http://www.scribd.

com/doc/49202540/Ek-Ruka-Hua-Faisla-Analysis

As part of my Human resorce management course, we were shown Ek Ruka Hua Faisla. Thoughm it could be a wonderful case for The Theory of Justice, here is a small write-up from group dynamics. ... Netflix Summary: Basu Chatterjee directs this Hindi-language drama that borrows its central plot from the classic Hollywood film 12 Angry Men, the story of a dozen male jurors who must all agree whether a young man is guilty of murdering his elderly father. One juror who is convinced of the boy's innocence sets out to get the others thinking about their personal prejudices and, in the process, about the true meaning of justice. ... Group Dynamics in Ek Ruka Hua Faisla

A switch from 11-1 to 0-12 is very rare in real life juries, but Ek Ruka Hua Faisla very convincingly depicts the switch. It achieves this by staying true to the realities of group dynamics.

Once the objective of the group is established, they start with a vote based on individual decisions. Tough, the vote is 11-1 in favor of Guilty, not everyone votes immediately. Some of the members look around before raising their hands and, as it turns out, these are the first to switch their votes. Those on the fence probably vote believing that the truth is with the majority, the old man is the last to raise his hand probably to avoid being an odd one out and is first to switch his opinion, that for a very weak reason i.e. to support the Devil's Advocate and no real persuasion is needed.

It is interesting to note that the first change in stated position happens during a secret vote. Anonymous ballet is one of the best ways to break conformity, as the pressure to agree with the majority group is reduced. As is seen, the group starts attacking the person they wrongly consider 'deserter' a display of invulnerability. This is also shown when the adman says that lets convince him that he is wrong and we are right.

The first talk by the architect tries to break the illusion of morality that comes with dominating majority, and a belief that the truth is on their side. The majority group talks with a belief that there is no doubt about what the decision should be.

As the members from majority group start defending their position, the signs of groupthink emerge. Stereotyping as a member states ...in saalon ki to puri kaum hi.... Mindguards come into play as the group starts asking questions like tu aadmi ho ya.... Also, as the most vocal members agree on the decision any deviation by not-so-vocal members becomes difficult as they attack and pressurize them to not voice their doubts. The initial confrontations are high on emotion, esp. anger. Also, the majority group want to hear only the facts supporting their stand and make comments like aap kya kahna chahate hain? and ab isse kya hoga?, probably resorting back to mindguards.

Also, the majority group lacks a clear leader and in-fighting starts pretty soon as differences within them start emerging. Some members take offense to the stereotyping as they themselves are generally stereotyped, one juror is from slum area himself.

On the other hand, the architect shows leadership skills. Initially he plays the devils advocate though, as it later becomes clear, he believes that the boy is not guilty. He does this to avoid personal confrontation and hatred that is usually directed towards a lone dissenter. Instead of taking a stand, he employs a democratic leadership style asking the other members to discuss the case with an open-mind as he says mera khayal hai, baatcheet.

By looking at the facts from a new angle, the architect makes the group members to reconsider their stands, and encourages them to delve further into the generally accepted truths.

Later, he shifts from a devil's advocate to an authentic dissenter. This change is marked by a more aggressive approach that he takes later. Initially, he is calm and mostly in his chair, but as the group members change their stated positions we see him take a more loud approach to defending the boy.

We also see a change in the body language of members as they move from majority group to minority group. This is most evident in Juror 2, who was being bullied by Juror 3 in the early stages. He looks more confident after joining the minority group. A similar change can be seen in Juror from the slum.

Another leadership skill that the architect shows is the focus on task at hand. As the majority group indulges in socializing like ek latifa sunata hun or as they play tic-tac-toe, the architect refocuses them on the task of reaching a consensus. This task orientation is a must for a group to reach any decision. Also, he forces the group to take responsibility for their actions by reminding them over and over of the importance of the task they are to perform.

In the end, a single dissenter manages to change the stance of the group by displaying leadership skills and an understanding of how a group functions. The story idea is quite simple. 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 father. The case against the boy looks irrefutable and indomitable, 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 stabbing. Plus there is the murder weapon a 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. All the jury members, except one, 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 deliberations, in which all the members have to participate to reach a common conclusion. What starts off as a minor doubt in one jury members mind slowly develops into an intricate and almost perpetually animated discussion about the various possibilities and scenarios where there could be even a shred of divergence from the commonly perceived notions and judgments of the jury members. 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. What fascinated me about the movie is how the nature of each character is slowly revealed through the process of the discussions and how 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 his 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 vice versa. But are they able to convince everyone else and reach an undisputed decision? For that, my friends, you have to watch the movie. It will capture your attention till the very end, where they jury does reach a unanimous verdict one you have to see it yourself to believe it. 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. Its almost like you are a part of the jury, presented with a case, and discover for yourself what could be the reality. The cast includes some famous names from television and cinema from the 1980s. Pankaj Kapur & Annu Kapoor are some of the relatively more famous actors you will recognize. Unfortunately, I am not aware of the work of some of the other actors. There is no visual charm to the movie, as the production values are quite simple, with a very basic setup of a large room with a big table, around which these common Indians are to decide the fate of a young boy. Apart from this, the only other flaw if I could call it so is that the jury system is not part of the Indian judiciary, which has either a one-person judge or a panel of a select bench. Nevertheless, Ek Ruka Hua Faisla is a must watch purely for its complex narrative, and almost flawless direction.
Twelve jurors - common people with their usual daily problems, emotional swings and their regular habit to stick to what is obvious - are selected to judge a case where very strong evidences are available against the accused. Everything was transparent and vividly clear. The case was supposed to end with common opinion against the accused within no time. But one person was against this common judgment and this is the point where story builds up. This one person make other eleven to change their decision. It is Hindi adoption of 'Twelve Angry Men (1957)' (as far as I feel.)and is equally mastered. It is acclimatized for Indian viewers. Performance of actors touches the pinnacle and it is a recommendable movie.