gwen ang

12 Angry Men was my first black and white movie which I sat through from the start till the end. Personally, I found the movie intriguing - even though I was watching it from a third person's perspective, there were many moments where I resonated deeply with some of the characters and felt the emotions they were probably feeling during that point of negotiation. Beyond entertainment, the movie depicted the importance of having good negotiation techniques, some of which were also mentioned in the famous "Getting To Yes" by Roger Fisher and William Ury. I liked how there was a certain state of order established at the start of the entire discussion, such as the suggestion to go around the table so that each juror would have a chance to voice their opinions on their case, which is also a practice commonly adopted in classrooms and workplaces nowadays when it comes to discussions and meetings. When things became heated during the discussion, there was also one neutral juror who was appointed to keep things in order, such as by reminding the jurors to take turns and wait for their turn to speak, particularly useful in this case as there were multiple parties involved and it was not just a negotiation between 2 parties or positions. While there were jurors who were already fixated on a particular stance right from the start of the discussion - that the suspect was guilty - there were thankfully also jurors who were willing to adopt an unconventional perspective, investigating the fact that the suspect could have a slight possibility that he did not commit the crime. This proved to be crucial as in a negotiation, every opinion and interest should be heard of, despite how unlikely, or ridiculous it may seem, such as in the movie, where almost all the evidence had pointed to the boy as the prime suspect, yet in the end, jurors worked together to prove it otherwise. Though the movie is dated back to 1957, this concept of being open-minded to perspectives remains equally crucial in the modern world. There are also a couple of pointers that I picked out from the movie which I felt were relevant for our everyday negotiations. During the movie, there was a particular juror that stood out; he was adamant about his stance that the subject was guilty, and refused to participate in the discussion meaningfully, shooting down any opinions that supported the other stance. Eventually, when he interrupted the discussion by overpowering one of the jurors, the entire table got up one after another and left the discussion, refusing to acknowledge this juror's opinion. This also points us to the bigger picture that in every negotiation, a discussion is two-way, and that only if we show our willingness to consider the other party's perspective, then others would do the same for us. Another important point the movie touched on was the difference that working together towards a common solution, instead of opposing parties could make. Amidst the tension, there was a juror who managed to probe further investigation into the credibility of the witness's evidence, after noticing the spectacle marks on one of his fellow juror's nose bridge. As someone who did not have to wear spectacles, he understood how the marks came about by empathising with the latter, and this not only built rapport between the two jurors, but also managed to uncover a scope of the discussion that was previously not discussed.