Mistakes in fiction that bug you

Twelve Angry Men and one cynical viewer

I suppose we have to accept such errors so that there is a semblance of drama and tension in the plot we are watching. We all know these errors are put in.

I love the film "Twelve Angry Men", possibly one of the finest examples of ensemble acting on celluloid. It also does discuss the fact that a jury has to carefully consider every point in the evidence (especially in a criminal case with a capital sentence of death) so there is no shadow of a doubt as to the correctness of the conclusion. However, there is a major dramatic point that always bothers me. Henry Fonda and the others are discussing the murder weapon that was used, a knife that was supposed to be recently purchased and had a one of a kind handle (a switchblade, by the way). He stands up and pulls out of his pocket a similar knife from his pocket and throws it down on the table. This is like the first dent in the argument against the defendant in his murder trial.

The problem is when he is asked about how he acquired it, Fonda matter-of-factly states he took a stroll at night during the period the trial was taking place, to the ghetto area the murder occurred in, and found a store selling the same kind of knife a block from where the murder took place. The picture audience is amazed at this piece of luck. In reality Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, and Ed Begley Sr. (basically the four leaders of the anti-defendant group in the jury) should turn on Fonda and point out he wasn't to do that unless his little jaunt was one the court as a whole granted for all the jury, and representatives of the prosecution, defense and the judge! You see, we can't take Fonda's word about what he did as true!! He may personally know the defendant (a young boy on trial for killing his father), or sympathize with the kid (Fonda is a liberal minded type - as opposed to Begley or Cobb), and he may have made up the story having just searched around for a similar knife after seeing the murder weapon anywhere. The described general jaunt I suggest the court would have to give (a difficult thing for a court to usually do, unless there are questions about the murder site) is to make sure the knife is available or unavailable in that area. Fonda has given serious grounds for a mistrial, and once the jury reports this and an angry judge dismisses them and brings charges of contempt of court against Fonda, Cobb or one of the others might go to the prosecution team and mention this hole in their case that has to be patched up.

Of course, to allow for the pleasant flow of that film, one can't demand this detail to be added - it would make the movie far shorter (by over an hour of it's ninety minutes running time).

Jeff

I have just seen a mistake on a TV show that I have seen more times than I can count, albeit, this time particularly disappoints me, because it is an episode of Law & Order: SVU, and I expect better things from L&O than from most TV police shows.

Anyway, it's about the law in the US called the "marital privilege." Under this law, spouses can't be forced to reveal confidences.

This law applies only to communication made during the marriage, but I can't tell you how many times there's been and episode of a TV show where two people have gotten married in order not to be forced to testify about prior communication.

It doesn't work like that. Married people can be forced to testify about communication that happened before the marriage took place. By the same token, the privilege remains after divorce. While communication after divorce is not privileged, communication during the marriage is still privileged after a divorce. I've seen that mistake too, although not as often-- people are called to testify against ex-spouses about communication during the marriage.

So what things bug the rest of you?

Announcement