#juror

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?”

1. Pandora Hearts, Retrace XCI: Juror 2. The Case Study of Vanitas, Mémoire 38: Naenia — She Who Harbors Death (Part One)

Juror #2 (2024)

Directed by Clint Eastwood

ANDREW GARFIELD

Juror #2 Clint Eastwood USA, 2024 ★★★ "I was hoping you could do me a solid" says JK Simmons' character.

And I was thinking "Well how about this movie?" A solid one indeed.

I think maybe a period piece would've benefited the overall plot a bit, in the sense that the whole case is rather weak and a little more thorough investigation (you know, actual police work) would've helped a bit and you wouldn't need to rely so much on civilian eyes but whatever. That's all just nitpicking, anyway. It works when it has to. Like I said, a solid flick.