Get Homework/Assignment Done

Homeworkping.com

Homework Help

https://www.homeworkping.com/

Research Paper help

https://www.homeworkping.com/

Online Tutoring

https://www.homeworkping.com/

click here for freelancing tutoring sites

MOVIE REVIEW

OF

EK RUKHA HUA FAISLA

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:Ms. Diana H Stany Demello

MBA12007100

BRIEF ABOUT THE MOVIE:

Ek Ruka Hua Faisla is a 1986 Hindi film, directed by Basu Chatterjee. It is a remake of the

Golden Bear winning, American motion picture 12 Angry Men (1957), which was directed

by Sidney Lumet, the film in turn was an adaptation from a teleplay of the same name by

Reginald Rose.

CAST:

Deepak kajriwal as Juror #1

Amitabh Srivastav as Juror #2

Pankaj Kapur as Juror #3

S. M. Zaheer as Juror #4

Subhash Udgata as Juror #5

Hemant Mishra as Juror #6

M. K. Raina as Juror #7

K.K. Raina as Juror #8

Annu Kapoor as Juror #9

Subbiraj as Juror #10

Shailendra Goel as Juror #11

Aziz Qureshi as Juror #12

C. D. Sindhu as Gatekeeper

The story begins in a courtroom where a teenage boy from a city slum is on trial for stabbing

his father to death. Final closing arguments are presented, and the judge then instructs the

jury to decide whether the boy is guilty of murder. The judge further informs them that a

guilty verdict will be accompanied by a mandatory death sentence.The twelve-man jury

retires to a private room, where they spend a short while getting acquainted before they begin

deliberating. It is immediately apparent that the jurors have already decided that the boy is

guilty, and that they plan to return their verdict quickly, without taking time for discussion –

with the sole exception of Juror Number 8(K.K. Raina).His is the only "not guilty" vote in a

preliminary tally. He explains that there is too much at stake for him to go along with the

verdict without at least talking about it first. His vote annoys the other jurors, particularly

Juror 7 (M. K. Raina),who has tickets to the Dilip Kumar's movie named Mashal.

The rest of the film centers around the jury's difficulty in reaching a unanimous verdict.

While several of the jurors harbor personal prejudices, Juror 8 maintains that the evidence

presented in the case is circumstantial, and that the boy deserves a fair deliberation. He calls

into question the accuracy and reliability of the only two witnesses to the murder, the rarity of

the murder weapon (a common pocketknife, of which he has an identical copy), and the

overall questionable circumstances (including the fact that an elevated train was passing by at

the time of the murder). He further argues that he cannot in good conscience vote "guilty"

when he feels there is reasonable doubt of the boy's guilt.

Having argued several points and gotten no favorable response from the others, Juror 8

reluctantly agrees that all he seems to be accomplishing is hanging the jury. He takes a bold

gamble: He requests another vote, this time by secret ballot. He proposes that he will abstain

from voting, and if the other eleven jurors are still unanimous in a guilty vote, then he will

acquiesce to their decision. The secret ballot is held, and a new "not guilty" vote appears.

Juror 9 (Annu Kapoor) is the first to support Juror 8, feeling that his points deserve further

discussion.

After Juror 8 presents a convincing argument that one of the witnesses, who claimed to have

heard the boy yell "I'm going to kill you" shortly before the murder took place, could not

have heard the voices as clearly as he had testified, as well as stating that "I'm going to kill

you," is said constantly and never meant literally, Juror 5 (Subhash Udghate) – who had

grown up in a slum – changes his vote to "not guilty." This earns intense criticism from Juror

3 (Pankaj Kapur), who accuses 5 of switching only because he's sympathetic toward slum

children. Soon afterward, Juror 11 (Shailendra Goel) questions whether the defendant would

have reasonably fled the scene and come back three hours later to retrieve the knife, then also

changes his vote.

Juror 8 then uses another scheme to question the witness's other claim, that upon hearing the

murder, he had gone to the door of his apartment and seen the defendant running out of the

building, as the witness in question had an injured leg which limits his ability to walk. Upon

the end of the experiment, the jury finds that the witness wouldn't have made it to the door in

enough time to actually see the defendant running out. And come to the conclusion that,

judging from what he heard earlier, the witness must have merely assumed it was the

defendant running. Juror 3, growing more irritated throughout the process, explodes in a rant:

"He's got to burn! He's slipping through our fingers!" Juror 8 takes him to task, calling him a

"self-appointed public avenger" and a sadist, saying he wants the defendant to die purely for

personal reasons rather than the facts. Juror 3 shouts "I'll kill him!" and starts lunging at 8,

but is restrained by two others. 8 calmly retorts, "You don't really mean you'll kill me, do

you?" Thus proving the point he mentioned earlier.

After Jurors 2 (Amitabh Srivastav) and 6 (Hemant Mishra) also decide to vote "not guilty",

tying the vote at 6–6. The storm breaks, it begins to rain heavily, and upon trying the fan,

which had previously not been working, Juror 7 finds that it is now working. Increasingly

impatient, Juror 7 changes his vote just so that the deliberation may end, which earns him

nothing but shame. When scathingly pressed by Juror 11 about using his vote frivolously,

however, Juror 7 insists that he truly believes the defendant is not guilty because he has come

to have a reasonable doubt as the other jurors pore over the facts. Juror 2 calls into question

the prosecution's claim that the accused, who was nearly a foot shorter than the victim, was

able to stab him in such a way as to inflict the downward stab wound found on the body.

Jurors 3 and 8 conduct an experiment to see if it's possible for a shorter person to stab

downward into a taller person. The experiment proves that it's possible, but Juror 5 then

explains that he had grown up amidst knife fights in his neighborhood, and shows, through

demonstrating the correct use of a switchblade, that no one so much shorter than his opponent

would have held a switchblade in such a way as to stab downward, as it would have been too

awkward. This revelation augments the certainty of several of the jurors in their belief that

the defendant is not guilty.

The next jurors to change their votes are Jurors 12 (Aziz Qureshi) and 1 (Deepak Qazir),

making the vote 9–3. The only dissenters left are Jurors 3, 4 (S. M. Zaheer), and 10

(Subbiraj). Outraged at how the proceedings have gone, Juror 10 proceeds to go into a rage

on why people from the slums cannot be trusted, of how they are little better than animals

who gleefully kill each other off for fun. As he speaks, one by one the other jurors turn their

backs to him, starting with Juror 5, until only Juror 4 remains. Confused and disturbed by this

reaction to his diatribe, Juror 10 continues in a steadily fading voice and manner, concluding

with the entreaty, "Listen to me! Listen...!" Juror 4, the only juror still facing him, tersely

responds, "I have. Now sit down and don't open your mouth again."

When Juror 4 is pressed as to why he still maintains his vote, he states his belief that despite

all the other evidence that has been called into question, the fact remains that the woman who

saw the murder from her bedroom window across the street (through a passing train) still

stands as solid evidence. After he points this out, Juror 12 changes his vote back to "guilty" to

make the vote 8–4 again. When 4 states that he doesn't believe the boy's alibi, which was

being at the movies with a few friends at the time of the murder, 8 test how well 4 can

remember the events of previous days. When 4 only remembers the events of the previous

five days, 8 explains that being under emotional stress can make you forget certain things,

and since 4 hadn't been under emotional stress, there was no reason to think the boy could

remember the movie he saw.

Then Juror 9, after seeing Juror 4 rub his nose (which is being irritated by his glasses),

realizes that, like Juror 4, the witness who allegedly saw the murder had impressions in the

sides of her nose, indicating that she wore glasses, but out of vanity did not wear them in

court; he cannily asks Juror 4 if he wears his eyeglasses to sleep, and Juror 4 admits he

doesn't – no one does. Juror 8 explains that there was thus no reason to expect that the

witness happened to be wearing her glasses while trying to sleep, and he points out that the

attack happened so swiftly that she would not have had time to put them on. After he points

this out, Jurors 12, 10, and 4 all change their vote to "not guilty."

At this point, the only remaining juror with a guilty vote is Juror 3. A long argument with

Juror 8 culminates in 3 revealing that he had had a poor relationship with his son, and his

anger over this fact is the main reason he wants the defendant to be guilty. Juror 3 loses his

temper and tears up a photo of himself and his son, then suddenly breaks down crying and

changes his vote to "not guilty", making the vote unanimous.

As the jurors leave the room, 8 helps the distraught 3 with his coat in a show of compassion.

The story ends when the friendly Jurors 8 (K.K. Raina) and 9 (Annu Kapoor) exchange

names, and all of the jurors descend the courthouse steps to return to their individual lives.

Character sketch:

Character Sketch and Performance Analysis :

Juror#1 (Deepak Kejriwal) : Like everyone, he too loses his temper many times, but only

occasionally. He performs as per his character demanded.

Juror#2 (Amitabh Srivastav) : A gentlemen who seemed to be an expert in mathematics.

Throughout the film, he gets scolded from Juror#3 for opening his mouth!

Juror#3 (Pankaj Kapoor) : One of the best performances of Pankaj Kapoor (see it to believe

it!). He plays the role of a rigid proud person who was in favour of punishing the accused as

he was fully sure that he had indeed killed his father (check the pic) . But later, the viewer

comes to know the real reason for having such a negative attitude towards the accused.

Juror#4 (S M Zaheer): He’s rarely seen in films but seems like a fantastic actor. His

performance was completely praiseworthy since he wonderfully did his job. He plays the role

of a gentleman, who rarely loses his temper and he believes that the accused is guilty. Watch

out for his 2 minute long scene, taken in one shot, wherein he tries to prove as to why the

accused seems guilty.

Juror#5 (Subash Udghate) : Like the accused, this person once used to stay in the slum areas.

But he had no sympathy for the accused and felt that he should be hanged. A not worthy

performance. What works for him is his looks-he really looks like a person from a lower

class.

Juror#6 (Hemant Mishra) : Nothing special about him. His character was neither

extraordinary nor important and his performance was okay.

Juror#7 (M K Raina) : The funniest character of the film! M K Raina plays the role of this

guy who’s in a hurry as he wants to catch the show of Dilip Kumar ’s flick Mashaal and

therefore, wants the decision to be taken as soon as possible!! This guy, with his arguments,

reactions and dialogues provide dollops of laughter (check the pic)! And surprisingly, M K

Raina is the same person who pitched in a serious performance in Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi as

Anushka Sharma’s father!

Juror#8 (K K Raina) : He was the one who felt that the accused may not be guilty from the

beginning itself. An architect by profession, he doesn’t lose his temper even once and faced

an uncompromising jury with bravery (check the pic) . K K Raina hasn’t performed in many

films but this is undoubtedly one of the best performances of his career!

Juror#9 (Annu Kapoor) : Annu Kapoor plays a person, more than 70 years and is completely

unrecognizable. In fact, throughout the film, I didnt got a hint that he’s Annu Kapoor; its only

when I read his name in the end credits that I came to knew! A brilliant performance indeed!

In fact, his character is the one you’ll remember for a long time after the film is over.

Juror#10 (Subbiraj) : A brilliant performance by Subbiraj who plays a person who has a

negative prejudice for people coming from lower class. He feels that these people are

dangerous to the society and they should be eliminated and that’s why feel that the accused

should be hanged.

Juror#11 (Shailendra Goel): Shailendra plays a Tamilian who begins every sentence with the

phrase ‘ Maaf kijiye lekin …’! His best scene was when Juror#10 asks him as to why he

begins his each sentence with ‘ Maaf kijiye ’ and he replies “ Woh isliye kyonki meri

parvarish aapki tarah jungle mein nahi hui ”!! Good performance!

Juror#12 (Aziz Qureshi): Another funny person in the jury who calls him very ‘creative’. His

speciality is that he gets influenced easily by other’s views and will change his vote from

guilty to innocent frequently.

TOPIC:

Group processes and Social facilitation:

Group processes:

Group process refers to how an organization's members work together to get things done. 

Typically, organizations spend a great deal of time and energy setting and striving to reach

goals, but give little consideration to what is happening between and to the group's greatest

resource - its members. While working hard to achieve results, it is critical that members'

needs be addressed. Membership in an organization is as much an opportunity to develop self

confidence, refine skills and make friends as it is to support a cause, fundraise or educate the

campus community. All of these can be done simultaneously, but most likely will not just

happen on their own.

Group process can occur from within the group, outside of the group and anytime of year.

Effective organizations take a close look at how members work together, which roles they fill

and whether members are contributing equally. Through group process, observation and

analysis can help identify problems early, thus alleviating the need for a major overhaul as

the year progresses. Your vantage point as a group member provides a great opportunity to

regularly observe how things are going. Depending on the frequency of meetings and an

understanding of what to look for, you can be instrumental in ensuring group and individual

success.

Elements of an organization which typically influence group proceedings include

communication, participation, decision making and role fulfillment. When observing these

specific areas you will likely see several things happening simultaneously. This is to be

expected, but it can also be rather confusing. Initially, you may want to isolate a single aspect

of the group. As you become more adept at observation, you can gradually increase your

areas of focus. 

Listed below are several questions to ask yourself as you begin observing a group.

Observation

One of the easiest aspects of group process to observe is the pattern of communication:

Who talks? For how long? How often?

At whom do people look when they speak?

Who talks after whom? Who interrupts whom?

What style of communication is used (assertions, questions, tone of voice, gestures,

etc.)?

Who sits where? Do the same people always sit in the same place?

The kinds of observations we make give us clues to other important things which may be

going on in the group (e.g., such as who leads whom or who influences whom).  

Participation

One indication of involvement is verbal participation. Look for differences in the amount of

participation among members.

Who are the high participants? Who are the low participants?

Do you see any shift in participation (e.g., highs become quiet; lows suddenly become

talkative)? What are possible reasons for this in the group's interaction?

How are the silent people treated? How is their silence interpreted? Consent?

Disagreement? Disinterest? Fear? Etc.?

Who talks to whom? Do you see any reason for this in the group's interactions?

Who keeps the ball rolling? Why? Do you see any reason for this in the group's

interactions?

Decision Making

Many kinds of decisions are made in groups without considering the effects that these

decisions will have on other members. Some people try to impose their own decisions on the

group, while others want all members to participate or share in the decision making process.

Does anyone make a decision and carry it out without checking with other group

members (self-authorized)? For example, one person decides on the topic to be

discussed and immediately begins to talk about it. What effect does this have on other

group members?

Does the group drift from topic to topic? Who topic-jumps? Do you see any reason

for this in the group's interactions?

Who supports other members' suggestions or decisions? Does this support result in

the two members deciding the topic or activity for the group? How does this affect the

other group members?

Is there any evidence of a majority pushing a decision through over other member's

objections? Do they call for a vote (majority support)?

Is there any attempt to get all members participating in a decision (consensus)? What

effect does this seem to have on the group?

Does anyone make any contributions which do not receive any kind of response or

recognition? What effect does this have on the member?

Does the exec board make all of the decisions or do all of the talking or do the

members?

Organizational Roles

A variety of crucial roles need to be filled to ensure group goal accomplishment and success.

Roles are distributed among three types:

Task

Primarily expressed through trying to accomplish group tasks. Examples: initiator,

contributor, information seeker and giver, elaborator, energizer, recorder.

Maintenance

Oriented toward improving relationships among members. Examples: encourager,

harmonizer, compromiser.

Self Oriented

Focuses on personal needs regardless of group concerns. Examples: aggressor, recognition

seeker, dominator, blocker.

Process observation requires patience and the ability to focus on everyone in the group.

Paying attention to these questions and roles can help you to better understand how the group

is affecting its member and vice versa.

Social facilitation:

Social facilitation is the tendency for people to do better on simple tasks when in the

presence of other people. This implies that whenever people are being watched by others,

they will do well on things that they are already good at doing.[1] The idea that social

evaluation has an impact on performance sparked interest in the psychological reasons behind

this phenomenon, leading to further research surrounding the Social Facilitation Theory and

its implications.

This theory suggests that the mere or imagined presence of people in social situations creates

an atmosphere of evaluation. Yerkes Dodson's Law Theory of Social Facilitation states that

in this atmosphere, "the mere presence of other people will enhance the performance in speed

and accuracy of well-practiced tasks, but will degrade the performance of less familiar

tasks." 

For example, a star soccer player may perform better in his game when more people are

watching him perform. However, if a person is asked to fix a car’s engine during a road race

but is not a mechanic, he will not perform as well if he is aware of the presence of others than

he would in a situation when he feels less evaluated or pressured, like just trying to fix a car

in his garage.

Social facilitation has occasionally been attributed to the fact that certain people are more

susceptible to social influence, with the argument that person factors can make these people

more aware of evaluation. These personality characteristics may cause some people to be

more greatly affected by the presence of their observers.

The role of social facilitation is important to consider in social situations, because it implies

that people’s performance does not rely solely on their abilities, but is also impacted by the

internal awareness of being evaluated. Performance can be greatly affected by situation

factors, thus making it possible to entirely alter the outcome of a situation. This can be very

important when considering how anyone will perform under evaluation and how to

potentially prepare for those situations. For example, if a professional basketball player

practices shooting free throws with fake audience noise in the background, he will not feel as

if he is under as much evaluation in a real game situation. This is because the noise-pressured

free throws will start to become a simple task rather than a complex task as he practices more.

Although he will know that the fake noise is not evaluating him the same way that real crowd

would, he is adjusting his awareness of the potential evaluation, and is thus trying to combat

any harm that social facilitation could bring to his shooting abilities.

Perhaps the first social psychology laboratory experiment was undertaken in this area

byNorman Triplett in 1898.

In his research on the speed records of cyclists, he noticed that racing against each other

rather than against the clock alone increased the cyclists' speeds. He attempted to duplicate

this under laboratory conditions using children and fishing reels. There were two conditions:

the child alone and children in pairs but working alone. Their task was to wind in a given

amount of fishing line and Triplett reports that many children worked faster in the presence

of a partner doing the same task.

Triplett's experiments demonstrate the co-action effect, a phenomenon whereby increased

task performance comes about by the mere presence of others doing the same task.

The co-action effect may come into operation if you find that you work well in a library in

preference to working at home where it is equally quiet (and so on). Other co-action effect

studies include Chen (1937) who observed that worker ants will dig more than three times as

much sand per ant when working (non-co-operatively) alongside other ants than when

working alone and Platt, Yaksh and Darby (1967) found that animals will eat more of their

food if there are others of their species present.

Social facilitation occurs not only in the presence of a co-actor but also in the presence of a

passive spectator/audience. This is known as the audience effect, surprisingly.

Dashiell (1935) found that the presence of an audience facilitated subjects' multiplication

performance by increasing the number of simple multiplications completed. Travis (1925)

found that well-trained subjects were better at a psychomotor task (pursuit rotor) in front of

spectators. However, Pessin (1933) found an opposite audience effect, namely that subjects

needed fewer trials at learning a list of nonsense words when on their own than when in front

of an audience.

It seems, then, that the extent of social facilitation or inhibition depends upon the nature of

the interaction between the task and the performer. In some cases the presence of

co-actors/audience improved the quality of performance (Dashiell 1935) but in others it

impaired the quality (though it increased the quantity of, say, multiplications).

According to Cottrell (1968), it’s not the presence of other people that is important for social

facilitation to occur but the apprehension about being evaluated by them. We know that

approval and disapproval are often dependent on others’ evaluations and so the presence of

others triggers an acquired arousal drive based on evaluation anxiety.

RELATION OF THE TOPIC TO THE MOVIE:

In the movie there seems to be no group processes and social facilitation among all the

members of the group because they come from different backgrounds, places, etc. But in

this movie shows the members acting together as a group and trying to take decisions as a

whole group. Here each individual are acting infront of group which says about the social

facilitation.

Juror#6 (Hemant Mishra) :

Nothing special about him. His character was neither extraordinary nor important and his

performance was okay.

As it is said that his performance was not worthy in the movie on this we can say that it is

one of the social facilitation act which took place in the movie were the performance of

the Juror#6 was okay infront of other members in the movie.

CONCLUSION:

This movie has shown the various aspects of group dynamics & the entire process of

group dynamics can be witnessed with the help of this movie. It also has various hidden

lessons & concepts through which we can be benefited.