His conversion, and the silent one of the racist before him, I just didn't buy. Really great up to then though.
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
I agree that although possible - it is highly unlikely that a person who was an outright racist would change his view so quickly as well as the last conversion. But I will chalk that up to time constraint of the movie. Not a deal breaker for me.
User Error Please Try Again
Nor for me: I still gave it 8/10. I think even aside from time constraints, they had written themselves into a box on those guys: they pumped up the drama by making them so adamant, and then when they had to have a unanimous decision to acquit at the end (obviously a hung jury would have been an unsatisfying conclusion), they had nowhere realistic to go.
One of the switches I think was interesting and realistic was a couple people before that, when the guy who had tickets to the ball game switched. He clearly changed his vote to go with the majority and just get the whole thing over with. The guy who had the foreign accent totally called him on it, and he really never did give a legit explanation for the change. But after that the rest of them just kind of shrugged and left it alone. (This might be the best defense on those other two switching: that they didn't have the stomach to stubbornly stand against the majority.)
I'm sure as a practical matter, no one in a jury room really cares if someone just goes along with the majority. But I wonder what in a technical sense one ought to do if they are the ultimate Dudley Do-Right and know that someone isn't taking it seriously? Could they tell the judge and get a mistrial declared? (Surprising to me that the alternate jurors were already excused.) Or does someone have a right to choose a verdict on a whim, as long as they aren't being bribed or something?
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
Any one of the jurors could have gone to the judge with the info that #8 investigated the crime, bought the knife, and brought it into the jury room - and almost certainly a judge would declare a mistrial (among other jury misconducts). That would have solved everything. They could have gotten a mistrial, told the defense their "theory" and he would have a new trial with the new info.
Also - yes you can make a decision on a whim. You don't have to give any reason for your decision.
User Error Please Try Again
(Nor for me: I still gave it 8/10. I think even aside from time constraints, they had written themselves into a box on those guys: they pumped up the drama by making them so adamant, and then when they had to have a unanimous decision to acquit at the end (obviously a hung jury would have been an unsatisfying conclusion), they had nowhere realistic to go.)
I can understand your opinion, because I thought the same. But then I started to climb
inside of the heads of those 2 men. I thought that the racist man noticed the indents on
the lady witnesses face as well, but couldn't bring himself to admit it out loud. Even if he
was racist, he knew deep down inside that not all people from the slums are bad, and that
the fact that the woman wore glasses was irrefutable, racist or not.
The other juror, the man with the son, had to admit to himself that his vote was based on
a personal grudge against his son. He sympathized with the dead father I believe, and was
hellbound to hang the accused son. Once he realized that there was no evidence to back
up his grudge-based vote, he broke down and voted "not guilty."
Any one of the jurors could have gone to the judge with the info that #8 investigated the crime, bought the knife, and brought it into the jury room - and almost certainly a judge would declare a mistrial (among other jury misconducts). That would have solved everything. They could have gotten a mistrial, told the defense their "theory" and he would have a new trial
Who on earth would snitch to the judge like that? Even though they weren't convinced at first and had some objections, they knew that #8 was making good points, that his investigations were totally justified. I don't know of one mature grown man who would be so low as to tattle on #8. Men should know when to keep something between the men in the room, and despite some of these characters having faults, they had enough self-respect than to go tell the judge.
No. 10 changed his vote, but his view? That's debatable.
About 3's change of vote: There's a line in the play (I'm sure I heard it somewhere) that hasn't made it to the film adaptation. When early in the film, 9 changes his vote to give 8 support, he explains "This man chose to stand alone against the lot of us. It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone."
Later, near the end of the film, when 3 is the only one left, 8 confronts him "You're alone." And then 9 chimes in with the same sentence, but this time saying it to 3: "It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone."
So one could argue that faced with the same circumstances, 8 chose to stand his ground and calmly make his case, while 3 just kept yelling as he did throughout the film, and finally gave in, bursting into tears.
Never be complete.
As for the racist, the reason he gives in is that he has been beaten down by the others and no one will listen to him. The final juror gives in because he isn't a nonconformist like Fonda was.
shareWhich is kind of a weird way to end, since earlier the point of the movie seemed to be about standing up against peer pressure.
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
I think #10 only changed his vote because he knew that a conviction was never going to happen now; he knew that if he and #3 kept their "guilty" votes, they would go in as hung jury and if they changed then they would submit a "not guilty" vote.
As for #3, it was pretty obvious he changed his vote because he had suddenly realized that he was letting his anger at his own son cloud his judgment.
...actually, I think (based on what we are shown by the movie) he is not "simply" "giving in because he's been beaten down /none will listen", but because he supposedly "realizes what a bunch of crap he's talking and he feels the ridicule that he's made of himself because of that very crap".
Which is a bit stronger I believe.
(...I do not however think that this was realistically delivered, thus making it one of the weakest parts of a very promising film)
(IMDb signature)
Memory is a wonderful thing if you don't have to deal with the past
I think (based on what we are shown by the movie) he is not "simply" "giving in because he's been beaten down /none will listen", but because he supposedly "realizes what a bunch of crap he's talking and he feels the ridicule that he's made of himself because of that very crap".Are you referring to #3 or #10? share
I guess I was referring to "Steven Ackerman" 's post, which would be
As for the racist, the reason he gives in is that he has been beaten down by the others and no one will listen to him.
Memory is a wonderful thing if you don't have to deal with the pastshare
It seemed like the two bigot characters had cognitive dissonance. For a while, they knew there was no logical reason to vote guilty, but they were too stubborn to admit it.
Them being ostracized and having to save face definitely got them to do it.
To me, the only one who seemed to try to save face was Juror #7. The vote was 6-6 then. His vote was the one to break the tie. I think he was already convinced to vote "Not Guilty" but was too embarrassed to admit that it was because of the "Not Guilty" arguments so he just tried to play it cool by saying he just wanted to get the deliberation done. But when confronted by the immigrant, he admitted that he changed his vote because he thought the defendant was not guilty.
Both Jurors 3 and 10 were stubborn. I don't think they changed their votes out of pressure. Juror 3's change of heart was because the other men turned their backs on him. For once, he felt what it was like to be dismissed, ignored, and not have anyone listen to him. The others saw what he had to say as total BS not worth believing or even listening to, the same way he saw what the defendant had to say as total BS not worth believing or listening to. It was like looking in the mirror or finally hearing how dumb he sounded, so he realized that the only reason he was being stubborn was because of his prejudice. He previously thought that he was a much better person than those poor people living in the slums. Coming to the realization that he was a bigot made him ashamed and shut him up until the end.
As for Juror 10, he realized that his stubbornness had nothing to do with the defendant at all but was caused by his anger at his son, who hit him then cut off ties with him. Realizing that he was trying to punish his son by fighting to sentence a possibly innocent kid to death made him break down.
You’re getting your jurors mixed up. 3 was the one with the son.
I think 10, the racist, changed his vote because he realized the last piece of evidence, the female witness, was shaky after the bit about the glasses. His racist monologue was his last desperate chance at an argument for guilty. Once that didn’t work, he had nothing to back his racist “guilty” vote.