When the Ed Begley character rants and raves about race, saying how all "those people" are no good, E.G. Marshall puts him in his place, and all of a suggen he changes his verdict. Doesn't make sense.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of Hollywood... (;-p)
I don't think he really changed his mind. I got the impression that he realized he'd overplayed his hand, that no one was listening to him, and that he'd turned everyone in the room - even those who still thought the kid was guilty - against him with his obviously biased, racist ranting. So he just gave up and sat out the rest of the deliberations.
Here's to the health of Cardinal Puff.
Then why did he shake his head when Fonda asked, "Do YOU think he's guilty?"
For who would bear the whips and scorns of Hollywood... (;-p)
Because he'd given up. What was he going to do? Say yes, and then have to provide a reason why? At that point, he would have been alone with #3. I don't think he ever really believed the kid was innocent; he just quit arguing because it was clear that no one wanted to hear what he had to say. It's like #4 said; shut up and don't open your mouth again. He did exactly that.
Here's to the health of Cardinal Puff.
He doesn't change his vote untill later after the old guy talked about the woman and her glasses leaving the marks on her nose
He wears glasses and has the same marks
Thats when he got doubt.
You don't have to stand tall, but you do have to stand up!
Yes. He pretty much knew it was a lost cause and just saved face by just going along with the not guilty verdict.
shareHe just gives in because after his rant, everyone, including Lee J. Cobb's character, turns away from him, and then EG Marshall tells him to be quiet and not open his mouth again. He feels defeated, so he just gives in at the end. It is like with Lee J. Cobb as well-they are not able to stand alone.
shareI must say I was surprised even Lee J. Cobb's character turned away from him. In some ways he was even worse than the Ed Begley one.
It may have been a matter not so much as being offended by his rant, but more of a realization that he was an irrational nut and making the pro-conviction crowd look bad.
Well, Lee J. Cobb's character did have a little prejudice against the boy's type, but he wasn't a flat out racist like Ed Begley there, saying that they were born liars and they are real trash.
shareI think he realised what he had said and was ashamed so not guilty
shareAlso in the book he never does have a change of heart and admits to still thinking the boy is guilty. He says something along the lines of "yes I still think he's guilty but you guys do what you want." I'm sure the same is fairly true for the movie.
shareThat's pretty much what that character said at that juncture in the 1997 remake.
shareI always thought that the last piece of evidence about the glasses, coupled with Juror # 4 putting him in his place, were what made him change his mind. It makes sense to me.
"You mean all the cool kids with their leather jackets and their pickles?"
I think he just gave in. No one was listening to him and he felt he couldn't fight City Hall.
shareI agree with the OP on this. It's the one weak link in this superb film. I've thought about this and I think it would have played better if the other jurors decided for Juror 10. Something like....
Juror 8 (to Juror 10, who's become a broken man) How do you vote?
No answer.
Juror 8: Well -?
Juror 3: He's voting not guilty with the rest of us.
Not how I remember it. After the revelation about the woman's glasses. 8 walks around the table stopping at 10, 12 and 4, asking each in turn "Do you think he's guilty?" and Begley clearly shook his head no.
Interesting he bypasses 3, going for 11 votes before confronting Cobb.
My impression was that after his rant when he was sat alone by himself he was somehow able to see the evidence or arguments without bringing his prejudices to the table and changes his mind.
shareLook what happened in that one scene. All of the jurors (except Juror #3) got up from their chairs and literally turned their backs on him. It was very theatrical. I think that spoke volumes to him, even moreso than Fonda's short speech on how prejudice always obscures truth. I think being left alone with his prior allies turning their backs on him, he did re-evaluate the case and his whole life/perspective. Hopefully, not only will the young defendant avoid being made the scapegoat for Ed Begley and Lee J. Cobb's prejudices, but Lee J. Cobb and Ed Begley will have had a cathartic experience sitting on this jury leading to greater tolerance/open-mindedness in the future.
shareI don't know if you've seen the 1997 remake, but the character's vote change in the remake might make more sense to you.
As you know, the scene went like this in the 1957 film:
Juror #8: (#8 goes to #10) Do you think he's guilty?
(#10 shakes his head 'no')
Juror #3: I think he's guilty!
Juror #8: Number 10, do you think he's guilty?
Juror #10: Yes, I think he's guilty. But I couldn't care less. You smart bastards do whatever you want!
Juror #8: How do you vote?
Juror #10: I vote not guilty. Do whatever you want.
Juror #3: You're the worst son of a... I think he's guilty!
Please replyshare
No, Jack Warden's character (7) changed his vote because he no longer felt he was guilty. I think he was just embarrassed himself that he had to change his vote because he had to eat some crow. Earlier he bragged that his mind couldn't be changed if you talked for 100 years, but it turned out he was wrong. He didn't want to admit this so he just came up with the excuse that he had enough and 11 gets him to admit why he is voting not guilty.
share[deleted]