Famous liberal film (Just a matter of fact, I say it with no venom). I’ve long held that they just let a guilty guy go. The common response is ‘that’s not the point’.
Really? Make the defendant white, the victim black and Lee J. Cobb black.
Now its a 50’s film about 11 white guys browbeating the only black juror into letting a guilty white kid go.
I put it in the Pit so you can tee off on me if you want.
That seems like several major changes.
So… rewrite the play so that none of the essential features regarding subconscious prejudices and untested assumptions working against the defendant exist and you get a different story?
Gosh. Your ingenious device has gotten me to totally reconsider what I know about the unproven guilt of the defendant as originally written.
Oh, wait, no it hasn’t.
The victim was the accused’s father, so…
There was a 1997 remake. Two of the jurors are black including the Ed Begley racist jerk one. I’ve only seen snippets of that one but I can’t imagine it changed things much.
Yawn.
Well good…cause that wasn’t the point.
Also untested assumptions? You need to watch the film again. It may be over your head. Fonda broke about 20 laws to ‘test those assumptions’.
If there had been closed circuit security cameras in 1944, Fred MacMurray probably wouldn’t have gotten away with it in Double Indemnity. For the ten minutes he actually did get away with it. But then the actuary guy probably would have still figured out…
This is boring.
In what version of 1950s America do you see a black juror deciding the fate of a white kid in a murder trial?
Otherwise, what **xenophon **said.
??
Oh wait i see.
How about this one slight change: Change the law so that one “guilty” vote is sufficient to convict.
Then we’d have soooooooo much justice in our society! :dubious:
Well it was NYC, not Alabama…and the kid was from the slums (jury of peers). But i can’t find any evidence to refute your premise of black jurors in the 50’s.
Oh…Here we go
Though the defendant is black.
Yeah, I remember when I had my first beer…
I’m saying the basic premise is no different.
Though the treatment of race in the original I remember being a little weird, as IIRC they say “those people” but never specific racist epithets (character was probably Puerto Rican origin, I believe).
Oops missed #1.
Technically not incorrect though, as Ossie Davis is really white, the CIA just dyed him black after faking his assassination…
It was in a documentary called Bubba Ho-tep
I think one of the points of the film is that it didn’t matter what the defendant’s ethnicity was, just that it was different from Ed Begley’s character’s ethnicity (he was the one who used the phrase “those people”). He could have even just been from an immigrant family. At one time he might have been Irish or Polish, and been one of “those people.”
I don’t understand why people get so bent out of shape about this movie. It really has nothing to do with the defendant. It has to do with how people make up their minds about things, what things they notice and what things slip by them. It has to do with how the characters view other people who don’t have anything to do with them - do they have basic human decency, or are they in a hurry to go to a baseball game? A jury trial is just a handy McGuffin to bring all that out among an assortment of different people. Ethnic prejudice (and, not so incidentally, generational conflict) are just a couple of the issues that come out along the way.
Just out of curiosity, did the OP ever watch the first part of the movie or play?
The script may have ended with Lee J. Cobb as the last holdout wanting a guilty verdict when the other eleven were voting not guilty. But it started with Henry Fonda as the lone holdout who was voting not guilty when everyone else wanted to vote guilty.
How would that play with the OP’s imagined version?
Is this thread supposed to be testing our dedication to liberalism or our knowledge of comparative film analysis?
It’s not the point, but I disagree anyway. The perpetrator’s improper holding of the knife crossed the line for me from “reasonable doubt” to “serious doubt”.
Bullshit.
Indeed. Despite the claim of 'no venom", the OP sounds by far like the angriest man in this thread.
I will never stop laughing when Fonda tosses out the same knife the accused has and all we’re hearing is everyone arguing about the “point” being made. Don’t get me wrong-- the point pun was awesome. But the fact that Fonda’s got a knife on him, everyone else recognizes the knife, no one complains he’s got knife on him or shouts for security—
The film and play is Americana classic. I think Dale Sams just mistakenly watched “A Time To Kill” but switched channels to “Kramer Vs, Kramer” on AMC without knowing.