I’m watching the 1957 movie “12 Angry Men“. The original featured a stellar cast of Henry Fonda, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden and Martin Balsam. If you have never seen this movie [the original is better than the remake, both are worth seeing], I highly recommend you watch it. It’s only about 90 minutes long and is an excellent lesson in breaking out of the box thinking.
Henry Fonda, Juror #8, does not believe the young man accused of murdering his father is guilty. He is not certain the boy is not guilty, though he is certain there are possibilities that he is not guilty. When the first vote is taken, Henry Fonda is the lone ‘not guilty’ vote. He brings up several good points that gets the other jurors thinking about the various sworn testimonies differently.
For instance, he questions the testimony of a 75-year old man: the man said that he heard the accused shout “I’m going to kill you” then heard a body thump to the ground. The woman across the apartment watched, through the last two cars of the el, the accused run out of the apartment. Juror #8 logically acts this out only to find out that this is could not be possible. Juror #9 brought up reasons why the 75-year old might believe this … for attention. The older man walked with a minor limp and his jacket was torn. Pride and attention.
Another point was that the accused could not remember the name of the movie he saw the night of the murder. Juror #8 asks Juror #4 what he did last night, the night before, and the night before, etc. Juror #4 cannot remember who was in the movie he saw four days prior, and couldn’t remember the exact title of the movie.
Then they discuss the woman who testified … and her glasses.
If you are facing a potentially difficult situation where you need to think objectively or persuade others, I highly recommend you watch this movie beforehand. Even if you don’t have this upcoming event, the movie is a must-see.
Remember, it isn’t what was said, it’s what they think they heard!
