As a matter of procedure, they begin the proceedings by a vote to just reconfirm that they all agree about the guilty verdict. When the voting happens, by voice and by raise of hands, all but one vote guilty. That’s 11 voting guilty and 1 voting not guilty. As the verdict has to be unanimous, they all try to achieve that by further discussion. The whole movie is about how the jury arrives at an unanimous verdict. If you think that the 11 jurors would try and convince that one dissenting juror to arrive at a unanimous decision, read on.

The beauty is, it is not the 1 man (juror #8) that changes his vote to guilty, it is the other 11 men who finally change their vote to not guilty. Fantastic isn’t it? You would imagine that it must be easy for the 11 men to convince the 1 man. And that’s how their discussion starts. The one man who votes not guilty is very clear about his unclarity. He says that he is not sure if the accused is guilty or not guilty. The eviences and witness do not convince him either ways. He thinks that the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. They all think that they can convince this one man and just have this whole discussion finished soon. What happens is, that one man’s logic and reasoning makes everyone to reconsider their rationale and subsequently their decisions.

First of all, it’s a great story for a play. This movie was based on a story which made a very successful play. There are only three shooting locations in the movie. One is, the court. Two is, the juror’s meeting room. Three is, the open stairs that lead up to the court. The court scenes are for a few minutes. And the camera shot from the open stairs is for a few seconds. About 95% of the movie happens in the juror’s meeting room. It is a dimly lit small room which cannot hold more than a dozen people. The movie is all about the conversations, discussions and arguments among the jury. That also means that the camera work has to be fantastic. All that the camera would be focusing more often is faces of various jurors and the sometimes the group discussion.

In a matter of few minutes into the movie, we just realise that all these 12 people are 12 entirely different characters. They have different personalities coming from different socio-economic-cultural backgrounds. Until this one juror starts speaking, the other jurors wouldn’t even have thought that there is a need to discuss this case. Each one has their own reasons to have come to the ‘guilty’ conclusion. As the movie goes you see that those reasons range from their own bias, beliefs, prejudices and even negligence. Juror#8 strongly believes that the evidences and witnesses are not good enough to convict this boy and punish him with an electric chair death. He has no problem in being unpopular. He knows that he is the only man out of the twelve who has a different opinion but bravely and honestly and politely he makes his points and refuses to be knocked down by anything other than sound logic and proof.

That one juror (juror#8) does not say that the boy is not guilty. All that he says is that he does not think there is enough evidence to call him guilty. The underlying principle of that juror’s argument is that even criminals can go unpunished but innocents should be punished. Yes, that’s a Gandhian principle as we know. He says that he does not have conclusive proof or arguments to convince himself to say that the boy is guilty. He goes to prove how the witnesses and evidences are not good enough to give someone a death sentence.

During the process of the discussion, the members of the jury, one by one, not only admit they were wrong but also realise why they had come to that hasty conclusion. It ranges from bias to gross negligence to utter disregard to the life of accused individual. Not many of the jurors actually care too much about the accused boy. Deep in their hearts they think that it’s okay even if they’re wrong about their verdict. So what if the world has one slum boy less? The same bunch of jurors would have handled this verdict lot differently if the accused was say, a senator. Whereas the juror #8 looks at this case objectively and goes by one of the important premises of the justice system that all are equal in the eyes of law. As the discussion goes on, voting is taken at various intervals to see where the jury stands. With every voting opportunity, we see that juror #8 has more and more people supporting him and starting vote no guilty. Some of them even openly admit they were wrong and more importantly, why they went wrong.

I was particularly impressed with the way the character of the juror #8 is depicted. It is very easy to show him as the hero, the saviour. But his character stays true all through the movie. He does feel proud that he convinces people. He does not even feel happy. He goes on and on until there is a unanimous not guilty verdict. He does not count his conquests because he does not think so. At the end of the discussion, he only feels no sense of satisfaction that justice is delivered. When that is achieved, they all leave the room and so does he. Juror #8 was just one of the juror who thinks that he must perform his duties and responsbilities as a juror with diligence and principles. He does not think he is a hero or something by convincing everyone around the table. He just thinks that it’s just the part of the process to achieve the group objective of unanimous verdict.

Juror#8 does not know the accused personally. But still that does not stop him from arguing for him passionately for the sake of justice. It is quite natural to think that whatever one does a result or a fruit is expected, sometimes we can’t be patient for the fruit. In this case, the whole discussion that happens inside the room is not known to anyone outside the room. The boy who finally gets released does not even know that it was only juror#8 stood between him and the electric chair death. After the jury’s verdict, they all go back to their own lives. The fantastic efforts of Juror#8 is undocumented and he gets no credit for that. The thing is he does not expect any credit for that because as far as he is concerned he has to do justice to his role as a juror, without caring about whether he gets the publicity for that or not. Juror#8 is one of the most inspiring characters I have even seen in movies. The reason why I keep calling him juror#8 is because the names of the jurors are not mentioned in the movie!

If we start analysing the case in the movie to conclude if the arguments are valid or if the boy is really guilty, we’d have lost whole point of the movie. It’s not about the case. The witnesses and evidences are for the jurors and not for us who are watching the movie. For us, what we need to appreciate is the courage of the one juror, the courage of the other jurors to change their original verdict, the courage of the other jurors to admit why they went wrong, the passion of the juror #8, the noble thought and efforts of the juror#8 which does not expect any personal gain. So, please don’t go analysing the case but just stick to how the discussion evolves and concludes.

This movie was released in 1957. This is a black and white movie that runs for 96 minutes. If you have not watched this movie yet, tonight is a good time. All I can say is, they don’t make movies like this anymore!

Before we go to the movie, a very short backdrop of the story. Rwanda is an central African country that was a Belgian colony until 1962. Hutu and Tutsi are the two major ethnic groups in Rwanda. Hutu are the majority and Tutsi are the minority. Unsurprisingly, it was the Belgians who promoted the divide between the classes and ethnic groups when they took control of Rwanda in 1916. They considered Tutsi as the elite and ruling class and gave them key positions. In 1959, the very same Belgians took a u-turn and handed the power to Hutu. When they left the country in 1962, Hutu majority were in ruling power. The Hutu-Tutsi relationship has always been strained since then. The Hutu-Tutsi situation existed in the neighbouring countries of Congo and Uganda as well.

The story starts in the early 90s. There is a constant tension in the country due to the recent incidents of violence. The Hutu movement to wipe of ‘the cockroaches’ (as they would call Tutsi) starts to gain enormous momentum. That’s when the Hutu president of Rwanda gets assassinated which worsens the situation. Hutu take military command of the state and sets on a mission to erase the Tutsi population from Rwanda.

This movie is the true story of Paul Rusesabagina, the assistant manager of a very big hotel in Rwanda. Paul’s father is a Hutu and mother is a Tutsi. His wife is a Tutsi.

In 1994, the genocide breaks out in Rwanda. The radio keeps blaring ‘kill the cockroaches’. The armed Hutus are everywhere. They are in hundreds and thousands. They have all the weapons with them and they have the numbers too. They start killing Tutsi on sight. They seem to take pride and joy in killing Tutsi. The news about the mass murders spreads. Tutsi are running everywhere. They want a place to hide, place to save their lives. As this was a very well planned massacre, Hutu have got them very well surrounded. There is no escape.

It even gets to a stage where the disposal of dead bodies becomes a massive operation by itself. Rwanda starts stinking. Dead bodies are cleared like debris. It becomes difficult to drive in certain roads because of the uncleared bunch of bodies lying around.

The real Paul Rusesabagina recollects:

We all knew we would die, no question. The only question was how. Would they chop us in pieces? With their machetes they would cut your left hand off. Then they would disappear and reappear a few hours later to cut off your right hand. A little later they would return for your left leg etc. They went on till you died. They wanted to make you suffer as long as possible. There was one alternative: you could pay soldiers so they would just shoot you. That’s what her [his wife] father did.

This whole situation was brought out in the movie very well. They make you feel how bad the situation was. They got me worried. You get this uncomfortable feeling when you see thousands of armed Hutu extremists chanting and walking down the roads and killing Tutsi along the way. Absolutely merciless. Be it old people or women or children, they just go on killing them. And there is Paul Rusesabagina trying to save his family.

When all this news comes out, Paul wants to save his family and that’s all he cares. And he feels that he must save his neighbours too. Then he realises that he is able to save some more lives. And he slowly realises that everyone is abandoning Rwanda. The journalists, the red cross, the UN officials, everyone is leaving Rwanda. No one wants to stop what’s happening here in Rwanda. Worse is, no one even wants to know what’s happening here in Rwanda. This wasn’t the biggest story in CNN or BBC and was called ‘some tribal violence’. I know why. There is no oil in Rwanda, for starters.

As the killings continue, Paul with no support from anyone, goes on to refuge about 1,268 people in his hotel which has 112 rooms. The power is out. Supplies have stopped coming. There is no administration at the hotel. There is no one to do that. These thousand plus people will have to be fed until the crisis comes to an end. Hutu are hunting for the Tutsi. Paul Rusesabagina, a true hero, saves 1,268 people in a genocide that killed about a million people in about 100 days.

It’s a great movie, as in it brings out the horror and emotions as it should. I mean, imagine a million people getting killed in about 100 days, that’s about 10,000 murders everyday for 100 days. It must have been fucking hell and the movie captures that as much as possible. It is simply impossible to capture a horror of this magnitude in a movie. It cannot be a documentary. It is a movie and there’s a story telling to do. In the process, they had to show the backdrop to make us understand the gravity of the situation. Even though you now know that Paul saved more than thousand people, when you watch the movie, you won’t believe that they could be saved or might have been saved. That’s how well they’ve depicted these scenes.

Paul was a hero. He was a hero because he could commit a heroic act to save so many lives. Before 1994, he was a very ordinary man, with his family and children, working as an assistant manager in a hotel. After 1995, he took asylum in Belgium after some serious life threats in Rwanda. He is again a very normal man now. He was a hero, for a short period, when it mattered most. One might wonder why Paul left Rwanda and is living in Belgium. The answer is he wants to live. He wants to live his life peacefully. That underlines that he is a very normal man who went against all the odds to perform a heroic act at a certain time. He did not dedicate his whole life to the people of Rwanda or something. He did not want to bring change to Rwanda or something. All that he did was to be a hero when he can and be like a normal man when he wants to. This mentality is brought out very well in the movie as well.

This is a very inspirational movie. It shows that you don’t have to be in the army or in the politics or be a strong or powerful guy to do such acts of heroism. All that matters is your spirit and determination. And all that he did was very much in his capacity as an assistant manager of a hotel. He did not do anything that a hotelier would not otherwise do. He housed people, he fed them, he made feel comfortable, he made them feel safe. In our walks of life, in our capacity, we can do quite a lot. But we don’t do unless we’re pushed to the limits. Even in this story, if Paul’s family, friends and relatives are all Hutu, he might have tried to flee the country for a peaceful life. It was the fight for the survival of his family that brought the best out of him. We all need to be pushed to the wall to come up with such acts. But we are normal people. But even normal people can do quite a lot. That’s my take away from this movie.

This is one of the most spine-chilling movies I have ever seen. It’s not very often that you’re filled with sadness, disappointment and helplessness after you’re done watching a movie. I was really worried. Really worried that this happened and it happened as recently as in mid-90s and the fact I could know about this only from a movie. Do watch this movie. The sad thing is, this movie would always be relevant. You cannot rule out another such genocide in the future. If I had asked you in 1993, if a mass killing of million people would ever happen, you’d have laughed off. That’s why this movie would always be relevant.

Every single person you meet tells you that you’re going to win. Some of them mean it and some of them say it because it’s a nice thing to say. Every gathering and every party you go to, you’re flooded with wishes and there is expectation all around. The countdown to the night is killing to a point where you don’t want to think about the future. Your wife says that you’ll win it. Your kids say that they know you’ll win it. The one thing that matters is winning. That wonderful feeling. You should win not becauce you were the best of the lost that year. You have to win because you don’t want to let anyone down.

Then comes the betting odds. You’re a favourite to win it. There are opinion polls. It’s you all the way. There are expert predictions. You top the list. Golden Globe Awards. You win it. Your odds improve. Your stock goes up to dizzying heights. You start believing that this is truly your year. You prepare for your thank you speech. Make a quick note of who need to be thanked and all that. You even take some help in writing that thank you note. You keep reminding yourself of things to do and things not to do on the night. You know winning or losing is not the end of the world but you know you simply can’t lose. You wonder why should they announce the award in the show? Why can’t they release it to the press the previous day? This show could be so fantastic then.

Then comes the big night. You walk on the red carpet hoping that you’d carry home that statue when you step back again on it. The awards ceremony begins. You are made to wait for your nominated section. The humour of the hosts does not really amuse you because you simply can’t wait. Inside, you’re screaming God! stop the jokes, get on with the awards!!!. There are so many other inconsequential stuff that you should watch through before yours would be introduced. It’s time for your section. The names of the nominees are called out. The sound of your name chills your spine and is greeted with the loudest of crowd cheer. You’re the favourite after all. They’re opening the envelope. You hold your nerves and try to stay balanced. You’re telling yourself to stay cool. Stay cool like you’ve won this a dozen times before.

And the oscar goes to . . . someone else.

You don’t want to believe it. For once you feel you’re not there. No one thinks you’re there except the dear ones near you who read out to you their quick consolation note. The winner is showered with kisses as he stands up to walk. Every single person looks at the stood up man. All eyes on the winner. You feel so fucking disappointed and unexplainably upset. It’s all come to an end. Fuck the odds, opinion polls and experts. This is the reality. You didn’t win it. You’re gonna leave this place the same way you came in, probably worse if not anything. Getting nominated is no mean feat, but when you do get nominated, you don’t want to stop there and it’s no longer a thing that you cherish most. You didn’t win. The disappointment of not winning is a hundred times bigger than the pleasure of being nominated.

You have no interest whatsoever in being there for the rest of the show. You’re trying your best to take it easy but you can’t. The hosts are still being funny with those one-liners. You still don’t appreciate, this time though for a different reason. You make up your mind. You remind yourself to appear gracious at defeat. You’re being watched and tracked. You remind yourself to say nice things about the winner so that you’re not seen as a sore loser. You’re waiting for the show to end. God, why do they have to award even the short animated films? who cares about them?. Show’s over. Dinner’s over. You’ve played the nice guy well enough.

It’s time to get back home. Life as usual. No cameras outside your house. No press coverage. No spotlight. They’re all busy with the winners. After the disappointment, you’re yet to meet all those people from your neighbours to relatives to friends. You need to appear cheerful and nice, and accept their ‘you deserved it better’, ‘hard luck’. You hate when people console you. You scream inside ‘I don’t need your fake words. Just get lost’. I don’t know for how many days but you have to endure that. You’re slowly getting tired of it but that’s the way it works. It would have all been all right if not for the hype which you did not create yourselves. They pulled you up to heights and have dropped you as well.

It’s tough to be a winner, but it’s tougher to be a loser especially if you don’t want to be one. It’s true that defeat teaches you more than victory does. My heart goes out to all those who weren’t nominated and who didn’t win despite their best performances.

To say that this is a Westerner’s portrayal of India is the worst you can do to this film. That also shows complete lack of understanding for movie as an art form. This movie would not have been as interesting if the hero Jamal (cut the protagonist crap, it’s hero in the Indian movies) had not had the slum beginnings. And I must appreciate Danny Boyle’s portrayal of slums. He did not show the slums so we can pity them. The focus was always on the characters and never on the slum by itself. With the slums as the background, lasting feelings or images could easily have been sorrow, pain, despair etc. Whereas the overwhelming feeling of the film was fun, adventure and joy. This is not because Jamal wins the prize and the girl. The sense of adventure and joy was spread throughout the time scale of the life of Jamal and his brother Salim. The guys are shown to have fun, be very enterprising and take on the life. If this was the Westerner’s portrayal of India – that no matter where they are, they’re mighty spirited people who never give up – thank you Danny!

Like it always happens with movies, the value of positive and negative publicity is almost the same. All the controversies have certainly made the movie a bit more popular. I still don’t understand why Indian slums should not be shown in a movie. It’s more shameful to have them than to show them. Over the last 60 years, the slums in Mumbai have grown to be the largest in Asia, one of the few Asian records that China did not pip India. Remember, slums have only grown. That’s a harsh reality. The India of outsourced processes, internet reach and mobile market is still not the real truth. The last couple of decades of urban prosperity has not done much to our literacy rate and the poverty line. That’s the truth. Why get so defensive about it, especially when the movie is not at all about the negatives. Isn’t it strange that politicians have not come out against the depiction of Indian slums in this movie? They won’t because they had/have a responsibility to eradicate slums and they’re not doing much about it. If we had shown the energy that we show against such movie directors and pub-going women towards the politicians, we would have less reasons to complain. Tired of seeing people barking up the wrong tree.

When Lagaan made it to the Oscars, I don’t remember anyone making so much noise. In my eyes, Lagaan was more shameful because it showed the Indian bunch as some illiterate bodies in an obscure village, who acted stupid, silly and emotional. None of the villagers were keen about putting up a fight except one man who leads them to an unbelievable charge against the well-mannered, smart, disciplined English. Some of the villager characters existed in the movie just for comedic elements. All they did were stupid, funny things that you’d not expect normal human beings to do. The movie completely undermined the Indians so that the hero can be a hero while you’re having fun watching the movie. Lagaan was made for the Indian audience and when it made to the Oscars, it was so unfortunate that the whole world got to see how ‘we’ projected ‘our’ illiterate silly Indians against the learned British. SM has not done more damage to the image of India than Lagaan did. Isn’t it hypocrisy of the highest order that Slumdog is being pilloried while Lagaan was not? If the same SM was directed by some RGV or Mani Ratnam, we’d have gone bonkers. The pseudo-nationalists always need some reason to knock down anything that’s not Indian.

SM is not the perfect movie. It has its faults. It has its perceived plot holes and all that. Actually I don’t mind that. The movie ‘Life is beautiful’ was not the perfect movie, in terms of factual accuracy and hole-free plot. But no movie has ever moved me than ‘Life is beautiful’ did. In just about 15 or 20 minutes into the movie SM, you’d realise that looking for perfection would only spoil your movie experience. If you look at this movie very critically, I pity you because you missed the fun. Superb casting, great acting by the younger actors, Rahman’s music, most lively camera work, smart direction, mementoesque screenplay with a bollywood-like ending. It’s got it all.

My favourite part of the movie is this. Jamal is on the final question for 2 crore rupees. He doesn’t know the answer and he has the last life line that is phone-a-friend. He calls his brother’s number and he is pleasantly surprised that Latika (Jamal’s love) picks up the call. That’s the first time he gets to speak to her after many months of forced separation. Upon the show host’s insistence, he asks the final question to Latika. She thinks hard but she doesn’t appear to know the answer. Show host says ‘just 15 seconds more’ for the call. Jamal, instead of asking if she knows the answer, asks her “where are you” and she replies “I’m safe”. For me, that sums up the movie. You should watch to appreciate this fully.

In another couple of weeks we’d have known if SM gets the Oscars. I don’t think that Oscars are the paramount, supreme awards that are given out in the film industry. Some of my favourite films which have been the best of that year, never went on to win the Oscar thereby substantiating my belief. Oscars are an American award given to American films and some foreign language films, all from the American standards of film making plus their understanding of world culture. But what Oscars can give you unbelievable publicity, reach and acceptance. For that reason, it helps to win the Oscars. I don’t quite think that the movie would win the award, despite the Warner Bros connection. I really really hope that Rahman wins it. He deserves this award. To get nominated twice in a category that has three nominations means he’s the odds-on favourite to win it.

As many have noted, SM was not Rahman’s best ever. And that’s not to undermine his music in SM, but just to show the high standards he has maintained all through his career, right from his debut. At least 20 to 30 times in his career, I have thought that ‘this is it, this is his best’. Yesterday, I was listening to his ‘Newyork nagaram’ song which still blows me away. The man’s a genius and he deserves global recognition and acclaim.  His ‘O Saya . .’ in Slumdog Millionaire is a very unique score. My bet is that it would win the Oscars.

All these international awards do have some subtle business angle to them. All those Indian girls won the Miss World, Miss Universe, Miss Asia-Oceania and all that not just because they were stunningly beautiful but also that western cosmetic industry had to tap the Indian market. And boy, didn’t they do well! An Oscar for Slumdog Millionaire would start a long season of foreign investment in Indian movie industry. With a humble budget of $15m (most of the hollywood actors get more than that per film) Slumdog Millionaire has amassed $130m. In the current economic conditions which other investment would give as much?

Slumdog Millionaire is the new entrant in my list of my favourite films (I plan to review each of them here, over a period of time). You can say all you want, the one thing SM accomplishes is to remind us the magic of cinema. Roman Polanski said “Cinema should make you forget you are sitting in a theater“. I know some porns will achieve that, but as far as I know that’s the most crisp definition of a good cinema. Slumdog Millionaire does just that.

Or may be, the perfect murder is possible, after all? Even the much-hailed LAPD has a murder case that is unresolved for 70 years! I don’t know what percentage of murders actually get solved. May be we can call all those unsolved murders as perfect ones. But then, just because the case is not closed may not mean that the case is unresolved. A case moy not be closed for various reasons, of which unable to solve the murder could be one. A murder is still a very unsophisticated crime. It is in most cases, a man to man thing. Whereas, forensic science has gone leaps and bounds over the last few decades. Man still kills man for the same reasons, using the same weapons, in the same locations, but the ways and means to solve the murder through forensic methods are ‘state-of-the science’.

‘Dial M for Murder’ is one of my most favourite films. It is one of Alfred Hitchcock’s best ever. The movie is all about a man’s attempt to commit a perfect murder. He hires a stranger so a motive cannot be established. The job is to kill his wife. The scene where the husband talks to convince the paid-killer that his plan would work, is one of the best scenes I’ve seen in movies. As you’d expect, it fails because the protagonist is after all, a human. Despite weaving a well-explained fool-proof master plan, few things don’t go as planned which results in the assassin getting killed by accident. In further investigation, which is also excellently explained, the intelligent police officer solves the crime. The screenplay sets a benchmark for mystery/thriller movies. As with any Hitchcock movie, you gotta observe very well or watch it a few times to fully appreciate Hitchcock’s genius.

Why can’t be there a perfect murder? Quite difficult. There are always some clues which are there to see. One, there would be a motive. For every murder, you might zero in on to the ones who could have a motive. Two, it’s nearly impossible for the murderer to leave no evidences or witnesses behind. Forensic experts are way too sophisticated to keep scratching their heads. With an half-an-inch hair, they can probably tell you what you had for dinner last night. Three, it’s hard to fool all the people all the time. Humans are humans. No matter what, even the coldest of hearts will beat faster when lie, when they sense that they are being closed in.

The only way to commit a perfect murder would be like this. Someone from say, Delhi goes to say Kanpur. And this guy picks up some random person at home, murders him and returns to Delhi like nothing happened and continues to live his life. There is no motive here. Unless he has left any glaring clues, it’s hard to trace this guy back to Delhi because there is no reason, there is no motive. If you wonder why someone has to do this, believe me, there are all types of people in this world. Some psychopaths kill people for no reason. Those can be caught only in action. It’s hard to investigate their crime because even the evidences are of little help as there would no motive that can trace back to them. In another Hitchcock classic ‘Strangers on a Train’, two strangers meet in a train and develop a conversation. One man offers to kill the other man’s wife, while the other guy offers to kill this man’s brother. By trading murders, they can commit ‘motiveless’ murders, while they can have a perfect alibi.

Remember, there is only so much the law enforcement can handle. At any given point of time they may not be able to efficiently work on more than a certain number of cases. The resources, human and technical, will be limited to a certain extent. There’s going to be prioritisation there too. If it’s between the murder of a 20-year old BPO employee or a 80-year old street dweller, you know which catches the eye of the media and hence the demands the time of the police.

So, I’d conclude that perfect murders are always possible. It’s just that they don’t get caught. If they get caught, that wasn’t a perfect one. Easy to conclude, isn’t it?