The Jury
Just wondering if anyone can help. My tape ran out at the funeral of the old woman. The priest had just finished talking and the alcoholic and the married woman had just started talking. I'm dying to know how it ended. Please help!
shareThe alcoholic and the married woman were talking, and Rose asked him how he was going. He said that the rules were that he couldn't have a relationship for a year (or something). Rose asked if the rules meant you couldn't go walking in the park or to a movie or something like that. he said that would be ok and they walked off together.
The nice balding guy who was the foreman was still standing by the grave, and the loud aggressive guy who'd wanted the jury to find the boy guilty, came up to him and apologised. He stated that he was sorry that he'd pushed so hard for a guilty verdict and that now he'd thought about it, not guilty was the correct verdict. During this little speech the foreman's face looked slightly worried. After the man walked away, the foreman looked even more anxious and abstracted, as if he was thinking of something else....although we didn't know what.
The camera then panned out, shifted up to the sky and the credits rolled.
My interpretation was that [maybe] the foreman had found something in the drain meaning the boy was guilty, although it wasn't made explicit. Just like real life - you can never be sure...
Cheers,
Tim
Actually, we DO sort of know what the foreman was thinking about. Before the funeral scene, it had shown him madly digging in the canal looking for the boy's backpack and it shows him finding something that isn't it and then being frustrated---right before it pans to the funeral.
Then, after his conversation with the older guy, where he looks so concerned, one gets the sense that it will flash back to that search again and we will "know" what he knows. Only it doesn't, as you say the camera pans to the sky. I think it clear he was thinking of that day, of that search, and what he did (or didn't) find.
My take is sort of the same as Tim's---that he either found something showing Duvinder was guilty (and didn't want to upset the other jurors) or he found nothing and the not knowing was continuing to drive him crazy. Remember, this is the man who at the outset was so conscientious about his duty and getting it right. It is perfectly believable that just not knowing one way or the other would be the most upsetting thing for him.
holly
I think you have it exactly right. A good deal of the foreman's story focused on how manipulative his father-in-law was, and the fact that his father-in-law was still able to sow doubt in his mind after the conclusion of trial suggests that the character hasn't really broken free of that control.
His service as foreman was something he really needed to do for himself, and even then his father-in-law insinuated (or barged!) his way into it.
What I really enjoyed about the series was the manner in which all the moral grey areas and small failures of people's lives are shown. In that respect, it was a lot more honest than many programs on law and order issues. There were no clean endings (although there was some hope, as in the story of the recovering alcoholic and the unhappily married woman, as well as that the priest and the dying woman).
[deleted]