Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Ek ruka hua faisla1

3,562

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
3,562
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
298
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa EK RUKA HUA FAISLA: AN ANALYSISsdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf Submitted to: Prof. Bhupen Srivastavaghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj Submitted by Nirankar Royal (11PGDMHR36)klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjk
  • 2. PLOT SUMMARYEkRukaHuaFaisla is an adaptation of 12 Angry Men (1957), which was directed by SidneyLumet and was nominated for 3 Oscars. It also was another 13 awards and was nominated for 6.The original movie deals with the deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-oldLatino accused of stabbing his father to death.This is a movie about 19 year old boy who was a suspect for murder of his father. There was acommittee of 12 people assigned to decide whether boy was culprit or not. The jury assembled ina room on a hot summer day. They had to reach a consensus, unanimously, regarding the boy‟sfate – guilty or not guilty. When the movie begins it seems like the committee is already sureabout the decision- guilty. However, once the voting takes place the plot thickens. Only one juroris unconvinced of the boy‟s involvement in the crime resulting in a difference in opinion andfurther discussion on the case. The following discussion brings out different angles to the storyalong with highlighting the characteristic traits of the committee member. 1
  • 3. Before moving on to discussion on personality profile of each member and its impact ontheir respective behavior/stand taken, I would like to specify the working conditions orenvironment. The jury had assembled in a small room and had a task at hand – to adjudgewhether the boy was guilty or not. Here, it is interesting to observe the effect of individualthinking on the way they dressed. Out of the 12 jurors, 11 had pre-decided that the boy is convictbased on individual notions which we would discuss later. Because of these pre-decided stands,all of them, including the one who thought he was not guilty, were heavily dressed on a hotsummer day. This shows that while the 11 jurors thought that it must be a quick affair and won‟ttake much time, I had an impact on the thinking of the one left juror as well. Also, task waspretty specific, that the court is expecting a common decision by the end of the day, the jurorsdidn‟t had an option to simply leave or postpone the meeting in order to avoid the conflict. Thesepreconceived notions and clear objectives set the perfect stage for what unfolded later on.From this, I could infer that time bound and specific objectives play an important role in groupdynamics. They bring out the conflict in open and thus their resolution takes place under amiableconditions.PERSONALITY PROFILEJUROR 1 (DEEPAK KEJRIWAL)He acted as a co-coordinator throughout the film. He was expected to be non-partial during theproceedings and to keep the deliberation orderly and procedural. He is the facilitator andmediator of the discussion and is hence expected to be someone who guides the discussionforward and resolute the conflicts. He is soft spoken and believed in democratic decisions witheveryone‟s consent. 2
  • 4. Though he is a good moderator but he lacked control over the group so as to ensure disciplinedand peaceful approach towards decision. Because of this, his role was not taken seriously byothers and he was often questioned about his authority and was unnecessarily emphasizing onrules. In response, he lost his cool twice in the movie and asked other members to take up hisrole.Irrespective of the role, he kept his cool throughout the discussion and never fought with anyone.He is the kind of person who seeks co-operation from others. He is social as he tried to bringeverybody to the table and maintained amiable relationship with everyone.From his profile, I can say that he was probably working in a bank or at some place whereinteraction with strangers is most as his soft skills are very polished.JUROR 2 (AMITABH SRIVASTAVA)He is relatively new to such situation and thus has certain inhibitions. He is shy by nature whoiseasily convinced and influenced during stressedmoments. He also tries to keep thediscussion peaceful. He tries hard tokeep up with the group. He was very keen in makingsignificant contribution to the discussion, though every time he was overpowered byPankajKapoor‟s character. He had good analytical skills and he came up with some goodandvalid point about the time taken by the lady witness to observe theentire situation.Most of the times it seemed that he is a good follower andused to get influenced by themajority and was more willing to receivethan to give. His part in the movie is affronted bythe Juror #3. But finally,he speaks up about some evidence that bothered him. 3
  • 5. During conflict and heated situation, he tried to move away from the situation by given excuse ofhis ailing daughter. This shows that he is very timid and introvert by nature. He displayedconsulting style.JUROR 3 (PANKAJ KAPOOR)He is the arrogant, criticizing and was the shouting member of the group. Though he plays therole of the most divisive character who is falsely convinced that the accused is the murderer;his dissentious stand was because, his only son deserted him, so this painful relationship with hisson caused anger toward all young people, thereby influencing his vote. As time goes on hebecomes more personally involved with the case. He emerges as a rigid proud person who is notopen to new data and bases his judgment on old material. He does not listen to any points madebythe people in favor of the accused.He depicts an active-destructivepersonality. He is overemotional and takes the case very personally. He is very active in the decision making processbut in a destructive way by having an attacking and commanding attitude.JUROR 4 (S. M. ZAHEER) 4
  • 6. He is the well dressed stock broker whose character is shown veryconceited and unemotional. Hebased hisdecisions on hardcore facts anddemonstrates an active constructive personality. He isvery patient andcalmthroughout the process and bases his decisions on pure logic. Heshowedsigns of thinker andcontroller in his decision making style. Hefaced hindrance of the evidencetrap because once Juror 8 hadpresentedhim the other side of coin, and there were evidencessupporting him, heimmediately went into athoughtful state realizing his blunder in ignoringthedetails and then shifted his decision in thefavor of Juror 8.Though he considered hardcore facts for making decisions, he formed a group with Juror 3 oncehe felt that he his in minority. Their he strategized and advised his fellow conspirer not to movefrom his stand. This shows that he is confident about what he decides and in a threat situation, hecan do things which might not be correct according to his morals but correct to protect hisdecision.JUROR 5 (SUBHASH UDGHATE)He is the person who belongs the same slum as the accused. Hebecomes very defensive and doesnot reactwell to others prejudice.Since he comes from a similar background, he is in a betterposition tounderstand the accused situations and empathize with him. He is alsological in hismethodology and bases hisopinions only on facts. Hedemonstrates a passive constructivepersonality. He behaves like askepticany time when someone would point out that the accusedisfrom slum area so the prejudiced thinking was that allslum dwellerswere criminals. Otherthan that, he was acting like a follower and going with the flow ofmajority. 5
  • 7. JUROR 6 (HEMANT MISHRA)He plays a secondary role in the movie, with no substantial contributions.He also demonstrates apassive constructive personality. Thischaracterdoes not shy away from voicing his opinions and likes to maintaindecorum during thediscussions. Initially he was also against the accusedbut with the rational logics given by juror #8he was convinced that theboy is not guilty.He is traditional by thinking. That is, he showed respect to elders, others and their personal life.He also had an fight when another juror was insulting the older juror 9.JUROR 7 (M. K. RAINA) 6
  • 8. He very effortlessly demonstrates the role of a self-centered person whoismore worried about his own comforts and leisure than being fair anddetailed. He shows leastconcern about the case even though a life wasdependent on it. He is least bother about theimportance of the decisionstaken with respect to the accused person‟s life. His personal affairsaremore important to him than the life of that boy. He snubbed all thesuggestions and throwstantrums every time the group follows anorderthat is against his comforts and expectations. He show no regard toprotocols or justice anddoes not actively support the decision makingprocess.JUROR 8 (K. K. RAINA)He is the voice of reason, and plays the most crucial role. At thebeginning, he is the onlymember of the jury who votes „not guilty andwithstands all the pressure from the other jurymembers. By saying thatits not easy for him sentence a boy to death without even discussingthefacts he opens the other jury members minds to the possibility that theaccused may notbe guilty. He is calm, cool, and collected, and is probablyone of the few jury members who fullyunderstand his role as a jury. Alongwith this, he approaches the trial logically, calmly andcompetently byscrutinizing each and every fact discussed during the trial, so that theyare doublysure that they haven‟t left any loop-hole during their decisionmaking process. 7
  • 9. JUROR 9 (ANNU KAPOOR)He is theold and wise juror who proves to be open to difference inopinions and supports them.He brings along with him loads of wisdomand experience which eventually helps the jurymembers to come toaconclusion regarding a faulty witness. This character shows a lot of patience but is still agitateddue to inappropriate behaviour on the part of other jurors. His passion for truth and justice driveshis decision makingprocess and helps him to logically analyse all the facts.JUROR 10 (SUBBIRAJ) 8
  • 10. He is the most actively destructive juror having his original opinionsandprejudices which are biased in nature. He demonstrates a clear cutexample of a personalizedapproach leading to destructive behavior. Hiscommunity biases lead to many verbal conflictsresulting in an aggressive approach.He showed a lot of arrogance in his style was tryingtoinfluenceothers in the favor of punishing the guilty without going over the detailedfacts. Hewas also veryimpatient in his decision making.JUROR 11 (SHAILENDRA GOEL)He is one of the characters who show an adult ego state throughoutthe decision making process.Hewas not amongst the jury memberswho were not taking their roles seriously and were onlymakingtheenvironment more aggressive and uncontrolled. He was in factpacifying othermembers of the jury andcalming the environment.His decision style is again a mix of acharismatic and a follower. Hewas one ofthe members who were ready with the decisionalmostimmediately when the discussion started, but lateron when logicand facts were presented,he changed sides again aggravating Juror3. He was also a victim of theAnchoring andAdjustment heuristic ashe was using the implicitly suggested reference points toinfluence hisoriginal decisions 9
  • 11. JUROR 12 (AZIZ QURESHI)He portrays the role of the most indifferent character. He wasbehaving as if he is just passinghistime and is least interested inthe decision making process. He displays a typical child egostatewho isexcited but not serious about the task assigned. He againshowsa mix of charismatic and a follower in hisdecision makingstyle and was a victim of the status quobias like most othercharacters in this movie.Team’s Influence in effecting changeA team can be divided as a group of people having a common vision, carrying out a specific taskby following specific rules and protocols to achieve a common goal/mission/objective. In thismovie 12 jury members are appointed by the court to discuss the case and reach to a consensusabout the final decision of the case.Systems theorists have long believed that when individuals "merge into a group" something newis created. This called the GESTALT effect which says whole is much more powerful andeffective than a part. This new entity, although comprised of individuals, is believed to be"greater than the sum of its parts" and thus the dynamic that is created within the group is notdirectly attributed to any one individual but rather the unique interrelationship between thoseindividuals and the force that this interrelationship has on group functioning.Written below are the various benefits of teams, observed:- 10
  • 12. 1. Understanding group dynamics and creating participation and involvement: In themovie, 12 jury members have to reach a consensus. So the consent of every jury member wasrequired. This required an underlined understanding of where the group stood with respect totrust, disclosure and acceptance. Also everyone was individually asked about their views andthey have to give appropriate reasons. Thus involvement of each and every member was there.Participation of each and every member of the group was encouraged. They were forced to sharetheir point of views. . Here also it has been strongly depicted that the group dynamics play ahighly important role in changing the mindset of its members. For example the character playedby PankajKapur was very stringent and stubborn for most of the part of the movie, but the groupwas successful in changing his perception regarding the new generation. I would start the teambuilding process in the movie from the beginning.2. Facilitating better group effectiveness by honing every member’s decision makingabilities: at the beginning of the discussion 11 out of 12 jurors considered the accused to beguilty of murdering his father. The final decision made later shows that even after so manysessions in the court many issues were left unexplored. These were unearthed during this grouptask. This helped the group to make a decision considering all the true facts and hence they wereable to make a fair and just decision. Due to this the innocent boy was realized of all the charges.So as a result of this team work the effectiveness of the group as well as individual decisionmaking ability increased 12 folds.3. Better management and utilization of conflicts by generation of diverse ideas: all thebrainstorming and teamwork helped in exposing all those facts which were not even thought ofduring the entire trial and which finally helped in proving the boy innocent. For example the factthat the lady witness wore spectacles and it would have been difficult for her to recognize thekiller from such a far away distance. Or the time taken by the old man with an injured leg toreach the place where he saw the boy running away from home.There were many instances when many of the jury members contradict each other and heatedarguments usually followed these conflicts. But at the end everyone came out with a unanimousdecision by accepting their differences and acknowledging to the facts.The main protagonist was the Juror #8, played by Mr. K KRainaThe major attributes, style and approach are discussed below:-Openness and ability to voice opinions: Heis the voice of reason,and the most crucial character inthe movie. In the beginning, he isthe only member of the jury who votes „not guiltyand withstandspressure from all other eleven jury members. By doing this, heopens the otherjury members to the possibility that the accusedmay not be guilty. His calm, cool, and 11
  • 13. collected demeanor infusesconfidence in the audience, and shows that he is probably one of thefew jury members who fully understand his role.All that Juror 8 wants is to give the accused a fair chance bystructurally going forward with theprocess of scrutinizing every factand detail. He is the first to question the evidence that isbroughtforward. He went to lengths to prove his point and to convincepeople of his opinions. Forexample, the knife which was the weaponof crime was supposed to be unique and rare to find.He proved thiswrong by buying the same kind of knife from a local shop. Heapproaches the trialin a very logical and organized manner. Hestood out due to his ethics, motives, passion for fairand justhearing, and rational approach.Believed in Fair and Wise Judgments – Ethics and Justice:Juror #8proves to be anEthicalperson.This is reinforced by the fact thatdespite of so many ethical dilemmas encountered bytheprotagonists, he never budged from his values and ethics, andcontinued looking forward toa just and fair discussion. For example,even when 11 out of 12 jury members were against himhe did not get intimidated by numbers. He told them that he was not entirely convinced andconsiders it ethically wrong to sentence a boy to such a fate without discussing about the caseproperly. Insome parts of the movie he acts like a counselor too. He tries to convince Juror #3 tothink about the case leaving all prejudices behind.Logical and Rational Approach: An architect by profession he brings with him a logical, rationaland analytical way of going forward with the procedure. Right from the beginning he says thathe does not know for sure whether the accused is guilty or not, and neither does he have anyvalid points to put forward but all that he wants is discussion about the same so that they are ableto validate their beliefs. For him sentencing someone to a death penalty is a huge decision and hewould require pure logic and valid reasons to prove him that the accused deserves such a harshpenalty. He likes to overanalyze the facts so that every aspect of the problem is studied indetail.He contributes some very logical and valid counter arguments haven thought of by others. Forexample the fact that the lady witness wore spectacles and it would have been difficult for her torecognize the killer from such a faraway distance, or the time taken by the old man with aninjured leg, to reach the point where he saw the boy running away from home. The old man wholived in the apartment exactly below the crime scene, had heard the accused shouting just fewseconds before he heard someone scream and fall with a thud. He said that he then saw theyoung boy running from the stairs. All this according to him took 15-20 sec. But the juror 8proved that fore person that old, walking with the help of a stick, cannot reach the staircase injust 15 seconds. In fact he himself demonstrated that it will take minimum of 41 seconds to reachthere.Leadership and Influence: The character demonstrates greatleadership skills and influencing capabilities. Even though in thebeginning, he was the only person against 11 jurors, he eventuallyconvinced people that the case is not as simple and straight as it haslain out to be. He tells themthat according to him there arevarious loop-holes in the case which need to be discussed andscrutinized in order to reach a fair judgment. He 12
  • 14. believes in logically approaching the discussion and hence convinced everyone to do thesame. Being a performer and a through and through hard worker, he devotedly does his studiesthe case, the witnesses and the crime scene to come up with any loop-holes which will help themto reach conclusion about the case. Being the leader that he is, he believesin his gut feeling andfollows it right from the beginning till the end. His greatest strength was the ability to positivelyinfluence others.Finally, this character proves to be a go-getter, and an initiator who actively seeks truth whilemaintaining a calm, peaceful and pleasant demeanor throughout the procedure despite of beingProvoked a number of times. Being an achiever and a confident man he actively listens to hisfellow jurors‟ opinions and point of views, and encourages them to think and rationalize. Uponexamination, the film highlights social psychology theories in areas of attitude change,conformity, and group process.Attitudinal Change: Persuasion, being a function of attitude, plays an integral aspect in theintriguing nature of the movie. Persuasions the process by which attitudes is changed. They arethe tools through which people persuade others to agree with what is right and just or apt. Thereare two ways to persuasion: peripheral and central. The central route is the process by which aperson carefully ponders upon a communication and is eventually influenced by the powerof argument. Juror #8 and Juror #4, both follow this approach towards attitudinal change. Juror#8 appeals for the accused‟s innocence in well-thought, organized and elucidated manner. Hestipulates his points through empirical evidence and eventually sways theother jurors. The central route to persuasion characterized Fonda‟sapproach. Likewise, the businessman uses his curt, stoic andinductive nature to create a strong, convincing argument based onfacts. Lastly, Juror #11 applies the central route to persuasion when he advocates, “goingdeeper,” in reference to an examination of the facts. The peripheral route of persuasion ischaracterized bysuperficialcues surrounding the argument rather than validity of the factspresented in theargument. Juror #10 and 7 display this kind of an approach. Where on one hand Juror #10 veryinappropriately urges other jurors to construe an attitude based on peripheral ethnic and racialcues, Juror #7 asks them to get away with the decision as soon as possible since there is no use indiscussing the factsasmaximum number of them were convinced the boy was guilty. Through the use of non-factual, environmental cues, the sickgentleman utilizes the peripheral route to persuasion. Routeselection is another component of relevance in the movie. The jurors, who care deeply about thefate of the accused boy, areconcerned with justice, take pride in their intellect regardless ofGroup polarization is the concept that group discussion generally serves to strengthen the alreadydominant point of view. This often leads to risky shift. The movie initially exemplifies thisprocess but with consistent contempt is suppressed by Juror #8 and the people who supporthim.Hence it becomes emperative for any team to give their teammembers the following:- 13
  • 15. Equal and fair chance to voice their opinions i.e. good space for Self-Observation. A welcoming and supporting environment i.e. a conduciveenvironment for Self- Disclosure. Experience trust, acceptance and understanding within the team. Vicarious learning i.e. a chance to pick up skills and attitudes from others. Good insight to expand self-knowledge.Share other people‟s experiences- concerns, difficulties andhopes. This will indeed make theteam an effective medium of change.LEARNINGS FROM THE MOVIE-Firstly we learn that whenever a number of people from different background,mindset,culturecome together then conflicts are bound to happen. The scenario from the movie can beextrapolated to an organisation where people from different backgrounds come together and aresupposed to work in a coordinated manner, then due to difference in opinions and personalityconflicts are sure to take place.Secondly, in similar circumstances the role of power and politics comes into play when peoplewith a dominant personality try to influence others and make them think and do things accordingto them. So in such cases proper attention has to be taken so that the discussion takes place in anunbiased and non influential way and everybody gets a fair chance to participate and expresshis/her opinion.Thirdly whenever some decisions are taken as a team then the focus should be on taking the viewpoints of everybody and collectively coming to a decision rather than focusing on expressingonly individual viewpoints and influencing others as well. We also learn that every decision should be based on reasonable evidence and it can bedangerous to rush to conclusions. In the movie, most of the Jury members were initially in ahurry to shut the case and pronounce the accused guilty even when they know it‟s a matter ofsomeone‟s life. Only Mr. Raina stands against such a decision and demands that the jury shouldgive appropriate time to the issue and have a healthy discussion on the entire case. Hence, asmanagers, we should always be dedicated and do a thorough analysis before taking an importantdecision.Whenever working in a team some points have to be kept in mind always, some of which are- Equal and fair chance to voice their opinions A welcoming and supporting environment 14
  • 16. Experience trust, acceptance and understanding within theteam. Vicarious learning i.e. a chance to pick up skills and attitudesfrom others. Good insight to expand self-knowledge. Share other people‟s experiences- concerns, difficulties andhopesThe accused in the movie came from a poverty stricken background. Some members of the Juryhad preconceived notions against people coming from slums. It was evident in the movie thatthis preconceived notion had a big impact on their decision .The film demonstrates the power ofsocial influencesand shows us how prejudices and biases can cloud our decisionmakingcapacities. It leaves us with a learning that we should never have any pre conceived notionswhile taking critical decisions since they may cloud our rational thinking.When dealing with Humans nothing is written on the wall as golden rule. As one of thecharacters puts it " Yeh koi science nahinhai , jahan sab kuchnishchithotihai " ( this is not sciencewhere everything is fixed and proven). What is required of us is to have an open mind toeverything in life and crtically analyze all aspects of a situation before making any decision.There are certain important points that should be kept in mind while working in teams and whencollective decision has to be taken-Take interest-While working in a group often what we witness is social loafing by some of the members,whichshould be tried to get rid off at any cost.all members should take interest in whatever ishappening in the meeting,unlike what we saw in the movie where majority of the jurors were in ahurry to finish the proceedings and rush back home.Avoid aggression-Aggression should be avoided and everybody should remain calm and composed so that rationaldecisions can be taken.Avoid being a follower-A fair chance should be given to all members to express their opinions and point of view andthey should be encouraged not to just go with what the majority is saying.Rational and logical thinking-All members should to think and take decisions rationally. Members should think critically andthen arrive at any decision. 15
  • 17. 16

×