12 Angry Men Movie Review

[cyrustan]

The movie started off with what seemed like a courtroom debate amongst 12 jurors on a surefire guilty verdict of a young defendant charged with the murder of his father. However, upon the call for the first vote to see where each one stands, juror #8 - who was portrayed as the true protagonist - was discovered to be the sole holdout (much to everyone else’s shock and frustration), and thus began the heated debate. Indeed, while there may be a few possible interpretations and principles to take away from the film, there was an aspect of the film that was actively at play, and from which we can all learn; negotiation.

In the film, juror #8 was portrayed as the successful negotiator, while the others represented unsuccessful and non-ideal tactics of negotiation. Juror #8 exemplified principled negotiation; being open to reason, closed to threats. His goal was not to cast faults and make personal accusations to discredit others, but to work toward the objective of their discussion, that is to determine if there is any reasonable doubt about the guilt of the boy. In dealing with the mounting pressure on him, juror #8 recognised that the men were getting emotional and allowed them to let off some steam without adding fuel to fire by provoking them. He acknowledged their points, and even took them to be true while proposing new logical explanations. These elements of his argument made it even more persuasive and convincing, and such is an example of negotiation with objective criteria.

Throughout this, juror #8 was notably unyielding to pressure against him. While his explanations met with strong resistance and agitation, he understood how the human propensity for defensive and reactive behaviour, is a reason negotiations fail when agreement would otherwise make sense. Instead of souring the relationship further, he worked towards building a working relationship independent of the men’s votes. This was unlike the other jurors, one of whom was unhappy with an opposing stand and said “You voted guilty didn’t you? What side are you on?”. Instead, juror #8 showed that he cared, as seen from his actions to wait for the final juror (who was deeply affected by his soured relationship with his son) to leave the room with him, and even took the initiative to collect his coat from the wardrobe for him. With the agitated attitude and tone of the jurors' who believed in the boy's guilt, it may have initially worked to drive some fear into those still sitting on the fence, but eventually due to the harsh treatment received, they resorted to changing their votes in response. This highlights the importance of separating people from the problem and emphasises that when dealing with opposition (and just as how juror #8 worked around the stubbornness of others), we ought to acknowledge that negotiators are people first.

Ultimately, I believe that while there is no guaranteed formula for success, negotiation techniques and qualities such as being objective, understanding, composed, quick to listen and awareness of interests at play, make up a good negotiator that would definitely garner respect and make a persuasive case for consideration. By seizing the negotiation as an opportunity to build up a relationship with the other party, the talks can progress amicably. Additionally, the other party might even be more willingly to compromise on some of their interests out of the respect you have earned in the positive friendship forged.

[DANAWEB]

This is one of my alltime favourite movie. Fully worth the time watching it..