Couldn't have Juror #4 said :
"No, but there's a whole difference between not being able to recall the title of a movie you just saw a few hours earlier and not remembering the name of a B-actress who starred in the second feature after the film I saw in the theater, 4 days ago!!"
Darth Vader is scary and I The Godfather
Good point. THis was one thing they got better in the remake where #4 actually misstates the title of the movie he saw.
shareHe did misstate the title of the (second) movie. He called it "The Remarkable Mrs. Bainbridge" when it was actually "The Amazing Mrs. Bainbridge".
The reason he didn't counter was that, as #9 stated right afterwards, "the point ha[d] been made"; not remembering wasn't as noteworthy as it had been made out to be. #4 wasn't interested in "winning" the argument, as was made obvious several times during the movie. He simply wanted to arrive at the correct conclusion.
Don't listen to the negative ones; their arguments are irrational.
There is a huge difference from making a small mistake in the title that was seen days ago as opposed to not remembering one single thing about a movie he supposedly saw hours ago. I think the OP has a valid point.
User Error Please Try Again
Oh yes, we're in agreement there. What I was getting at was that as #4 was (evidently) persuaded by/satisfied with their rebuttal, pointing it out would've been out of character for him.
Don't listen to the negative ones; their arguments are irrational.
I was watching Muhammad Ali in the theatres with Will Smith in it. If you asked me about it, I wouldn't remember a single thing even right after I saw it. Why? My father and I had a fight and I couldn't stop thinking about it that I couldn't focus on the film.
shareIMO, when the defendant went to the movies that night, he didn't give two hoots about what was playing. He probably wasn't even there for the sake of seeing the movie, but to be ANYWHERE but home, to cool off after the old man belted him, and probably to spend the entire movie counting the days until he could legally split (and pondering his options when he did so). In short, he was under some emotional stress when he was IN the theater as well.
shareIt is 3 AM, you're tired, you just found out that your father has been murdered, and now some cops are asking questions about what movies you saw because you're a suspect. I know that I'd be distressed.
I am an *beep* but my friends compensate for that.
This was one of the few bits of logic in the movie that didn't necessarily follow.
In no way can #4's interrogation be comparable to the defendant's. They are two completely different scenarios.
He might not have realized that. Also, what was brought up was where the boy was questioned: right in his apt. with his dead father lying on the floor in the bedroom. That is a screw-up for the cops.
shareI've been saying the exact same thing. I believe the boy was not guilty, but that argument about the movies doesn't prove anything.
Although, when I watched the movie with my brother and his girlfriend, I told them that, in my opinion, that argument didn't prove anything, and my brother's girlfriend said, "He should be able to remember what he was doing 4 nights ago. I could tell you what I was doing 4 nights ago." Then, I explained that the boy claimed he was at the movies just hours before he went home, and she reminded me that he came home to find his father dead. That's actually a good point. If I came home to find my father lying on the floor with a knife in his chest and the police were questioning me about where I was when it happened, I probably wouldn't even remember my own name. (To be fair, though, my father never beat me.)
Please replyshare
I think that the point of that scene was to show that people can't always remember "exact" titles or "exact" actresses names. I think Fonda's character was trying to show that the boy might have actually answered the police but that he was off just a little bit on the title of the movie or actor's name (just like Juror #4 who said Barbara "Ling" or "Long" and "The Amazing Mrs. Bainbridge" instead of "The Remarkable Mrs. Bainbridge"). If the defense attorney didn't question the policeman further, then the testimony could have been left as "the boy couldn't tell the policeman the movie and actors names" whereas the boy may have just misspoke while under an emotional distress.
shareI wonder if the boy's lawyer brought up the question as to why they questioned the boy right at the murder scene, rather than take his ass downtown. Obviously, even though the boy might not have liked his dad much, coming home to find him murdered might've still shocked him, especially since he had just fought with him earlier that night. He might've felt upset that he didn't have a chance to make up with his dad.
shareI wonder if the boy's lawyer brought up the question as to why they questioned the boy right at the murder scene, rather than take his ass downtown.
It wasn't until the mid sixties that the police were required to inform a suspect that they they are at all times protected by their constitutional rights and entitlement to counsel.
That's not the point. EG Marshall's character was confident about his conviction but he wasn't simply being glib. He genuinely thought that he should be able to remember the name of the movie and the actors he had seen at the movies earlier that week, regardless of any emotional stress. Ergo, the boy must have been able to remember to tell the police in the moments they pounced on him, told him of his father's death and then quizzed him on the spot, a few hours after being at the movies.
When EG Marshall realised that it wasn't as easy as all that for he himself to remember, he did not move the goalposts and renege on his presumption that the boy's memory must have been equally clear and therefore his alibi must be false.
In other words, his character is genuinely and honestly giving his assessment of the evidence without prejudice.
But 4 showed it was possible for the boy to forget the pictures under those circumstances. The audience has to suspend their disbelief throughout the movie, not only to go along with the plot, but to also remember that everything 8 is saying is possible. And if it’s possible, then nothing can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
share