An analysis of "12 angry men"
Note how the leadership in the movie depend on that which Aristotle had previously given . Also note that Aristotle's formation of rhetoric makes it a component of every human effort, apart from (perhaps) those aspects of technical discussion which are so famous as to be established practically without question.
In groups, large or small, the identity and make up of who becomes the leader and who becomes the follower is difficult to explain. In the case of the movie "Twelve Angry Men," the small group is the jury and the verdict they have to find. There is an underlying assumption that the jury will judge their fellow man fairly and without any personal bias. However the imperfections of man make this process less than perfect. It is here, when emotions and logic are inserted into the thought process, that conflict, doubt and questioning of motives start to occur.
When the leader, in this case the foreman, takes charge we see his influence and power over the other members of the group (jury) start to take place and eventually the power shifts to another individual, in this case another jury member, an architect. On first look, the jury probably would have unanimously voted for conviction, however, as the discussion progressed, the architect gets the rest of the members to question their quick decision. While the foreman was relying on his legitimate place of power as the foreman, the architect keeps the group talking and discussing the facts of the case, and listening to each other. ...