The Watchmaker Juror

There is also the hypocrisy of stereotyping the old man. They have the message of not stereotyping the defendant - but then they stereotype the old man - he was old and had ripped clothing - therefore he would lie to make people hear him and sound important.

But yes - I did find that hypocrisy interesting.


User Error Please Try Again

I had not thought about that. Your point is interesting. I do not agree, however, wiht your statement that the watchmaker was looking for conforntation since the baseball fan attacked his ethnicity earlier. I think the watchmaker was just very irriated at Juror #7's seemingly lack of caring and interest about a life or death matter.

While it might seem that the watchmaker is inconsistent in his statements, I think the difference is that with his decision to chnage his vote and his defense to Cobbm, the watchmaker was serious about a very serious matter. jack Warden's sarcastic attitude about his chnage of vote reflected someone taking a non-serious attitude about a very serious matter. That the watchmaker could not tolerate, particularly in this country where people have the right to a fair trial and jury.

And most likely the watchmaler was annoyed by Warden's wiseass commetns throuhgout nearly the entire deliberations.

There's no hypocrisy on 11's side.

He doesn't change his vote out of the blue. He changes it AFTER a lengthy discussion about a point, which he started himself. When 3 still asks him why, he says "I don't have to DEFEND my decision to you, there's a reasonable doubt in my mind now." He doesn't say "I don't have to EXPLAIN my decision" because it's obvious, and 3's question is redundant and pointless: They had just been talking about it for minutes.

And I don't think he was actually "looking for" a confrontation, that sounds like he was asking for an argument. No, he seemed like a very calm, peaceful and polite person. (Perhaps a little overly polite, actually). However, I do agree that he was obviously annoyed by 7's lack of interest and perhaps even more, lack of respect. Respect for life.

Although it's never mentioned clearly, 11 is obviously from a country where there's no democracy. He respects the fact that he now lives in a land where there's a chance of trial and a jury, and does his best. When he's asking "What gives you the right to play like this with a man's life?" you can feel that it's a personal matter for him. He doesn't say it in a lecturing manner, his words in that scene are strongly heartfelt. Here's something to ponder: Perhaps he lost a friend or a relative at home in a similar trial where the judge and jury (if there were any) were either bored or in a hurry, and did not want to be bothered?

I quoted all the dialogue from heart, forgive the errors.

Never be complete.

I'm sure more than 40 minutes have passed between these two moments, and Juror #11 didn't realize the contradiction. But I wouldn't call it hypocrisy... or maybe it's a form of unconscious hypocrisy after all.

But how about when Juror #3 becomes the lone dissident at the end, and is put in the same position as #8 in the beginning, he says something like "I gave you my reasons" and Fonda has that ominous witch-hunter look, and says something like "We're not convinced" or "We want to hear more". Now, all of a sudden, #3 must justify himself because he's in a minority.

If these bits of characters' writing are perceived as flaws, I'd like to regard them as brilliants bits of realism, whether they were intentional or not. Even the 'good side' makes psychological pressure and I always cringe when #4 was finally sweating because he couldn't remember the title of the second feature.

As for our friendly watchmaker, there's a part where I didn't like his attitude at all, and he showed something that could've been perceived as hypocrisy indeed. When #12 gets back to his 'guilty' vote, #11 says something to #3, like "why do you take it as a personal triumph?". Really, personal triumph?
- #3, as flawed as he was, made his points, and convinced #12 without bullying him, with arguments, right or wrong, but it was fair.
- didn't he see #8 having this satisfied smile whenever someone was joining his vote?
- why not just be 'good sports' about it, and accept that sometimes, you can lose an argument.


Darth Vader is scary and I  The Godfather

There were several other examples of hypocrisy too, of course, in the story. I've often thought that examining many ways people are hypocrites is an important, but implicit, point of the story.

Juror #11 clearly tells Juror #3 that he has a reasonable doubt in his mind, upon being asked why he changed his vote.
Before that he also tells #3 that he doesn't have to be loyal to one side or the other. He only wants to go deep in the case; "ask questions."
Why he rebukes #7 is because the latter changes his vote because "he has had enough," not because he has a reasonable doubt. This easily shows how ignorant juror #7 is.