You would have a field day with the 1985 Soviet film "Come And See" directed by Elem Klimov; one of the greatest films on the horrors of the Eastern Front of the Second World War.
@@thisisfunhouseentertainment If you like classic movies that question concepts of morality, have you watched Grapes Of Wrath, On Borrowed Time, or Paper Moon?
Lee J. Cobb (Number 3) does something amazing with his final monologue. He takes a man we've only known as a blustering close-minded brick wall, and makes us sympathize. He shows us that, behind the bluster and brashness and the roaring, there's a human being (a father) in pain. And while we may very well not like the character, Cobb forces us to recognize his essential humanity.
I love that; that's so true. And i think there's one important thing that seems to go over all the reactors' heads, even our host who is clearly the consummate professional on this genre.... It's this one simple fact: Juror 3 is guilty of leading his son astray through abuse and neglect, and just generally corrupt teachings. And inwardly he knows it, even at the beginning, but is far too proud to admit it or try to atone for it. Until... he's forced through the jury debate to see his own son in this defendant. Only then can he break down and effectively admit that he bears the lion's share of the blame for his estrangement from his son. So the tears and the desperate statement of "not guilty" is actually him convicting himself for his son's attack on him and all the other problems they had. It is an admission of defeat in the argument that he was not to blame for anything. And i think it took that ultimate act of yelling "You work your _life_ out" (i.e., for them) and then tearing the photo, to make the inner awareness come out into his conscious to realize the insanity of the position he'd held for so long. Then, the lingering devastation he displays after just the two of them are left, is to me a despair in the belief that he cannot atone for his criminal act of which he's just convicted himself, that there's no apparent way to undo the terrible damage he's done. And the Fonda character seems to get this. His act of putting the coat on the man and giving him a gesture out the door is, to me, a statement: "I know and understand your pain, but you've taken the first step of ADMITTING THE TRUTH, speaking it out loud in front of those 11 witnesses. Now, take another step, and another. Live your life under your newfound moral code. That's the best you can do, and the best you can do is good enough for me." The act of Henry putting on the man's coat is to me a statement: My friend, I forgive you. That means I find you NOT GULTY of the accusation against you. Your honest confession and sincere intent to change and never go back are all the atonement I require of you. Go in peace, and do this no more. It will never be mentioned by me again." For me, this is the most important part of the movie. It teaches that neither failure to be perfect, nor restoration from such a state of failure, are impossible for any of us.
Yep! And something i find even more interesting is that i see his expressions change throughout. It was once but i havent had the time to rewatch to check, but he was panicky like he understood he wasnt guilty but didnt want to change his answer cus of the fact of his son. When the logic juror made a point to why he is not a second later, he was relieved and stopped panicking. Im not sure if it is true, but i interpreted it as he believed Davis and the boys possible innocence but couldn't change his vote cus of the personal prejudice
Juror Number 4 (E G Marshall) is to me, the most interesting character. As a stockbroker, he’s analytical, emotionless and bases his entire argument to the case based in the facts as he sees them. No prejudice, no personal biases at all. He’s there to do a job and he’s focused on that job. Even though he’s one of the last ‘converts’, he turns out to be one of the best Jurors.
I loved how, once the glasses mark was pointed out, you could see the wheels turning in his mind, as all the implications played out. You could tell he was reviewing everything. It took a few minutes and finally he says, "I now have reasonable doubt." Not only that, but you could tell he was severely disappointed in himself. He had gone so long being so sure, and his logic had failed him because he didn't know what he didn't know.
except that isn't completely true. he makes a derogatory comment towards lower-class people that's similar to those of Juror 10, if far more eloquently spoken. He has his own personal biases, likely due to being a stockbroker and thus out of touch with the lower class. Juror 4 isn't as perfect as hey may seem, but in fact I think this makes him even more compelling. He has his beliefs and values challenged over the course of the film, but he accepts those challenges without pushing back against them or blowing up at the other jurors. It takes a lot of maturity to do that, and I have all the more respect for him because of it.
@@christianfrost8660 the manner in which he spoke doesn't matter, it was still a prejudiced comment. he "pre-judged" the defendant based on statistics that do not and should not automatically determine a person's moral character
The fact Davis (Juror 8, first not-guilty vote) is an architect is SUPER important. A good architect spends a bunch of time doing little else BUT analyzing stuff to find flaws. If you miss flaws, buildings collapse/get off center/aren't fireproofed properly/etc. and someone gets hurt. He's probably a very good/not-cheap architect at that, being so analytical.
That's right. And juror 4 was a broker, also very analytical. He made it clear from the start, that the eyewitness is the key for his guilty verdict. When that broke, he immediately had a reasonable doubt.
@@reubennichols644 actually their occupations are very related to their respected archetypes. And if you notice all of their occupations are mentioned in the movie. Some of them are subtle.
You are right this movie is a master class in so many things. The boldness of it compared to movies today. Shot almost entirely in the Jury room set. It was so tight, you can easily imagine how hot and claustrophic it must have been. And the acting, Lee Cobb was absolutely phenomenal. They all were, but his performance is my favorite. This sets the bar high for an ensemble cast. The writing was great, the camera work was great. It's almost perfect in my mind. I would love to see this acted on the stage.
Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. I'm working on a post-reaction review so I don't want to say too much, but there were some powerhouse actors here. Interestingly enough, there IS a play version on YT. I haven't seen it myself though, so not sure when it's from. I heard that there's a Criterion collection version that has the original teleplay that aired on CBS. I'm definitely interested in getting my hands on that. I don't think I would want to see a stage version of it in the modern day. I just don't think that breed of dude exists anymore, the type to command such gravitas on stage. I think they're few and far between. That's just purely my unsubstantiated opinion.
@@thisisfunhouseentertainment you’re correct. There is a stage version of this on RUclips. There is the original live TV version from 1954. Back in the 50s it was not unusual to have live stage plays.
Lee J. Cobb put on an acting clinic in that final monologue. He made all of your possible dislike of his character evaporate in literally 5 seconds as he tears up the picture of him and his son and you feel nothing but empathy for him.
All the elements came together. The journey through the narrative, the turning of the tide as jurors switched, and then that final reveal. Great stuff!
@@louismarzullo1190 And he *tells* us! Very early in the movie he tells us about his son running from a fight and how he was disgusted and "made a man out of him". And then they had a fight and that "man" he made punched him and walked out. Two years he's lived with that. That guilt festering. And the kid in the courtroom (if you notice) bears a fairly significant physical resemblance to the kid in the photo! God, I love this movie!
imo opinion ALL the actors excelled in this movie , true Cobb standout but it also due to having the biggest part (NOT that it take from his performance) , my fav char btw was the logical broker with the glasses the way he handled the racist was AMAZING :)
One of the strongest casts of any film ever. Even though most of the actors are only moderately well known, once the door shut and was locked, they really went to work. And boy did they work hard at their craft. Each man brought something important and integral to the story, and each had a couple of moments to shine. And don't forget about the director. I feel this movie should be shown to every jury in a capital punishment case, just so they know the weight of the situation. Great reaction and analysis.
A Who's Who of character actors, each a master of their craft! I'm rather sure all of them had extensive stage experience, and for the most part, this is a filmed stage play. I agree that it should be required watching for any capital case. The largest difference between then and today is the DNA evidence, which can seal a case quickly. Today we are watching a massive attack on our judicial system, some from within and some from without. I feel it certainly needs an extensive cleaning and reorganization.
Lee J Cobb is renowned for bringing to life the role of Willy Loman in "Death of a Salesman" on Broadway. Also memorable for his role in "On the Waterfront" with Marlon Brando.@@chadbennett7873
The look on that kid's face at the beginning of the film... Completely scared and hopeless. It sets the perfect tone for the rest of the film that the stakes are high and the deck is stacked against him, but one man with a little compassion can go a long way. A masterpiece of filmmaking.
One of the many things I absolutely love about this movie is that it doesn't show that the American Justice System is infalable. In fact, it shows the exact opposite: Unless we remain vigilent our justice system is extremely falable. If it wasn't for #8 the justice system would have very likely failed this kid that was on trial for murder, simply because our system only works to the extent that we treat it with the care and consideration it deserves. Related, but I also love the fact that we never actually find out if the kid did it or not. Despite everything, #8 could have been very wrong. But that's not really the point.
They touch on that possibility a few times. Most directly when #8 and #6 converse in the restroom. #6 ends the conversation with, "I'm just a working man. My boss does the supposing. But I'll try one. Suppose you talk us all outta this and the kid really did knife his father?" The look on #8's face tells us quite a lot about the doubts he has. He's not certain by any means. But, although nobody uses these words in the film, #8 is very much living by the phrase, "it is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons that to put a single innocent one to death.”
Good point. The justice system functioned in getting to a “correct” decision for the accused - acquitted, reasonable doubt. But society will always live with the question - excepting unusual double jeopardy. People’s feelings ofc. But the law says that’s resolution.
Interesting reaction. Great job. Yeah, this movie is uniquely brilliant. It's almost seventy years old and it's still fresh and relevant. And it's still fascinating and totally engrossing, including for newer, younger viewers. Great stuff. Thanks for reacting to this.
Appreciate you taking the time to watch and comment. I was definitely blown away by it. It is now my go to referencing for camera placement and blocking scenes. It's a masterclass!
Amazing reaction to my #1 movie of all times 👏🏻 you showed not only a deep understanding of the characters and their motivations, but your editing is hilarious and on point 👍🏻
Glad you enjoyed the video. You have great taste in movies. I'm sure you've got your schlocky guilty pleasures, though. Also, glad you can appreciate the editing, was challenging at times. I'll be experimenting over the next couple of reactions, so watch this space.
@@thisisfunhouseentertainment oh, you bet! My guilty pleasure movies are DCOMs 😅 although I think Teen Beach Movie is actually quite good... Not a masterpiece, but great music and kinda smart. Another movie that I think is actually genius is The Truman Show. If you haven't seen it, I'm sure a reaction to it would be a great success! But, as you are a film buff, that ship has probably sailed, huh 😁
The moment that brings me around to proper reasonable doubt is the discussion about the stab wound. The idea that it is very unlikely the defendant would have attacked his father like that. It makes me think that it most likely was someone else.
I've watched a number of reactions to this movie. It's an ideal test for a reviewer I think. Funny, yours may have been the most succinct of all the reactions and at the same time impressed me as the most expert.
Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment with encouraging words. 🙏 I hope to continue bringing value to you and the rest of the viewership. Stay tuned.
The movie does put the system to scrutiny and it does stand-up in this case because there happens to be a Knight in Shining Armor on the jury, but even all the generally decent people on the jury would have put the kid in the chair if any other person had been Juror Number 8. The system is clearly shown to not hold up to true scrutiny. You wonder how many people are in jail, convicted, even sentenced to die just because somebody had a pair of tickets in their pocket and didn't give deliberation the smallest bit of extra thought because they had to get somewhere on-time, and nobody else said anything.
I can see your point, but I think the real takeaway is to recognise just how delicate achieving true justice can be, and a call to the challenge of rising to the occasion and treat that responsibility seriously. In this part of the world, it's easy to point out negative outcomes and flaws in systems because we've been indoctrinated with utopianism. But the truth is that the world is fallen. It's messy, it's ugly and not all outcomes are going to be clear cut and righteous. There are many moving parts when it comes to such sweeping issues as justice, and corruption has caused a rot at the core of the system we live in to spread; but I'll challenge anyone to show me a superior justice system to the the ones across the western hemisphere anywhere else in the world.
@@thisisfunhouseentertainment You have great insight, "the world is fallen", one never comes to that understanding without personal suffering, very impressive, Sir.
Jack Klugman stars in the 1957 version and later stars in the tv show “The Odd Couple” playing Oscar Madison. Jack Lemmon stars in the 1997 version of the film and plays Felix Unger in the film version of “The Odd Couple”.
One might think a 70 year old movie that takes place in a single room with 12 unnamed characters wouldn’t hold your attention, but this remains a compelling and relevant work of art.
I love that you said, a movie about a heist, where you don't see the heist. Yeah, of course. You are on the jury too as a moviegoer. You only know what they know.
I like that they play out the whole secret ballot in one shot, not just because its a great way to handle the scene but because we as the camera follow the old mans vote from the start of the shot.
It's likely to happen again... and again... and again. I have to do what I can to keep things "transformative" or else the video will get blocked. You have no idea what happens behind the scenes.
Now you need to check out the 1997 remake with Jack Lemmon, James Gandolfini and Courtney B. Vance. It's basically the same in colour but it's the acting you'd be comparing.
This story has been redone a few times over the years, but this version is the best one IMO. This movie is based on a play written for television a few years earlier than this.* There are two people in this movie that were also in that original production: The older white-haired gentleman at 15:58 and the Hispanic gentleman at 16:38 * Here's the original 1954 *LIVE* TV version (with some of the original TV commercials intact!): ruclips.net/video/HlaXebUi72A/видео.htmlsi=f-noCRFGzk1RHq6j
Thanks for taking the time to share that. I managed to find those little nuggets of trivia out because I did an Epic post-reaction review, so check it out on the channel under the Videos heading at the top of the channel page, if you haven't already.
This was ordinally a stage play....Hollywood was basically buying and converting and filming everything they could get their hands on. Some were crap, a bit boring because of the single camera and single setting..but this one...Holy cow!
Thanks for watching. I've seen the original television play, which is good in its own right. However, this film was definitely a step up. If you haven't seen it already, I've done a companion post-reaction review video. It's good fun.
Your reaction was fantastic! Can you please do more reactions to these movies: The Godfather The Road to Perdition Inglorious Basterds To Kill a Mockingbird Karate Kid (1984) Forrest Gump Back to the Future The Shawshank Redemption Die Hard Terminator 2 Unforgiven The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Thanks for watching. Glad you enjoyed the video. I've seen all these... except To Kill a Mockingbird, which is on my list to watch and will be coming to the channel at some point. I will also be doing some re-watches and Inglorious is on the list. More details about its significance to come later. 👍
@@thisisfunhouseentertainment Too bad you have already seen all those other movies, I would have loved to seen reaction videos to them because you are a great reactor and definitely deserve more subscribers. You have not only great reactions but also have good analysis and relevant discussions. Keep up the good work!
I agree that this is a powerful film, but this thought remains: What if the young man is guilty and all they did was to spring a criminal with blood on his hands out of jail?
Thanks for watching. I'd say that's the ongoing conversation. Justice is a fragile thing and we're in an imperfect world. We've been indoctrinated with utopianism and equality of outcomes, so when we look at things, if the outcome isn't even across the board, we see it as a negative. However, in an imperfect world, some things just are what they are and we can either step up to the ongoing challenges, or live with the issues and keep it at bay so it doesn't consume us.
The defendant looks to be Hispanic or Italian. Since the setting is New York City, the presumption would be Puerto Rican (not Mexican in NYC in the 1950s) or Italian.
You should see 2007 Russian version of this movie entitled "12" directed by Nikita Mikhalkov. It is about 12 jurors who must decide the fate of a Chechen boy accused of killing his stepfather. Transform the setting from 1950s America to modern-day Russia, change the Latino teenager on trial to a Chechen Muslim, and turn it all over to Nikita Mikhalkov, who directed the Oscar-winning "Burnt by the Sun."
I think the boy on trial was Italian. Although Italians were disliked and discriminated against during this time, imo the dislike was more of socioeconomic class by the juror. Great reaction.
Thanks for watching. I've heard different takes on the ethnicity of the young man on trial, which is great. Though there is a likelihood of getting it right, it will always be speculation because it's never explicitly said. It's interesting that you mention class. Check out my Post-Reaction Review, if you haven't already.
@thisisfunhouseentertainment I agree the actor that played the accused was an Italian named John Sovaca. I don't know if you've seen it or not but in the movie It's a Wonderful Life, Potter tells George something about helping "garlic eaters" which was a common derogatory name for Italians. Many people seem to not believe it but the Irish were also disliked early in America's history as were the Chinese. I saw a nostalgic sign once that read " No Black's, NO Dogs, No dogs, and No Irish." These signs were posted outside of some businesses.
@@thisisfunhouseentertainment Yeah, 12 angry men. These days, it would be more diverse- for legal reasons as well as ones of basic fairness- as it was in at least one remake with George C. Scott and Edward James Olmos. Yes, more diversity sometimes makes sense and isn't woke.
13:32 Not gonna lie, this part really gets on my nerves. We got a possible but not nearly probable explanation from Henry Fonda and he says he'll vote guilty if it's still 11 to 1 Then the old man changes his vote.. not because he's convinced... *but because he admires Henry standing his ground* .. Like what? It's infuriating A change in a vote is supposed to be due to a realization in the case. Nothing else. The entire movie they say _"we're talking about a human life"_ The boy's father was a "human life" too wasn't he? The entire movie they barely "prove" there could be some modicum of chance the boy's innocent and they gaslight and guilt trip the other jurors to change their vote and in the end, for personal trauma that has nothing to do with the case, they all vote not guilty.... And the boy probably is guilty in spite of all that. I'm 27 and I don't have kids... so you can't assume my opinion comes from personal trauma, it comes from logic. Simple as that.
Hold on is this played on media player classic, K-Lite Codec Pack with some image upscaling and sharpening tools? :D Very specific but I recognize something about the image
When I mentioned “testing” the judicial system, I meant from the creative stand point, not the characters themselves. “Does the American justice system (at the time) stand up to scrutiny?”
You're an intelligent reactor. . .BUT. . .Don't edit in those little drop-in clips. . .That's what all the not so smart reactors do because they saw someone else do it, so they just have to do it too. You're WAY too smart for that kind of stuff. Other than those annoying little clips, you notice things others don't and I enjoyed your reaction. Just leave those silly little clips to the "kids" who really don't have the insight that you do.
Thank you for an insightful reaction to one of my favorite films. Great script and direction, with perhaps the finest ensemble performance of any film ever. Hat tip to my eighth-grade English teacher, who introduced me to the play 56 years ago. We did a dramatic reading/walk-through over several class periods. I played #5, the Jack Klugman character.
I'm glad you reacted to it. I appreciate your comments on the staging and camera-work. What I am most impressed with is the acting ... from everyone. I think the acting is brilliant.
This film would not have etched out such a lasting legacy without this collection of powerhouse performers. The acting is most definitely worth gushing over.
It's horrifying to think that - despite the deliberate anti-racist position of the narrative - there were no black jurors in the film because they wouldn't be allowed to serve on a real jury until 7 years after it was released. That's only 4 years before I was born, and it's difficult for me to wrap my head around that. Your dressing for the part and black-and-white presentation made you a welcome additional 13th juror, in a way, in this masterful, vital piece of American cinema.
I would have to see proof of that because the 13th and 14th Amendments gave blacks the right to serve on juries and that was an 1868. There were states in the south the had Jim Crow restrictions on that right until the 1965 voters rights act. I think that’s what you’re talking about. But the movie takes place in New York state, which would not have had specifically racial limitations as far as I know.
@@Robert-un7br While it was technically illegal to exclude African Americans and other people of color from juries, the practice was common not only in the south but in northern states as well, and throughout the 20th century, the courts did little to police the practice. The primary means was the use of peremptory challenges, where attorneys were not required to state a reason for exclusion. There are several studies on the practice, but RUclips doesn't seem to like it when you post links to other pages.
@@rickbruner5525 You might be interested to know that that is not a relic of history, but continues in practice to this very day, 16 Aug. 2023, unchallenged.
@@no_rubbernecking I am well aware of that but since the comment particularly referenced the time period and location where the movie was situated, I addressed the issue that was prevenient at the time. Preemptive challenges based upon race can now be challenged in court. At that time they could not.
You're the first reactor I've seen who recognized Ed Begley's name and connected it to his son. Ed Begley Jr. has been a noted television actor since the 1970s, currently playing a recurring character in "Young Sheldon."
I first remember seeing and being impressed with Ed Begley watching his TV performances in the 1950's as a 10 year old and checking the end credits to find out who he was. He nearly always played despicable characters which left me feeling scared and uneasy. His bulk, huge head with a snarling mouth but with the ability to show hidden false empathy with a smooth soft voice when required. An actor of the highest order.
Back in the day, where women were deemed "too emotional", thus "untrustworthy", to serve on a jury. Pretty ironic, when you watch these guys in action.
If you rewatch the first voting, jurors 3,4,7,10 and 12 immediately raised their hands but 2,5,6,9 and 11 hesitated literally hinting who’s gonna side with 8. That was something that someone else in another video pointed out and I was like: “oh my god how did I not realize that? That’s flawless writing.” So I don’t know what you’re on about Also if you make a comparison you’ll find that women who are logical and unswayed by bleeding hearts are a lot less common than you think so it ain’t irony if it’s true
If you notice in the background, there's a door marked “women” on the other side of the wall fan from the men's room that we actually enter. So, women certainly were allowed on juries at the time, it’s just that the opposing attorneys would’ve been less identitarian at the time, less slavish to a need for “balance” during jury selection. So, it would’ve been theoretically possible for a jury to be all male, while such a thing would be unthinkable today. That said, the reason for the all male jury was likely more an artistic choice than a literal representation of the times. At least in its undertones, the movie is about how men interact with one another. Adding a woman would've changed the dynamic entirely. By the same token, there would almost certainly have been some minorities in the jury pool beyond the one immigrant, even in 1957, but the movie needed an all-white jury rejecting the racist tirade of #10 to make its point about how truly reprehensible such POVs are and can be.
@@DirigoDuke Movies are made to attract moviegoers, and ultimately box office receipts. Would have made more sense to have up on the movie theatre marquee, "Eleven angry men and one hysterical woman" to interest both sexes. 😅🤣😂
@@mohammedashian8094 Just by watching the outbursts that some of these men exhibited, you'd swear it was their time of the month. Hopefully this added explanation assuages some of your concern that you had over my original commentary?
we saw this in High School in the 90's....we all recognized Jack Klugman who plays Oscar Madison in the Odd Couple...and one of the Jurors is the voice of Piglet in Winnie the Pooh. If you've ever seen While you Were Sleeping, Jack Warden is the neighbor in that film. He's the Juror that has tickets to the game.
I wondered why he bought those tickets. Jury duty summons are usually 2 months earlier, one month at the least. He could have exchanged them for another day or asked the court to move his summons to a later day.
There are too many awesome things to mention about this movie but after many rewatches, I finally noticed that at the very beginning they showed the courthouse from the bottom of the steps and at the end they showed it from the top of the steps. Very interesting imagery. The opening is intimidating and at the end not so much.
@@thisisfunhouseentertainment @TheSurvivor2001 Wow! Good catch about the front steps. Also if you notice the "Women's" washroom pops up in the background a few times during the film.
17:40 If you know anyone involved in a case you are suppose to say so. I was on jury duty and the judged asked if any juror knew anyone involved. I knew the defendant and said so. The defendant did a doubletake, finally recognized me. They asked how I knew the defendant and I said I didn't think I should say as it may bias other jurors. They insisted and I said he had bullied me in school and I hated the person with extreme passion. I was excused as obviously I would not be unbiased. No idea what happened after I left.
Much respect for trying to do the right thing (not biasing the jury) despite your feelings, it sounds like you'd make a good juror on a courtroom drama, yourself.
This movie is why people go to the movies. There simply is no substitute for a good script, acting and directing. All the special effects and CGI cannot replace that.
You could believe they were who they said they were the bank clerk or the watch maker etc... EVERY ONE OF EM. there were NO weak links in that cast and that's very very rare
I saw this film as a young lad and it has had a long term affect on me along with other experiences it made me realise to never assume anything dig deeper, back up your ideas with facts, fight for the under dog, get involved, everything is our business, never be apathetic.
We studied this film in A Level psychology when covering majority and minority influence as a textbook example of minority influence. But not only does it demonstrate that principle extremely well, but it’s a remarkably compelling film, and gave me my love for stories told in a single room with a limited number of characters. Sometimes the most compelling stories come from limiting the available elements. I also think that rather than having the feel of a typical film, it feels more like a play that has been put to tape. It’s a masterpiece, and is one of my all time favourites.
We used the book in English class, re-enacting it. After that, we were shown the movie...and it was mind blowing, how different yet similar our interpretation was.
Amazing reaction! You caught so much that I missed on my first viewing. A couple of things I didn't hear you pick out (though you may have noticed them and just not commented on it) Juror 10 (aka the racist) is coughing and blowing his nose through the whole film, up until his rant. He's infected by the sickness of racism. Once he's been shot down for his views, I don't believe we hear him cough again. Juror 4 (who doesn't sweat, my favourite) is the only one who doesn't turn away from Juror 10 during the racist tirade. He listens to it all, as he's a man who weighs up the argument placed in front of him, and he's not convinced by what he hears. You commented on the rain coming, but this video didn't include the fan coming on. I see the rain as the tide turning, essentially. It falls when the not-guilty crowd begin to win, and it cools down the room, easing off the oppressive tension of the imminent guilty verdict at the start. The jobs of the men have a big link to their attitudes. You picked out Juror 7 having a sort of confidence man career, but Juror 4 is a stockbroker and Juror 8 (Henry Fonda) is an architect. They both have to pay close attention to details, but Juror 4's job inherently involves taking risks - you can never know for sure whether a gamble will pay off, so you go where the evidence leads you and place the surest investment, knowing that you might be wrong. Juror 8 also has an evidence-based job, but he can't afford to take gambles. If he builds a bridge and it doesn't hold enough weight, people can die. He can't afford to take risks when there are uncertainties involved. Juror 12 (the flip-flopper, only one to change his vote back throughout the film) is in marketing. He has no opinions of his own but goes where the public mood is. That's all I can think of for now, but no doubt there's more. I'd be interested in that possible post-analysis video you mentioned, as the above is from about six or seven viewings from me, and I'm sure you'll have caught stuff I've still not noticed.
Thanks for taking the time to share those thoughtful insights. There was indeed a lot I missed. This film is on that scholarly level and would take a long time to extract everything out of it. That’s why it’s so enduring. Keep an eye out for the post-reaction review you mentioned, which is coming up.
So happy to have found this reaction to one of my favorite movies. And from Star Trek fan, too?! :-) I also love LA Theatre Works' 2005 radio play dramatization. If you think it's hard keeping twelve jurors distinct when you don't know their names, try doing it when you only hear their voices! John DeLancie directed and plays the judge who performs the opening narration, Robert Foxworth is Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb here), and Armin Shimerman plays Juror #4 (E.G. Marshall, the unflappable stockbroker). Totally worth checking out if you can track it down.
I’m sold. I’ve found the original teleplay as well. I’m not done with this yet. I’ve got a post-reaction review coming. Had to do it because there’s so much here.
Well, you've seen LA Confidential, and 12 Angry Men, here are some others to try if you haven't seen them: The Maltese Falcon Casablanca The Big Sleep Naked City (magnificently restored in recent years) Touch of Evil (made in 1958, but make sure that you see the 1998 edit that follows the 52 page memo Orson Welles wrote for it, which the theatrical cut doesn't) Harry Angel Cast a Deadly Spell Body Heat
@@thisisfunhouseentertainment in 1958, Welles didn't like the theatrical cut, so he wrote a 52-page memo on how he wanted the film recut. Years later, some extra footage was discovered, and added to the extended cut, but that still wasn't it. And then, 40 years later, in 1998, the movie was restored, incorporating Welles' memo - like the final cut of Blade Runner, it is now considered the definitive version.
Sydney Lumett was a great director and this is the kind of film he did best. Just read his biography. What an interesting guy. Really enjoyed your reaction. Thank you.
@@thisisfunhouseentertainmentAnother great Sydney Lumett directed is called "The Verdict". If you haven't seen it, I HIGHLY recommend it. The movie has Paul Newman as the star. He plays an alcoholic outcast lawyer, and he redeems himself by taking on a medical malpractice lawsuit. The baseball juror is also in it too!
Several historical notes. Theaters were air conditioned (and heated then). They were cheaper than today and showed hours of entertainment. There would be the first feature and a second feature along with newsreel, short films,and cartoons. You could buy a ticket and stay through multiple shows. Or come in late. My grandparents used to go to have something on in the background, much as people do with the television now. They would have better air conditioning and heat than at home and not feel as isolated as in their apartment. My granddad even studied at the movie theater. My grandmother also used the movies as a babysitter. So, he did not recalling what he saw - well, we have to trust the police who had already decided his guilt and allegedly threw him down the stairs on that. This was before the police brutality laws or Miranda rights. As to the pawn broker saying he'd never seen another knife like it. He's admiting in court to selling an illegal weapon. How likely is he to say that he has boxes of them and they are a best seller? This is back when it was very common for even businessmen but certainly working men and school boys to still carry pocket knives. Not switchblade mind you. But knives were common. And between the wars both with both Japan and Korea and so many bases in the South Pacific, to act like that was a unique design beggars belief. It seems that the seller agreed to testify so they were not prosecuted for providing a murder weapon. Glasses were glass then. Frames were heavy.
Thanks for taking the time to share all that. Learning all those little details made me feel like I travelled back in time. Those truly were different times.
These actors were some of the best stage actors in New York most went on to have wonderful TV and movie careers. Of you like this watch FAIL SAFE. All that being said a jury can't retry a case they can only judge on the evidence presented 😊
I'm working on a post-reaction review and FAIL SAFE keeps coming up. I'll also be touching on the power house actors involved in this one. Eyes peeled.
Thanks for putting the thumbnail in black and white. It’s so distracting when other channels leave it in color when watching a black-and-white movie. Edit: check out Fail Safe next. Another Sidney Lumet film about a nuclear confrontation.
Agree on the praise for Lee Cobb and Henry Fonda. All of them were great though. Jack Warden was particularly annoying but he’s fantastic in another movie .. Heaven can wait with Warren Beatty. Worth checking out.
There's always something. But the way I see it, it's the blemishes that makes the creative work human. The films now get pretty much everything right, everything is so slick and precise... but I don't connect with them. Therefore, it's disposable and I forget about them.
"The Odd Couple" did an episode in its first season with Oscar and Felix telling the story of how they met on a jury. I always found it extra funny seeing as Jack Klugman (TV's Oscar) is in the film.
Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. I mention that in the follow up video I did, a post-reaction review. I covered quite a bit in that one.
@@thisisfunhouseentertainment I mentioned it because it's another 1957 movie that, although not shot in a similar way as 12 Angry Men, is equally interesting
the odd bit for me-and I've seen this picture at least fifty times-is that the actual murderer is never revealed. not important to the story but noteworthy.
Film Buff ? You can't be a film buff if you haven't seen this ! Ok now that you've seen this amazing movie welcome to the film buff club 😊 ( just a little joke all is great now... welcome 🙂👍) I have another Guilty or Not movie staring Henry Fonda called... The Ox-Bo Incident (1943)😊 It takes place not in a room but out in the countryside a bit of frontier justice if you will. The movie is just as good or maybe even better than this one. Best of luck with the new movie channel ✌️🙂
In this version of the story, racism is not a factor, though it has been in some iterations. The "them" mentioned is slum dwellers, so the prejudice is socio-economic.
I'm only halfway through your reaction (great job!), but you asked if he's really an architect. I've never practiced, but I have a degree in architecture, and architects have to be simultaneously creative thinkers and structural problem solvers. Not only building geometry, but practical structures of any kind--it just occurred to me when you said that, but I think Henry Fonda demonstrates pretty well how a good architect would approach this situation!
Nice reference to the switch blade using a movie clip from West Side Story, 1957, same year as 12 Angry. I’ll take a look to see if you reacted to the original West Side Story.
Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. I've seen the original West Side Story (outside of reactions). I think it's, objectively, one of the best films ever made; it's a technical feat. Musicals would be a nightmare to react to, especially on YT. The creator has to keep things choppy to avoid a copyright claims, so it wouldn't be a very fun experience for the viewer. Their favourite number would get so chopped up it would be ruined.
One of the hardest things most people born within the past 40 years or so to understand is the time frame when this movie came out. 1957... just 4 years after the Civil Rights case Brown v. Board of Education which ended segregation. Secondly, this movie appears to be in New York which up until 30 years before saw the largest migration of immigrants in US history come. Creating the slums like Little Italy, Little Odessa, the Jewish Ghettos, etc... The primary bigotry exhibited is not racial, but social. Immigrants like the kid on trial or Juror #11 and how they are looked upon or treated by people who have lived in America for a few generations. It takes a generation or more to overcome prejudices that people were ingrained with from birth. Not necessarily their fault, just the environment and times they lived. Lastly for context, the Old Man on the jury was in his 70s when he acted in this movie, meaning he was born in the 19th century. (1880s)
Lee J. Cobb was astounding in this little production. Such a magnificent performance, one of the most heart wrenching, tragic characters ever portrayed in American cinema.
If you enjoyed this REACTION, check out my EPIC Post-Reaction REVIEW of this classic here: ruclips.net/video/3aAswvhVcJY/видео.html
You would have a field day with the 1985 Soviet film "Come And See" directed by Elem Klimov; one of the greatest films on the horrors of the Eastern Front of the Second World War.
@@noheroespublishing1907 That one is on my radar, and I've seen that a few other channels have reacted to it. Thanks for that suggestion.
@@thisisfunhouseentertainment You'd appreciate it. 😊
@@thisisfunhouseentertainment If you like classic movies that question concepts of morality, have you watched Grapes Of Wrath, On Borrowed Time, or Paper Moon?
@@Datsun510zen Haven't seen those. Thanks for suggesting though. I did know about Grapes of Wrath.
Lee J. Cobb (Number 3) does something amazing with his final monologue. He takes a man we've only known as a blustering close-minded brick wall, and makes us sympathize. He shows us that, behind the bluster and brashness and the roaring, there's a human being (a father) in pain. And while we may very well not like the character, Cobb forces us to recognize his essential humanity.
I love that; that's so true. And i think there's one important thing that seems to go over all the reactors' heads, even our host who is clearly the consummate professional on this genre....
It's this one simple fact: Juror 3 is guilty of leading his son astray through abuse and neglect, and just generally corrupt teachings. And inwardly he knows it, even at the beginning, but is far too proud to admit it or try to atone for it.
Until... he's forced through the jury debate to see his own son in this defendant. Only then can he break down and effectively admit that he bears the lion's share of the blame for his estrangement from his son. So the tears and the desperate statement of "not guilty" is actually him convicting himself for his son's attack on him and all the other problems they had. It is an admission of defeat in the argument that he was not to blame for anything. And i think it took that ultimate act of yelling "You work your _life_ out" (i.e., for them) and then tearing the photo, to make the inner awareness come out into his conscious to realize the insanity of the position he'd held for so long.
Then, the lingering devastation he displays after just the two of them are left, is to me a despair in the belief that he cannot atone for his criminal act of which he's just convicted himself, that there's no apparent way to undo the terrible damage he's done. And the Fonda character seems to get this. His act of putting the coat on the man and giving him a gesture out the door is, to me, a statement:
"I know and understand your pain, but you've taken the first step of ADMITTING THE TRUTH, speaking it out loud in front of those 11 witnesses. Now, take another step, and another. Live your life under your newfound moral code. That's the best you can do, and the best you can do is good enough for me."
The act of Henry putting on the man's coat is to me a statement: My friend, I forgive you. That means I find you NOT GULTY of the accusation against you. Your honest confession and sincere intent to change and never go back are all the atonement I require of you. Go in peace, and do this no more. It will never be mentioned by me again."
For me, this is the most important part of the movie. It teaches that neither failure to be perfect, nor restoration from such a state of failure, are impossible for any of us.
Yep! And something i find even more interesting is that i see his expressions change throughout. It was once but i havent had the time to rewatch to check, but he was panicky like he understood he wasnt guilty but didnt want to change his answer cus of the fact of his son. When the logic juror made a point to why he is not a second later, he was relieved and stopped panicking. Im not sure if it is true, but i interpreted it as he believed Davis and the boys possible innocence but couldn't change his vote cus of the personal prejudice
Juror Number 4 (E G Marshall) is to me, the most interesting character. As a stockbroker, he’s analytical, emotionless and bases his entire argument to the case based in the facts as he sees them. No prejudice, no personal biases at all. He’s there to do a job and he’s focused on that job. Even though he’s one of the last ‘converts’, he turns out to be one of the best Jurors.
Yep, respect to juror like that
I loved how, once the glasses mark was pointed out, you could see the wheels turning in his mind, as all the implications played out. You could tell he was reviewing everything. It took a few minutes and finally he says, "I now have reasonable doubt." Not only that, but you could tell he was severely disappointed in himself. He had gone so long being so sure, and his logic had failed him because he didn't know what he didn't know.
except that isn't completely true. he makes a derogatory comment towards lower-class people that's similar to those of Juror 10, if far more eloquently spoken. He has his own personal biases, likely due to being a stockbroker and thus out of touch with the lower class.
Juror 4 isn't as perfect as hey may seem, but in fact I think this makes him even more compelling. He has his beliefs and values challenged over the course of the film, but he accepts those challenges without pushing back against them or blowing up at the other jurors. It takes a lot of maturity to do that, and I have all the more respect for him because of it.
@@atlassolid5946He was speaking statistically not emotionally.
@@christianfrost8660 the manner in which he spoke doesn't matter, it was still a prejudiced comment. he "pre-judged" the defendant based on statistics that do not and should not automatically determine a person's moral character
The fact Davis (Juror 8, first not-guilty vote) is an architect is SUPER important. A good architect spends a bunch of time doing little else BUT analyzing stuff to find flaws. If you miss flaws, buildings collapse/get off center/aren't fireproofed properly/etc. and someone gets hurt. He's probably a very good/not-cheap architect at that, being so analytical.
That's right. And juror 4 was a broker, also very analytical. He made it clear from the start, that the eyewitness is the key for his guilty verdict. When that broke, he immediately had a reasonable doubt.
Analytical By Way Of
Their Professions .
I Never Noticed That .
- Thank you .
@@reubennichols644 actually their occupations are very related to their respected archetypes. And if you notice all of their occupations are mentioned in the movie. Some of them are subtle.
@devileanblack
-
" " M E " " . . . like learning
" " Stuff " " . Thank you .
That’s more of a structural engineers job, architect makes it look pretty
You are right this movie is a master class in so many things. The boldness of it compared to movies today. Shot almost entirely in the Jury room set. It was so tight, you can easily imagine how hot and claustrophic it must have been. And the acting, Lee Cobb was absolutely phenomenal. They all were, but his performance is my favorite. This sets the bar high for an ensemble cast. The writing was great, the camera work was great. It's almost perfect in my mind. I would love to see this acted on the stage.
Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. I'm working on a post-reaction review so I don't want to say too much, but there were some powerhouse actors here. Interestingly enough, there IS a play version on YT. I haven't seen it myself though, so not sure when it's from. I heard that there's a Criterion collection version that has the original teleplay that aired on CBS. I'm definitely interested in getting my hands on that. I don't think I would want to see a stage version of it in the modern day. I just don't think that breed of dude exists anymore, the type to command such gravitas on stage. I think they're few and far between. That's just purely my unsubstantiated opinion.
@@thisisfunhouseentertainment you’re correct. There is a stage version of this on RUclips. There is the original live TV version from 1954. Back in the 50s it was not unusual to have live stage plays.
It's great on stage, and done fairly often, more often now as "12 Angry Jurors". Keep an eye out!
Thank you, i will@@FloraWest
It was originally a Broadway Show.
Lee J. Cobb put on an acting clinic in that final monologue. He made all of your possible dislike of his character evaporate in literally 5 seconds as he tears up the picture of him and his son and you feel nothing but empathy for him.
My mom always said "Don't be too quick to judge someone; you don't know what's going on in their lives"
All the elements came together. The journey through the narrative, the turning of the tide as jurors switched, and then that final reveal. Great stuff!
@@louismarzullo1190 And he *tells* us! Very early in the movie he tells us about his son running from a fight and how he was disgusted and "made a man out of him". And then they had a fight and that "man" he made punched him and walked out. Two years he's lived with that. That guilt festering. And the kid in the courtroom (if you notice) bears a fairly significant physical resemblance to the kid in the photo!
God, I love this movie!
imo opinion ALL the actors excelled in this movie , true Cobb standout but it also due to having the biggest part (NOT that it take from his performance) , my fav char btw was the logical broker with the glasses the way he handled the racist was AMAZING :)
Lmao bruh I saw another reaction of this movie just a few minutes ago and it had the same exact top comment
One of the strongest casts of any film ever. Even though most of the actors are only moderately well known, once the door shut and was locked, they really went to work. And boy did they work hard at their craft. Each man brought something important and integral to the story, and each had a couple of moments to shine. And don't forget about the director. I feel this movie should be shown to every jury in a capital punishment case, just so they know the weight of the situation. Great reaction and analysis.
A Who's Who of character actors, each a master of their craft! I'm rather sure all of them had extensive stage experience, and for the most part, this is a filmed stage play. I agree that it should be required watching for any capital case. The largest difference between then and today is the DNA evidence, which can seal a case quickly. Today we are watching a massive attack on our judicial system, some from within and some from without. I feel it certainly needs an extensive cleaning and reorganization.
Lee J Cobb is renowned for bringing to life the role of Willy Loman in "Death of a Salesman" on Broadway. Also memorable for his role in "On the Waterfront" with Marlon Brando.@@chadbennett7873
The death penalty must be totally abolished worldwide.
The look on that kid's face at the beginning of the film... Completely scared and hopeless. It sets the perfect tone for the rest of the film that the stakes are high and the deck is stacked against him, but one man with a little compassion can go a long way. A masterpiece of filmmaking.
One of the many things I absolutely love about this movie is that it doesn't show that the American Justice System is infalable. In fact, it shows the exact opposite: Unless we remain vigilent our justice system is extremely falable. If it wasn't for #8 the justice system would have very likely failed this kid that was on trial for murder, simply because our system only works to the extent that we treat it with the care and consideration it deserves. Related, but I also love the fact that we never actually find out if the kid did it or not. Despite everything, #8 could have been very wrong. But that's not really the point.
Great insights. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
They touch on that possibility a few times. Most directly when #8 and #6 converse in the restroom. #6 ends the conversation with, "I'm just a working man. My boss does the supposing. But I'll try one. Suppose you talk us all outta this and the kid really did knife his father?" The look on #8's face tells us quite a lot about the doubts he has. He's not certain by any means. But, although nobody uses these words in the film, #8 is very much living by the phrase, "it is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons that to put a single innocent one to death.”
@@danielallen3454 Thanks for sharing that. 🙏
If we don't know if the kid was actually guilty or not, how then can we know whether or not the justice system "failed" him?
Good point. The justice system functioned in getting to a “correct” decision for the accused - acquitted, reasonable doubt. But society will always live with the question - excepting unusual double jeopardy. People’s feelings ofc. But the law says that’s resolution.
Interesting reaction. Great job. Yeah, this movie is uniquely brilliant. It's almost seventy years old and it's still fresh and relevant. And it's still fascinating and totally engrossing, including for newer, younger viewers. Great stuff. Thanks for reacting to this.
Appreciate you taking the time to watch and comment. I was definitely blown away by it. It is now my go to referencing for camera placement and blocking scenes. It's a masterclass!
Amazing reaction to my #1 movie of all times 👏🏻 you showed not only a deep understanding of the characters and their motivations, but your editing is hilarious and on point 👍🏻
Glad you enjoyed the video. You have great taste in movies. I'm sure you've got your schlocky guilty pleasures, though. Also, glad you can appreciate the editing, was challenging at times. I'll be experimenting over the next couple of reactions, so watch this space.
@@thisisfunhouseentertainment oh, you bet! My guilty pleasure movies are DCOMs 😅 although I think Teen Beach Movie is actually quite good... Not a masterpiece, but great music and kinda smart. Another movie that I think is actually genius is The Truman Show. If you haven't seen it, I'm sure a reaction to it would be a great success! But, as you are a film buff, that ship has probably sailed, huh 😁
@@merryn96 I have seen the Truman show. CLASSIC!
The moment that brings me around to proper reasonable doubt is the discussion about the stab wound. The idea that it is very unlikely the defendant would have attacked his father like that. It makes me think that it most likely was someone else.
I've watched a number of reactions to this movie. It's an ideal test for a reviewer I think.
Funny, yours may have been the most succinct of all the reactions and at the same time impressed me as the most expert.
Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment with encouraging words. 🙏 I hope to continue bringing value to you and the rest of the viewership. Stay tuned.
You are bright and have a great personality, one of the best reactions to this movie I have seen, done with humour and style, five stars!
Thanks for watching. I'm glad you enjoyed it, and I hope you enjoy future reactions.
To many stop’s.
Gotta' do it for the YT algorithm.
The movie does put the system to scrutiny and it does stand-up in this case because there happens to be a Knight in Shining Armor on the jury, but even all the generally decent people on the jury would have put the kid in the chair if any other person had been Juror Number 8.
The system is clearly shown to not hold up to true scrutiny.
You wonder how many people are in jail, convicted, even sentenced to die just because somebody had a pair of tickets in their pocket and didn't give deliberation the smallest bit of extra thought because they had to get somewhere on-time, and nobody else said anything.
I can see your point, but I think the real takeaway is to recognise just how delicate achieving true justice can be, and a call to the challenge of rising to the occasion and treat that responsibility seriously. In this part of the world, it's easy to point out negative outcomes and flaws in systems because we've been indoctrinated with utopianism. But the truth is that the world is fallen. It's messy, it's ugly and not all outcomes are going to be clear cut and righteous. There are many moving parts when it comes to such sweeping issues as justice, and corruption has caused a rot at the core of the system we live in to spread; but I'll challenge anyone to show me a superior justice system to the the ones across the western hemisphere anywhere else in the world.
@@thisisfunhouseentertainment You have great insight, "the world is fallen", one never comes to that understanding without personal suffering, very impressive, Sir.
@@davisworth5114 Thanks again for your kind words. It's important to stay observant and vigilant, especially with the way things are these days.
Your gut reactions & first impressions of people is Wickedly Poor.
Here you are again, clown. You think you know me by watching my reaction to an edited video? Yeah, you're definitely a mouth breather.
Henry Fonda seems "Disconnected"?? You have the Worst read on people I have ever witnessed.
And you've shown just how much of a clown you are. Do the universe a favour and never utter another word. Clown.
Jack Klugman stars in the 1957 version and later stars in the tv show “The Odd Couple” playing Oscar Madison.
Jack Lemmon stars in the 1997 version of the film and plays Felix Unger in the film version of “The Odd Couple”.
One might think a 70 year old movie that takes place in a single room with 12 unnamed characters wouldn’t hold your attention, but this remains a compelling and relevant work of art.
To some people...my wife fell asleep to this incredible film
I love that you said, a movie about a heist, where you don't see the heist. Yeah, of course. You are on the jury too as a moviegoer. You only know what they know.
You definitely upped your film buff street cred after watching this movie. And I know. I'm an official Angry Men reaction critic. 😎😆
I like that they play out the whole secret ballot in one shot, not just because its a great way to handle the scene but because we as the camera follow the old mans vote from the start of the shot.
Wonderful reaction, I’m glad you got to see this! Definitely one of the greats. I first saw it in high school and the whole class was riveted.
Glad you found this piece of cinematic history.
How can people still believe in this trash "justice system." Such a clown show
Great movie, and good reaction.
Thanks for watching. Glad you enjoyed the show.
Stop with the echo affect it gets very annoying.
It's likely to happen again... and again... and again. I have to do what I can to keep things "transformative" or else the video will get blocked. You have no idea what happens behind the scenes.
Now you need to check out the 1997 remake with Jack Lemmon, James Gandolfini and Courtney B. Vance.
It's basically the same in colour but it's the acting you'd be comparing.
Cinematic masterpiece!
This story has been redone a few times over the years, but this version is the best one IMO. This movie is based on a play written for television a few years earlier than this.* There are two people in this movie that were also in that original production: The older white-haired gentleman at 15:58 and the Hispanic gentleman at 16:38
* Here's the original 1954 *LIVE* TV version (with some of the original TV commercials intact!): ruclips.net/video/HlaXebUi72A/видео.htmlsi=f-noCRFGzk1RHq6j
Thanks for taking the time to share that. I managed to find those little nuggets of trivia out because I did an Epic post-reaction review, so check it out on the channel under the Videos heading at the top of the channel page, if you haven't already.
This was ordinally a stage play....Hollywood was basically buying and converting and filming everything they could get their hands on. Some were crap, a bit boring because of the single camera and single setting..but this one...Holy cow!
Thanks for watching. I've seen the original television play, which is good in its own right. However, this film was definitely a step up. If you haven't seen it already, I've done a companion post-reaction review video. It's good fun.
No body should feel bad about not seeing any movie! It's not your fault of the limited releases, crappy VHS copies!
I've seen 2,312 movies. This is #1.
I'm always struck by how bored the judge seems to be at the beginning of the movie.
I noticed it too. I mentioned it in my Epic review, if you haven't seen it yet. Thanks for watching.👍
Your reaction was fantastic! Can you please do more reactions to these movies:
The Godfather
The Road to Perdition
Inglorious Basterds
To Kill a Mockingbird
Karate Kid (1984)
Forrest Gump
Back to the Future
The Shawshank Redemption
Die Hard
Terminator 2
Unforgiven
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Thanks for watching. Glad you enjoyed the video. I've seen all these... except To Kill a Mockingbird, which is on my list to watch and will be coming to the channel at some point. I will also be doing some re-watches and Inglorious is on the list. More details about its significance to come later. 👍
@@thisisfunhouseentertainment Too bad you have already seen all those other movies, I would have loved to seen reaction videos to them because you are a great reactor and definitely deserve more subscribers. You have not only great reactions but also have good analysis and relevant discussions. Keep up the good work!
@@omgbygollywow Thank you. 🙏
I agree that this is a powerful film, but this thought remains: What if the young man is guilty and all they did was to spring a criminal with blood on his hands out of jail?
Thanks for watching. I'd say that's the ongoing conversation. Justice is a fragile thing and we're in an imperfect world. We've been indoctrinated with utopianism and equality of outcomes, so when we look at things, if the outcome isn't even across the board, we see it as a negative. However, in an imperfect world, some things just are what they are and we can either step up to the ongoing challenges, or live with the issues and keep it at bay so it doesn't consume us.
D U D E ! ! !
You Were Soooooo Respectfully Attentive
While Watching This Excellent F I L M .
I appreciate that . A G R E A T Reaction .
Thanks for watching. I'm glad you enjoyed the show. 🙏
The defendant looks to be Hispanic or Italian. Since the setting is New York City, the presumption would be Puerto Rican (not Mexican in NYC in the 1950s) or Italian.
You should see 2007 Russian version of this movie entitled "12" directed by Nikita Mikhalkov. It is about 12 jurors who must decide the fate of a Chechen boy accused of killing his stepfather. Transform the setting from 1950s America to modern-day Russia, change the Latino teenager on trial to a Chechen Muslim, and turn it all over to Nikita Mikhalkov, who directed the Oscar-winning "Burnt by the Sun."
Apparently "Nobody wears eyeglasses to bed" except for me.
He’s probably Italian
If you think HEAT symbolizes tension then you need to watch "The Thing" with Kurt Russell...😂
I think it was so cool to also have you in black&white. You look like a part of the movie. Nice.
Thanks, man. Just an idea that struck me. Glad you can appreciate it. 👍
I think the boy on trial was Italian. Although Italians were disliked and discriminated against during this time, imo the dislike was more of socioeconomic class by the juror. Great reaction.
Thanks for watching. I've heard different takes on the ethnicity of the young man on trial, which is great. Though there is a likelihood of getting it right, it will always be speculation because it's never explicitly said. It's interesting that you mention class. Check out my Post-Reaction Review, if you haven't already.
@thisisfunhouseentertainment I agree the actor that played the accused was an Italian named John Sovaca. I don't know if you've seen it or not but in the movie It's a Wonderful Life, Potter tells George something about helping "garlic eaters" which was a common derogatory name for Italians. Many people seem to not believe it but the Irish were also disliked early in America's history as were the Chinese. I saw a nostalgic sign once that read " No Black's, NO Dogs, No dogs, and No Irish." These signs were posted outside of some businesses.
The guy you thought played Brooks is Ed Begley Sr.
These days, they'd try to give us the 12 Angry Men Cinematic Universe if it was a hit. Ugh.
LMAO!
@@thisisfunhouseentertainment Yeah, 12 angry men. These days, it would be more diverse- for legal reasons as well as ones of basic fairness- as it was in at least one remake with George C. Scott and Edward James Olmos. Yes, more diversity sometimes makes sense and isn't woke.
Buff that head bro!
13:32 Not gonna lie, this part really gets on my nerves.
We got a possible but not nearly probable explanation from Henry Fonda and he says he'll vote guilty if it's still 11 to 1
Then the old man changes his vote.. not because he's convinced... *but because he admires Henry standing his ground* .. Like what?
It's infuriating A change in a vote is supposed to be due to a realization in the case. Nothing else.
The entire movie they say _"we're talking about a human life"_ The boy's father was a "human life" too wasn't he? The entire movie they barely "prove" there could be some modicum of chance the boy's innocent and they gaslight and guilt trip the other jurors to change their vote and in the end, for personal trauma that has nothing to do with the case, they all vote not guilty.... And the boy probably is guilty in spite of all that.
I'm 27 and I don't have kids... so you can't assume my opinion comes from personal trauma, it comes from logic. Simple as that.
Hold on is this played on media player classic, K-Lite Codec Pack with some image upscaling and sharpening tools? :D Very specific but I recognize something about the image
There are films that can't be improved so need no remake. This is one of them.
The juror with the moustache is an immigrant, AND he understands the US legal system better than most of the US-born jurors.
They are not testing the judicial system. As they are part of the judicial system they are critically evaluating the "evidence".
When I mentioned “testing” the judicial system, I meant from the creative stand point, not the characters themselves. “Does the American justice system (at the time) stand up to scrutiny?”
The defendant is likely Puerto Rican.
The jury is a check against gov't power.
Watching the film will cure the deserved shame. :]
But as penance you should also watch "Casablanca". Which you are also condemned to enjoy.
Thanks for watching! I’ve seen Casablanca. 👌🏻
Great to see someone who is picking up everything that the movie is trying to offer. It really is a masterclass in filmmaking.
You're an intelligent reactor. . .BUT. . .Don't edit in those little drop-in clips. . .That's what all the not so smart reactors do because they saw someone else do it, so they just have to do it too. You're WAY too smart for that kind of stuff. Other than those annoying little clips, you notice things others don't and I enjoyed your reaction. Just leave those silly little clips to the "kids" who really don't have the insight that you do.
Wahoo!
Thank you for an insightful reaction to one of my favorite films. Great script and direction, with perhaps the finest ensemble performance of any film ever.
Hat tip to my eighth-grade English teacher, who introduced me to the play 56 years ago. We did a dramatic reading/walk-through over several class periods. I played #5, the Jack Klugman character.
Nice. Loved the fact that your teacher did that. Must have made for a good memory over the years.
I'm glad you reacted to it. I appreciate your comments on the staging and camera-work. What I am most impressed with is the acting ... from everyone. I think the acting is brilliant.
This film would not have etched out such a lasting legacy without this collection of powerhouse performers. The acting is most definitely worth gushing over.
Let us also remember and thank "12 Angry Men" writer Reginald Rose Jr.
It's horrifying to think that - despite the deliberate anti-racist position of the narrative - there were no black jurors in the film because they wouldn't be allowed to serve on a real jury until 7 years after it was released. That's only 4 years before I was born, and it's difficult for me to wrap my head around that.
Your dressing for the part and black-and-white presentation made you a welcome additional 13th juror, in a way, in this masterful, vital piece of American cinema.
That was a deeper connection than I had originally intended. I am a film buff first, after all. But I welcome that interesting observation.
I would have to see proof of that because the 13th and 14th Amendments gave blacks the right to serve on juries and that was an 1868. There were states in the south the had Jim Crow restrictions on that right until the 1965 voters rights act. I think that’s what you’re talking about. But the movie takes place in New York state, which would not have had specifically racial limitations as far as I know.
@@Robert-un7br While it was technically illegal to exclude African Americans and other people of color from juries, the practice was common not only in the south but in northern states as well, and throughout the 20th century, the courts did little to police the practice. The primary means was the use of peremptory challenges, where attorneys were not required to state a reason for exclusion. There are several studies on the practice, but RUclips doesn't seem to like it when you post links to other pages.
@@rickbruner5525 You might be interested to know that that is not a relic of history, but continues in practice to this very day, 16 Aug. 2023, unchallenged.
@@no_rubbernecking I am well aware of that but since the comment particularly referenced the time period and location where the movie was situated, I addressed the issue that was prevenient at the time. Preemptive challenges based upon race can now be challenged in court. At that time they could not.
You're the first reactor I've seen who recognized Ed Begley's name and connected it to his son. Ed Begley Jr. has been a noted television actor since the 1970s, currently playing a recurring character in "Young Sheldon."
Only took me until the end credits. 😆
I first remember seeing and being impressed with Ed Begley watching his TV performances in the 1950's as a 10 year old and checking the end credits to find out who he was. He nearly always played despicable characters which left me feeling scared and uneasy. His bulk, huge head with a snarling mouth but with the ability to show hidden false empathy with a smooth soft voice when required. An actor of the highest order.
Back in the day, where women were deemed "too emotional", thus "untrustworthy", to serve on a jury. Pretty ironic, when you watch these guys in action.
If you rewatch the first voting, jurors 3,4,7,10 and 12 immediately raised their hands but 2,5,6,9 and 11 hesitated literally hinting who’s gonna side with 8. That was something that someone else in another video pointed out and I was like: “oh my god how did I not realize that? That’s flawless writing.” So I don’t know what you’re on about
Also if you make a comparison you’ll find that women who are logical and unswayed by bleeding hearts are a lot less common than you think so it ain’t irony if it’s true
If you notice in the background, there's a door marked “women” on the other side of the wall fan from the men's room that we actually enter. So, women certainly were allowed on juries at the time, it’s just that the opposing attorneys would’ve been less identitarian at the time, less slavish to a need for “balance” during jury selection. So, it would’ve been theoretically possible for a jury to be all male, while such a thing would be unthinkable today.
That said, the reason for the all male jury was likely more an artistic choice than a literal representation of the times. At least in its undertones, the movie is about how men interact with one another. Adding a woman would've changed the dynamic entirely.
By the same token, there would almost certainly have been some minorities in the jury pool beyond the one immigrant, even in 1957, but the movie needed an all-white jury rejecting the racist tirade of #10 to make its point about how truly reprehensible such POVs are and can be.
@@DirigoDuke Movies are made to attract moviegoers, and ultimately box office receipts. Would have made more sense to have up on the movie theatre marquee, "Eleven angry men and one hysterical woman" to interest both sexes. 😅🤣😂
@@mohammedashian8094 Just by watching the outbursts that some of these men exhibited, you'd swear it was their time of the month. Hopefully this added explanation assuages some of your concern that you had over my original commentary?
we saw this in High School in the 90's....we all recognized Jack Klugman who plays Oscar Madison in the Odd Couple...and one of the Jurors is the voice of Piglet in Winnie the Pooh. If you've ever seen While you Were Sleeping, Jack Warden is the neighbor in that film. He's the Juror that has tickets to the game.
Thanks for those shout outs.
I wondered why he bought those tickets. Jury duty summons are usually 2 months earlier, one month at the least. He could have exchanged them for another day or asked the court to move his summons to a later day.
Lee J Cobb is so authentic.
There are too many awesome things to mention about this movie but after many rewatches, I finally noticed that at the very beginning they showed the courthouse from the bottom of the steps and at the end they showed it from the top of the steps. Very interesting imagery. The opening is intimidating and at the end not so much.
And I missed that. Nice observation.
@@thisisfunhouseentertainment
@TheSurvivor2001 Wow! Good catch about the front steps. Also if you notice the "Women's" washroom pops up in the background a few times during the film.
17:40 If you know anyone involved in a case you are suppose to say so. I was on jury duty and the judged asked if any juror knew anyone involved.
I knew the defendant and said so. The defendant did a doubletake, finally recognized me. They asked how I knew the defendant and I said I didn't think I should say as it may bias other jurors. They insisted and I said he had bullied me in school and I hated the person with extreme passion.
I was excused as obviously I would not be unbiased. No idea what happened after I left.
Much respect for trying to do the right thing (not biasing the jury) despite your feelings, it sounds like you'd make a good juror on a courtroom drama, yourself.
This movie is why people go to the movies. There simply is no substitute for a good script, acting and directing. All the special effects and CGI cannot replace that.
You could believe they were who they said they were the bank clerk or the watch maker etc... EVERY ONE OF EM. there were NO weak links in that cast and that's very very rare
I saw this film as a young lad and it has had a long term affect on me along with other experiences it made me realise to never assume anything dig deeper, back up your ideas with facts, fight for the under dog, get involved, everything is our business, never be apathetic.
We studied this film in A Level psychology when covering majority and minority influence as a textbook example of minority influence. But not only does it demonstrate that principle extremely well, but it’s a remarkably compelling film, and gave me my love for stories told in a single room with a limited number of characters. Sometimes the most compelling stories come from limiting the available elements. I also think that rather than having the feel of a typical film, it feels more like a play that has been put to tape. It’s a masterpiece, and is one of my all time favourites.
I love those movies too. Probably the most well known example is "Rear Window". I would suggest to watch "Moon" if you haven't seen it yet.
We used the book in English class, re-enacting it. After that, we were shown the movie...and it was mind blowing, how different yet similar our interpretation was.
That’s an interesting way to discover a classic and to discover your sub-genre. 👍🏻👍🏻
Amazing reaction! You caught so much that I missed on my first viewing. A couple of things I didn't hear you pick out (though you may have noticed them and just not commented on it)
Juror 10 (aka the racist) is coughing and blowing his nose through the whole film, up until his rant. He's infected by the sickness of racism. Once he's been shot down for his views, I don't believe we hear him cough again.
Juror 4 (who doesn't sweat, my favourite) is the only one who doesn't turn away from Juror 10 during the racist tirade. He listens to it all, as he's a man who weighs up the argument placed in front of him, and he's not convinced by what he hears.
You commented on the rain coming, but this video didn't include the fan coming on. I see the rain as the tide turning, essentially. It falls when the not-guilty crowd begin to win, and it cools down the room, easing off the oppressive tension of the imminent guilty verdict at the start.
The jobs of the men have a big link to their attitudes. You picked out Juror 7 having a sort of confidence man career, but Juror 4 is a stockbroker and Juror 8 (Henry Fonda) is an architect. They both have to pay close attention to details, but Juror 4's job inherently involves taking risks - you can never know for sure whether a gamble will pay off, so you go where the evidence leads you and place the surest investment, knowing that you might be wrong. Juror 8 also has an evidence-based job, but he can't afford to take gambles. If he builds a bridge and it doesn't hold enough weight, people can die. He can't afford to take risks when there are uncertainties involved. Juror 12 (the flip-flopper, only one to change his vote back throughout the film) is in marketing. He has no opinions of his own but goes where the public mood is.
That's all I can think of for now, but no doubt there's more. I'd be interested in that possible post-analysis video you mentioned, as the above is from about six or seven viewings from me, and I'm sure you'll have caught stuff I've still not noticed.
Thanks for taking the time to share those thoughtful insights. There was indeed a lot I missed. This film is on that scholarly level and would take a long time to extract everything out of it. That’s why it’s so enduring. Keep an eye out for the post-reaction review you mentioned, which is coming up.
@@thisisfunhouseentertainment Great stuff, I look forward to watching that!
So many great performances, Lee J. Cobb stands out. What a climax.
So happy to have found this reaction to one of my favorite movies. And from Star Trek fan, too?! :-)
I also love LA Theatre Works' 2005 radio play dramatization. If you think it's hard keeping twelve jurors distinct when you don't know their names, try doing it when you only hear their voices! John DeLancie directed and plays the judge who performs the opening narration, Robert Foxworth is Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb here), and Armin Shimerman plays Juror #4 (E.G. Marshall, the unflappable stockbroker). Totally worth checking out if you can track it down.
I’m sold. I’ve found the original teleplay as well. I’m not done with this yet. I’ve got a post-reaction review coming. Had to do it because there’s so much here.
Well, you've seen LA Confidential, and 12 Angry Men, here are some others to try if you haven't seen them:
The Maltese Falcon
Casablanca
The Big Sleep
Naked City (magnificently restored in recent years)
Touch of Evil (made in 1958, but make sure that you see the 1998 edit that follows the 52 page memo Orson Welles wrote for it, which the theatrical cut doesn't)
Harry Angel
Cast a Deadly Spell
Body Heat
Thanks for the suggestions. Don't think I've seen that 98' version of A Touch of Evil.
@@thisisfunhouseentertainment in 1958, Welles didn't like the theatrical cut, so he wrote a 52-page memo on how he wanted the film recut. Years later, some extra footage was discovered, and added to the extended cut, but that still wasn't it. And then, 40 years later, in 1998, the movie was restored, incorporating Welles' memo - like the final cut of Blade Runner, it is now considered the definitive version.
@@jakubfabisiak9810 I hadn't heard this! Thanks for the info.
Hey, that was fun with your editing!
Glad you can appreciate the editing. I'll be experimenting some more, so watch this space. 👍
Sydney Lumett was a great director and this is the kind of film he did best. Just read his biography. What an interesting guy.
Really enjoyed your reaction. Thank you.
My thanks to you for watching. I aim to continue to bring value through the channel and beyond so stick around.
@@thisisfunhouseentertainmentAnother great Sydney Lumett directed is called "The Verdict". If you haven't seen it, I HIGHLY recommend it. The movie has Paul Newman as the star. He plays an alcoholic outcast lawyer, and he redeems himself by taking on a medical malpractice lawsuit. The baseball juror is also in it too!
Several historical notes.
Theaters were air conditioned (and heated then). They were cheaper than today and showed hours of entertainment. There would be the first feature and a second feature along with newsreel, short films,and cartoons. You could buy a ticket and stay through multiple shows. Or come in late.
My grandparents used to go to have something on in the background, much as people do with the television now. They would have better air conditioning and heat than at home and not feel as isolated as in their apartment. My granddad even studied at the movie theater. My grandmother also used the movies as a babysitter.
So, he did not recalling what he saw - well, we have to trust the police who had already decided his guilt and allegedly threw him down the stairs on that. This was before the police brutality laws or Miranda rights.
As to the pawn broker saying he'd never seen another knife like it. He's admiting in court to selling an illegal weapon. How likely is he to say that he has boxes of them and they are a best seller? This is back when it was very common for even businessmen but certainly working men and school boys to still carry pocket knives. Not switchblade mind you. But knives were common. And between the wars both with both Japan and Korea and so many bases in the South Pacific, to act like that was a unique design beggars belief.
It seems that the seller agreed to testify so they were not prosecuted for providing a murder weapon.
Glasses were glass then. Frames were heavy.
Thanks for taking the time to share all that. Learning all those little details made me feel like I travelled back in time. Those truly were different times.
These actors were some of the best stage actors in New York most went on to have wonderful TV and movie careers. Of you like this watch
FAIL SAFE.
All that being said a jury can't retry a case they can only judge on the evidence presented 😊
I'm working on a post-reaction review and FAIL SAFE keeps coming up. I'll also be touching on the power house actors involved in this one. Eyes peeled.
Thanks for putting the thumbnail in black and white. It’s so distracting when other channels leave it in color when watching a black-and-white movie.
Edit: check out Fail Safe next. Another Sidney Lumet film about a nuclear confrontation.
I’ve made a note of Fail Safe. It’s been recommended a few times.
I like the cut of your jib, Sir. Subbed.
Thanks for watching and the sub. 🙏
Agree on the praise for Lee Cobb and Henry Fonda. All of them were great though. Jack Warden was particularly annoying but he’s fantastic in another movie .. Heaven can wait with Warren Beatty. Worth checking out.
18:43 Seeing the shadow of the camera in this shot in THIS movie makes me feel better about little screwups in my own movies.
There's always something. But the way I see it, it's the blemishes that makes the creative work human. The films now get pretty much everything right, everything is so slick and precise... but I don't connect with them. Therefore, it's disposable and I forget about them.
Watch the 1997 remake… it’s not as good as this one( the original ) but it’s good too! 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
Many TV shows have done homages to this film. From Veronica Mars, to Happy Days, to Monk, to Dead Zone.
"The Odd Couple" did an episode in its first season with Oscar and Felix telling the story of how they met on a jury. I always found it extra funny seeing as Jack Klugman (TV's Oscar) is in the film.
I wonder how many noticed Lee J Cobb as the last person walking down the steps at the end of the movie.
Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. I mention that in the follow up video I did, a post-reaction review. I covered quite a bit in that one.
If you've never seen Witness for the Prosecution, you might enjoy it. Great reaction to a great movie
It's... INTERESTING that you mention Witness for the Prosecution...🤔
@@thisisfunhouseentertainment I mentioned it because it's another 1957 movie that, although not shot in a similar way as 12 Angry Men, is equally interesting
the odd bit for me-and I've seen this picture at least fifty times-is that the actual murderer is never revealed. not important to the story but noteworthy.
Henry Fonda’s Juror 8 is one of cinema’s greatest heroes.
Film Buff ?
You can't be a film buff if you haven't seen this !
Ok now that you've seen this amazing movie welcome to the film buff club 😊
( just a little joke all is great now... welcome 🙂👍)
I have another Guilty or Not movie staring Henry Fonda called...
The Ox-Bo Incident (1943)😊
It takes place not in a room but out in the countryside a bit of frontier justice if you will. The movie is just as good or maybe even better than this one.
Best of luck with the new movie channel ✌️🙂
Lee J Cobb put in another great performance in "On The Waterfront"
In this version of the story, racism is not a factor, though it has been in some iterations. The "them" mentioned is slum dwellers, so the prejudice is socio-economic.
I'm only halfway through your reaction (great job!), but you asked if he's really an architect. I've never practiced, but I have a degree in architecture, and architects have to be simultaneously creative thinkers and structural problem solvers. Not only building geometry, but practical structures of any kind--it just occurred to me when you said that, but I think Henry Fonda demonstrates pretty well how a good architect would approach this situation!
How you made that assumption from the first few frames of the movie is beyond me. There are levels to watching films, and you are one above many.
One of the top twenty movies of all time!! Great cast perfect script and director
Nice reference to the switch blade using a movie clip from West Side Story, 1957, same year as 12 Angry. I’ll take a look to see if you reacted to the original West Side Story.
Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. I've seen the original West Side Story (outside of reactions). I think it's, objectively, one of the best films ever made; it's a technical feat. Musicals would be a nightmare to react to, especially on YT. The creator has to keep things choppy to avoid a copyright claims, so it wouldn't be a very fun experience for the viewer. Their favourite number would get so chopped up it would be ruined.
One of the hardest things most people born within the past 40 years or so to understand is the time frame when this movie came out. 1957... just 4 years after the Civil Rights case Brown v. Board of Education which ended segregation. Secondly, this movie appears to be in New York which up until 30 years before saw the largest migration of immigrants in US history come. Creating the slums like Little Italy, Little Odessa, the Jewish Ghettos, etc...
The primary bigotry exhibited is not racial, but social. Immigrants like the kid on trial or Juror #11 and how they are looked upon or treated by people who have lived in America for a few generations.
It takes a generation or more to overcome prejudices that people were ingrained with from birth. Not necessarily their fault, just the environment and times they lived.
Lastly for context, the Old Man on the jury was in his 70s when he acted in this movie, meaning he was born in the 19th century. (1880s)
As the poster said, this is a master class in acting and filmmaking.
Lee J. Cobb was astounding in this little production. Such a magnificent performance, one of the most heart wrenching, tragic characters ever portrayed in American cinema.