This movie even though almost of the scene happened inside a small room, had depicted the different characteristics all of us can relate to. Although at first when you watch the film you might think that it is boring, when the film progressed and the discussion and deliberation regarding the murder case of whether the kid is guilty or not, you can see and feel the psychological war happening especially between the only one who voted not guilty and the rest who voted guilty. When I tried to put myself in his shoes and imagined I’m at that small room I can feel the tension and the difficulty that I might face because I might be pressured to change the conviction to agree with others even though someone’s life is at stake.
I admire how the film was able to show the different personalities and characteristics of each juror which showed that their personal experiences, backgrounds, prejudice, ideas might affect their reasoning and their understanding and eventually their decision. We can learn from here that observance is very important when we want to decide on something and our personal experience can affect how we decide. As one of the men said that what presented from the trial may seem that the boy was guilty but there is a need to dig deeper because the lawyer was not able to do that, therefore, it is up to the jury to find out if there is a reasonable doubt that the accused was not guilty. Asking question is very important to know the truth, although the different point of views may have created tension, anger, confusion and frustration in the deliberation, still the movie was able to show that these very differences helped also to come up with solutions, these different point of view and reasons eventually lead to a vote of not guilty.
The movie had excellently showed how the changes happened on the men from being firm on their decision of not guilty to being swayed into voting not guilty because of discussions on the circumstances surrounding the case which was not discussed during the trial probably because the lawyer was nonchalant and just wanted the trial to be finished without regards to the life of the boy, which was probably because he had his own prejudices and thinking that the boy was really guilty. I really loved watching movies that shows the intricacies of human psyche and the dilemma each of us might face in our daily life and this movie said it all. We can also see that although the men here may have different point of view, they were able to use common sense, insight and humanity to deal with each other although what they really wanted was to go home and be with their family or went in their own way since they each have their own problems and issues on their life. I also applaud the use of outside condition, the hot weather to show tension and the rain to indicate solemnity, calmness and the time to ponder on things, on issues the men were facing and how it reflected on who they are.
It was really an exciting and edge of your seat drama since we can feel the tension, we also question ourselves, we reflect on things when we are faced with the same situation, if we are in the same dilemma. We ask ourselves, ‘With whom I can relate to?” “Am I someone who just wanted things to just pass by or done with without regards to the consequences of my decision or actions?” “If I’m at that same situation, might I think the same as these men?” “Would I consider myself a man of integrity?” “Am I affected by prejudice?” If we are to be honest with these questions we can say that we all have imperfections but we may all want to be right in our view and to do the right thing. However really, even if we don’t want to be swayed with other opinions and wanted to be firm with ours but surely we still are in one way or another be affected by others views, our need to belong and our need to feel important.
The American system despite its faults and the fault of people acting as jurors was shown here excellently as being something that gives importance to reasonable doubts, to a decision of whether to consider an accused guilty or not guilty. It’s just funny to see grown men who were at the start of the movie seemed to be very convinced that they are right and the kid was guilty but eventually changed their convictions because eventually they have seen that there is a reasonable doubt, a possibility that the kid was not guilty. For me, the culmination of the film really was exciting especially when the tide was turned and only one remained voting not guilty, now he was the one insisting that it was his right and now he had to defend why he voted guilty and that he won’t be intimidated. It seemed that he really was firm on his decision but the truth was he only insisted on his vote of not guilty because he was angry with his son, this only showed that we all have our own idiosyncrasies, our own prejudices, our own dilemma that affects our mind, our decisions, our attitudes and behavior.
I liked the last part of the movie when despite differences and heated arguments, the man who at the start of the movie voted not guilty still had managed to show kindness to the last man who voted guilty. At the movie they were the very ones that showed two very distinct and opposing personalities, there was even a scene where he accused the other one of being a sadist but I guessed he finally was able to understand that he was just like that because of his guilt and anger towards his son. I can say that it is very easy for us to judge other people but we really have to dig deeper to understand them and when it comes to someone else’s life, we should take time and effort to really know the truth when it is in our hand to do so even if it will mean discomfort or challenge for us.