#juror

[artist-issues]

In 12 Angry Men, do you think the kid was guilty, innocent, or do you feel that the film never wanted us to know?

I think the point of the movie is to underline the word you’re using: “KNOW.”

Every character who changes their vote, when pressed to explain themselves, basically throws up their hands and says, “I don’t know, I don’t know if he’s innocent but I don’t know if he’s guilty, and that’s why I’m changing my vote.”

“Knowing” is a very specific thing.

It’s not guessing. It’s not “what’s probable.” It’s not “I just feel this way, I feel it so strongly.” It’s not “what sounds likely,” it’s not even “the kind of thing I’ve heard of before/could happen.” It’s not even what you believe.

It’s, “no, do you have a string of facts that all work together to produce overwhelming certainty?” Or do you have a “reasonable doubt?”

Not just any doubt. Anything factual can start to look non-factual if you just belabor it. Pick it apart. Squint your eyes and tilt your head. The human mind is super strong, in its way. It can convince itself that the surest thing in the world, right in front of your nose, is questionable. But that’s why it’s not just called “doubt.” It’s called “reasonable doubt.”

And the whole movie is saying, “so you know it? Not believe it, not feel it, not want it—know it? Or is there reasonable doubt, based on what you can know?”

So I think that’s the whole point of the movie. The whole point of the movie is not “did the boy commit murder?” Nobody knows that. The 12 jurors don’t know; they don’t know at the beginning of the movie, and they don’t know at the end. The judge doesn’t know. The only people who know are the boy himself and God. The whole point of the movie is “You don’t know everything, but what do you know?”

[ldagence-celbs]

Heidi Klum - (Emmy Award) - German Model -

[justforbooks]

Juror #2: the curious case of the missing Clint Eastwood film

The 40th film directed by the 94-year-old is only being shown in 50 cinemas in the US. Why is Warners burying a movie by one of its most decorated stars?

There is a mystery at the heart of Juror #2, the 40th film directed by Clint Eastwood and – given that he is now 94 – quite possibly the final one.

The riddle lies not in the plot, a courtroom thriller which sees family man Nicholas Hoult serving on the jury for a hit-and-run case in which he is uniquely placed to acquit the defendant, because, as the trailer indicates, he actually did it.

Rather, it is the fate of the film itself. Eastwood fans in the UK will have no problem seeing Juror#2, where it’s enjoying a wide release in more than 300 cinemas nationwide. Across the whole of the US, however, it’s screening in fewer than 50 cinemas.

Starting small then rolling out nationwide is a common strategy for movies being positioned as awards contenders. Yet this is not the case for Juror#2, which will not expand its screen number – and does not even feature on Warner Bros’s For Your Consideration website, its portal for Oscar hopefuls.

Stranger still, Warners has said it will not report box office takings for the film – an almost unprecedented move for a theatrical release – and that the film is likely to move to streaming before the month is out.

At the film’s premiere at the AFI festival last week, Eastwood was nowhere to be seen, leaving it to Hoult and co-star Toni Collette to trot up the red carpet and spearhead an audience shout-out to the director: “We love you, Clint!”

His absence led many to the conclusion the nonagenarian was ailing, his health worsened by the sudden death in July of his partner, 61-year-old Christina Sandera, and the arrest in October of his daughter, Francesca, on a domestic assault charge.

Yet a post on his official X account from 15 October shows the film-maker grinning in a leather jacket and, according to the caption, “returning to work, reviewing scripts in his Malpaso [o]ffices”.

As well as being consistently prolific, Eastwood’s career has, by-and-large, been profitable both commercially and critically for Warner Bros, with whom he’s worked for six decades. Less than 20 years ago, Million Dollar Baby won best picture, director, actress and supporting actor at the Oscars, as well as taking $216m worldwide.

In 2014, Warners released Eastwood’s highest-grossing film to date: American Sniper, starring Bradley Cooper, which made $547m from its $59m budget, and scored six Oscar nominations.

His films since have performed more modestly, but some have been genuine hits – air crash drama Sully made $240m – and none were catastrophic flops. Insiders including film writer Sarah Marrs and Variety’s J Kim Murphy suggest that incoming Warners CEO David Zaslav was dismayed by tepid numbers of Cry Macho, Eastwood’s 2021 neo-western, which made back just half of its $33m budget.

Yet the film was released at a time when many cinemas in the US remained closed and audiences – especially among an older demographic – were hesitant about venturing out to them. A simultaneous streaming release on HBO Max made the decision for wavering punters yet easier.

A Wall Street Journal interview with Zaslav published the following spring, a month into his tenure, reports that the CEO was scathing to Warners executives over their rationale for greenlighting Cry Macho: they felt “indebted” to Eastwood because of his long relationship with the studio.

Zaslav allegedly responded by saying they didn’t “owe anyone favours” before quoting Jerry Maguire: “It’s not show friends, it’s show business.”

Certainly the circumstances of the release of Juror #2 indicate a frostiness between Warners’ head and one of their prize ponies, who may be being put out to pasture prematurely.

Zaslav is also under pressure from the unexpected flop last month of Joker: Folie á Deux, which cost $200m (plus substantial marketing spend), opened splashily at the Venice film festival, but failed to connect with either critics or audiences – unlike its multi-Oscar-winning billion-dollar predecessor.

The contrasting success of Oppenheimer will also still be stinging: Christopher Nolan called time on his long relationship with the studio in 2021 over their new day-in-date simultaneous streaming strategy, meaning his new film was released instead by Universal Pictures – for whom it made $975m.

Meanwhile, Eastwood is back at work considering his next project as director while also working as producer on a new version of his 1977 film The Gauntlet, starring Tom Cruise and Scarlett Johansson.

The 94-year-old has been denied the opportunity for further Oscars glory with Juror #2. Yet few would bet against him one day making a return to the podium.

Daily inspiration. Discover more photos at Just for Books…?

[addisrealitea-blog]

Robert Roberson's Juror Testifies Before Texas House Committee On 2003 D...

[gebo4482]

Juror #2 - Official Trailer - Warner Bros. UK & Ireland

Dir: Clint Eastwood Star: Nicholas Hoult / Zoey Deutch / J.K. Simmons

[someone-took-lost]

desire! i think there’s something wrong with your arm~

[know-news-is-good-news]

SURE you would, Donny Boy, BUT even ex-(fake)president criminals don't get to tell the judge when they go to prison. This is the world YOU CONNED ! !

Live with IT ! !

Or DIE for all we CARE ! !

[authorkarajorgensen]

Neurodivergence and Jury Duty

This week's blog is about how jury duty selection really doesn't jive with autism.

Sometimes it’s easy to forget I’m autistic. I have sort of built a life for myself where my weaknesses are minimized and my strengths are (mostly) highlighted. My job allows me plenty of decompression time, I can sort of pick my time slot, and my schedule is very predictable 90% of the time. The problem comes when I’m thrown a curve ball, and I’m repeatedly reminded that the world isn’t built for…

[wack-ashimself]

 Our justice system is FUCKED. First time I had to go in for jury duty in....15 years?

First time I had to go in for jury duty in....15 years? They asked WAY WAY more questions of the jury (one of the NEWEST ones: do you watch justice/cop dramas/shows/movies, and believe them to be accurate? I KNOW that was not asked of us 15 years ago). To the point I heard about a murdering child, sexual abuse on KIDS, and that was just the JURY. They asked very detailed private questions and potential jurors had to answer in front of a room full of strangers. And the topic at hand was not a criminal case, but a FUCKED up topic regardless TWO YEARS after the accused thing happened. It took THAT fucking long to hear something involving kids?

Not to mention, it disgusted me how 'buddy buddy' the judge, the typer person, the prosecutor, and the 3rd party unbiased guy who decided the outcome to a degree all were. Add in the cops as witnesses later on, and this is already a stacked case. There were multiple laughs over these serious questions. Like, if I did not KNOW they all were working together, I could fucking see it plain as day. It also threw me off how everyone was...charismatic. Even talking about shitty things, having a few laughs, they still charmed the jurors. Most there liked both the prosecutor AND defense attorneys. It's an aspect I kinda ignored: CHARMING the jurors. Not winning thru truth, but making them feel...validated. And EVERYONE shared some mundane unimportant side story of how they knew someone, directly or indirectly.

And they can cut out jurors on a WHIM? How is that a 'jury of your peers' if it is highly fucking filtered from both sides? The thing that drove me the most insane besides the word 'honorable' actually being next to the judge's name (seriously, you EARN that title by doing your job right, not by fucking default. Let's see your track record, and see how honorable it is)?

They SPECIFICALLY ALL said many many times 'Do you agree to follow the law as the JUDGE defines it to be?'

I DO NOT KNOW HER DEFINITION. Let's hear it....

Ugh.

I got out of it, at least for the day. How? I rambled my fucking truth. I was kinda everywhere, but I said:

'Largest prison population in the world. We are not the good guys.'

'With epstein's island, I believe anybody can get away with anything if it wasn't recorded.'

'I have friends lose kids to our system. And it broke my friend. He didn't deserve that.'

I actually said, and it was the god's honest truth: I am biased both ways. I have seen the system do bad, but, I, by default, would trust a kid's allegations over an adult's denial on average (I didn't sound THIS smart when I said it so paraphrasing).

Pay is shit, treat you like you owe them, it's hardly justice when 2/3 are plea deals. I learned a lot, but none of it good.

<worst part is everyone working SEEMS like good people, but they're endorsing a known corrupt flawed system, so even tho they were civil, they're destroying society, just politely.>

Fav part? The 2 times I was called, I said outloud 'god damn it', made people laugh both times, and when I was excused, I said 'thank god' and made even more laugh. NO ONE WANTED TO BE THERE.

ps-EVERYONE in that room has a DECENT chair, EXCEPT for the vast majority of jurors who were being waited on in the back. It was like an old hard church pew. TERRIBLE. Judge: you're semi rich. I'm being paid $15. Give me your chair. Fairly, she did say sorry for them. But...not like she's gonna petition to change it. It's to say something to look good, not actually do something about it. Politics: words, not actions.

[rickchung]

Juror #2 (dir. Clint Eastwood).

There's an irresistible premise behind the legal thriller about how an everyday citizen summoned for jury duty suddenly realizes he was actually the one responsible for the murder trial he's sitting on. Nicholas Hoult stars as the conflicted would-be juror unsure of what to do and how to serve justice. Imagine the best possible version of an episode of a legal procedural like Law & Order and you have essentially the appeal of Eastwood's likely final film. A smart script by Jonathan Abrams plays with the judicial process and how jurors decide to vote with someone's life in their hands.

[tingitana]

Clint Eastwood's new film Juror #2 is yet another inadvertent indictment of the jury system as average people with busy lives render a unanimous verdict on an innocent man prosecuted by an ambitious politician and represented by a public defender. The film is not quite like Sidney Lumet's first feature film, 12 Angry Men, released in 1957. In both cases, a holdout juror challenges his eleven co-jurors and manages to raise serious doubt or even reverse their majority decision in the end. But such outcomes are unlikely to happen in real life, Michael Astimow argued in an article he wrote for the Chiacgo-Kent Law Review on the 50th anniversary of Lumet's film. Despite the limitations of a jury verdict, Americans put far more trust in juries than they do in the U.S. Justice system, judges, or lawyers. In the end, justice and truth, as Juror # 2 suggests, are not always the same.

Photos courtesy Warner Bros & Orion-Nova Productions

[ldagence-celbs]

Heidi Klum - German Model

[dublu51]

CRUEL & UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

How did Colbert get an exclusive interview with Juror #11?

[tenth-sentence]

There were women postmasters at St Albans and Waltham, and women teachers, jurors of matrons and women executrixes.

"Normal Women: 900 Years of Making History" - Philippa Gregory

[vonlipvig]

*running up to you at the playground* do you want to play 12 angry men with me

[rosemariecawkwell]

British Fantasy Society Awards Shortlist Announced!

And I’m a Juror for Best Audio Work! These are the podcasts up for the award: Breaking the Glass Slipper The Painkiller Podcast (Bitter Pill Theatre) Podcastle (Escape Artists) Pseudopod (Escape Artists) The Secret of St. Kilda (Michael Ireland & Naomi Clarke) The Stranger Times (C.K. McDonnell) For all the shortlists see: British Fantasy Award Shortlists