So does the incredible cast that Friedkin assembled to fill out his jury; Jack Lemmon, Ossie Davis, George C. He is impatient and rude, and likes to crack jokes a lot. This tells the story of a of 12 men as they deliberate the conviction or acquittal of a defendant on the basis of , forcing the jurors to question their morals and values. Sotomayor noted that events such as Juror 8 entering a similar knife into the proceeding; performing outside research into the case matter in the first place; and ultimately the jury as a whole making broad, wide-ranging assumptions far beyond the scope of reasonable doubt such as the inferences regarding the woman wearing glasses would not be allowed in a real-life jury situation, and would in fact have yielded a assuming, of course, that applicable law permitted the content of jury deliberations to be revealed. Bell on Mar 26th 2018 The actors are very engaging. Jurors 3 and 8 then conduct an experiment to see whether a shorter person could stab downwards on a taller person.
Archived from on April 19, 2012. Eventually, the twelve sit down and a vote is taken. Juror 7 who has tickets to a baseball game at 8:00 that night becomes tired and also changes his vote just so that the deliberation may end, which earns him nothing but shame. Initially, one of the jurors Jack Lemmon is the only roadblock between the panel and unanimous conviction of the Latino alleged murderer they've been called to judge. He states that if all others are still agreed, he will acquiesce to their decision. In fact, I want to do that too.
Lumet stated that his intention in using these techniques with cinematographer was to create a nearly palpable. The remaining jurors are intrigued when Juror 11 proves that although the psychiatric test presented in the case stated that the boy had subconscious desires to kill, tests of such do not prove anything other than what could possibly happen. When deliberations resume, 8th Juror attempts to break apart the testimony of the arresting police officer that the defendant was unable to name the movies that he had claimed to have seen that evening. In a secret ballot, Juror 9 is the first to support Juror 8, and not necessarily believing the accused is not guilty, but feeling that Juror 8's points deserve further discussion. Increasingly impatient, Juror 7 changes his vote to hasten the deliberation, which earns him the ire of other jurors especially 11 for voting frivolously; still he insists, unconvincingly, that he actually thinks the defendant is not guilty.
The remaining jurors are intrigued when Juror 11 proves that although the psychiatric test presented in the case stated that the boy had subconscious desires to kill, tests of such do not prove anything other than what could possibly happen. In fact, I want to do that too. Juror 4 doubts the alibi of being at the movies, because the accused could not recall it in much detail. Another vote is taken, and the jury is now six to six. The film is adapted by Reginald Rose from his own 1957 film version directed by Sidney Lumet and from the Westinghouse One television production that predated it. A remake of the 1950's classic. In 2011, the film was the second most screened film in secondary schools in the United Kingdom.
Jurors 2 and 6 then change their votes, tying the vote at 6—6. He is appalled at some of the behavior of the other jurors especially Jurors 3, 7, and 10. Vance : High school football coach; He tries to keep order in the hostile jury room. At the , the film won the Award. Showing reviews 1-10 of 15.
A complete of that performance, which had been missing for years and was feared lost, was discovered in 2003. Juror 9, seeing Juror 4 rub his nose which is being irritated by his glasses , realizes that the woman who allegedly saw the murder had impressions in the sides of her nose, indicating that she probably wears glasses, but did not wear them in court out of vanity. He is observant of events around him. At the beginning of the film, the cameras are positioned above eye level and mounted with , to give the appearance of greater depth between subjects, but as the film progresses the of the lenses is gradually increased. Finally, the boy has an extensive list of prior offenses, including trying to slash another teenager with a knife.
His real name is McArdle. He is convinced that the defendant is guilty, though it may not be through the facts of the case. Remakes normally are a lame excuse used by uninspired directors to make more money out of a good idea. Only three minutes take place that are not set in the jury room. Jurors 3 and 8 then conduct an experiment to see whether a shorter person could stab downwards on a taller person. Then tell me they do not have the new even though it was listed on their site. Juror 8 accuses him of being a public avenger.
At the , the film won the Award. It also explores the power one person has to elicit change. He launches himself into a final massive rant against the boy that descends into nonsense. The episode flips the film's format and depicts one holdout convincing the jury to convict the privileged defendants of assault against a less well-off victim, despite their lawyers initially convincing 11 jury members of a not guilty verdict. He is convinced that the defendant is guilty, though it may not be through the facts of the case.