love this. trap was one of my faves from last year & shyamalan is one of the few directors tackling modern things directly (tiktok live climax??). & as you point out the old is terrifyingly new sometimes.
juror #2's moral cynicism is really interesting when you factor in alcoholism & its place in the nuclear family (james mason in ray's bigger than life comes to mind). in a flashback we see hoult looks at a glass of liquor. we don't see him drink, but in terms of montage, the presence of an object outweighs the absence of its corresponding action. (likewise there is no father without a child, no axe without a limb.)
Thank you so much for reading! I didn't talk much at all here about the Lady Raven material down the stretch but it's notable how well it works for me given the size of the swing. You're absolutely right about the image of the glass - it's fascinating how strongly that suggests formally that Justin is drinking, even as textually the movie makes it reasonably (if never 100% - this is technically in the same category of uncertainty as Sythe's innocence) clear that he wasn't. It doesn't matter what the truth is, it matters how the truth appears.
Fantastic stuff here. My question is, in the case of Juror #2 specifically, what would you say is the relationship between the more contrived image of the family and the very real love that exists within the family?
I would argue there would be a selfishness to the act of Justin admitting to his potential fault (because we never get a straight confirmation that it was him). He relieves himself of the guilt he would have otherwise had to carry, but he abandons his pregnant wife (who's high risk) in the process. Meanwhile, justice is no more or less affected by whichever body ends up getting punished for the crime, so is not responsible of Justin to protect the body (his own) that he knows is non-violent and that his wife and unborn child are effectively depending on, even if he'll have to shoulder that guilty conscience for the rest of his life?
Thank you for reading! I think this is ultimately Justin's calculus, but doesn't this largely omit the innocent person who will go to prison for life in his stead? I think it is exceedingly dubious morally for Justin to take that man's history of violence as justification for destroying his future in Justin's stead. They both have criminal histories, and it's precisely the weight of his own that has put Justin in danger here.
Maybe I'm misremembering, but James' innocence is never confirmed to us, correct? Inferred, perhaps, but ultimately made no more clear than Justin's culpability. Certainly not to Justin himself.
With that in mind, how much power does Justin really have in NOT omitting James from his calculus? Justin holds the power to decide which future is going to be destroyed, but all he can meaningfully account for is his own non-violence, which he cannot do for James. To surrender himself would be to forsake (if not leave to die) his wife and unborn child, all while having no way of knowing if James will reoffend or not. His prize? He wouldn't have that moral dubiousness hanging over his head anymore.
I don't disagree with what you said by any stretch, but I think the film is less interested in scrutinizing Justin's power in deciding which future gets destroyed, and more interested in scrutinizing a system that demands a future get destroyed in the first place.
I think Justin is pretty clear that he is most likely guilty. I don't think we ever see him even privately give in to suspicion that James was responsible; in making his oblique case to the prosecutor he tells the story of a family man who DID commit the crime but did not mean to, or know about it initially. If he thought there was a genuinely possibility he was innocent this would have been the place to bring it up.
I think the film absolutely believes Justin has been put in an unwinnable position but I think it's also concerned with the way he's driven by that position to adopt a mindset rooted in his own moral superiority. As he reveals to the prosecutor in the end, he's chosen to see James as a "criminal," and to see himself as a person with a complicated past but a better future. In truth their positions on paper are functionally identical, which is what makes it disturbing that he's categorized himself differently for the purposes of rationalizing his choice.
Very true! Parallel to that is the equally-disturbing need to placate the system by playing that pigeon-hole morality game, as though we're incapable of creating our own emotional resolutions without the system's permission, which is an assumption that largely (though perhaps not completely) drives the very existence of the justice system.
Really appreciate your responses, Peter; thank you!
I'm surprised you brought up Saleka playing Lady Raven amidst the fatherhood theme without mentioning how her character brings up her own father leaving her, and as a result her being angry at him for a long time. Riley is the big Lady Raven fan and, unknown to her at the time, her father will soon be absent and she will have plenty of reason to be angry at him.
Hi Peter, great read! The last paragraph was particularly insightful. I was wondering if this kind of comunal thinking is uniformally applied. I mean in both movies these moral dillemas are applied to american, white men who have a place upheld in society. I always wondered what happens to the argument when it comes to marginalized individuals to which their “community” means the one closest to them? In these cases is it not morally just to prioritize their house/blood over a society that rejects them, and not serve that same disfunctional society at the cost of their own skin? I see how it’s an individualistic argument and doesn’t contribute to improve anything, but I never really could think up an answer to that. I’d appreciate reading recs on the subject if you know of any. Again, great read!
Thanks for reading Ana! I think that's a huge question and I wouldn't want to be dogmatic about it. Obviously there's a certain sense in which especially Juror #2's vision of service to humanity (performance of civic duty in the liberal state) is pretty limited; I think though that ultimately it's interested in a broader, if vaguer, sense of "doing what's right." Juror also constructs itself to avoid racial politics in not-entirely-elegant ways, and this too is notable. You're right that it's easy to imagine very different configurations of the family-versus-society dilemma in film that would have very different moral valences - I'd be interested to know if anyone can come up with examples.
love this. trap was one of my faves from last year & shyamalan is one of the few directors tackling modern things directly (tiktok live climax??). & as you point out the old is terrifyingly new sometimes.
juror #2's moral cynicism is really interesting when you factor in alcoholism & its place in the nuclear family (james mason in ray's bigger than life comes to mind). in a flashback we see hoult looks at a glass of liquor. we don't see him drink, but in terms of montage, the presence of an object outweighs the absence of its corresponding action. (likewise there is no father without a child, no axe without a limb.)
Thank you so much for reading! I didn't talk much at all here about the Lady Raven material down the stretch but it's notable how well it works for me given the size of the swing. You're absolutely right about the image of the glass - it's fascinating how strongly that suggests formally that Justin is drinking, even as textually the movie makes it reasonably (if never 100% - this is technically in the same category of uncertainty as Sythe's innocence) clear that he wasn't. It doesn't matter what the truth is, it matters how the truth appears.
Fantastic stuff here. My question is, in the case of Juror #2 specifically, what would you say is the relationship between the more contrived image of the family and the very real love that exists within the family?
I would argue there would be a selfishness to the act of Justin admitting to his potential fault (because we never get a straight confirmation that it was him). He relieves himself of the guilt he would have otherwise had to carry, but he abandons his pregnant wife (who's high risk) in the process. Meanwhile, justice is no more or less affected by whichever body ends up getting punished for the crime, so is not responsible of Justin to protect the body (his own) that he knows is non-violent and that his wife and unborn child are effectively depending on, even if he'll have to shoulder that guilty conscience for the rest of his life?
Thank you for reading! I think this is ultimately Justin's calculus, but doesn't this largely omit the innocent person who will go to prison for life in his stead? I think it is exceedingly dubious morally for Justin to take that man's history of violence as justification for destroying his future in Justin's stead. They both have criminal histories, and it's precisely the weight of his own that has put Justin in danger here.
Maybe I'm misremembering, but James' innocence is never confirmed to us, correct? Inferred, perhaps, but ultimately made no more clear than Justin's culpability. Certainly not to Justin himself.
With that in mind, how much power does Justin really have in NOT omitting James from his calculus? Justin holds the power to decide which future is going to be destroyed, but all he can meaningfully account for is his own non-violence, which he cannot do for James. To surrender himself would be to forsake (if not leave to die) his wife and unborn child, all while having no way of knowing if James will reoffend or not. His prize? He wouldn't have that moral dubiousness hanging over his head anymore.
I don't disagree with what you said by any stretch, but I think the film is less interested in scrutinizing Justin's power in deciding which future gets destroyed, and more interested in scrutinizing a system that demands a future get destroyed in the first place.
I think Justin is pretty clear that he is most likely guilty. I don't think we ever see him even privately give in to suspicion that James was responsible; in making his oblique case to the prosecutor he tells the story of a family man who DID commit the crime but did not mean to, or know about it initially. If he thought there was a genuinely possibility he was innocent this would have been the place to bring it up.
I think the film absolutely believes Justin has been put in an unwinnable position but I think it's also concerned with the way he's driven by that position to adopt a mindset rooted in his own moral superiority. As he reveals to the prosecutor in the end, he's chosen to see James as a "criminal," and to see himself as a person with a complicated past but a better future. In truth their positions on paper are functionally identical, which is what makes it disturbing that he's categorized himself differently for the purposes of rationalizing his choice.
Very true! Parallel to that is the equally-disturbing need to placate the system by playing that pigeon-hole morality game, as though we're incapable of creating our own emotional resolutions without the system's permission, which is an assumption that largely (though perhaps not completely) drives the very existence of the justice system.
Really appreciate your responses, Peter; thank you!
My pleasure - thank you again for reading, and for your thoughts!
I'm surprised you brought up Saleka playing Lady Raven amidst the fatherhood theme without mentioning how her character brings up her own father leaving her, and as a result her being angry at him for a long time. Riley is the big Lady Raven fan and, unknown to her at the time, her father will soon be absent and she will have plenty of reason to be angry at him.
Good connection!
Hi Peter, great read! The last paragraph was particularly insightful. I was wondering if this kind of comunal thinking is uniformally applied. I mean in both movies these moral dillemas are applied to american, white men who have a place upheld in society. I always wondered what happens to the argument when it comes to marginalized individuals to which their “community” means the one closest to them? In these cases is it not morally just to prioritize their house/blood over a society that rejects them, and not serve that same disfunctional society at the cost of their own skin? I see how it’s an individualistic argument and doesn’t contribute to improve anything, but I never really could think up an answer to that. I’d appreciate reading recs on the subject if you know of any. Again, great read!
Thanks for reading Ana! I think that's a huge question and I wouldn't want to be dogmatic about it. Obviously there's a certain sense in which especially Juror #2's vision of service to humanity (performance of civic duty in the liberal state) is pretty limited; I think though that ultimately it's interested in a broader, if vaguer, sense of "doing what's right." Juror also constructs itself to avoid racial politics in not-entirely-elegant ways, and this too is notable. You're right that it's easy to imagine very different configurations of the family-versus-society dilemma in film that would have very different moral valences - I'd be interested to know if anyone can come up with examples.