12 Angry Men - Old but Gold

Rating: 10/10 (9 November 2017)

12 Angry Men is a captivating film set entirely in a sweltering jury room of a courthouse. The jury must deliberate whether an 18-year-old boy from the slums is guilty of murdering his father. A guilty verdict means that the boy will die. As the jury starts their discussion, the line is immediately drawn with 11 members voting 'guilty' and Juror 8 voting 'not guilty'. As the men tries to reach a unanimous decision, conflict arises, and we are led to see how the different jurors view the case. Some let their personal issues cloud their decisions, while others are barely invested in the situation and simply want to leave the room. Juror 8 eventually manages to convince all 11 men to reconsider their stand on the case.
One insight gleaned from the film is how our past experiences can lead to the development of deep-seated bias. As Juror 8 leads the others through the case, not only does he uncover clues that shows there is more to the case, he also reveals the prejudices and preconceptions that the jury have about the trial, the accused, and each other. The boy accused of the murder came from the slums. For many members of the jury, that is enough to confirm that he is guilty. The people from the slums were insensitively referred to as 'born liars', wild, violent and that 'there is not one that is any good'. Thus, it is no wonder that the boy would commit a murder and it is obvious that he is guilty. The jurors who agreed with these over-generalizations are not deliberating on the case based on the facts alone, but letting their own bias cloud their visions. It proved difficult for them to even realize that they do have these biases. Juror 3 was also shown to have personal problems with his son and wrongly transferred the anger onto the case as well as fellow members of the jury. At the end, it was a sobering scene as the jury came to the realization that they do hold prejudices, misgivings and mindsets that were wrongly imposed on the case.
From 12 Angry Men, we can see how preconceived notions impacted the way the jurors communicated. Though set in 1957, the film provides an excellent case study on negotiation, offering many insights that are relevant as we communicate with others today.