MovieChat Forums > 12 (2007) Discussion > What Did The Boy Say At The Trial ?

What Did The Boy Say At The Trial ?

posted 15 years ago by zolazona
5 replies | jump to latest

I was frustrated over the fact that the boy's comments at the trial weren't included in the table discussion. We saw flashbacks which let us have some clue as to what had transpired and we heard speculation as to what might have happened from the jurors, but what DID the boy say at the trial? There was no discussion over what had happened from his pov. Did he say nothing out of fear or did he tell his side of the story? Why didn't the jurors study his testimony?

[–] Julia-3 14 years ago

The jurors were too busy feeling sorry for and loving themselves to actually go over the testimonies. Why look at the evidence if you can tell some tall tale about your own past that will somehow immediately make everyone think that the boy is innocent! Logic lovers need not apply!

Just one of the many things that are wrong with this movie...

[–] chuck-526 10 years ago

I was frustrated over the fact that the boy's comments at the trial weren't included in the table discussion.

???

I heard them say the boy had told a tale about walking in a nearby park and being stopped by someone who wanted to buy a very fancy knife. The implication i heard during the discussion was that at the time few -if any- of the jurors believed that story ...(although combined with other stories the jorors eventually dredge up it appears entirely sensible:-).

I also heard it stated the boy had said he did not kill his stepfather, and at least one juror thought the boy sounded like he was telling the truth.

[–] zolazona 10 years ago

I now can't remember the details of the movie, but I think I said this because I wanted to hear from the boy himself, not other people's opinions of what he did or didn't do.

[–] kmiv 10 years ago

The film/play that "12" was inspired by portrays only the jury's deliberations. It begins as they walk into the room and sit down, things unfold broadly as they do in "12", and then they leave. The decision (in the original) to not see anything that happened in the court first hand but only as it is re-told among the jurors keeps the focus on the jurors, who they were and what they brought into that jury room. "12" had other things on its mind than just the jurors themselves. I spoke to someone a while back (before I saw "12", actually) who didn't like that this version tipped the scales in favor of the defendant by making us feel sorry for him before the jury gets there themselves and while I see his point, I'm not sure I agree that this is a bad thing. As I said, this film had other things on its mind - in particular, the Chechnya element which has no correlative in the original. Not that anyone asked, but I thought it was a neat adaptation/alternate take (however you would describe it) of the same idea. :)

Apart from running down the steps in the titles, "12" flashes back not so much to the crime but to the kid's background, didn't it? Or am I remembering it wrong?

[–] melora72 9 years ago

The ethnicity of boy in the original was not identified, but it was one that was looked down at by most Americans. I got the impression that he was from Puerto Rico or Mexico but it was never stated. Something that wasn't considered "white." So the boy being Chechnian (sp) in a way WAS like the American version.