Review of“Ek Ruka Hua Faisla”

Ek Ruka Hua Faisla is an adaptation of 12 Angry Men (1957), which was directed by Sidney Lumet and was nominated for 3 Oscars. It also won another 13 awards and was nominated for 6. The original movie deals with the deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino accused of stabbing his father to death. Adaptations are numerous, but it takes talent to tell the same story in the context of a different culture and socio-economic conditions of the times. Director Basu Chatterjee managed to do that very well in his 1986 film Ek Ruka Hua Faisla, which was, perhaps, not as popular as some of his other movies. The main theme of the movie is that twelve male members of a jury gather together in an enclosed room to deliberate their decision on a charge of murder against a young man who has been accused of killing his elderly father. All of the jury, save for one, are convinced of this young man's guilt, and they would like to convince their colleague also to come to the same unanimous decision.

The story idea is quite simple. The movie 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. Each juror has varied reasons and has his own opinion about the murder trial. One has a pre-conceived notion about the cadre of people who come from the same financial background as the accused. One is aloof and totally unconcerned about the outcome of the case since he wants to finish the job at the earliest, not to miss the movie starring his favorite actor. There is one disagreeing individual who is totally convinced that the young man is guilty due to personal prejudices. And there are others who are supportive and understanding.

All members of the jury, except one, strongly believe the accused to be guilty. That makes it Eleven Vs One. It is this one juror, played by K.K Raina who takes a rational approach from the very beginning and thinks that the young man should not be convicted in view of even a slightest visibility of his innocence. He analyzes the evidences and the testimonies provided by the witnesses in a truly analytical way without getting judgmental.

The one guy who is not fully convinced manages to change the vote of one other jury member who is the oldest in the room. From here begins a vociferous and sometimes downright argumentative discussion, with most of the jury members ending up fighting with someone or the other in trying to make a point or accept another. The movie shows the nature of each character is slowly revealed through the process of the discussions and how this is a reflection of their personal beliefs, convictions, notions, idiosyncrasies, prejudices and cultural & social backgrounds. And this is done without even identifying any of them as belonging to any race or religion, to the extent that they are just referred to as jury one, jury two and so on. So, these 12 unnamed characters, somehow symbolic of the unnamed & unknown boy accused of killing his father, and these ordinary 12 people discover their own set of beliefs and thought processes as they try to unravel the same for the accused. Each is trying to convince the rest about their viewpoint, even as slowly people start moving their vote from guilty to not guilty and vice versa. The way that jurors speak, their aggressiveness, postures and gestures showed that the boy was guilty. To some extent, they were there to prove that the boy is guilty. However, one by one supported that the boy was not guilty. Some of the members were passive listeners and spoke very less but the voice played a critical role to support the non-guiltiness of the boy. An old characters voice was somehow like babbling but he clearly tuned to support the non-guiltiness of the boy. Throughout the movie K.K Raina stands firm on his belief and finally succeeds in convincing the other jury personnel one after the other that the young man is not guilty.

Conclusion:

"Ek ruka hua faisala" is a story of such 11 men, who are all biased in their decision over a legal verdict, a murder case. The impressive aspect of the movie is its attention to detail, as each and every small and sometimes unimaginable nuance of the case is analyzed and debated upon. The 12^th person in the group was an indifferent guy who tries to convince the group by his rationale thinking. It's decided that until any consensus is reached within the sequestered jurors, they all have to sit together and listen to what others are saying.The movie left us thinking behind, the way we view things, the way we take decisions, where does this promptness to do something comes from, are we ever reached at the reality before judging the activities of mind as right and wrong. This movie also suggests that all the people have to think twice before making any decision. Taking quick and prompt decision may ruin any situation and sometimes the life of any person.