One of the things that I liked was the often-overlooked cinematography. The camera angles, high, low, or eye-level. The shot size, wide, medium, close-up. They all combine to tell who is in power, who is losing power, whose power is shifting. Was pretty simple but brilliantly executed. Splendid review! Thanks!
This is one of my all-time favorite movies. So very well written and directed. Just so beautiful. It's also really fun to watch young folks discover the wonder of black & white movies. Old movies may not be fast-paced & action-packed, but if you open yourself to experience them, you'll find they're just as satisfying as newer movies. Thank you for taking the time to watch & share your experience! I appreciate all that you do and all that you are, Henry. 🐝 Blessed Bee
The movie is a classic and I don't want to hear too many holes in it but there were some. I won't name them all because I don't want to tear something up that has been a classic for generations. A big hole is, six dollars in 2024 doesn't seem that bad and a poor kid from the slums would easily spend it for a cool looking knife. In 1957 however, six dollars was like over $66. Now where would a poor kid from the slums get that money?
@@stinkbug4321 The earlier TV version said the knife cost 2 dollars. Either someone changed the script for some weird reason, or Fonda just flubbed a line .. one that is not repeated anywhere else so didn't cause a problem with internal consistency.
@annie Thank you, and same to you too! 😊 @stinkbug Davis spent $6 for his knife, but it was never mentioned how much the kid spent. The storekeeper might have sold it cheaper.
@@henryellow Just as an FYI. Apropos of absolutely nothing... He would have caused a mistrial if he did that today. Jurors are expressly forbidden to personally investigate or test the case in any way. I'm not sure what the laws and jury instructions were back then. But... it is the realm of possibility that the presence of the second knife, being left in the table of the jury room, almost-certainly could lead the prosecution to a victory in the appellate court. So the appellate court overturns the verdict. Which would nullify the double jeopardy. So the prosecution could retry the case with a different jury. So the juror that saved the defendant would be the same one that put him back in the process again. No idea why I made this comment other than I have had this thought more than once whenever I happen to watch this film. Still, stabbing the identical knife is a cinematically dramatic moment, not to be denied.
Well, no one could see the jurors "testing the case" within the room. Everything was theoretical. By the end of the movie, the jurors walked out of the court. Which means the verdict has been delivered, isn't that right? Unless you mean that, if they found the second knife, the prosecution could appeal to a higher court? If so, I suppose it's possible, if they really want to put the kid in the chair.
Twelve Angry Men is an American courtroom drama written by Reginald Rose concerning the jury of a homicide trial. The production was staged in New York City and aired live on TV, September 20, 1954, as the first episode in the seventh season of the program, Studio One. The following year it was adapted for the stage. It was adapted for a film of the same name, directed by Sidney Lumet, and released in 1957. The production won three Emmy Awards: for Rose's writing, Schaffner's direction, and for Robert Cummings as Best Actor. The cast included performances by: Robert Cummings as Juror #8 Franchot Tone as Juror #3 Edward Arnold as Juror #10 Paul Hartman as Juror #7 John Beal as Juror #2 Walter Abel as Juror #4 George Voskovec as Juror #11 Joseph Sweeney as Juror #9 Bart Burns as Juror #6 Norman Fell as Foreman Lee Phillips as Juror #5 Will West as Juror # 12 Uncredited cast Vincent Gardenia as Bailiff[
It is one of the best black & white movie of all times. A true classic. The acting; the direction; the Cinnomentography of each character was superb. It just felt so organic.
This is one of my favorite movies, and it is basically just 12 guys in a room talking, but they made it exciting! Fabulous movie with a fabulous cast and a fabulous story!
I think this film is masterful. As cinema every shot is perfect the way Lumet chose to use close-ups and wide angles to illustrate tension and how it defines the very well defined characteristics and character of each very diverse characters. Originally a stage play I love how the playwright made Davis an architect, an occupation focused on the details of construction and those points being characteristic of how he understands things and how all the other characters have similar outlying nuances. Really brilliant. Great reaction. 👍
A great start to a career. Lumet hit the ground running. This film came to mind when I saw DUNE. When the Fremen are said to be “dangerous and unreliable,” I sarcastically said, “Oh, there’re some GOOD things about ’em, too. I’ve known a COUPLE who were okay.”
I've seen many reactions to this film. NO ONE is ever bored. The question before the jury is not guilt or innocence. All accused are presumed innocent. The question is whether guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Haha, your comment regarding two knives on the table at the end. 🤣 Like many, this is one of my favorite movies and I enjoyed your commentary on it. 👏👏👏
This has been in my top 5 favorite movie ever since I first saw it as a teenager in the 1970s. I'm a Floridian and my husband first saw it around the same time in Upstate New York and we've watched it together times beyond count. Its pull is still very strong. TCM frequently ran it in its Midnight time slot. One of the other of us, not quite ready to sleep, and flipping through channels on the TV would land on , telling ourselves, well, I'll just watch it for a few minutes. It's always self deception. No matter what point we join it we're there to the end. If the other spouse hears it... Well, neither one of us could turn it off. Just so many layers there's always something new. Just watching a reaction last week, I realized that when Juror # 9 the elderly man comes out of the bathroom that Juror #6, the working man, fetched a chair for him so he could join the table. # 7, Jack Warden, the salesman, does lots of little tricks and jokes, but is at sea in this situation as is #11, the Ad executive. Neither one strays out of their comfort zones in word or deed. #7 is just more defensive about it.#11 feels confused because if he went to college he feels he should be able to keep up with the arguments. I could go on for a couple of hours but I won't. If you're stressed out about something just put this movie on and you'll stop thinking about anything else. Have fun!
"Gentlemen, that's a very sad thing... to be nothing." Fun Fact: Feature directorial debut of Sidney Lumet. Hot Take Fact: Shot in a total of 365 separate takes. However because of the painstaking rehearsals for the film lasted an exhausting two weeks, filming was completed in 21 days. Method Director Fact: Sidney Lumet had the actors all stay in the same room for several hours on end and do their lines over and over without filming them. This was to give them a real taste of what it would be like to be cooped up in a room with the same people. The Quest For Real Time Fact: Once the jurors are sequestered the film proceeds in real time. About halfway through they establish that it's 6 o'clock. They reach their verdict in another 45 minutes. This would leave plenty of time for Jack Warden's juror character to still make the 8 o'clock ball game.
Excellent as always. I had always thought the game would have been called on account of rain, anyway. Never really paying attention to the time. But they made it in time and the rain stopped. Good for him, I guess.
Another top-tier classic! Such a great commentary on how the justice system should work. Unfortunately, justice has too often been denied due to jurors' human tendency just to go along with the flow, letting personal biases enter into the deliberation, and/or to fall for the old _argumentum_ _ad_ _verecundiam_ (relying on an "appeal to authority" figures) fallacy instead of doing the more difficult task of critically examining the evidence submitted to them. The "reasonable doubt" concept is important in U.S. justice. Should be required viewing for jurors.
BTW, Henry Fonda ("Davis") was a huge Hollywood star, though he only won a Best Actor Oscar very late in his life for his performance in his final film _On_ _Golden_ _Pond_ (1982). I consider his best performance to be in _The_ _Grapes_ _of_ _Wrath_ (1940), though he created many memorable roles throughout his long career.
@@henryellow _Grapes_ _of_ _Wrath_ is a must-view classic dealing with wrenching displacements that occurred during the Great Depression and Dustbowl era. Not a happy movie, but one that makes us think. _On_ _Golden_ _Pond_ is a standard family drama that is probably less notable for its plot than because it is Henry Fonda's last film, also won an Oscar for the legendary Katharine Hepburn, and features Fonda's real-life daughter Jane Fonda (who received a supporting Oscar nomination).
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer." William Blackstone: Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 4, Chapter 27 (1769).
I always think of The Odd Couple when I see this movie. Apart from a couple of actors, the movie is based on a play that all takes place in one room, and also frequently features an "angry men" type scenario, although it's more like disgruntled poker players taking shots at each other. When a movie is based on a one-room play, the film adaptation usually has to go to some effort to make the story appear as if it's not taking place in one room. The movie version of The Odd Couple tries to open things up a little by moving some of the action around (like for no real reason going out to a diner or continuing a conversation while bowling) but the story is still basically all centered around the one room. Being literally stuck in one room with no visual break as 12 Angry Men was would have been a disaster for almost any other movie. As for the actors, Jack Klugman (here, the young guy from the slums) would later become the most iconic Oscar Madison, but in the TV version. The little bald guy in the glasses (John Fiedler) was one of Oscar's poker buddies in the movie (but with a different Oscar). Fiedler's most enduring role was Winnie-the-Pooh's little buddy Piglet, which he voiced exclusively from the beginning until he passed away in the mid-2000's.
This film may have benefited from this cast's participation in the Broadway production in the year prior to filming. But this is a rare film that every actor might rightfully claim "This is my best performance." Most of these actors littered American TV and films since 1940 on, some well before that. Lee J. Cobb - the Main Jerk - ends up becoming The Detective investigating the bottom-of-stairs killing in THE EXORCIST (1973). Martin Balsam left this film and got his P.I. license in time to climb some stairs himself in 1960's PSYCHO. Henry Fonda, by the way, had recovered from being killed by a kamikaze at the end of 1955's MISTER ROBERTS. Whew. He was soooo lucky, eh?
This cast was indeed stellar and these character actors were all staples of television and movies for a generation. You could actually do a themed month for 12 Angry Actors featuring movies for each of the jurors. Talk about connections. Thanks again for a great reaction, and best of luck; Ill be watching.
@@Boomerbox2024 I want to work on such a link (a "film festival" of sorts. Jack Warden, for example... he was fantastic in TWILIGHT ZONE's 1st season "The Lonely" (1959). BRIAN'S SONG (1971)... but I'd push 1978's HEAVEN CAN WAIT. He's got a lot of good works.
@@Boomerbox2024 John Fiedler - like most of the cast - seems to have done "all TV shows" in his time. THAT TOUCH OF MINK (1962, Doris Day, Cary Grant) is probably my favorite where he plays the milquetoast new husband who gives up and has Mother pick him up at their honeymoon cottage. Or else another "around the table" movie, the original THE ODD COUPLE (1968).
The stage play wasn't even written until after the film was made. The film was an expanded form of the teleplay by Reginald Rose, made in 1954. Only two members of that cast, Joseph Sweeney and George Voskovic, were in both the teleplay and film.
Great reaction!! If you want to watch Ed Begley in a completely different role, check out Patterns (1956). Rod Serling wrote the screen play and just like 12 Angry Men, it was produced as a television play before it was made into a movie.
What I get from this movie is that we don't know whether the two witnesses were mistaken/lying or not. They could easily have just gotten a matter of a few seconds wrong. Maybe the woman was farsighted, or put her glasses on quickly to see what she saw. The totality of evidence (there is no smoking gun, but a lot of unlikely coincidences) tells me that the boy more likely than not killed his father. But he had a crappy lawyer who didn't call out the witnesses' inconsistencies (I think of Vinny Gambini and the sweet old woman with thick glasses). The investigative team didn't do their due diligence with the knife, either. If the jury can't be sure that it was a fair trial, that's reasonable doubt. Better a guilty man go free than an innocent man be executed. Especially at so young an age, when he has the chance to turn his life around. I think the brilliance of the screenplay is that the boy isn't proven innocent, there's just enough reasonable doubt to acquit him. It's not a murder mystery, but an examination of our duties as citizens.
Agreed. The main point is about reasonable doubt and the facts presented in the trial. Whether the boy actually committed the murder was secondary, because there's no way for the jury to know the truth. That's why Davis emphasized again and again, "I don't know. It's possible."
1) THE KNIFE The knife could have fallen out of the boy's pocket as he was leaving his apartment, heading to the movies. That fits the timeline: The boy left his apartment at 11:30pm to go to the movies, and he said the knife fell through a hole in his pocket sometime between then - 11:30, when he left to go to the movies - and when he got back home at 3:10 in the morning. "JUROR 4: Now what happened to the knife? He claims that it fell through a hole in his pocket on the way to the movies, sometime between 11:30 and 3:10, and that he never saw it again. ... No one in the house saw him go out at 11:30." The knife could have fallen out of the boy's pocket right outside the apartment's front door, as the door was closing. He would not have heard it hit the floor because of the noise of the door closing. One could try to argue that the boy could not lose the knife through a hole in his pocket because he would have felt it fall out past his ankle, so would have noticed. But a large number of people have lost something out of their pocket without realizing it, either because although they felt something, they attributed the feeling to something else, or because they were preoccupied and simply didn't notice. If the boy was leaving the apartment, he would have been twisting his body to close the door, and if he felt something at his ankle he might have attributed it to something else: maybe he thought it was his pants' leg rubbing his ankle because his body was twisting, or that his ankle had accidentally touched the doorway. Or his mind could have been distracted: maybe he was ruminating over something one of his friends said earlier that night, or maybe he also had his wallet out and was counting his money as he was leaving the apartment (doing multiple things at once), or maybe he heard a scream (remember, Juror 4 noted that the boy lived in a neighborhood where screams were not rare). This scenario puts the knife at the scene of the crime to begin with. There is no need to try to explain how the knife got from someplace else to the particular apartment. For example, there is no need to try to explain how some stranger - who doesn't know the boy or the father, or where they live - found the knife blocks away on the street and just so happened to walk to the father's apartment. Where the father lived was a slum so just about anyone - homeless people, drug dealers, pimps, robbers, home invaders, anyone - could have walked inside the building and found the knife on the floor right outside the father's door. It could even have been someone who lived in the same building and who hated the father (for example, because this other person knew the father used his fists to beat the son, beating the son all the time). This bum/thug/robber/neighbor finds the knife outside the door on the floor and says something ("sweet knife!") or makes some noise when picking it up and flipping it open. The father hears some noise outside his front door and opens it, only to be confronted with a bum/thug/robber/neighbor with an open switchblade knife: that person forces his way into the apartment and a fight ensues. The stabbing occurs ... with the bum/thug/robber/neighbor doing it the wrong way (from above, down and in, instead of upward and with an underhand motion, as the son probably would have done since he was very handy with knives). Where were no fingerprints on the knife (and forensic DNA analysis was not available yet), so there was no forensic evidence showing the boy was holding the murder weapon when the stabbing occurred, or even that the boy ever held that particular knife. Heck, there isn't even any forensic evidence showing that the murder weapon was the same knife the boy bought: it could have been just a similar-looking knife, like the one juror 8 bought at a pawn shop just 2 blocks from the boy's place. The only evidence indicating the two knives were the same knife is that the friends identified the knife the police showed them as the one the boy had shown them the previous night. But without a serial number or something else definitive, no one could positively identify the two knives as being the same one, only that the knife the cops showed them looked - from memory, from hours before - very much like it. Even juror 3 (the final holdout) confused the knife juror 8 had bought with the knife used in the murder. NOTE: Heck, it's not impossible that one of the boy's friends killed the father. The friend could have hated the boy's father, because the father used his fists to beat the son (that is, the friend's friend) all the time. The friend could have waited for the boy to go to the movies, then knocked on the father's door, rushed the father, and stabbed him. The friend (1) could have just so happened to already have a knife similar to the one the boy bought that night, or (2) maybe when the friend saw the boy's knife that night he liked it, and after the boy left the group of friends, the friend went to a pawn shop and bought one similar to it, or (3) as above, the knife could have fallen out of the boy's pocket right outside the front door of the father's apartment and the friend found it when he went to the father's door, picked it up, and then confronted the father.
What all the reactions I've seen to this movie miss is that Juror #8 is convincing HIMSELF of reasonable doubt. He admits he doesn't know if the boy is innocent. During the trial he notices the boy's lawyer is inadequate, and since he can't ask the questions the defense attorney didn't, it prompts him to go see just how unique the switchblade really is, which is the only piece of evidence he can "investigate". It's his conversations with the other jurors, the questions and knowledge THEY bring forth, that solidify the reasonable doubt in all of their minds. #8 didn't change their minds, he opened their minds.
Switchblade were illegal. The store owner who sold it said it was the only one he'd seen. Was he lying? The father did time for forgery. Did he have enemies?
You did a great video! Great review of the movie. I have the movie, probably more than one copy of it. But you made me want to find it on 4K Blu Ray. I went to Amazon and found an affordable version with both the 4k Blu Ray and the regular Blu Ray. The only version I have ever had is a DVD-R recording from TCM before that channel went commercial. I recorded this myself before such things became preventable. I wasn’t even thinking about buying this movie until I watched your video! I’m one of those people that will NEVER give up on physical media, whatever that media is. From 8-tracks to whatever the future holds. I will always want a physical version of any movie, tv show or music that I buy. But I just want to applaud your video and say thank you for making me finally buy a real version of this classic movie. Edit: I also just happened to find your channel. You have a new subscriber.
If I may had the Police and the prosecutors had looked at the case this way the boy would not have been charged and maybe they would've looked for the real killer.
Even the investigators might have fallen to prejudice. The murder happened in the slums, after all. So they pointed their fingers at the easiest suspect and washed their hands of the case after that. Davis also mentioned in the movie, "He (the boy) also claims that the two detectives threw him down a half a flight of stairs."
Please do Fritz Lang's "M" (1931) as one of the reactions you mentioned at the start of the video here! Criminally overlooked by most everyone but especially RUclips reactors, perhaps because it's about two manhunts for a murderer (played by Peter Lorre) in Berlin - one by the police, the other by the criminal underground, who want no association with him. Nevertheless exceptional at keeping you guessing where the plot will go, its use of sound and silence to enhance the suspense (compare to Hollywood's use of sound around the same time) and commentary on the issues of the day (Lang would flee to America 2 years after "M" was released.)
I've watched "M" and the full reaction is already available in Patreon. The RUclips version will be out on 28th May 😊 You can subscribe and turn on your "post notifications" to get the latest updates! I usually post them in my RUclips Community 👉 www.youtube.com/@henryellow/community
The witnesses did not lie. They told what they saw and heard or what they thought they saw or what they thought they heard. It is a known fact that eyewitness testimony cannot be relied upon.
The oldest juror (McCardle) was Davis' first supporter at the beginning. McCardle was also very observant and noticed subtle character details regarding the two witnesses. I agree that he contributed the most during the discussion about the two testimonies.
I was hoping you would someday do a reaction to this film. I haven't heard of a single person that thought this film was boring it's one of the greatest ever made. Enjoyed your reaction as always.
It's notable that the issue of guilt is deliberately left unresolved, as it is the absolutely least relevant element of the whole film. There was a day when America thought it better to free ten guilty men than to condemn one innocent man. Then, there was Reaganism and the whole perspective reversed 180.
But what if the kid is guilty. Then all they did what to get him off for a crime he committed. This is what defense attorneys do. They try to plant enough doubts in you to change the verdict.
The scenario I already posted (with the knife falling out of the boy's pocket right outside the front door to his apartment, solving a few issues with the knife) is not explicitly mentioned in the movie. Neither is the following logic: If the boy was going to kill his father with the knife, why would he show it to a group of his friends just before using it to commit murder? That makes no sense. Put yourself in his shoes. Suppose you went out tonight and bought a knife with the intent of killing your father with it. You would probably do all you could to keep that a secret. Pay with cash, maybe wear and hat and glasses to make yourself harder to identify by the pawn shop employee, not tell anyone you know, etc. Why in the world would you go out of your way to show the knife to several of your friends, just before using it kill your father? That makes no sense. Doing that would would hand damning evidence - tying you to the murder weapon - to the police on a silver platter. On the other hand, if you bought the knife without the intent to kill your father with it, then sure, why not show your friends? The fact that he showed the knife he bought to his friends is more consistent with (a) him not having bought it with the intent of killing his father, than it is with (b) him having bought it with the intent of killing his father.
@@henryellow Henry, please react to the 1966 version, starring Paul Scofield and Leo McKern. Scofield won Best Actor for his brilliant performance as Thomas More.
An eyewitness saw the killing, one juror said at the beginning "She saw the killing through the last two cars. She remembered the most insignificant details". Guessing about the indentations around her nose later, after such a statement is strange at least! Her testimony was made in court and it was good enough for No8 not to oppose her statement in detail, he just switched the topic when mentioned, started a journey along many other points, but in the end they never synchronized her statement with the indentations. Does the murdered father not at least deserve a short revisit of the testimony, to find out what details the eyewitness was talking about? Therefore the boy is guilty or at least this jury is very sloppy and not capable to make a substantial verdict.
If I remember correctly, No8 (Henry Fonda) did not know about the indentations. It was only at the end, when No4 took off his glasses and rubbed his eyes that No9 (Joseph Sweeney) remembered he saw the indentations.
@@henryellow That is correct, however they avoided 2 times the detailed eyewitness testimony. One way or the another, they have to talk about it, they just cant ignore it. If it was that detailed then her eyesight isnt in question and if it is not detailed and she is describing only regular stuff anyone could see anytime, then there is the question why they avoided it in the first place.
Well, we don't know how good or bad the eyewitness' eyesight is. What is her eyeglass strength? Maybe she could make out the shape of the nearby el train, but the murder scene is too far away. Or maybe she remembered incorrectly. Maybe these "details" are things she believed she saw, but it was not so. It's easy to "forge memories" of events that happened really fast. Whichever the case, I really don't know either 😂. But if there is even an inkling of reasonable doubt, then the vote should be "not guilty". It's really too bad they can't reopen the case and go through the trial again.
@@henryellow Well if No8 is distracting the jury from a deeper analysis of her testimony then it is very hard to tell if she wears sunglasses or she only wears reading glasses or sth like that. The jury totally ignored the testimony, they just mentioned it was very detailed. therefore the verdict is corrupted. No8 concentrated more into smuggling in illegal evidence into the jury room, this alone would lead to a mistrial and a revision of the whole trial. Reasonable doubt however is only reasonable after analysing every piece of evidence, not only the ones which leads to a acquittal
I believe the reason all juries decided on "not guilty" is because they have a reasonable doubt. Even if there are 20 eyewitnesses and 50 evidences, a jury should still vote "not guilty" IF there is a doubt in his mind. That wasn't an ideal example but I was just making a point 😂.
@@Radentstwo If the knife had no fingerprints on it, and it was left at the scene of the murder, then how could it be tied to the defendant? Other clues were provided. AS EXAMPLE, the defendant's father was a criminal who did time in prison for forgery, so likely had criminal associates.
Another movie on unreliable witnesses: Rashomon, by Akira Kurosawa. A samurai is murdered, we get three witnesses - none of them agree! A lawyer has to know how to handle a witness. My personal theory if the boy didn’t do it (but he could): someone saw him showing off his fancy knife, cut a hole in his pocket, pickpocketed his knife, dressed up like him, murdered the father for whatever reason while wearing gloves, the witnesses couldn’t tell him apart from the boy because “all of that kind” sorta look all the same to them. Either that, or it really was the boy.
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger I don’t say those two are the only possibilities, there are many more ways; those are my two favorite hypotheses, what I like to imagine. In the movie it’s not important what really happened, as it only illustrates the principle of reasonable doubt.
some of the arguments kind of bother me.. such as old men with bad legs not being able to run when they want to.. ive seen plenty of occasions where this just isnt the case.. or people that wear eye glasses not immediately putting them on when they want to look at something.. or this idea that the boy wouldnt have held the knife that way if he was trying to stab his much taller father in the chest.. or the idea that they would have had no reason to lie on the boy.. for all they know, they might have hated the boy for various reasons.. or just been liars for no reason.. the longer i live, the more liars i come across in life.. ridiculous liars.. but anyway, it makes me wonder who did kill the father.. did the boy hand off his knife to one of his buddies to go kill him while he was gone 'at the movies'.. was it just a freak coincidence that someone came in and killed him for no reason? was it a crazed maniac, a mafia tough guy...was it henry fonda? who knows.. who cares really.. the father was probably a real piece of crap, from the sound of him
That's the thing about the movie. The scenarios they discussed were possibilities, not necessarily the truth. No one will ever know the truth, except the real murderer.
I used to before I had to have part of my eye surgically replaced with a lens after a stroke. However I didn't do it back in the 60's when the lenses were all glass. It made my glasses pretty heavy and uncomfortable to sleep in.😢
@@toodlescaeYeah, when I first started wearing glasses in the late 60s at the age of 8 they weighed a ton. I literally had blisters on my ears from the weight of them. I couldn't have slept in them then either, but lightweight lenses and flexible frames make it much easier. I started sleeping with them on because I kept dropping them when I needed to put them on or take them off at night so it's safer now. It just makes me laugh every time I watch this movie and that line comes up.
If I sleep with my glasses on, I'll need a new pair of them soon after. That's what happened to two of my glasses (when I first started wearing them as a kid). I'll wake up to see my glasses squashed, crushed, bent, broken, or whatever torture I inflicted on it while sleeping. I learned my lesson. Always take off your glasses when going to bed 😂
This movie is considered a classic and one of the greatest movies of all time. If there is someone bored, there in the minority
Just goes to show, a film maker doesn't need car chases or explosions to make an epic film. Just a brilliant script and stellar actors
And excellent camera work!
One of the things that I liked was the often-overlooked cinematography.
The camera angles, high, low, or eye-level. The shot size, wide, medium, close-up. They all combine to tell who is in power, who is losing power, whose power is shifting. Was pretty simple but brilliantly executed.
Splendid review!
Thanks!
There is a reason this film is called a masterpiece. The screenplay, the acting, the direction and the cinematography. A classic!
This is one of my all-time favorite movies. So very well written and directed. Just so beautiful. It's also really fun to watch young folks discover the wonder of black & white movies. Old movies may not be fast-paced & action-packed, but if you open yourself to experience them, you'll find they're just as satisfying as newer movies. Thank you for taking the time to watch & share your experience! I appreciate all that you do and all that you are, Henry. 🐝 Blessed Bee
The movie is a classic and I don't want to hear too many holes in it but there were some. I won't name them all because I don't want to tear something up that has been a classic for generations. A big hole is, six dollars in 2024 doesn't seem that bad and a poor kid from the slums would easily spend it for a cool looking knife. In 1957 however, six dollars was like over $66. Now where would a poor kid from the slums get that money?
@@stinkbug4321 The earlier TV version said the knife cost 2 dollars. Either someone changed the script for some weird reason, or Fonda just flubbed a line .. one that is not repeated anywhere else so didn't cause a problem with internal consistency.
@annie Thank you, and same to you too! 😊
@stinkbug Davis spent $6 for his knife, but it was never mentioned how much the kid spent. The storekeeper might have sold it cheaper.
@@henryellow Just as an FYI. Apropos of absolutely nothing...
He would have caused a mistrial if he did that today.
Jurors are expressly forbidden to personally investigate or test the case in any way.
I'm not sure what the laws and jury instructions were back then.
But...
it is the realm of possibility that the presence of the second knife, being left in the table of the jury room, almost-certainly could lead the prosecution to a victory in the appellate court.
So the appellate court overturns the verdict. Which would nullify the double jeopardy. So the prosecution could retry the case with a different jury.
So the juror that saved the defendant would be the same one that put him back in the process again.
No idea why I made this comment other than I have had this thought more than once whenever I happen to watch this film.
Still, stabbing the identical knife is a cinematically dramatic moment, not to be denied.
Well, no one could see the jurors "testing the case" within the room. Everything was theoretical.
By the end of the movie, the jurors walked out of the court. Which means the verdict has been delivered, isn't that right?
Unless you mean that, if they found the second knife, the prosecution could appeal to a higher court? If so, I suppose it's possible, if they really want to put the kid in the chair.
Twelve Angry Men is an American courtroom drama written by Reginald Rose concerning the jury of a homicide trial. The production was staged in New York City and aired live on TV, September 20, 1954, as the first episode in the seventh season of the program, Studio One. The following year it was adapted for the stage. It was adapted for a film of the same name, directed by Sidney Lumet, and released in 1957. The production won three Emmy Awards: for Rose's writing, Schaffner's direction, and for Robert Cummings as Best Actor. The cast included performances by:
Robert Cummings as Juror #8
Franchot Tone as Juror #3
Edward Arnold as Juror #10
Paul Hartman as Juror #7
John Beal as Juror #2
Walter Abel as Juror #4
George Voskovec as Juror #11
Joseph Sweeney as Juror #9
Bart Burns as Juror #6
Norman Fell as Foreman
Lee Phillips as Juror #5
Will West as Juror # 12
Uncredited cast
Vincent Gardenia as Bailiff[
I love the end of the men walking down the stairs, it shows their personality too.
It is one of the best black & white movie of all times. A true classic. The acting; the direction; the Cinnomentography of each character was superb. It just felt so organic.
This is one of my favorite movies, and it is basically just 12 guys in a room talking, but they made it exciting! Fabulous movie with a fabulous cast and a fabulous story!
I think this film is masterful. As cinema every shot is perfect the way Lumet chose to use close-ups and wide angles to illustrate tension and how it defines the very well defined characteristics and character of each very diverse characters. Originally a stage play I love how the playwright made Davis an architect, an occupation focused on the details of construction and those points being characteristic of how he understands things and how all the other characters have similar outlying nuances. Really brilliant. Great reaction. 👍
A great start to a career. Lumet hit the ground running. This film came to mind when I saw DUNE. When the Fremen are said to be “dangerous and unreliable,” I sarcastically said, “Oh, there’re some GOOD things about ’em, too. I’ve known a COUPLE who were okay.”
12 great performances. Great movie.
This was one of the best movies that came out in the 50's. It had an all star stellar cast. [Great movie].
I've seen many reactions to this film. NO ONE is ever bored.
The question before the jury is not guilt or innocence. All accused are presumed innocent. The question is whether guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
It was such a boring movie...I fell asleep watching it
Would make a great double bill with Otto Preminger's Anatomy of a Murder (1959) a great courtroom drama.
I'll add that to my list, thanks for suggesting it 😉
Haha, your comment regarding two knives on the table at the end. 🤣 Like many, this is one of my favorite movies and I enjoyed your commentary on it. 👏👏👏
Key question: What does the elderly juror know about what it's like to be elderly?
This has been in my top 5 favorite movie ever since I first saw it as a teenager in the 1970s. I'm a Floridian and my husband first saw it around the same time in Upstate New York and we've watched it together times beyond count. Its pull is still very strong. TCM frequently ran it in its Midnight time slot. One of the other of us, not quite ready to sleep, and flipping through channels on the TV would land on , telling ourselves, well, I'll just watch it for a few minutes. It's always self deception. No matter what point we join it we're there to the end. If the other spouse hears it... Well, neither one of us could turn it off. Just so many layers there's always something new. Just watching a reaction last week, I realized that when Juror # 9 the elderly man comes out of the bathroom that Juror #6, the working man, fetched a chair for him so he could join the table. # 7, Jack Warden, the salesman, does lots of little tricks and jokes, but is at sea in this situation as is #11, the Ad executive. Neither one strays out of their comfort zones in word or deed. #7 is just more defensive about it.#11 feels confused because if he went to college he feels he should be able to keep up with the arguments. I could go on for a couple of hours but I won't. If you're stressed out about something just put this movie on and you'll stop thinking about anything else. Have fun!
Film is literature. This is a great film
The original hold-out juror is the great Henry Fonda (father of Jane and Peter Fonda). Also co-produced the film.
"Gentlemen, that's a very sad thing... to be nothing."
Fun Fact: Feature directorial debut of Sidney Lumet.
Hot Take Fact: Shot in a total of 365 separate takes. However because of the painstaking rehearsals for the film lasted an exhausting two weeks, filming was completed in 21 days.
Method Director Fact: Sidney Lumet had the actors all stay in the same room for several hours on end and do their lines over and over without filming them. This was to give them a real taste of what it would be like to be cooped up in a room with the same people.
The Quest For Real Time Fact: Once the jurors are sequestered the film proceeds in real time. About halfway through they establish that it's 6 o'clock. They reach their verdict in another 45 minutes. This would leave plenty of time for Jack Warden's juror character to still make the 8 o'clock ball game.
Excellent as always.
I had always thought the game would have been called on account of rain, anyway.
Never really paying attention to the time.
But they made it in time and the rain stopped. Good for him, I guess.
AceMoonshot ...You're welcome! 😁
Go with God and Be Safe from Evil. 😎 👍
I also forgot about the ball game. Turns out he made it after all 😂
Thanks again for the fun facts! 😊
It is a sad thing to be nothing... to oneself. If a man views himself as nothing, then that is what he shall be.
Another top-tier classic! Such a great commentary on how the justice system should work. Unfortunately, justice has too often been denied due to jurors' human tendency just to go along with the flow, letting personal biases enter into the deliberation, and/or to fall for the old _argumentum_ _ad_ _verecundiam_ (relying on an "appeal to authority" figures) fallacy instead of doing the more difficult task of critically examining the evidence submitted to them. The "reasonable doubt" concept is important in U.S. justice. Should be required viewing for jurors.
BTW, Henry Fonda ("Davis") was a huge Hollywood star, though he only won a Best Actor Oscar very late in his life for his performance in his final film _On_ _Golden_ _Pond_ (1982). I consider his best performance to be in _The_ _Grapes_ _of_ _Wrath_ (1940), though he created many memorable roles throughout his long career.
I haven't watched those two movies. Guess I'll add them to my list! 😊
@@henryellow
_Grapes_ _of_ _Wrath_ is a must-view classic dealing with wrenching displacements that occurred during the Great Depression and Dustbowl era. Not a happy movie, but one that makes us think.
_On_ _Golden_ _Pond_ is a standard family drama that is probably less notable for its plot than because it is Henry Fonda's last film, also won an Oscar for the legendary Katharine Hepburn, and features Fonda's real-life daughter Jane Fonda (who received a supporting Oscar nomination).
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer."
William Blackstone: Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 4, Chapter 27 (1769).
Eye witness testimony is one of the weakest forms of evidence
Excellent choice as well as reaction. Great editing. Enjoyed it, ty…
I always think of The Odd Couple when I see this movie. Apart from a couple of actors, the movie is based on a play that all takes place in one room, and also frequently features an "angry men" type scenario, although it's more like disgruntled poker players taking shots at each other. When a movie is based on a one-room play, the film adaptation usually has to go to some effort to make the story appear as if it's not taking place in one room. The movie version of The Odd Couple tries to open things up a little by moving some of the action around (like for no real reason going out to a diner or continuing a conversation while bowling) but the story is still basically all centered around the one room. Being literally stuck in one room with no visual break as 12 Angry Men was would have been a disaster for almost any other movie.
As for the actors, Jack Klugman (here, the young guy from the slums) would later become the most iconic Oscar Madison, but in the TV version. The little bald guy in the glasses (John Fiedler) was one of Oscar's poker buddies in the movie (but with a different Oscar). Fiedler's most enduring role was Winnie-the-Pooh's little buddy Piglet, which he voiced exclusively from the beginning until he passed away in the mid-2000's.
Oh, I recently added The Odd Couple to my movies list! 😊👍🏻
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
This film may have benefited from this cast's participation in the Broadway production in the year prior to filming. But this is a rare film that every actor might rightfully claim "This is my best performance." Most of these actors littered American TV and films since 1940 on, some well before that. Lee J. Cobb - the Main Jerk - ends up becoming The Detective investigating the bottom-of-stairs killing in THE EXORCIST (1973). Martin Balsam left this film and got his P.I. license in time to climb some stairs himself in 1960's PSYCHO. Henry Fonda, by the way, had recovered from being killed by a kamikaze at the end of 1955's MISTER ROBERTS. Whew. He was soooo lucky, eh?
This cast was indeed stellar and these character actors were all staples of television and movies for a generation. You could actually do a themed month for 12 Angry Actors featuring movies for each of the jurors. Talk about connections. Thanks again for a great reaction, and best of luck; Ill be watching.
@@Boomerbox2024 I want to work on such a link (a "film festival" of sorts. Jack Warden, for example... he was fantastic in TWILIGHT ZONE's 1st season "The Lonely" (1959). BRIAN'S SONG (1971)... but I'd push 1978's HEAVEN CAN WAIT. He's got a lot of good works.
@@Boomerbox2024 John Fiedler - like most of the cast - seems to have done "all TV shows" in his time. THAT TOUCH OF MINK (1962, Doris Day, Cary Grant) is probably my favorite where he plays the milquetoast new husband who gives up and has Mother pick him up at their honeymoon cottage. Or else another "around the table" movie, the original THE ODD COUPLE (1968).
The stage play wasn't even written until after the film was made. The film was an expanded form of the teleplay by Reginald Rose, made in 1954. Only two members of that cast, Joseph Sweeney and George Voskovic, were in both the teleplay and film.
Great reaction!! If you want to watch Ed Begley in a completely different role, check out Patterns (1956). Rod Serling wrote the screen play and just like 12 Angry Men, it was produced as a television play before it was made into a movie.
I'll add Patterns to my list then. Thanks for your suggestion 😊
What I get from this movie is that we don't know whether the two witnesses were mistaken/lying or not. They could easily have just gotten a matter of a few seconds wrong. Maybe the woman was farsighted, or put her glasses on quickly to see what she saw. The totality of evidence (there is no smoking gun, but a lot of unlikely coincidences) tells me that the boy more likely than not killed his father. But he had a crappy lawyer who didn't call out the witnesses' inconsistencies (I think of Vinny Gambini and the sweet old woman with thick glasses). The investigative team didn't do their due diligence with the knife, either. If the jury can't be sure that it was a fair trial, that's reasonable doubt. Better a guilty man go free than an innocent man be executed. Especially at so young an age, when he has the chance to turn his life around. I think the brilliance of the screenplay is that the boy isn't proven innocent, there's just enough reasonable doubt to acquit him. It's not a murder mystery, but an examination of our duties as citizens.
Agreed. The main point is about reasonable doubt and the facts presented in the trial. Whether the boy actually committed the murder was secondary, because there's no way for the jury to know the truth. That's why Davis emphasized again and again, "I don't know. It's possible."
1) THE KNIFE
The knife could have fallen out of the boy's pocket as he was leaving his apartment, heading to the movies.
That fits the timeline: The boy left his apartment at 11:30pm to go to the movies, and he said the knife fell through a hole in his pocket sometime between then - 11:30, when he left to go to the movies - and when he got back home at 3:10 in the morning.
"JUROR 4: Now what happened to the knife? He claims that it fell through a hole in his pocket on the way to the movies, sometime between 11:30 and 3:10, and that he never saw it again. ... No one in the house saw him go out at 11:30."
The knife could have fallen out of the boy's pocket right outside the apartment's front door, as the door was closing. He would not have heard it hit the floor because of the noise of the door closing.
One could try to argue that the boy could not lose the knife through a hole in his pocket because he would have felt it fall out past his ankle, so would have noticed. But a large number of people have lost something out of their pocket without realizing it, either because although they felt something, they attributed the feeling to something else, or because they were preoccupied and simply didn't notice. If the boy was leaving the apartment, he would have been twisting his body to close the door, and if he felt something at his ankle he might have attributed it to something else: maybe he thought it was his pants' leg rubbing his ankle because his body was twisting, or that his ankle had accidentally touched the doorway. Or his mind could have been distracted: maybe he was ruminating over something one of his friends said earlier that night, or maybe he also had his wallet out and was counting his money as he was leaving the apartment (doing multiple things at once), or maybe he heard a scream (remember, Juror 4 noted that the boy lived in a neighborhood where screams were not rare).
This scenario puts the knife at the scene of the crime to begin with. There is no need to try to explain how the knife got from someplace else to the particular apartment. For example, there is no need to try to explain how some stranger - who doesn't know the boy or the father, or where they live - found the knife blocks away on the street and just so happened to walk to the father's apartment.
Where the father lived was a slum so just about anyone - homeless people, drug dealers, pimps, robbers, home invaders, anyone - could have walked inside the building and found the knife on the floor right outside the father's door. It could even have been someone who lived in the same building and who hated the father (for example, because this other person knew the father used his fists to beat the son, beating the son all the time). This bum/thug/robber/neighbor finds the knife outside the door on the floor and says something ("sweet knife!") or makes some noise when picking it up and flipping it open. The father hears some noise outside his front door and opens it, only to be confronted with a bum/thug/robber/neighbor with an open switchblade knife: that person forces his way into the apartment and a fight ensues. The stabbing occurs ... with the bum/thug/robber/neighbor doing it the wrong way (from above, down and in, instead of upward and with an underhand motion, as the son probably would have done since he was very handy with knives).
Where were no fingerprints on the knife (and forensic DNA analysis was not available yet), so there was no forensic evidence showing the boy was holding the murder weapon when the stabbing occurred, or even that the boy ever held that particular knife. Heck, there isn't even any forensic evidence showing that the murder weapon was the same knife the boy bought: it could have been just a similar-looking knife, like the one juror 8 bought at a pawn shop just 2 blocks from the boy's place. The only evidence indicating the two knives were the same knife is that the friends identified the knife the police showed them as the one the boy had shown them the previous night. But without a serial number or something else definitive, no one could positively identify the two knives as being the same one, only that the knife the cops showed them looked - from memory, from hours before - very much like it. Even juror 3 (the final holdout) confused the knife juror 8 had bought with the knife used in the murder.
NOTE: Heck, it's not impossible that one of the boy's friends killed the father. The friend could have hated the boy's father, because the father used his fists to beat the son (that is, the friend's friend) all the time. The friend could have waited for the boy to go to the movies, then knocked on the father's door, rushed the father, and stabbed him. The friend (1) could have just so happened to already have a knife similar to the one the boy bought that night, or (2) maybe when the friend saw the boy's knife that night he liked it, and after the boy left the group of friends, the friend went to a pawn shop and bought one similar to it, or (3) as above, the knife could have fallen out of the boy's pocket right outside the front door of the father's apartment and the friend found it when he went to the father's door, picked it up, and then confronted the father.
This scenario is, of course, entirely possible 👍🏻. Unfortunately, only the murderer will ever know the truth about what happened.
Very interesting video essay. I also like your choice of directors to follow.
The comments are very informative.
Very well done young man.👍
I don't like to talk about guilty, or not guilty, the system is always about reasonable doubt and if you have it the choice is simple.
What all the reactions I've seen to this movie miss is that Juror #8 is convincing HIMSELF of reasonable doubt. He admits he doesn't know if the boy is innocent. During the trial he notices the boy's lawyer is inadequate, and since he can't ask the questions the defense attorney didn't, it prompts him to go see just how unique the switchblade really is, which is the only piece of evidence he can "investigate". It's his conversations with the other jurors, the questions and knowledge THEY bring forth, that solidify the reasonable doubt in all of their minds.
#8 didn't change their minds, he opened their minds.
Switchblade were illegal. The store owner who sold it said it was the only one he'd seen. Was he lying?
The father did time for forgery. Did he have enemies?
These are valid questions too. Unfortunately, we'll never know the truth behind the incident.
You did a great video! Great review of the movie. I have the movie, probably more than one copy of it. But you made me want to find it on 4K Blu Ray. I went to Amazon and found an affordable version with both the 4k Blu Ray and the regular Blu Ray. The only version I have ever had is a DVD-R recording from TCM before that channel went commercial. I recorded this myself before such things became preventable.
I wasn’t even thinking about buying this movie until I watched your video! I’m one of those people that will NEVER give up on physical media, whatever that media is. From 8-tracks to whatever the future holds. I will always want a physical version of any movie, tv show or music that I buy.
But I just want to applaud your video and say thank you for making me finally buy a real version of this classic movie.
Edit: I also just happened to find your channel. You have a new subscriber.
I'm glad you enjoyed my reaction to the movie 😊. Congrats on being a new owner of the 4k Blu Ray 12 Angry Men!
Glad you didn't let him slip through your fingers.
He was guilty.
This film is, what we call in Europe a "Chamber Play"...
Thank you for such an excellent movie 🍿🎥👍👍👍
If I may had the Police and the prosecutors had looked at the case this way the boy would not have been charged and maybe they would've looked for the real killer.
Even the investigators might have fallen to prejudice. The murder happened in the slums, after all. So they pointed their fingers at the easiest suspect and washed their hands of the case after that. Davis also mentioned in the movie, "He (the boy) also claims that the two detectives threw him down a half a flight of stairs."
@@henryellow No doubt they did fall to prejudice, for we see today these same things plaguing societies. What happens to facts?
It's a sad fact that "facts" don't always prevail...
Please do Fritz Lang's "M" (1931) as one of the reactions you mentioned at the start of the video here! Criminally overlooked by most everyone but especially RUclips reactors, perhaps because it's about two manhunts for a murderer (played by Peter Lorre) in Berlin - one by the police, the other by the criminal underground, who want no association with him. Nevertheless exceptional at keeping you guessing where the plot will go, its use of sound and silence to enhance the suspense (compare to Hollywood's use of sound around the same time) and commentary on the issues of the day (Lang would flee to America 2 years after "M" was released.)
I've watched "M" and the full reaction is already available in Patreon. The RUclips version will be out on 28th May 😊
You can subscribe and turn on your "post notifications" to get the latest updates! I usually post them in my RUclips Community 👉 www.youtube.com/@henryellow/community
@@henryellow Thanks!
The witnesses did not lie. They told what they saw and heard or what they thought they saw or what they thought they heard.
It is a known fact that eyewitness testimony cannot be relied upon.
When you think of it, it was the oldest juror who put the final stamp on the verdict of "not guilty" that saved the life of the youngest of them all.
Yep. Aside from Fonda's character, the old dude came up with the best reasons to vote not guilty.
The oldest juror (McCardle) was Davis' first supporter at the beginning. McCardle was also very observant and noticed subtle character details regarding the two witnesses. I agree that he contributed the most during the discussion about the two testimonies.
@@henryellow Yeah I agree. Like his observation about the 40 something year old woman trying to maker herself look like she was in her 30s.
I was hoping you would someday do a reaction to this film. I haven't heard of a single person that thought this film was boring it's one of the greatest ever made. Enjoyed your reaction as always.
Great reaction Henry! So happy I stumbled across this channel; you have a new subscriber!
Awesome, welcome aboard! 😊
27:22 Glower _is_ a word, but gloat is closer to what you meant.
Yup, that was the word I meant to say
Maybe citizen kane or Cromwell next.
I've reacted to Citizen Kane. You can find it on my channel 😊
I saw you pantomime the correct use of a switchblade. Are you a dangerous man? lol
Who knows 😏
It's notable that the issue of guilt is deliberately left unresolved, as it is the absolutely least relevant element of the whole film.
There was a day when America thought it better to free ten guilty men than to condemn one innocent man. Then, there was Reaganism and the whole perspective reversed 180.
But what if the kid is guilty. Then all they did what to get him off for a crime he committed. This is what defense attorneys do. They try to plant enough doubts in you to change the verdict.
You can look at the flip side- what if he is innocent and had been convicted( a more realistic outcome).
The scenario I already posted (with the knife falling out of the boy's pocket right outside the front door to his apartment, solving a few issues with the knife) is not explicitly mentioned in the movie. Neither is the following logic:
If the boy was going to kill his father with the knife, why would he show it to a group of his friends just before using it to commit murder? That makes no sense.
Put yourself in his shoes. Suppose you went out tonight and bought a knife with the intent of killing your father with it. You would probably do all you could to keep that a secret. Pay with cash, maybe wear and hat and glasses to make yourself harder to identify by the pawn shop employee, not tell anyone you know, etc. Why in the world would you go out of your way to show the knife to several of your friends, just before using it kill your father? That makes no sense. Doing that would would hand damning evidence - tying you to the murder weapon - to the police on a silver platter. On the other hand, if you bought the knife without the intent to kill your father with it, then sure, why not show your friends?
The fact that he showed the knife he bought to his friends is more consistent with (a) him not having bought it with the intent of killing his father, than it is with (b) him having bought it with the intent of killing his father.
20/20 is not perfect vision there is such a thing as even better than 20/20.
This issue with the juror is his RACISM about "them" and "they" and "those people".
The defendant appears to be Puerto Rican.
It's clear that his prejudice affected his judgement.
If you like this movie then I suggest you watch A Man for all Seasons.
I'll add it to my list. Thanks for your suggestion! 😊
@@henryellow Henry, please react to the 1966 version, starring Paul Scofield and Leo McKern. Scofield won Best Actor for his brilliant performance as Thomas More.
❤❤❤❤
Thank you for NOT breaking in with a comment every 6 seconds like so many reactors do!
Why are you letting him slip through our fingers??!!
An eyewitness saw the killing, one juror said at the beginning "She saw the killing through the last two cars. She remembered the most insignificant details". Guessing about the indentations around her nose later, after such a statement is strange at least! Her testimony was made in court and it was good enough for No8 not to oppose her statement in detail, he just switched the topic when mentioned, started a journey along many other points, but in the end they never synchronized her statement with the indentations. Does the murdered father not at least deserve a short revisit of the testimony, to find out what details the eyewitness was talking about? Therefore the boy is guilty or at least this jury is very sloppy and not capable to make a substantial verdict.
If I remember correctly, No8 (Henry Fonda) did not know about the indentations.
It was only at the end, when No4 took off his glasses and rubbed his eyes that No9 (Joseph Sweeney) remembered he saw the indentations.
@@henryellow That is correct, however they avoided 2 times the detailed eyewitness testimony. One way or the another, they have to talk about it, they just cant ignore it. If it was that detailed then her eyesight isnt in question and if it is not detailed and she is describing only regular stuff anyone could see anytime, then there is the question why they avoided it in the first place.
Well, we don't know how good or bad the eyewitness' eyesight is. What is her eyeglass strength?
Maybe she could make out the shape of the nearby el train, but the murder scene is too far away.
Or maybe she remembered incorrectly. Maybe these "details" are things she believed she saw, but it was not so. It's easy to "forge memories" of events that happened really fast.
Whichever the case, I really don't know either 😂. But if there is even an inkling of reasonable doubt, then the vote should be "not guilty".
It's really too bad they can't reopen the case and go through the trial again.
@@henryellow Well if No8 is distracting the jury from a deeper analysis of her testimony then it is very hard to tell if she wears sunglasses or she only wears reading glasses or sth like that. The jury totally ignored the testimony, they just mentioned it was very detailed. therefore the verdict is corrupted. No8 concentrated more into smuggling in illegal evidence into the jury room, this alone would lead to a mistrial and a revision of the whole trial. Reasonable doubt however is only reasonable after analysing every piece of evidence, not only the ones which leads to a acquittal
I believe the reason all juries decided on "not guilty" is because they have a reasonable doubt. Even if there are 20 eyewitnesses and 50 evidences, a jury should still vote "not guilty" IF there is a doubt in his mind. That wasn't an ideal example but I was just making a point 😂.
Why would the kid wipe the fingerprints off the knife instead of taking the knife with him?
If he did took it it would be no difference. He still would be the possible suspect.
@@Radentstwo If the knife had no fingerprints on it, and it was left at the scene of the murder, then how could it be tied to the defendant?
Other clues were provided. AS EXAMPLE, the defendant's father was a criminal who did time in prison for forgery, so likely had criminal associates.
Another movie on unreliable witnesses: Rashomon, by Akira Kurosawa. A samurai is murdered, we get three witnesses - none of them agree! A lawyer has to know how to handle a witness. My personal theory if the boy didn’t do it (but he could): someone saw him showing off his fancy knife, cut a hole in his pocket, pickpocketed his knife, dressed up like him, murdered the father for whatever reason while wearing gloves, the witnesses couldn’t tell him apart from the boy because “all of that kind” sorta look all the same to them. Either that, or it really was the boy.
Logical fallacy;false dichotomy.
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger I don’t say those two are the only possibilities, there are many more ways; those are my two favorite hypotheses, what I like to imagine. In the movie it’s not important what really happened, as it only illustrates the principle of reasonable doubt.
@@gylmano "Either that, or it really was the boy."
some of the arguments kind of bother me.. such as old men with bad legs not being able to run when they want to.. ive seen plenty of occasions where this just isnt the case.. or people that wear eye glasses not immediately putting them on when they want to look at something.. or this idea that the boy wouldnt have held the knife that way if he was trying to stab his much taller father in the chest.. or the idea that they would have had no reason to lie on the boy.. for all they know, they might have hated the boy for various reasons.. or just been liars for no reason.. the longer i live, the more liars i come across in life.. ridiculous liars.. but anyway, it makes me wonder who did kill the father.. did the boy hand off his knife to one of his buddies to go kill him while he was gone 'at the movies'.. was it just a freak coincidence that someone came in and killed him for no reason? was it a crazed maniac, a mafia tough guy...was it henry fonda? who knows.. who cares really.. the father was probably a real piece of crap, from the sound of him
That's the thing about the movie. The scenarios they discussed were possibilities, not necessarily the truth. No one will ever know the truth, except the real murderer.
The boy didn't go to the movie theater to watch movies.
It isn't true that no one wears eyeglasses to bed. I do. I have for years.
I love this movie.
I used to before I had to have part of my eye surgically replaced with a lens after a stroke. However I didn't do it back in the 60's when the lenses were all glass. It made my glasses pretty heavy and uncomfortable to sleep in.😢
@@toodlescaeYeah, when I first started wearing glasses in the late 60s at the age of 8 they weighed a ton. I literally had blisters on my ears from the weight of them. I couldn't have slept in them then either, but lightweight lenses and flexible frames make it much easier. I started sleeping with them on because I kept dropping them when I needed to put them on or take them off at night so it's safer now. It just makes me laugh every time I watch this movie and that line comes up.
If I sleep with my glasses on, I'll need a new pair of them soon after.
That's what happened to two of my glasses (when I first started wearing them as a kid). I'll wake up to see my glasses squashed, crushed, bent, broken, or whatever torture I inflicted on it while sleeping.
I learned my lesson. Always take off your glasses when going to bed 😂
@@henryellow I agree! I couldn't sleep if I wore my glasses to bed, not to mention destroying them!