I think the point of the play (and film) was that a jury shouldn’t convict a defendant based on weak evidence. It doesn’t matter if the defendant is the only person that the prosecutors could find with any even vague reason to kill the victim. They have to show that there is strong evidence for the defendant’s guilt for the jury to convict the defendant. All of Henry Fonda’s arguments are to show that the evidence that the prosecutors have presented is weak. He wasn’t arguing that the defendant was innocent. He was arguing that the evidence was weak and that they have to vote him not guilty. The play was saying that sometimes jurors decide too quickly that a defendant is guilty based on weak evidence, so they should keep themselves from doing this.
If you’ve decided that you know that the defendant was guilty, you’re going beyond what’s in the play and movie itself. You’re jumping to conclusions. The point of the play and the movie was you can’t jump to conclusions, not just on a jury but in anything. You have to make decisions based on the strength of the evidence you see. In particular, a jury is instructed that they can’t convict based on weak evidence.
At this point I think it’s 50-50 whether the OP actually saw the movie or not.
I mean, if he saw the movie, he’d realize that the whole point was that the the defendant was a poor ethnic minority and the jurors were all middle-aged white men, right?
And while I think the movie does have strong things to say about the US judicial system, overall I think the movie is ultimately about how people from different backgrounds and built-in biases build consensus.
At its heart, I’m not sure I would call this a legal drama.
Watched this with the family literally two days ago or so.
Compared to the respondents? Have any of them “teed off on you” as yet?
Anyway, the defendant is of some particular ethnicity, but which one doesn’t really matter. His bigger problem by far is his poverty and inability to afford a better lawyer than an overworked, possibly indifferent public defender who could have picked up on what Juror #8 saw and challenged the prosecutor’s case.
Or the remakes are making different points. Racial dynamics in America were a lot different in 1997 than they were in 1957.
If we made the changes you suggested, the movie would be fundamentally different. It would be a story about a black juror in the 50s sitting on a trial to determine the fate of a white teenager.
That would be a good story! Even in NYC, a black juror in the 50s would be in a pretty precarious position if we’re talking about a murder trial with a young white defendant.
I honestly don’t understand what point you were trying to make in the OP.
I noted above that I view the movie not as a legal drama but as a look at how groups of individuals, with different backgrounds and biases, find a way to consensus.
The reason I think this is that the remakes are all slightly different based on the composition of the jury and such.
For example, in addition to the 1997 remake, I’ve also seen Japanese and Russian remakes. All different, and all interesting for different reasons.
You’re getting the ‘that’s not the point’ response because that’s not the point, which you seem to have completely missed.
The changes you suggest result in a very different film. It would still be interesting but it’s not the same film.
As Johnny Bravo said - I have no idea what point you’re trying to make.
And your ‘famous liberal film’ remark rather gives you away.
If Elsa Lanchester had decided she liked Boris Karloff, they would have headed off for Niagara Falls together and there would only be two Frankenstein movies.
No it’s not, because at first only one white guy votes to acquit and is browbeaten by the other 11, including black Lee J Cobb. And slowly, one at a time, the others turn, only to browbeaten by the majority, including black Lee J Cobb, until acquits become the majority.
And black Lee J Cobb still wants to convict the defendant for reasons that have nothing at all to do with the evidence. He wants to punish someone for his own kid’s betrayal.
Don’t forget the dialogue condemning prejudice, or how the film exalts reason and rationality. The liberal sensibility would remain if you shuffled the ethnicities around.