APEX College

New Baneshwor, Kathmandu

Assignment
On
Movie Review and Analysis of
Ek Rukahuwa Faisla

Subject:
Managerial Communication


Submitted By:
Kopila Shrestha
MBA-EP

Submitted To:
Mr.Phatik Poudel
Faculty


Ek Ruka Huwa Faisla
The movie Ek ruka huwa faisla is a 1986 Hindi film, directed by Basu Chaterjee. It is a
remake of the Golden Bear winning, American motion picture 12 angry Men(1957). The movie
mainly deals with the deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 19-year-old boy who
was accused of stabbing his father to death. The movie portrays the characters trapped in a
journey of questioning their conviction about a murder trial.

This is a movie about 19 year old boy who was a suspect for murder of his father. A committee
of 12 people was assigned by the court so as to decide whether boy was culprit or not. The jury
members were assembled in a room on a hot summer day. They had to reach a consensus,
unanimously, regarding the boys fate guilty or not guilty. When the movie begins it seems like
the committee is already sure about the decision- guilty. But among them only one juror i.e. jury
No.8 is unconvinced of the boys involvement in the crime resulting in a difference in opinion
and further discussion on the case so as to reach to a common conclusion.

After going through the discussion among the jury members their nature, behavior, personal
beliefs, thoughts, ideas , opinions, prejudices, and cultural& social backgrounds were revealed
which added more interest among the viewers.


Following were the jury members:

Juror 1 Juror 2 Juror 3 Juror 4


DEEPAK AMITABH PANKAJ S. M. ZAHEER
KEJRIWAL SRIVASTAVA KAPOOR






Juror 5 Juror 6 Juror 7 Juror 8


SUBHASH HEMANT M. K. RAINA K. K. RAINA
UDGHATE MISHRA


Juror 9 Juror 10 Juror 11 Juror 12


ANNU SUBBIRAJ SHAILENDRA AZIZ QURESHI
KAPOOR GOEL




Juror 1:
Non-confrontational, Juror 1 serves as the foreman of the jury. He is serious about his
authoritative role, and wants to be as fair as possible

Juror 2:
Juror 2 is easily persuaded by the opinions of others, and cannot explain the roots of his
opinions. He also tries to keep the discussion peaceful. But most of the time it seemed that he is a
good follower and used to get influenced by the majority and was more willing to receive than to
give.

Juror 3:
In many ways, he is the antagonist to the constantly calm Juror #8. He is quick to lose his
temper, and often infuriated when Juror #8 and other members disagree with his opinions. He
was a preoccupied and pre-judgemental listener. He always used to relate the guys murder
case with his own personal life and never actively listened to any of the points made by the
people in favor of the accused.

Juror 4:
A logical, well-spoken stock-broker who is shown very conceited and unemotional. Juror #4
urges fellow jurors to avoid emotional arguments and engage in rational discussion. He seemed
to be a good listener. He was open minded as he never used to feel threatened or insulted and
willingly used to hear the messages that contradicts his beliefs, attitude, ideas or personal value.
He also used to identify and rationalize what is being said.

Juror 5:
This young man is nervous about expressing his opinion, especially in front of the elder members
of the group. He was a defensive listener as he grew up in the slums. So sometimes he used to
argue with other jurors during the discussion as if it was said to him.

Juror 6:
Juror 6 is an honest but dull-witted man. He plays a secondary role in the movie, with no
substantial contributions. He never felt shy away from voicing his opinions and likes to maintain
decorum during the discussions.


Juror 7:
He demonstrates the role of a self-centered person who is more concerned about his own
comforts and leisure than being fair and detailed. He showed an example of an ineffective
listener who was deflecting and monopolizing in nature. Without caring the discussions he used
to throw tantrums to other group members so as to divert them and was also monopolizing.
He show no regard to protocols or justice and does not actively support the decision making
process.

Juror 8:
He is the voice of reason, and plays the most crucial role. Juror #8 is usually portrayed as the
most heroic member of the jury. He is devoted to justice, and is initially sympathetic toward the
19-year-old defendant. He was an effective listener who followed the process of effective
listening process. He is calm, cool and he approaches the trial logically, calmly and competently
by scrutinizing each and every fact discussed during the trial, so that they are doubly sure that
they havent left any loop-hole during their decision making process.

Jury 9:
He is the old and wise juror who proves to be open to difference in opinions and supports them.
This character shows a lot of patience but is still hated due to inappropriate behavior on the part
of other jurors. He brings along with him loads of wisdom and experience which eventually
helps the jury members to come to a conclusion regarding a fully witness. His passion for truth
and justice drives his decision making process and helps him to logically analyses all the facts.

Jury 10:
He is the most actively destructive juror having his original opinions and prejudices which are
biased in nature. He demonstrates a clear example of a personalized approach leading to
destructive behavior. He showed a lot of arrogance in his style was trying to influence others in
the favor of punishing the guilty without going over the detailed facts. He was also very
impatient in his decision making.

Jury 11:
Jury 11 conveys a deep appreciation for democracy. His decision style is a mix of a
charismatic and a follower. He was a literal listener .He was one of the members who were
ready with the decision almost immediately when the discussion started, but later on when logic
and facts were presented, he changed sides again.


Jury 12:
He portrays the role of the most indifferent character. He was behaving as if he is just passing his
time and is least interested in the decision making process. He displays a typical child ego state
who is excited but not serious about the task assigned. He again shows a mix of charismatic and
a follower in his decision making style and was a victim of the status quo bias like most other
characters in this movie.


Conclusion:
Lastly, we can conclude that some of the juror in the movie had their own personal prejudices,
pre-judgement, biases, weaknesses, cultural differences, ignorance and fears that made and
impaired their decision making skills and cause them to ignore the real issues of the case. Also
some of them were a good listener and some of them also suffered from the obstacles towards
effective listening. And some had ineffective listening behaviors like deflecting, monopolizing,
selective and defensive listening forms. All these ineffective listening forms may create conflict,
discussion, disrespect among friends, colleagues, relatives, individuals etc.

So whatever may be the situation, one should not be pre-judgmental, pre-occupied and
overloaded before making any decision. Rather, one should develop skills for information and
critical listening like
Being mindful.
Control Obstacles.
Ask Questions.
Use Aid to Recall.
Organize information.