Why did they have to break the character's anonymity at the very end? Quite the useless scene.
shareI think the idea was the same as in Layer Cake (2004) – calling attention to the anonymity. I think it worked quite nicely in both movies; as I recall, I hadn't thought about it before the ending in either case (though it was years ago, so I'm not entirely sure).
Don't listen to the negative ones; their arguments are irrational.
I think the only scene that was unnecessary was the shot of the defendant.
Can't stop the signal.
agree!! For the longest time i thought i was the only one to think it. Showing the defendant as a teary eye vulnerable gives viewer too much emotional judgment at least that is how i see him. Hence, we perceive jury #3 as evil and lost the real focus on facts and arguments.
Should we or should we not follow the advice of the galactically stupid!
Showing the defendant as a teary eye vulnerable gives viewer too much emotional judgment
Showing the defendant as a teary eye vulnerable gives viewer too much emotional judgmentI absolutely agree. I think the scene should've just been the judge and the defendant only from behind.
The case here is that the director WANTS us to sympathize with the accused one.
Now keeping that in mind, one can safely say that the "wide-open-eyed / intimidated-looking defendant" was a spot-on shot.
Or don't you think.
I don't really see how the fact that this was originally a play, can count as a reason why the director (like I stressed) wanted us to sympathize with the defendant. It actually emphasizes my point...
Now as for the story, it's multi-layered, or, has many more messages to convey than just "one against all and holding". They're there for you to see - it's not me making them up...
You also didn't put much thinking to my point of it not being real-life court-stuff, but a movie. For some reason, you keep seeing the movie as it's like the audience is supposed to be something close to a body of jurors and is also supposed to "resolve" the case, make judgment, dismiss or accept "evidence". I do agree that there are lots of movies like that out there, but this one simply isn't of that kind - because it clearly wants to convince the viewer about very specific things. In trying to do so, the director (no matter what the original play was about) does his best about it. It is a bit like "taking the viewers by the hand and guiding them to wherever HE wants them to be guided at", and you may call this choice of his whatever you want - but it's plain obvious that this is what he's doing...
As for "this is lost" part, I don't think you're right about this one too : first of all, "Davis" tries to align us with his train of thought, in order to have DOUBTS like he does. Much as he claims, "he doesn't know if the kid did it or not - he simply has doubts". Reasonable ones. In that scope, fine performances by actors take place, acting out a more or less fine script, in order to oppose to " Davis' " "objections" and even up to today many viewers tend to side with them, rather than with "Davis". So there you have it - what is that "lost" you're talking about? "Davis" keeps "losing" (and "winning back again"), inch-by-inch, the whole thing. What I'm trying to say is, the whole structure of the movie isn't one of "a single guy sweeping off their feet a dozen of others". "HE HIMSELF" ("Davis") isn't quite as assured, before #9 refers to the nose glass-marks of the female witness. In other words, the director does try to lead us wherever he wants (and in some cases does an apparently pretty hasty job about it too...), like I claimed - yet this doesn't happen without the whole deal being a roller-coaster of 12 "angry" personalities and quite extrovert manifestations of their difference in thinking. So, no my friend, nothing can be "lost". Exactly because the director won't let you lose it. The fact that tries to "shock" you with that "teary" image, only works for trying to get you closer to where he's heading. After all, even though for the most part, most of the viewers "kinda feel the Kid is innocent", no-one actually KNOWS it. But the work is done - they (most of them at least), have doubts.
"Spot on", in the sense of "necessary". At least that's how I meant it. Or, if you will, without that still frame, the director was going to have to do much more persuasive work to make us "feel" that "the Kid is probably innocent - so we have doubts about his guilt" and the movie would have probably taken a big dive in the bottom of the box office.
"Unnecessary"? Are you kidding me? That shot probably saved his ass...
(...do keep in mind the huge difference between the needs/structure/functionality etc etc of plays/books and Hollywood film making...)
(...plus I too first thought "wait a minute, what is he trying to do now with that shot, make us sorry for the Kid? It's too awkward and I don't know if I like it". Well yes. That's EXACTLY what he was trying to do. And succeeded too.)
(IMDb signature)
Memory is a wonderful thing if you don't have to deal with the past
I don't really see how the fact that this was originally a play, can count as a reason why the director (like I stressed) wanted us to sympathize with the defendant. It actually emphasizes my point...
you keep seeing the movie as it's like the audience is supposed to be something close to a body of jurors
It is a bit like "taking the viwers by the hand and guiding them to wherever HE wants them to be guided", and you may call this choice of his whatever you want - but it's plain obvious that this is what he's doing...
first of all, "Davis" tries to allign us with his train of thought,
what is that "lost" you're talking about?
Or, if you will, without that still frame, the director was going to have to do much more persuasive work to make us "feel" that "the Kid is probably innocent - so we have doubts about his guilt"
- so we have doubts about his guilt" an the movie would have probably taken a big dive in the bottom of the box office.
"Unnecessary"? Are you kidding me? That shot probably saved his ass...
(...do keep in mind the huge difference between the needs/structure/functionality etc etc of plays/books and Hollywood film making...)
Well, you do have the right to emphasize on only one point of the movie.
This however does not mean there not others. Now, considering what interests you alone, then yes, the still frame of the defendant is unnecessary. However, that's not how it works for the director.
An example of analogy could be like you get stopped by the police because your vehicle does not have mirrors and you get fined for that when you claim "mirrors don't work for me, that's why I took them off".
Another example? Someone could claim that this movie was about how sloppy the legal system is - and nothing more : not one standing against many, not about underprivileged immigrants, not about society - nothing. Does "the still shot" interest him at all? Not at all. It's unnecessary.
Okay, maybe I didn't make myself clear before : wanting it or not, we viewers, do judge the story based on what is provided. But that's not what I said - what I said was we're not an actual jury, judging on an actual case. And that's the way you make me feel by your posting, when you keep forgetting that this is no courtroom / no book / no play - but something much more complex : a film. Wanting it or not, you have been watching a film, and the director had very specific intentions when shooting that still : he didn't intend to use it in order to emphasize the "one against many" theme, he didn't do it because he had nothing better to do, he didn't do it for any other reason, but the apparent one : to make us feel sympathetic. He managed it too, like I said before : no-one hates a kid with that look. If you come and say "unnecessary", you're welcome to do it, but this my friend was the cherry on top of this movie.
No, I'm not so sure that Davies could have done his job that well, hadn't it been for that still frame. On the contrary, I think that if we hadn't seen that picture "of 1,000 words", we wouldn't have been so eager to side with him, when he's proposing fairly far-fetched arguments (like the infamous "...but isn't it possible?!" one).
"That's the point of the story" you said, and what I'm saying is that you miss the point : this already was a film with lots of weak spots. You think it would have been better if he omitted that still frame? You think he would have gotten into the trouble of making the whole thing much more solid? You're kidding me, I said before - and I do mean it. He didn't simply take a shortcut with that frame - he actually made the whole thing work.
Box office disapointment? Hm. Didn't know - didn't expect it to be - actually thought it WAS a big hit. Did quick research - found out that I was kinda right on why I thought it did OK : it did well after started being played on TV. Tried to decode what "disappointment" in theaters when released meant (at least it isn't stated as failure, even though both can be subjective terms when no figures are present) - but found no figures apart from the budget. Anyway, info says that the reason for the very disappointment was due to technical merits, like lack of color and widescreening. So I don't know if that still frame did manage to save his ass after all or not - but maybe it did.
....the ass in question being Lumet's btw. (...I found it hard to believe you were actually asking for confirmation / stating that it was the jurors that did it for the Kid...Hmmm.)
...yep, Davis is the man. No argument on that one. It's not the Kid, it's not #9, it's not #3, it's not that funny fan that didn't work, it's not the knife, it's not the bigotry of some, it's not society, it's not people. But those all are what make this movie what it is.
Anyway, tried my best, said my piece, not been trying to change your mind about the necessity (considering it's significance/intend) of that still frame, but rather make you see what already is there. It's your choice to keep feeling you're looking at a very beautiful tree - all I've been saying is that there's a fine forest behind it too and it's a pity that you're missing it.
Hopefully others that have been watching won't miss it too.
Cheers mate.
(IMDb signature)
Memory is a wonderful thing if you don't have to deal with the past
Well, to me it is clear that the director's intention is to depict a good and a bad in the story. Sort of dumb down for the audience. Too much emphasis on whos good and whos bad right off the start (showing human nature is one thing and its unavoidable, but showing the face of the defendant is something else), letting audience to think jury #8 is a saint or angel in disguise. Well, jury #8 is still a human being, he also have flaws and personal feelings but the director did not show to the audience. btw, showing a bored judge only points out the holes in the system (as in any system) and its up to the fine juries to see through the holes and make a fair decision. I wouldn't even mind if the director showed the face of the lawyer (since the juries talked about him/her in their arguments). A little side note, I love Stanley Kubrick's films because they are unbiased, brutally honest, and leaving the audience to figure the answer. Many of his protagonists are flawed or even evil and there is nothing wrong with this kind of story-telling! No need to be main-stream or pleasing all the time.
Back to the original post, the last scene is powerful to me. I, as an audience, like the juries were so into the case and the arguments, and when its over; bam, back to reality. And realizing that in reality, these men are total strangers, their lives never had and probably never would come across each other. Yet, they(some of them) were so passionate back in the jury room because they are not apathetic and they are committed to their civil duty. I still love this film, even though there are flaws. A powerful and entertaining film in compare to all the crap of today's films.
Should we or should we not follow the advice of the galactically stupid!
I don't think it was unnecessary but i did think it was a little bit too long, especially that fading thing. That said it doesn't take anything away from this masterpiece, but still important to mention.
"You don't understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody!"
[deleted]
Lumet wanted to show that the defendant was of a different ethnic background, it's as simple as that. And it explains why Juror #10 refers to him as "these people", it's obvious he's a racist and a bigot, but we had to know that the defendant's origins were integral to some jurors' suspicions (not just poverty). Lumet picked an actor who could look 'ethnic' without being too specific about it (he could be black of mixed origins, hispanic, gypsy, anything).
Darth Vader is scary and I The Godfather
Lumet wanted to show that the defendant was of a different ethnic background, it's as simple as that.
I understand it as a joke by the screenwriter or the director. The characters in this film are so interesting and well drawn that you don't even notice you don't know their names. So he kinda brags about it saying like "oh, by the way the name of the main character is Davis".
shareI think the point is simply that these guys have just shared one of the most meaningful group encounter experiences of their lives, and they don't even know each other's names.
shareThe whole ending felt like "okay, the case is done, let's just put something positive in there for a happy ending". It was the only scene in the movie that I thought wasn't perfectly done. Perhaps it should have ended with Fonda's character putting the jacket on the antagonist.
shareThe final scene was perfect. Here we've been cooped up in this stuffy room for an hour and a half, and finally the last scene brings us out into the open. We experience a sense of relief along with the characters, as if we've passed through the ordeal along with them! What better way to cap everything off than with a friendly little exchange between Fonda and the old man?
shareI used to hate this scene when I was younger, but now I appreciate the epilogue because I realize so many movies (across multiple genres) seem to end abruptly for dramatic effect or something. I often annoyed that I can't see the aftermath.
I think it creates a realer bookend. That these characters continue to exist beyond the film.