Дискутиране на 12 разгневени мъже
Дискутиране → Филми → 12 разгневени мъже → Общи
Fonda's Character "Heroic"?
публикувана от RustyShackleworthSTAFFMOD на 22 февруари 2017 в 5:16 PM
Posted a year ago on IMDB by First_Epistle_of_John
The AFI named Fonda's character as the 28th most heroic in film. I do not see him as heroic. His character is brilliantly persuasive with the "soft sell" approach, but many broad assumptions were used to determine "reasonable doubt."
Such as assuming no one would ever have any reason to have on eyeglasses in bed. That is a question I would need the defense attorney to address with the witness on the stand and judge the witness response. It is obvious that her wearing of glasses never came up in trial, so we know nothing about it. It doesn't matter if "nobody wears eyeglasses to bed" - that's a broad assumption. Maybe she wore sunglasses on the drive into court. Maybe she was farsighted. Maybe she sat waiting for her time in court and read a book, wearing readers.
Bottom line - they all made assumptions: that she wears glasses at all, and if she does, that she needs them all the time, and that she didn't have them on at the time of the murder. All these assumptions with no facts to back them up. No reasonable doubts.
At the end of the day, it is most likely the Fonda character convinced 11 other people to set a guilty man free. Most of his arguments are "suppose they're wrong" regarding witness testimony. As Warden said, you can suppose anything. That's not a reason to discount testimony. I had a college professor in philosophy who presented similar arguments (how do you KNOW something exists if you haven't seen or touched it yourself? How do you KNOW the sky is blue? What IS blue?, etc.) That is not grounds for reasonable doubt.
I'm guessing the idea of Fonda's character being a 'hero' is his initiating some discussion for the benefit of the doubt for the defendant. If they had only taken that preliminary vote and had no discussion, the defendant didn't stand a chance.
I see this as a great film in studying the skill of persuasion more than an example of heroism for the wrongfully accused.
RESPONSES:
By hero-de-celluloid
Agree with everything you said. To add - Fonda would also say on a few instances "but isn't it possible". Even when talking about the knife and another juror said it would be a million to one - he still said - "but isn't it possible". Let's just not have any trials with that logic. You could have a thousand witnesses but it would still be possible each and everyone was wrong - that doesn't lend it self to reasonable doubt.
I also agree Fonda did prevent a great injustice as he did discuss the case which should be done. It is a great movie, however.
by First_Epistle_of_John
Good point. Anyone, anytime, COULD be wrong. It's POSSIBLE. We can't use that logic to discount someone's testimony. We have to take testimony as fact unless there was obvious collusion or lying, in which case an attorney would object and it would be stricken anyway.
As Warden's character said, why bother having witnesses at all - if we're going to take their testimony and ask "is it POSSIBLE there COULD be SOME chance there is SOME inaccuracy?" - then there would never be a conviction in any case, literally ever.
That's called paralysis by analysis.
by Funky12345
Actually, he was the heroic one of the group. He brought up several points in the jury room that they didn't bring out in court (it's most probable that the woman wore eyeglasses and I don't think that was a weak argument at all. There was also the argument of the old man and his dragging leg.)
So, Davis brought a number of things from the background to the other jurors. If it hadn't have been for him, they would've convicted the boy for sure - and as reasonable people saw from the film, there was a reasonable doubt.
by Funky12345
He brought up several points in the jury room that they didn't bring out in court (it's most probable that the woman wore eyeglasses and I don't think that was a weak argument at all. There is a segment of the movie I always laugh at. I've been wearing glasses long enough to remember when the lenses were made of glass (which was much heavier. I can't tell you the number of times I wore my glasses to bed and fell asleep. Now they are so light you don't know you have them on.
by doowop14
Falling asleep with your glasses on is one thing. But how many times did you toss & turn in bed trying to get to sleep while wearing your glasses. The point being that falling asleep with one's glasses on is not that unusual an occurrence. However, I've never gone to bed and left my glasses on while trying to fall asleep. That's just dumb!
by doowop14
Falling asleep with your glasses on is one thing. ... I've never gone to bed and left my glasses on while trying to fall asleep. That's just dumb!The main reason I brought it up is because of the EG Marshall comment - "No one does."
I can only add, I guess you're not dumb. But it's only a guess.
by hero-de-celluloid
It's not dumb. Many people who wear glasses don't even realize they are wearing them. Not because they are "dumb" but because they are so accustomed to them. So, sure you never have fallen asleep with your glasses on while tossing - but that doesn't mean others don't. I sleep next to someone who has done it many times. I have taken her glasses off after she has finally fallen asleep. She just wears them so often that she doesn't realize they are on. And this isn't a lone instance as I have asked others who agree. Sure it isn't an everyday event - but it happens.
by josephnatescott
"We have to take testimony as fact unless there was obvious collusion or lying"
Not true.
Отговор от RustyShackleworth
на 22 февруари 2017 в 6:15 PM
Yes. He tells one of the jurors (the Jack Warden one?) he's an architect. I think Fonda was meant to be the "voice of reason". He doesn't necessary believe at first the defendant is innocent but is not convinced he is guilty either. He starts the process of getting the jurors to make a reasoned decision rather than one based on assumptions.
Отговор от DanDare
на 22 февруари 2017 в 6:23 PM
How many people in a jury have a legal background?
A jury is supposed to be 12 people from all walks of life.
Отговор от tmdb13060682
на 30 март 2017 в 9:25 PM
I always thought that kid was guilty as sin. Maybe the defense didn't put up a fight because he was dead to rights. What are the odds that you get into a fight with someone, threaten to kill them, head off to see a movie, and someone else commits the murder? It's not the jury's job to play Defense Council. Vote Guilty and let the kid appeal with a new attorney.
Отговор от DanDare
на 31 март 2017 в 2:40 PM
I hope you are never in a jury where I am the accused!
Отговор от Taylorfirst1
на 31 март 2017 в 4:42 PM
I agree. Also, the murder was committed with the same type of knife that the kid bought and lost that night and he couldn't remember what movie he saw. For him to be innocent it would have to be the biggest case of coincidence in history.
Отговор от Taylorfirst1
на 31 март 2017 в 4:44 PM
To me the funniest part of this movie was always the old man's apartment. Are you telling me it took 42 SECONDS to walk from the bedroom to the front door? Go outside and walk in a straight line for 42 seconds, then turn around and see how far you went. Donald Trumps penthouse isn't that big.
Отговор от tmdb13060682
на 31 март 2017 в 7:08 PM
Meanwhile, there's always evidence the judge doesn't let the jury hear. I guarantee, the arresting officers of this scumbag were P.O.'d.
Отговор от RustyShackleworth
на 7 април 2017 в 12:39 PM
I just walked from my first floor bathroom to the front door my house and back again to the bathroom in 40 seconds.
Then I did the "limp walk", dragging one foot like Fonda did in he jury room and it took me 34 seconds to make that trip one way.
Now my 5 year old son is wondering what the hell I'm doing, LOL.
Отговор от AmBeck22
на 11 октомври 2017 в 5:09 PM
This is the best post I've read in a long time!
Отговор от VinTinKin
на 1 декември 2017 в 7:10 PM
Good topic, good posts, good points.
Agree with those who call Fonda's character Heroic because of reasons already cited, like preventing Injustice, standing up for innocence, and serving as an everyday everyman no-frills hero.
Also the point is well-taken that Fonda remains soft-spoken and non-ballistic. Usually in courtroom drama, in most cases, in fact, you have an innocent suspect arrested by stupid police, tried by nasty prosecutors, and dismissed by clueless judges and jurists except for maybe the one heroic individual along the line, sometimes an armchair detective, sometimes a considerate juror, to piece together clues of conflicting evidence somehow.
Most often, these amateur sleuths play it for high drama or offbeat comedy, as you see in nearly every trial program.
But Fonda plays a refreshing thinker here, whom you want on your side when nobody else cares that you didn't do it.
Miss Rogers also has a role like this in one of her co-starring films with Dennis Morgan, where Ginger's character just couldn't in all good consciousness send an innocent to the big house. Of course, with those two leading the bill, you just know that there's going to be a romantic sub-plot, but wow, what an ending for Perfect Strangers.
Same goes for 12 Angry Men because that just goes to show what great an actor Henry really is, sifting through evidence backwards, and without the romance.
Отговор от tmdb40011370
на 24 ноември 2019 в 2:08 PM
I think Fonda got lucky!
It seemed from the beginning that the other 11 jurors had already made their minds up: not necessarily because of the evidence, but because of their own personal prejudices and/or the need to be elsewhere pdq. Whereas with Fonda's character, he was just hedging his bets on the basis of "reasonable doubt".
I was never really convinced of his counter arguments, but it was clear he was trying to drive a wedge between all those that thought he was guilty based on the evidence, and those that really didn't give a damn. To Fonda's eyes every event has two sides in terms of possibilities, which more or less makes the whole jury process and evidence-giving pointless unless there is irrefutable proof that the defendant did it!
In one respect I was pleased for Fonda to have the fortitude to go against the consensus; but on the other hand because it was Fonda you just knew he would win through with his fairly tenuous counter-arguments.
It is still an exceptionally good film for all that.
Отговор от Fergoose
на 24 ноември 2019 в 4:37 PM
I don't think it is particularly heroic to want to mentally satisfy yourself before condemning someone to prison or death. For a real hero in a legal drama I give the nod to Jimmy Stewart's character in Anatomy of a Murder.
Отговор от Rudd-12
на 26 ноември 2019 в 5:04 PM
Well, at least one element of his heroism is going "against the grain". He's surrounded by a group of men who seemingly all too quickly want to come to a verdict and get out of there with little effort. So, I think the point is he wants them to honestly look at the evidence and put aside their immediate concerns about getting out of there. And that takes courage when you are out numbered, out voted and the current to a conviction is strong.
I think we would all appreciate the courage of juror #8 given those circumstances.
Отговор от Krakatoa69
на 18 декември 2022 в 6:19 PM
haha, i watched t his movie soooo many times... so many hidden clues etc...
Has anyone actually marked the time spent on the limb walk experiment? because he asks the skinny accountant kid (probably intentionally, as he knows they established good rapport) how much time he spent... and the kid LIES telling 42 sec! it only went for 32 sec... the skinny accountant kid became emotionally vested in proving the aggressive loudmouths wrong and aiding Fonda however he can.
Another lier: the watchmaker. now THIS is someone "specialised" in counting time. is anyone gonna tell me this one did NOT notice this? Yes, he did, and kept his mouth shut.
All in all, it does seem that an oold man who suffered a heart attack and limped, would have great difficulty in covering whatever distance upon suddenly waking up.
Also: why not use the REAL old man for the experiment? Closest thing to the truth would be....
Yes, this movie is an ever unfolding treasure.