John Fiedler's character in 12 Angry Men is the same as his character in A Raisin in the Sun
- I hope not! I really liked his character in 12 Angry Men and he was unlikable in A Raisin in the Sun
Juror 8 was the killer
- He didn't want an innocent boy to die for his actions but didn't feel strongly enough to confess himself. And he did find a copy of that super-rare knife.
- He was the one who stressed how horrible the kid had it at home. Maybe the guy's treatment of the kid motivated him?
- Supposedly super-rare knife. The store owner who sold the kid the knife swore on his life that it was the only one of it's kind... And another one appears in a pawn shop, according to Juror 8. This in of itself proves the knife was reproduced, and can't be nailed down to one or two men. This in turns leaves the only evidence brought forth to be 8's strong notion of the kid's treatment.
- However, if the blade is rare, Juror 8 could have potentially made up where he got the blade to help his argument.
- If he was a Guardian Angel or God he may have stabbed the boy's father, because the abusive cruel man was about to kill him. Hence why he was so sure of the young man's innocence and produced an identical switchblade that had no prints on it.
In the original film, Juror #3 is drunk.
- He slurs some of his speech and his speech pattern is definitely off. He is easily the most emotional of the all the jurors, and his anger has him almost on the verge of tears from the beginning. He threatens to start fights, never thinks before he speaks, and even walks in a staggered way.
In the original film and the 1997 remake Juror #3 is Willy Loman.
- This happens before Death of a Salesman. Willy is still broken up over Biff punching him out and leaving.
This movie could have helped create the Ace Attorney Series
- I don't recall the movie involving witness testimony from a parrot or spirit channeling, but I suppose anything's possible.
Juror #3's son is gay, which is part of what led to their falling out.
- Just a theory brought up when my class was studying this film.
- I'm sure Juror #8 would say "it's possible." I would think #3 would've mentioned it in his little over-share if that were true though.
The three remaining jurors represent the three Aristotelian divisions.
- Juror #4 represents Logos, being the only one of the last three to continue voting 'Guilty' for purely logical reasons.
- Juror #10 represents Pathos, voting 'Guilty' only because of his feelings towards "them".
- Juror #3 represents Ethos, with a subconscious Psychological Projection between his estranged son and the accused.
The trial is later declared a mistrial due to Juror 8's juror misconduct
- Almost all of Juror 8's actions would have resulted in a mistrial in real life, namely his actions of:
- Conducting an outside investigation (visiting the crime scene, buying a matching knife)
- Introducing evidence not presented/reviewed at the trial (one witness's eyeglass marks, another witness's limp, the angle of the switchblade stabs)
Juror #8 was an Angel Unaware
- He's the boy's Guardian Angel that refuses to let the court convict him of a crime he didn't commit. But as part of this Divine Intervention onto the Jury of this trial, he would be severely limited by human form and constraints, and could not use miracles or revelations. All the angel was permitted to know was the boy's innocence - it was up to his own ingenuity now to dismantle the prosecution's case and faulty testimonies to win a "Not Guilty" verdict.
- This makes the Armor-Piercing Question from Juror #6 all the more poignant and somber though. The angel is very troubled at the possibility of the boy going onto committing (another) murder someday in the future. Just because he's innocent today, doesn't mean he'll always be innocent tomorrow. Supernatural or not, he cannot protect him from the world, and the cruelty the lad's father has shown him, may come out in him one day.
- Or he's God himself. Calm, collect, and pointing out humans make mistakes all the time. And if the boy wasn't the murderer, it means the father-of-all smited the boy's cruel father (who was over 6ft, so whoever stabbed downwards into the chest had to be very very tall), because child beaters is a massive Berserk Button for him.
- And if #8 was God, little would the jury know that this was Humanity on Trial, and in leaving "bread crumbs for them to follow", he was asking Armor-Piercing Question after question, to see if they were virtuous and rational enough, to not impulsively desire the execution of an innocent 18 year old without a second thought.
