Juror #8 [Davis]: There were two witnesses to the murder. What if they're wrong?
Juror #12: What do you mean, what if they're wrong? What's the point of having witnesses at all?
Juror #8: Could they be wrong?
Juror #12: Well no, I don't think so.
Juror #8: Do you KNOW so?
Juror #12: Come on. Nobody can know something like that. This isn't an exact science.
Juror #8: That's right, it isn't.
Juror #6: You think he's not guilty, huh?
Juror #8: I don't know. It's possible.
I like the premise, but the execution of this movie was really bad in my opinion.
The idea is that we are watching a jury deliberate the guilt or innocence of an 18 year old accused of murdering his father. Almost all of the movie takes place in the jury room as the jurors hash it out. 11 jurors initially think he's guilty, while one, named Davis, disagrees. Davis doesn't think the young man is innocent necessarily (I think he mostly doesn't want to send an 18 year old from a rough background to his death, which is understandable), but thinks "it's possible" for him to be innocent, and wants to hash it out before handing down a sure death sentence (if they find him guilty, he will get the death sentence).
They methodically go through all the evidence, with things getting very heated, until gradually all the other 11 jurors change their verdicts to not guilty, sometimes for the stupidest reasons, like: "This man has been standing alone against us. It's not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others. So he gambled for support -and I gave it to him. I respect his motives." Yeah, that makes legal sense. Don't think for yourself, change your vote because the guy next to you has spunk.
Prejudices and personal experiences are revealed to have an impact on many of the jurors (juror #10 is particularly bad, judging the boy for being Hispanic (I think he was Hispanic, we only got a quick glimpse of him): "You're not gonna tell me that we're supposed to believe this kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I've lived among them all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that. I mean, they're born liars.").
If I had to hear Davis say "It's possible" one more time I really think I would have jumped into the TV and strangled him. But then as long as a I got a jury like the one in the movie, I would have gotten off.
Don't hate me, but I still think I would have voted guilty in this case. I feel bad saying so, because the movie makes it seem that anyone voting guilty is horrible and ignorant, but I can't help it. I mean, discounting an eyewitness account of the murder because it looked like the witness had indentations on her nose so she might wear glasses, and she might not have been wearing them...it went beyond "reasonable doubt" in my mind:
Juror #8: It's logical to assume that she wasn't wearing them when she was in bed -tossing and turning, trying to fall asleep!
Juror #3: How do you know?
Juror #8: I don't know. I'm guessing! I'm also guessing that she probably didn't put her glasses on when she turned to look casually out of the window -and she herself testified the killing took place just as she looked out, the lights went off a split second later. She couldn't have had time to put them on then! Here's another guess: maybe she honestly thought she saw the boy kill his father. I say she only saw a blur!
Juror #3: How do you know what she saw? How does he know all that? How do you know what kind of glasses she wore? Maybe they were sunglasses, maybe she was far-sighted! What do you know about her?
Juror #8: I only know the woman's eyesight is in question now!
Juror #11: She had to be able to identify a person sixty feet away, at night, without glasses.
Juror #2: You can't send someone off to die on evidence like that!
Juror #3: Oh, don't give me that.
Juror #8: Don't you think the woman might have made a mistake?
Juror #3: No!
Juror #8: It's not possible?
Juror #3: No, it's not possible!
Juror #8: Is it possible?
Juror #12: Not guilty.
Juror #8: You think he's guilty?
Juror #3: I think he's guilty!
Juror #8: How about you?
Juror #4: No... I'm convinced. Not guilty.
Juror #3: What's the matter with ya?
Juror #4: I have a reasonable doubt now.
Juror #9: Eleven to one!
Really? Really??? Pretty feeble.
But it's possible. It's possible! It's possible that, as Davis suggests, the kid bought the knife that day (as a storekeeper testifed), lost it, and an identical one found its way into the victim. It's possible that 2 witnesses falsely ID'd the son (who had motive and opportunity) as the killer for selfish reasons of their own. It's possible the son was actually at the movies as he claimed but couldn't remember several hours later any details about what he had seen because he was upset. It's possible ALIENS came down and stabbed the abusive father. Sorry, but it just seems to be really stretching the whole reasonable doubt thing. Also, I don't know the law, but I don't think that jurors are allowed to conduct their own private investigations, as Davis did when locating a similar knife for sale in a store. Considering this was filmed before DNA evidence was much of a factor, I really don't know how anyone could be convicted if this guy wasn't. What sort of evidence would convince the jurors, if 2 witnesses, a motive, and the murder weapon don't do it?
Not to mention, the whole thing was tedious and stuffy.
With a better script, I would have loved to see it play out more convincingly. I wanted to experience the same "Ah ha!" moment the jurors did, but it didn't happen.
As it is, the only way the movie could have been improved is if it had a mysterious twist ending, like Davis was manipulating everyone as part of an experiment or something. That would have perked my interest. Or if it turned out that Juror #3 was stuck in an episode of The Twilight Zone. At times it feels like he is:
Juror #8: There's another thing I'd like to talk about for a minute. I think we've proven that the old man couldn't have heard the boy say "I'm going to kill you," but supposing-
Juror #10: You didn't prove it at all. What're you talking about?
Juror #8: But supposing he really did hear it. This phrase, how many times has each of us used it? Probably hundreds. "I could kill you for that, darling." "If you do that once more, junior, I'm going to kill you." "Come on, Rocky, get in there and kill him!" We say it every day. It doesn't mean we're going to kill someone.
Juror #3: Wait a minute. What are you trying to give us here? The phrase was "I'm going to kill you," and he screamed it out at the top of his lungs! Don't tell me he didn't mean it. Anybody says a thing like that the way he said it, they mean it.
Juror #2: Well, gee now, I don't know. I remember I was arguing with the guy I work next to at the bank a couple of weeks ago. He called me an idiot, so I yelled at him.
Juror #3: Now listen, this guy's tryin' to make you believe things that aren't so! The kid said he was gonna kill him, and he did kill him!Juror #8: Let me ask you this: do you really think the kid would shout out a thing like that so the whole neighborhood could hear him? I don't think so; he's much to bright for that.
"You are traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the Twilight Zone!"
No comments:
Post a Comment