12 angry men

Rating: 8/10 (6 November 2017)

I personally really enjoyed this movie and thought it had a humorous yet insightful take on negotiations. The movie highlighted a few mistakes that people often make when negotiating, without even being aware of it.
One of such mistakes was clearly displayed by Juror 3. He ended up arguing his stand because of his pride, rather than his principle. On the other hand, we see Juror 8 detached from his stand of 'not guilty'. Rather than being stubborn about his own view, he focused on the evidence of the case, never lost his temper and was open to opinions of the other Jurors that opposed his. Comparing between these 2 Jurors, it is obvious which negotiation style led to a more favourable result. Juror 8 not only managed to invite the others to participate but also led a smooth negotiation with a conclusive outcome that all parties agreed on.
As a viewer of the ongoing negotiations, I found myself shifting from agreeing with Juror 3 and his 'guilty' stand at the start, to getting frustrated with his subjective point of view at the end. Even with obvious reasonable doubt, he refused to change his view because he was wanted to 'save face'. I could imagine losing my temper and refusing to engage in any more discussions were I to be in such a negotiation, which would ultimately lead to no definite outcome.
This movie made me reflect on the different negotiation styles and which usually reaps the most results. Ironically, while everyone could see that Juror 8 was a much better negotiator, the reality of it is that most people behave like Juror 3 and get their personal emotions involved when negotiating. Overall, a great and informative film!