Business negotiations film 12 angry men analysis

The goal of this assignment is to test your ability to integrate your knowledge of the basic negotiation concepts presented in this course and your personal critical thinking skills.
Part A of the assignment itself is an exercise in the art of active listening, observation, persuasion, empathy, and self-awareness as you absorb the film Twelve Angry Men. Filmed in black and white the story set is a hot, sticky court jury room located in the Criminal Courthouse at 100 Center Street, New York City during the dog days of August 1957 where 12 men are deliberating the fate of a young man accused of murdering his father. If you are unfamiliar, the actors in this film were all legends in their time and beyond. It is their acting prowess that makes this film’s story so compelling. 
If you think this film is not relevant to negotiation you would be mistaken…this is the ultimate negotiation…negotiating over whether to strip someone you do not know of their liberty and possibly their life. The film is a portrait of how human attributes, frailties, bias, and self-interest conspire during the decision-making process. To me, this is one of the most important demonstrations on how critical thinking helps strip away the clutter interfering with focusing on an objective. In this case, the truth. 
Each of the 12 different jurors possesses their own personalities with their attendant idiosyncrasies that they bring into the jury room.The film digs beneath the surface of the individual jurors and does a great job of demonstrating how important it is to remember that facts are facts. No amount of emotion or wishful thinking can change the nature of a fact. People can interpret facts differently, but that interpretation may not be supported by the facts. 
It is important to remember that the job of a jury in a criminal case is to determine whether or not the facts presented by the prosecutor are accurate enough to be able to arrive at a unanimous decision on the issue the jury is deliberating. The jury is the sole arbiter of the facts. In other words, the jury determines if the story being told by the prosecutor is so believable that there is no disagreement amongst the 12 jurors that the prosecutor proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 
The judge applies the law. In other words, the judge is the umpire during the trial. The judge calls the balls and strikes as to what witness testimony is heard by the jury. For purposes of this film, the judge plays no real role, it’s all about the jury. 
If possible, watch the film and then step away. Have something to eat or go for a walk or just change the environment from that of where you watched the film so you can think about what you just watched and let it sink in before you sit down to write. 
Part B asks you to use your critical thinking skills to analyze the interpersonal and group interactions during the jury deliberation process. Your personal tool box includes, but is not limited to, your life experience, critical thinking skills and the 15 chapters worth of information that was presented throughout the course. Prepare an outline of the interactions you choose to focus listing the specifics you would like to cover. The outline will serve as a check list and keep you organized while you write by keeping each interaction separated from the others you are writing about. 
Remember, I am most interested in how you plan to integrate some of the basic types of negotiation that were presented during the course. What I mean by that is how you use the correct terminology in context when explaining an observed interaction and then applying the appropriate concept to that interaction that supports your reasoning.
Do Not attempt to cover everything that transpires in the jury room.You have a word restriction. Choose a few key interactions each having their own dynamic to write about. 
Examples: 
Was the interaction between these named characters distributive or integrative in nature? Why? Or was it a combination of those types of negotiation or some other approach? Was persuasion used to change anyone’s or the groups thinking? Provide an example to illustrate your reasoning. Use your course materials for reference.