One thing about the film that's always bothered me is that there are one to many coincidences: the knife isn't that unusual, the lady's eyesight is flawed(and she hides it), the old man is confused and basically lies. It's all too tidy. The biggest exonerating evidence is that the blade was wiped of prints, yet the blade was left at the scene. If the kid had the foresight to wipe the blade, he wouldn't leave it. He own knife? No way. That all said, it's a great film that I love and never tire of. The plot elements, flawed as they are, are really only vehicles for revealing the various characters and allowing the integrity of the jury process to play out.
I think many times that it was probably an incrimination. The kid bragged in public about his knife and showed to others. Someone with beef with his father may have stolen the blade without the kid noticing, stabbed the old man, wiped the prints, and then left the knife there to be identified. Is always easies to get away if another person is the prime suspect. They lived in a dangerous neighborhood, it is said many times, his father may have crossed someone he shouldn't have crossed, maybe he owned someone money. The true killer being from the neighborhood, were people are more familiar with each other, may have chose to portray himself with signs that could be confused with the kid. Dressed in similar closes, used similar body language, in a way, that when witnessed in context were his face can't be seen (while running, or by a woman withut glasses) they could still surely identify as being the same person by these little clues given by context. And the biggest clue for the possibility of this being a incrimination to throw the kid under the bus is the knife wound. Identified as a wound made by someone unfamiliar with how to use a switchblade. Why would a killer use a weapon that is so flashy and draws so much attention if he didn't know how to use it? Only if the knife was supposed to be associated with another person.
An interesting analysis. However, a number of assumptions were made in the screenplay that were not based on facts. The eyeglasses, the downstairs witness testimony...these were speculative points. Also, in today's jury selection, the raw racism exhibited by juror 10 would have excluded him from duty. What makes this a classic film is the direction, acting and cinematography. How Lumet subtly uses camera angles and close-ups to create a claustrophobic mood is genius. Plus a pool of the best actors of that age.
Things I noticed in no particular order : something about the shadows and light cast on the characters during the film ; strange that considering all the aggressive yelling only once does a clerk check if things are ok ; Juror 3's watch seems to be "wrong" - visible after he's torn the photograph up - shows about 4.05 but doesn't someone say the time is "after 6" earlier ? ; curious that the foreman No 1 doesn't stop the noughts and crosses game even though he's looking straight at it and as he does seem to take the responsibility seriously ; juror 8 would not have stood in the way of a guilty verdict if the 2nd vote of the 11 had been unanimous ; would it be acceptable in real life to do a recce of the accused's neighbourhood , buy a knife and bring it into the jury room (though he only showed it when they'd progressed to discussing the knife's significance) ; did 1950's American juries allow women to serve ? :-) : juror 4 does break sweat . There's probably more but that'll do for now. Super film !
Oh my God. This is so well researched and executed. This should reach more people. I wish to join you on other platforms.
What a stunning piece of work. Wow. Congratulations.
Thank you so much 😀
needed this video a lot thanks a lot after watching 5 videos its the most organized.
Glad it was helpful!
@@talkingheadsproductions1973 helpful hh it was the best I could find ✌️
Excellent information 👍Thank you very much
this has helped me so much for my English exam tomorrow. Thank you!!!! x
Really glad it helped, hope it went well ;-)
One thing about the film that's always bothered me is that there are one to many coincidences: the knife isn't that unusual, the lady's eyesight is flawed(and she hides it), the old man is confused and basically lies. It's all too tidy. The biggest exonerating evidence is that the blade was wiped of prints, yet the blade was left at the scene. If the kid had the foresight to wipe the blade, he wouldn't leave it. He own knife? No way. That all said, it's a great film that I love and never tire of. The plot elements, flawed as they are, are really only vehicles for revealing the various characters and allowing the integrity of the jury process to play out.
I think many times that it was probably an incrimination. The kid bragged in public about his knife and showed to others. Someone with beef with his father may have stolen the blade without the kid noticing, stabbed the old man, wiped the prints, and then left the knife there to be identified. Is always easies to get away if another person is the prime suspect. They lived in a dangerous neighborhood, it is said many times, his father may have crossed someone he shouldn't have crossed, maybe he owned someone money.
The true killer being from the neighborhood, were people are more familiar with each other, may have chose to portray himself with signs that could be confused with the kid. Dressed in similar closes, used similar body language, in a way, that when witnessed in context were his face can't be seen (while running, or by a woman withut glasses) they could still surely identify as being the same person by these little clues given by context.
And the biggest clue for the possibility of this being a incrimination to throw the kid under the bus is the knife wound. Identified as a wound made by someone unfamiliar with how to use a switchblade. Why would a killer use a weapon that is so flashy and draws so much attention if he didn't know how to use it? Only if the knife was supposed to be associated with another person.
@@FizzoWeird All great points!
Wow,what a great insight!Especially on the props ones!I never thought of the table setting until you mentioned it
Very well done.
Great analysis, subscribed❤
Was that Cobb walking slowly down the steps at the end?
You should analyze the original teleplay by studio one
Great video! Very informative and well researched :) Any chance of getting a reference list, please?
An interesting analysis. However, a number of assumptions were made in the screenplay that were not based on facts. The eyeglasses, the downstairs witness testimony...these were speculative points. Also, in today's jury selection, the raw racism exhibited by juror 10 would have excluded him from duty. What makes this a classic film is the direction, acting and cinematography. How Lumet subtly uses camera angles and close-ups to create a claustrophobic mood is genius. Plus a pool of the best actors of that age.
Things I noticed in no particular order : something about the shadows and light cast on the characters during the film ; strange that considering all the aggressive yelling only once does a clerk check if things are ok ; Juror 3's watch seems to be "wrong" - visible after he's torn the photograph up - shows about 4.05 but doesn't someone say the time is "after 6" earlier ? ; curious that the foreman No 1 doesn't stop the noughts and crosses game even though he's looking straight at it and as he does seem to take the responsibility seriously ; juror 8 would not have stood in the way of a guilty verdict if the 2nd vote of the 11 had been unanimous ; would it be acceptable in real life to do a recce of the accused's neighbourhood , buy a knife and bring it into the jury room (though he only showed it when they'd progressed to discussing the knife's significance) ; did 1950's American juries allow women to serve ? :-) : juror 4 does break sweat . There's probably more but that'll do for now. Super film !
The sweating after he said he doesn’t sweat was intentional
Perfect video I was looking for. Semiotics on this video
We do see the defendant race, but juror 10's prejudiced tirade was about poor people