12 Angry Men

I saw this movie last weekend and to say that it was good would be an understatement. It was great!!! A taut script with an ensemble cast keeps you glued to the screen for the entire duration of the film. Its all about 12 jury members sequestered in a jury room, to decide the fate of an 18 year old, from a poor,gritty and rough locality, accused of murdering his father. 11 of them vote for "Guilty" straight away while one of them, an Architect, votes "Not Guilty"...just because he's not sure of the facts, believes them to be circumstantial in nature and he wants them to, in his own words, "...talk about it,you know!!!". What follows is an attempt by the lone man to convince the others that there is room for "reasonable doubt". They begin to analyse the "facts"(some reluctant, some vehemently reluctant and some willingly). They realise there is indeed room for "reasonable doubt" and end up, one after another, revising their decision to "Not Guilty",setting the lad free. The entire movie, apart from around 3 minutes, is set in the jury room. It's a hot day and to make matters worse, the fan isn't working. The Architect has to contend with prejudice and bigotry, love for a ball-game and personal misfortunes to finally swing everyone to his favour.

This movie,in my opinion, is also a worth-while case study in a plethora of subjects relevant in the corporate world, like group discussion/meeting etiquettes, the kind of people and attitudes you'll probably have to face, the importance of being assertive, building rapport et al. It would be great if Infy would replace the day long boring ILI sessions with a screening of this movie (its just 1 hr 36 min long) followed by a discussion. Fun and informative.

The following is a small intro to the 12 jury members.

1)Jury No 1: A coach by profession and the self appointed leader of the pack.. Is willing to listen and I didn't get the feeling that he had a solid backing for his "Guilty" judgement. Gave me the feeling that he was just following the tide. Why do I thing so? The apologetic face he makes when he finally decides to vote "Not Guilty". He brings a well needed order to the discussion.Reminded me of how some try to take leadership of a GD, just because he thinks that'll give him points.

2)Jury No 2: I don't remember his profession. A mild man who can be mistaken for a push-over. Doesn't appear to be confident/assertive. I thought he was a person who knew his weaknesses and was trying hard to overcome them and he does.

3)Jury No 3: A man bitter at the loss of his adult son who walked out on him after a fight. His "Guilty" judgement is due to this latent bitterness and sense of betrayal. The son killing his father scenario is taken personal by him and he wants the accused to be awarded the death penalty because this would be his "way" of avenging his sons "betrayal". The most acerbic of the lot and resorts to a lot of shouting and bullying to make his point. He holds on to the "facts", but when he finally realises that it is his own personal prejudice that is leading him and that his blind argument for facts is just a front, he gives up his stand and votes "Not Guilty". A real memorable character.

4)Jury No 4: The cool and composed stock broker. Very logical and believes in the facts. When he is convinced that the witness who "saw" the murder may be inaccurate in her account owing to the fact that she may not have been wearing glasses at the time, he votes "not guilty".

5)Jury No 5: A man who has been brought up under similar backgrounds as the accused. He is not proud of his background and wants acceptance. Is not too sure of himself as is evident from how he abstains from stating his reasons for a "Guilty" judgement. He stands up for himself as the movie progresses and even provides valuable insights to the evidence and is one of the key members helping the Architect in his quest.

6)Jury No 6: I don't remember his profession. Initially votes "Guilty", but when convinced by the opposition arguments, he switches and joins the cause. A true gentlemen who stands up for the old man and also others who are wrongfully bullied by Jury No 3.

7)Jury No 7: The flippant one who doesn't care about the trial. He badly wants to see a ball-game, thinks most of the members will vote "Guilty" and does so himself as this would make proceedings end sooner and he'll be free to see the game. He is visibly irritated when the Architect votes "not guilty" meaning they'll have to "talk" it out. It starts raining in the middle and he understands that the game has been called off. He stays on and votes "Not Guilty" once he sees that the others are doing so.

8)Jury No 8: The architect.

9)Jury No 9: An old man who is the first to vote "not guilty" in support to the Architect. His reason being that he respects the Architects motive to give the accused a chance by analysing the seemingly (to him) circumstantial evidence. He is the one who brings out a key point which succeeds in convincing Juror 4 to chage his vote to "Not Guilty".

10)Jury No 10: The vociferous,bigoted old man. He is strongly prejudiced against the accused who comes from a low background. He believes criminals "breed" in such places and they would all be doing the world a favour by sending the accused to the chair. He doesn't agree to reason and looses respect, earns the displeasure and isolation of everyone after a bigoted speech. He is subdued after this and meekly changes his vote.

11)Jury no 11: The earnest immigrant. Even though he votes "Guilty" initially, driven by the doubts raised by the Architect, he too raises valid doubts and subsequently changes his stand.

12)Jury No 12: Another indifferent,playful man involved in marketting. Very indecisive, he keeps moving with the tide.

A great movie. A must watch for all avid enthusiasts of cinema :)