A real classic film, but falls short of meeting realistic expectations

Rating: 8/10 (23 April 2018)

The film '12 Angry Men' is set in a courtroom where a jury of twelve men deliberate the charge of a defendant of a murder trial with the aim of reaching a unanimous vote. Operating on the principle of reasonable doubt, the film appeals to viewers as it depicts the contrasting ways of examining a situation that is both intriguing and captivating, even better that it was in black and white. Although the film as a whole had many captivating moments, it was a line expressed by juror 9 that changed the game for me. He voted for 'not guilty' and explicitly explained his vote, "I respect his motives, but the boy in trial is probably guilty; but I want to hear more." This line impressed upon me two things: that a person who was previously on the far opposite end of a view could be so open-minded as to consider the possibility of a contrasting view even with little concrete evidence, and that the negotiator (juror 8) could succeed at persuasion just by communicating his motives, which is more significant in the face of such a weak case. This showed me how effective and powerful persuasion can be, especially since beliefs shape our actions which in turn affects everything and everyone.
In spite of this, there are also certain aspects of the film that are merely fictional and problems that are harder to deal with in reality. This is seen in one part of the film where the protagonist gave up his interests at one point in time and arrange for a secret ballot where he would change his vote to 'guilty' if there was a unanimous vote. Although juror 9 did vote 'not guilty' and the group of men began negotiating again, realistically it would not happen as parties would move on and forget about your interests once you give them up. The storyline falls short in this aspect but the film was still enjoyable as a whole.