Review on '12 Angry Men'

Rating: 8/10 (8 November 2017)

"I just want to talk." Juror 8 asserted to his team of compatriots in the jury room, being the only member of the jury that pleaded 'not guilty' out of the twelve. Standing at a vote of 1-11, Davis, starring Henry Fonda, held the reasonable doubt that the evidence presented in court was not substantial to convict the 18-year old of a death sentence. At that moment, his unconventional vote incurred the wrath of many. What could have seemingly been established within a few minutes will now turn into a long deliberation, before reaching the end of the verdict. With no factual proof but mainly assumptions, he was dealt the unlikely odds of winning his case. Yet, to uphold the truth and justice, he held the right attitude: To be firm and fair in negotiation.
12 Angry Men was a powerful and instructive film that laid out a typical negotiation scene in the jury room. Members of the jury, belonging to different age groups, status and social backgrounds, were selected at random from various communities in the district. These twelve men then deliberated over the case of a first-degree murder, by beginning with the element of negotiation from the outset: The discussion to talk things out. A series of event were then unfolded and documented, as each juror took turns to proclaim his opinions and convince another that held dissenting views, before reaching a unanimous decision.
All Juror 8 requested was for the jury to present their case and analysis of their judgment of 'guilty', to identify any logical justifications. Here, he understood his role as a negotiator to differentiate between 'position' and 'interest' as once a position has been established, it becomes tedious to alter. Thus, he was careful of not allowing positions to drive out interests. On the other hand, Juror 3 by Lee. J Cobb, was stubbornly adamant about his position as the jury member that appeals for 'guilty'. He started with a strong ability to reason about the existential facts, which however, as time goes by began to reveal cracks beneath the surface of his arguments. Holding a bias against delinquents, he was extreme on his views and showed no signs of concession to any proved investigations, often offending other members. Hence the process of negotiation requires less attention on positions or risk no agreement being formed.
The movie intentionally highlighted how the vast differences in the twelve, got in their way of achieving a consensus and how circumstances (e.g. weather) impacted them. Often, their arguments side-tracked and led to a series of confrontational retorts and personal attacks, instead of a reasonable discussion that tackles the core of the problem. One of the scenes that revealed a member changing sides from 'guilty' to 'not guilty' in a crucial anonymous vote, was a good illustration of being people- focused than problem-focused. Juror 3 let his emotions outburst when he confronted Juror 5 (Jack Klugman), accusing him of changing his vote because he empathized with the defendant, coming from slums himself. The false accusation then led to a lousy impression of Juror 3. This showcased personal prejudice against the person, rather than understanding the reasons behind the stand and hence the problem, spiraling into subsequent biases against issues.
In conclusion, this is certainly a movie that is worth the watch, capturing all scenes and emotions of the 12 jurors within a jury room.