men, the old saying that you cannot judge a book by its cover, truly comes to life. This movie shows and explains the process that the jury on each case go through. It shows how each juror goes through the process of determining whether the defendant is guilty or not. Throughout the duration of this paper, you will be provided definitions and examples of three ways that this movie relates to Communications 1010. The three concepts/theories that I believe best fit the movie would be inference, groupthink, and dialogue.
Inference is the concept of a tentative generalization based on some evidence (Pearson, Nelson, Titsworth & Harter, …show more content…
A juror states that "Kids that live in the slums are all criminals" (12 Angry Men, 1957). Another example of groupthink during the movie is when the jury talk about how the boy's father beat him and would smack him around. The jury say "This boy has been hit so many times that violence is a sort of affair to him" and also one of the jurors says "I would beat him up too if he was my kid" (12 Angry Men, 1975). Throughout the movie groupthink decreased but that was after several hours of deliberation which is when the theory of dialogue comes in to …show more content…
Also, the members of the jury questioned the testimony of the old man. They questioned how the old man ran to the door and down the hall in such a short amount of time, yet he drug his leg when he walked and had a stroke the previous year. The jury questioned why the boy could not remember what movie he was supposedly at. They thought his knife was very unusual until one of the jurors bought the same exact knife for cheap right beside the boys house. The jury questioned how the women across the street could see into the window without wearing her glasses and they questioned how she turned over in bed at just the right time that she saw the murder happen. The jury questioned how the old man could hear the boy yell at his father they he was going to kill him when an extremely loud train was passing at the same exact time. All of these questions lead to good conversation and discussion throughout the members. Without the use of dialogue the jury would not have founded their final conclusion of not guilty and the boy would have been sentenced to
Inference is the concept of a tentative generalization based on some evidence (Pearson, Nelson, Titsworth & Harter, …show more content…
A juror states that "Kids that live in the slums are all criminals" (12 Angry Men, 1957). Another example of groupthink during the movie is when the jury talk about how the boy's father beat him and would smack him around. The jury say "This boy has been hit so many times that violence is a sort of affair to him" and also one of the jurors says "I would beat him up too if he was my kid" (12 Angry Men, 1975). Throughout the movie groupthink decreased but that was after several hours of deliberation which is when the theory of dialogue comes in to …show more content…
Also, the members of the jury questioned the testimony of the old man. They questioned how the old man ran to the door and down the hall in such a short amount of time, yet he drug his leg when he walked and had a stroke the previous year. The jury questioned why the boy could not remember what movie he was supposedly at. They thought his knife was very unusual until one of the jurors bought the same exact knife for cheap right beside the boys house. The jury questioned how the women across the street could see into the window without wearing her glasses and they questioned how she turned over in bed at just the right time that she saw the murder happen. The jury questioned how the old man could hear the boy yell at his father they he was going to kill him when an extremely loud train was passing at the same exact time. All of these questions lead to good conversation and discussion throughout the members. Without the use of dialogue the jury would not have founded their final conclusion of not guilty and the boy would have been sentenced to