An Analysis of

Listening Effectiveness
On Movie
EK RUKA HUA FAISLA

Submitted To:
Course Instructor
Managerial Communication
APEX College


Submitted By:
Manjil Prasad Shrestha
Roll No: 10
Second Trimester
Manikkya

3
rd
December, 2012
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 members 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. Problems of listening effectiveness in movie



4. 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. Its almost like we are a part of the jury, presented with a case,
and discover for ourselves what could be the reality.

5. 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 jurors 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.