An Analysis of

Listening Effectiveness
On Movie

EK RUKA HUA FAISLA

Submitted To
Dr. Basant Kumar
BUSINESS ETHICS ANDCORPORATE GOVERNANCE

CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF ODISHA,KORAPUT

Submitted By
CHITTARANJAN PRUSTY
Roll No: 16/06/DBM/05
1ST SEMESTAR
CUO
1.Background and Summary

Ek Ruka Hua Faisla is a Bollywood drama movie written by Ranjit Kapur, produced and directed by Basu
Chaterji in 1986. It is a remake of the Golden Bear winning, American motion picture 12 Angry Men
(1957), which was directed by Sidney Lumet.
There are twelve male members of a jury who have gathered together in an enclosed room to deliberate
on charges of murder against a young boy accused of killing his own father. The case against the boy
looks certain and strong, as there is a witness in the form of an old man who claims to have heard the
incident and another woman who claims to have seen the actual act of murdering. Moreover there is
the weapon i.e. knife that was found at the crime scene, seemingly implicating the boy without any
fragment of doubt. But all is not what it seems like. Eleven jury members are convinced that the boy is
guilty of the crime and the task before them is to reach a unanimous decision to expedite the case. But
there is only one jury member who is not completely convinced about the case and he starts the
discussions, in which all the members have to participate to reach a common conclusion. A minor doubt
in one jury member’s mind slowly develops into a perpetually animated discussion about the various
possibilities and scenarios. There is an adjudicator who is supposed to chair the jury & make sure a final
decision is reached. But he is also a part of the vote and has to make up his own mind along with making
sure the proceedings are done without disruptions. The one guy who is not fully convinced manages to
change the vote of one other jury member who is the oldest in the room. From here begins a vociferous
and sometimes downright argumentative discussion, with most of the jury members ending up fighting
with someone or the other in trying to make a point or accept another.
The nature of each character is slowly revealed through the process of the discussions and this is a
reflection of their personal beliefs, convictions, notions, idiosyncrasies, prejudices, and cultural & social
backgrounds. And this is done without even identifying any of them as belonging to any race or religion,
to the extent that they are just referred to as jury one, jury two and so on. So, there are these 12
unnamed characters, somehow symbolic of the unnamed & unknown boy accused of killing own father,
and these ordinary 12 people discover their own set of beliefs and thought processes as they try
to unravel the same for the accused. Each is trying to convince the rest about their viewpoint, even as
slowly people start moving their vote from guilty to not guilty. And finally they are able to convince
everyone else and reach an undisputed decision. Another impressive aspect of the movie is its attention
to detail, as each and every small and sometimes unimaginable nuance of the case is analyzed and
debated upon, and yet the script and dialogues keep engage and attention till the very end.
2.Objective of Watching Movie
The main objective of watching Ek Ruka Hua Faisla is to identify and analyze the implications
and implementation of different concepts, aspects and theories of managerial
communication.This movie is probably the best medium for us to know about subject matters
of organizational behavior topics like perception, attitude, behavior, leadership, team
formation, norming and storming of team work, group dynamics, motivation, conflict
management, personality easily in an entertaining way within short period of time. The movie
also taught us how to work out best from the worst situation
3. Analysis of the Movie:
The movie “Ek Ruka Hua Faisla” is about how a person can change the mind of a whole crowd, by
sticking to his convictions backed up by rationale thinking. The protagonist approaches the subject of
capital punishment with caution and wants the other member of jury to convince him, that convicted
person is guilty. In this whole process of discussion and heated arguments we can observe so many
facets of human behavior. A few in the room have "don't care" type of attitude, who just happened to
be there on the Jury. Then a few are there who are of the type "I am always right". They have some
prejudices and they want to stick to it. There are also a few who have good analytical skills and have
conjured up lots of facts and data. What differentiates all these men from the protagonist (Jury No. 8
played by K.K. Raina) is the way he draws his inferences using various analytical tools and proving if
something is universally accepted, it doesn't have to be always correct.
Hence, these twelve people discover their own set of beliefs and thought processes as they try to unravel the same
for the accused. Each is trying to convince the rest about their viewpoint, even as slowly people start moving their
vote from guilty to not guilty and vice versa. Another impressive aspect of the movie is its attention to detail, as
each and every small and sometimes unimaginable nuance of the case is analyzed and debated upon, and yet the
script and dialogues keep you engrossed all the time. It’s almost like we are a part of the jury, presented with a
case, and discover for ourselves what could be the reality.
4. Learning from the Movie:
We can classify some other learning into following categories:
 Conflict, Power & Politics: There were many examples of conflicts between the jurors. These conflicts
occur when there is a difference between information, beliefs, values interest desires etc. these
could also be defined as rivalries in which one person or group competes with other. Next is Power
which the capacity Juror 8 showed to change other juror‟s decision. Last is politics which was
displayed by Juror 3 & juror 10 as an attempt to influence the distribution of favors within the group.
 Stereotyping / Prototyping / Prejudice: The last person who changed his opinion that the accused
was not guilty was actually having a perceptual error of stereotyping. In the past, his son, a teenager
once had (physical) fight with him & because of this incident he made a general perception that all
teenagers are irresponsible & could indulge in crime very easily.
 Halo Effect: One of the juror (second from the last to change his opinion) exhibited sign of halo
effect, where he was overwhelmed with one aspect of evidence (such as the boy didn't remember
character from the film that he watched that night) This juror continued to focus on only one or two
aspect of evidence & missed on other aspects which he later realized & changed his opinion.
 Perception: One of the jurors had a very selective perception he just accepted the evidence on its
face value & made up his mind which was easier for him to believe. He considered the evidence were
sufficient enough to term the boy guilty without giving any proper thought on evidence as a whole.
 Projection: According to one of the juror (seconded by several other others too) the accused comes
from slum & poor background. The boy also had a history where he was involved in some kind of
theft etc. Hence according to these jurors in light of available evidence the boy is guilty for sure. They
projected the slum background as most of the criminals come from poor & slum background.
 Self fulfilling prophecy: One of the jurors had his own self fulfilling prophecy that, given the
testimony by witness &the boy once told he will kill his father. According to him it is enough &
reasonable proof to consider him guilty.

First of all we learn that whenever a number of people from different culture, background, mindset
come together then conflict are sure to take place. The scenario from the movie can be extrapolated to
an organization where people from different backgrounds come together and are supposed to work in a
coordinated manner, then due to difference in opinions and personality conflicts are bound to happen.
Secondly 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 expressing only
individual viewpoints and influencing others as well.
Thirdly, in similar circumstance the role of power and politics comes into play when people with a
dominant to influence others and make them think and do things according to them. So in such cases
proper attention has to be taken so than the discussion takes place in an unbiased an non influential
way and everybody gets a fair chance to participate and express his/her opinion.Sometimes, Conflicts
can involve in the communication process. In this process, People either convinced themselves or
convince others. In the situation of conflict, People do not want to listen to others. Conflicts arise due to
differences in the information, values, beliefs, interests, or desires and rivalries in which one person or
group competes with each other
From this movie, I could infer that time Bound and specific objectives play an important role in group
dynamics. They could bring out the conflict in open and thus their resolution takes place under amiable
conditions. I know various things like group behavior, how group operates, how different people have
different roles in group at different times. Overall it was a good learning experience that helped me
better understands human behavior, up to what level people can go and how one can tackle even
deviant behavior in a group.