Hot answers tagged

40

Assuming you're referring to the 1957 B&W version, the simplest answer is that the film was indeed unique (for the time) in consisting of some extremely long mobile sequences with a mounted camera. The initial scene with the jury introduction, for example is nearly 10 minutes long and involves no less than 30-40 different conversations in the foreground ...


24

Richard has done a great job of explaining that it is more than one cut but I'd like to add why. The fact is that, even today, it's pretty much impossible to make a feature-length film in one cut... even with digital recording. In the 50s, it was even more limited. All films were shot on actual film and filmmakers had to work around the limited length of ...


10

No, the lines you are mishearing are actually: Juror #5: Look, lawyers aren't infallible, you know. Juror #7: Baltimore, please. Huh? This is referring to near the start where he is asked: Juror #7: You a Yankee fan? Juror #5: No, Baltimore. Juror #7: Baltimore? That's like being hit in the head with a crowbar once a day.


9

tl;dr: The movie doesn't appear to be an intentional rejection of the US jury system, merely set within the bounds of that system. The behavior of the jury members in the movie is also not indicative of how real juries are instructed to behave, though they are given pretty broad leeway (within limits) to make decisions how they see fit. I don't think ...


8

A jury usually withheld names in order to remove any effects of names, castes etc into the process. Inside the jury room, the people are simply humans trying to impart justice. When two people swap names, it signifies a bond, especially if it is done after passing through an experience together. The men, after having gone through a emotional, social and ...


8

In the US legal system, as with many others around the world, a jury is selected from the general population of registered voters by random ballot. During the initial trial phase, known as "jury selection" both legal teams (defence and prosecution) have the right to question and then remove certain members of the jury. It's common that anyone with a genuine ...


1

This movie is based on the book "A Time to Kill" by John Grisham. I have read it. Acccording to the book, after the verdict is delivered, Jake (the lawyer) goes to meet one of the jury members. That woman was not at home but his husband was, who was on the grand jury which indicted Carl Lee Hailey. He told Jake that when they were all discussing the verdict ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible