Adapted from the play of the same name by Reginald Rose, Sydney Lumets 12 Angry Men is a fascinating study of interplay between characters coming from diverse backgrounds, the prejudices held and the biases discovered; the communication gaps created therein and the art, science and skill involved to overcome them by a persistent, persuasive and dedicated man. Sumit Kumar Das Roll No 15P112. 12 Angry Men

The one undercurrent to all those voting not guilty based largely on circumstantial evidence is that they are unwilling to question their assumptions. In real life, such kind of communications tend to be uninspiring, monotonous and routine and hence have a short shelf-life and dont leave an impression. A brief analysis and the communication barriers faced by the 11 jurors voting guilty followed by the profile of Juror no 8 who managed to convince them otherwise is presented below.

1) Juror No 1:- He is assigned the task of being the foreman. Though he is methodical and displays some leadership traits, he is impatient and is poor at resolution of conflicts. He gets needlessly aggressive while in a confrontation with Juror no 10 and then withdraws from the group for a while thus severing the communication channel. He shows some passive-aggressive behavior at some points and lacks the objectivity that should be in a leader.

2) Juror No 2:- He is a bit intimidated by the surroundings given that it is the first jury he has been on. He doesnt display very good group behavior and it is evident from the fact that most of his interactions are one-on-one instead of to the entire group. He later has a good point to make but he appears to be a wallflower waiting to bloom. A bully like Juror no 3 sitting next to him doesnt help his cause as well. Communication or otherwise, his shell is his barrier.

3) Juror No 3:- He is uninterested in the process to begin with as he admits he fell asleep many a time during the trial and this disinterest is in display multiple times during his communications as well. Moreover, he is prejudiced and lets personal biases cloud his judgment. He lives in self-denial too as he once says that he has no personal feelings which is obviously not true. Later he behaves in a smug manner, lacks respect for others and thinks himself as a veteran at being at a jury. He is inconsistent with the reasoning at multiple points which betray the presence of an ulterior agenda which he is not doing a great job of hiding. That the closest guy to him in terms of reasoning i.e Juror no 4 behaves mostly dryly with him shows that he is building no communication bridges.

4) Juror No 4:- He is a serious, non-friendly person with a wall around him. He even refuses the offer of Juror 3 to exchange cards at the beginning of the movie. At places, he displays a startling lack of empathy. A lot of analytical people like him have the tendency to have such an overbearing faith in their own analysis, logic and conclusions that they become blind and unreceptive to any arguments beyond that. He is also impatient with juror no 9 when the latter starts making an argument about how the lady witness might be in the habit of wearing prescription glasses.

5) Juror No 5:- He doesnt have very concrete reasons to consider the boy guilty but given the background he comes from he is eager not to be seen sympathizing with him. He probably has a hidden inferiority complex and is letting his background cloud his judgment prowess.

6) Juror no 6:- He easily takes sides but comes across as someone who doesnt have a middle ground and will hence struggle in diplomatic settings. Either he is docile or, on the other hand, he ends up violently threatening Juror no 3 when he insults Juror no 9 in a scene. He also comes across as patronizing in his words to the Juror no 9 and some people can take offence because of that.

7) Juror no 7:- He comes across a superficial and insincere in the conversation as he is not focusing on the task at hand. He also makes plenty of out of context extrapolations, straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks which will be considered boorish in any form of communication. Moreover he is an obvious sports lover and even all his metaphors come laced with references from it. This can be a major barrier if the other person is not interested in sports and thus is not on the same page. An example of this was his conversation with Juror no 2 at the beginning.

8) Juror no 9:- He is not very sure of himself to start with as is shown in the scene where he hesitantly raises his hand for guilty as he sees everyone voting guilty in front of him (Juror 8 sat behind him). He needs a crutch to place his conviction on. As soon as he finds one in form of Juror 8, he is willing to stand up or lean over.

9) Juror No 10- He is impatient, has racial and classist biases and lacks respect for his interlocutors as is shown multiple times in the movie. He lacks the acceptable civility for a formal discourse and has a tendency to lose temper and yell.

10) Juror No 11- He is probably an immigrant and even though he is better at grammar than some of the guys in the group, he has a pronounced accent and seems somewhat foreign in the group. Though it is an unfortunate situation to be in, it can be often observed in practical life. He also has a tendency to ramble a bit which might make the audience lose focus and interest.

11) Juror no 12- He has a profound inability to think deep and stand his ground as is obvious from his changing his vote on no fewer than four separate occasions. He is also not focused on the job and keeps wandering off to doodle or talk about his ad agency.

Juror No 8:- He is thoughtful, contemplative and is the only one thinking about the case right from the beginning when the attitude of the rest of the group can only be, at best, described as borderline flippant. As a result, he is the one best prepared to discuss the merit and demerits of the case. He is firm yet humble as is demonstrated by the fact that despite rude behavior of many jurors, he doesnt get into ugly confrontations except once which, again, was to prove a point. Still, on one occasion he is quick to jump into action when he sees people playing some game instead of discussing the case. Thus he is also a man of action. One of the remarkable things about him is that he has no authority over the others when the film starts beyond what he seemingly vests in himself via logical thinking and the presence of a firm ground in form of a reasonable doubt. He is not even the designated foreman of the group yet he quickly emerges as the leader and focal point of the group. This shows that you dont need a formal title to assume the mantle of leadership.He hardly indulges in small talk and there is a steadfast refusal to talk about anything other than the case at hand. Moreover, he keeps arguing different points but his focus never wavers away from his central premise that there is a presence of a reasonable doubt in the case. He is very precise, concise and never drags his point but yet he is articulate and demonstrative enough to communicate his points in a very effective manner. He is not afraid of going the extra mile like recreating the bedroom and using different props. He makes one logical deduction after another and keeps winning the jurors to his side. He shows that it is pretty tough to argue against logic even if you have preconceived biases.Finally, he is empathetic and compassionate which are the basic foundations of the concept of reasonable doubt. This is not only evident from empathy he shows for the boy on trial but in one of the final scene, he is the only one staying back offering an arm and the overcoat to juror no 3 who has been sitting disconsolate after an emotional outburst. This despite the fact that juror no 3 has been one of the most bitter and biased rivals throughout shows that he is least judgmental about his partners in a group.