12 Angry Men (1957) - - Essay Example

Xxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx 4 November 12 Angry Men The movie ‘12 Angry Men’ is a ic example of how a person’s strong conviction can enter hearts of others and make them think with a different outlook. The movie begins with the judge asking the jury to retire in the other room and come up with a decision. Eleven out of twelve jury members are in staunch support of the accused being given capital punishment. But there is one person who has ‘reasonable doubts’ in his mind about the evidences and the witnesses.

He decides to vote not guilty for the accused and starts to give the logic behind his thinking. What happens after that is nothing less than a miracle. After many rounds of votes and heated discussions among the jury members, the decision comes out to be completely different than what had been expected. Throughout the movie the first dissenter, Davis, maintains that he did not believe in the accused being innocent but he had doubts about many aspects of the trial. There are many things that can be learnt from his approach in the field of conflict management and negotiations.

The primary requirement of dealing with any conflict is to understand the problem and be well acquainted with the facts. There should also be an interest in the matter under consideration. This interest was lacking in the jury members who were more concerned about their daily routine and selfish interests rather than the trial. This was probably because they thought that it was an open and shut case with no room for any argument. A firm conviction is necessary to withstand the pressure that is exerted from all sides in a conflict.

Davis, played by Henry Fonda, seemed to be a man of integrity. He did not force his opinion over others but instead expressed himself in a very clear and polite manner. The first cracks in the jury appeared when one of the members joined him not because Davis was right but because of the possibility of a discussion. This is a crucial point in any conflict. When the parties engaged in a deadlock situation acknowledge the problem and decide to have a debate, it is a sign of debate heading in the right direction.

The next most important issue is to deal with individual prejudices. There were many members of jury who had fixed opinions about slum dwellers. They thought that youngsters from slums were prone to violence. Removing such prejudices is essential in any discussion or negotiation. Next stage is examination of facts without distortion of personal opinion or prejudices. This may also involve critical thinking or even out of the box thinking. The most basic assumptions should be questioned and questions should be asked about the authenticity of the facts.

Lastly, in the film it was easier to change the views of jury members. This attitude may not be replicated by common people in real life. Real life participants may not be flexible because they may have personal interests invested in the issue. In the film the jury members had nothing to gain or lose from the decision. The decision they reached in the end was a result of both removal of their personal prejudices and a sense of responsibility which they cultivated later in the discussions.