GUILTY OR NOT?! 12 Angry Men MOVIE REACTION!! (First Time Watching)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 май 2024
- 12 Angry Men (1957) first time watching movie reaction!!
#movie #reaction #moviereaction
GAMING Channel- / @rakhimonline
Follow me:
Instagram- rakhim99_?...
Tiktok- www.tiktok.com/@rakhim99_?_t=...
Twitter- / rakhim99_ 
Развлечения
The ethnicity, race, background, religion or nationality of the boy is never stated, and the references to who “they” or them” is, is never defined - which makes it more timeless and apply to any type of prejudice or bigotry. But when this was written, there was a lot of immigration to New York from Puerto Rico, and there was a lot of conflict. So, it is very possible that the boy is meant to be Puerto Rican.
The boy was Puerto Rican.
I've seen a lot of reactions to this movie, and the whole "them" aspect is a sticking point with many reactors. I wonder if the actor playing the boy doesn't look any different from the ones playing the jurors. I mean in terms of race. So people probably don't see anything that sets him apart.
I always thought the "they" "them" was referring to people in poverty-stricken area or "wrong side of the tracks". That could be any culture
The problem with the Puerto Rican theory is the older guy said he'd been around them his whole life. Although it was a bit late in time for anti Italian sentiment, I'm sure the older generation often held onto it. The boy actor was in fact Italian.
@@daviddufresne9905 An excellent point. Perhaps, also, it could have inferred he was Jewish, that could match his “I’ve been among them all my life” comments. Either way, the issue is not exactly who the boy was, but that other people’s prejudices were affecting their judgment in the case. Also, we saw hints of prejudice against the juror who was probably from somewhere in Eastern Europe and whose family probably was escaping the Nazis.
The eyeglasses clue is a bit of an old-time thing. Glasses used actually to be made of glass and if you needed thick lenses they were HEAVY, really bothering your nose and ears, and leaving definite marks on your nose. These days they have special plastics that are much lighter.
And behind your ears.... not readily noticed, but, as one who had heavy eyeglasses, they hurt as well.
If they're glasses you wear all the time, even the lightest ones will still leave marks
It’s not even that old timy I had those marks in the 90s and early 2000’s
The last time I had glass lenses was when I was in 5th grade, back in the mid-70s, and yes, those were damn heavy! My glasses practically lived at the bottom of my nose, the weight kept them sliding down. After that, plastic lenses finally became slightly more affordable than they had been before, and I never looked back.
I'm glad my glasses transitioned from metal frames that pinched my nose to plastic. Though the plastic ones always slid down my nose. Even when I'm not wearing glasses I compulsively reach up to push them up, which could be a tell for someone who watches me, similar to impressions on the nose being a tell
"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.
Please include the year of the movie's release. There might be remakes using the exact same title. Thank you in advance.
Go in Peace and Walk with God. 😎 👍
@@BigGator5 Anytime you see any comment starting out Fun Fact: just brush it under the rug. Don't believe anything about it. It is just somebody trying to gain attention. Just like a little kid acting up so they can have attention directed at them, even if it's negative attention.
“stop being so sensitive“ is what insensitive people always say when they are wrong and do not want to consider anyone else’s feelings but their own.
"Them": In New York in 1957, that would have been Puerto Ricans. "West Side Story" was set in 1957.
Back then, you did not have a multi Plex theater. You had a theater with only one screen, but for the price of a ticket you get to see two movies. On top of that, you could literally stay there all day and watch the same two movies over and over again as long as you don’t leave the theater
Yes, widely known as a "Double Feature," there was usually an intermission of cartoons, or a "Cliff Hanger" to bring you back next week.
Also admission was only a Dime, so for 25¢ us kids could hang out all day at the theater with all the cokes, popcorn, and hot dogs we could eat. Also in those days, we could, and would, walk over 1/2 a mile just to get to the theater, with no fear of being molested or abducted. Not so in today's world.
There's something even more important. They had air conditioning.
“12 Angry Super models”. 😂 loved that comment. I believe that’s exactly how this would be cast nowadays. 👏🏽
there's only one way to deal with angry super models, give them a sandwich.
Actually all of these actors were considered top notch actors of their era the biggest star amongst them was Henry Fonda the father of Jane Fonda the one who voted not guilty from beginning to end was the biggest star in this movie the really bigoted one was played by Ed Begley (Ed Begley jr's father) Jack Klugman the one from the slum was also a big actor who had a tv show in the 70s and 80s where he was a medical examiner that uncovered murder mysteries. John Fielder is an actors voice that I am sure as a kid you have heard before he was the voice of Piglet in the original cartoon Winnie the Pooh. Lee J Cobb the angriest of them all and the one with problems with his own kid was in a lot of movies as well (one that you might have watched was the 1973 horror classic the Exorcists) check out the rest and you will find that all of them were big on stage tv and movies at some point and radio dramas remember before people had tvs they had radios in the house a whole generation from 1920 to about 1950 were of the radio generation before people in large numbers started buying tv sets. (ps a lot of early television) movies were originally radio dramas to begin with redone on tv.
Hi. You know your movie stars..i grew up watching these guys and this movie. Yes they were all big names or at least known names. Lee J Cobb made me cry at the end ripping up that picture..he was great.✌
"and radio dramas"
When I was a kid, I used to listen to CBS Radio Mystery Theater on AM radio in the 70s - under the covers when I was supposed to be sleeping.. Hosted by E. G. Marshall (Juror #4).
There's a BIG difference between a slap and a punch.
To answer your question, Martin Balsam, who plays the foreman, was the private detective in the Alfred Hitchcock thriller "Psycho."
All of these guys were well known actors. Jack Warden, who plays the guy with the baseball tickets, plays an exactly opposite role in the "Twilight Zone" episode "The Lonely."
Henry Fonda, who plays the first juror to vote not guilty, acted in many things, but, for instance, plays a sadistic gunman in the movie "Once Upon a Time in the West."
Abrogast
And juror 2 who timed the walk is John Fiedler. He was the voice of Piglet in Winnie the Pooh and was a reoccurring character in the Bob Newhart Show
@QuisletEsq He also was one of the poker players in “The Odd Couple” with Jack Lemon & Walter Matthau.
This was director Sidney Lumet's first feature film. He had done work for television prior to this. Some of his other movies include The Pawnbroker, Fail Safe, Serpico, Murder on the Orient Express, Dog Day Afternoon, Network, The Verdict, and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. Dog Day Afternoon is a favorite of mine.
Lumet began the movie using camera angles above the jurors' heads, and slowly moved it downwards. He also used more close-ups as the movie went on. The result was an increasing feeling of being in a small space.
Did you notice that none of the characters' names were revealed until the very end, when the two jurors introduced themselves to each other on the courthouse steps?
One thing I like about this movie is how the different characters bring their own experience and perspectives into the jury room with them. The old man understood why another old man would testify the way he did. The guy who lived in a slum knew about how switchblades were used in actual fights. The smallest juror who brought up the question of the kid stabbing downward while being so much shorter than his father.
When the bigot finished ranting, the cool-headed juror told him not to open his mouth again. From that point forward, the bigot didn't utter another word. Even when he voted not guilty, he did it by shaking his head. And the look on his face suggested that he knew how wrong he had been, and that he'd been voting to send someone to die who might very well not have done it.
When this came out, it was usual for a movie theater to show 2 films (the “feature presentation” and then what was often called a “B” movie), sometimes plus a newsreel beforehand, and occasionally a cartoon or two, and some “coming attractions” trailers. So it was a full evening’s worth of entertainment. A lot of that was a holdover from the times in the Depression, and then during WW2 (when there was a lot more of news footage, and reports from “the front.” But gradually less and less was included in the price of a ticket.
They were called Double Features.
Quite right. Through the 1950's, the shorter film forms gradually were replaced by television shows: news, half hour and hour long series, etc.. I can also remember singalongs at the movies. You didn't so much go to see a "movie" as to see a "movie show."
I caught the end of that era when I was 8 (1962) and often went to Saturday matinees with my best friend who was 10. We got a newsreel, two cartoons, and coming attractions before the double feature of schlocky science-fiction or horror movies for 40 cents. The newsreel and cartoons disappeared shortly after, but double features lasted into the 70s at many theaters. At drive-ins, they often had triple features
@@user-sy5vv4ze3h yes! I am a little older but I remember being dropped off on Saturday at the theater for kid’s matinees, being given 35 cents for admission and 15 cents for treats. (I could get a box of candy in the machine for 10 cents, and get a 5 cent small coke.) The matinees were filled with kids yelling, running around; there were very few adults in the audience - the theater employees just did the minimum to keep order. But I have great memories of those afternoons. Sometimes along with the usual movies, the theater showed actual old classics of Charlie Chaplin or Laurel & Hardy in addition to the many documentary/sort of fictional shorts that Disney made about animals, travels to places around the world or introductions to scientific discoveries. When I turned 12, my admission price suddenly went up to 75 cents and I was shocked. But life is all about change.
I have been called for jury duty many times, but it took years before I actually served on a jury and it ended up being a civil matter which I was glad of.
The two times that I was called into the courtroom for the questioning phase for the jurors, I got kicked off the jury.
One time it was because the defendant had been accused of drunk driving and hitting a highway patrolman and one of the questions they asked the jurors was do drink. I personally never drink for any reason and the defendants attorney probably thought that I would be biased against their client and they dismissed me.
Another time I was dismissed was also a civil matter. It was an insurance case in which the plaintiff was the insurance company filing suit against the defendant who owned a business, and they were accused of having faulty wiring in their business which caused a fire which damaged the plaintiff’s insured’s business. The plaintiff had paid their insured’s claim and now the insurance company was suing to recoup their losses they paid their insured from the defendant who they deemed was at fault.
One of the questions that was asked of the jurors was did anyone know what the word subrogation meant. I work in insurance and I used to work in claims so I did know what the word subrogation meant. Again it was the defense attorney who dismissed me off the case. I guess they did not want me to educate the other jurors as to the meaning of subrogation.
It is a very good movie, but not perfect. Even in the jury room the best defense is not given, and some logic taken to point towards guilty just as well points toward innocence.
The knife could have fallen out of the boy's pocket as he left the apartment, ending up on the floor right outside the apartment's door. This fits what the boy said. It would eliminate the need for a second, nearly identical knife, and it would also eliminate the need for some stranger to find the knife blocks away on the street and just so happen to walk to the father's apartment to kill him.
The fact that the boy could not remember the names of the movies and actors points AT LEAST as much to innocence as guilt. If he had killed his father at 12:10, he would have had 3 hours to waste before going back home, and he would have known his alibi was going to be that he was at the movies, so he would have had a very strong motivation to spend a few minutes to go to the movies and memorize the names and actors. If he didn't kill his father he would not have a strong motivation to remember the names. That he didn't know points at least as much to not guilty as to guilty.
Also, the boy showing the knife to his friends suggests he did not buy the knife with the intent of killing his father. Who would show multiple people a knife if the intent was to turn right around and use it to commit murder?
They didn’t need to prove absolute innocence. They needed to prove reasonable doubt.
Recall, the son was in a orphanage while is father was in prison for committing fraud. So, perhaps he was a conman and he conned the wrong person and they killed him.
12 Angry Men was originally a television play broadcast in 1954. It has been produced many times over the years internationally on both stage and film. There was even a Russian version titled “12.”
Double features were a very common thing in the 50s. You got to see two movies for the price of one. The first film was often the main attraction, with the big name stars, etc., while the second was a lower budget, with less known actors, “B” movie.
In 1957, you could get maybe 3 tv channels, if you were lucky.
This was based on a “teleplay” written in 1954 for airing on tv, then the play began to be performed live. Henry Fonda bought the film rights and this film came out in 1957. Over the decades numerous productions of the play have been produced all over the world, and several film versions made.
Martin Balsam played the foreman. He was in many, many things.
Something the movie doesn't bring up is how many jurors are willing to vote "guilty" not because of evidence but things like, "He's been convicted of crimes before so he's probably guilty of this one" or "The police wouldn't have arrested her if she wasn't guilty". Every jury I've been on has a couple of those. I've also seen things from the movie like people willing to vote whatever if it will let them get to the ballgame or home before supper.
The jury Foreman is played by Martin balsam. He also played detective Arborgast in psycho.
Classic movie, top ten for many people. Served on two juries, one a big Coke and Monster Beverage case, other a traffic accident. Every American should be on at least one jury.
The wisdom of the movie industry is " show, don't tell". This movie's enduring popularity flies in the face of that philosophy. Dramatic plays are still doing just fine, but frequently don't perform well as screenplays. I think the fault lies in trying to interject irrelevant visuals and tension that the original work didn't need. Another good play adaptation is The Miracle Worker, about Annie Sullivan, who was the teacher who brought the deaf and blind Helen Keller out of her dark hole of existence using the newly developed techniques of the manual alphabet,
behavioral psychology ( though they weren't calling it that yet ) and her own tough minded instincts. It stars Anne Bancroft and Patty Duke, Sean Austin's mom. Duke is a little too old to play Helen who was seven at the time of the events, but you have to give dramatic license and suspension of disbelief for that. No seven year old actress could or should try talking the role.
Beyond a reasonable doubt.
After almost 7 decades the film is still sharp, still modern. The act of showing up for jury duty is such a relatable part of everyday life, but the stakes of sitting in a courtroom and absorbing evidence that will affect someone else's life can get lost in the shuffle, the temptation is always to make up your mind before you even walk in. Having a jury room as the subject matter in the first place is such a simple but powerful choice: Reginald Rose's script doesn't make justice a thing about heroes and villains ... instead it's about weighing your rights and privileges with your responsibilities, and trying to be part of the world you live in.
The minutes-long uncut pan around the jury room when they arrive is what sells it. For juror #8 it's not an ordinary day, and you see it in the way he stands silent and weighs the choice in his mind while the other 11 stampede around each other in the hustle of getting a swift return on their time investment.
When he convinces each of the others, he's not rooting for himself. He's rooting for their collective conviction in making a choice they can all live with. Most of all he's rooting for the value of someone's life, and giving them a chance. Which is why when juror #6 says "suppose you talk us all out of this and the kid really did knife his father", it's the darkest moment, the potential dealbreaker.
When juror #3 argues his case he argues at the other jurors, not with them. As a result, his every attempt to make friends in there falls completely flat. Juror #2 starts quiet but gets louder. Juror #12 starts loud but gets quieter. So many details of each member of the group just being a human being add up.
The average length of a film since the 1930s has been about 90 minutes- many were shorter and just over 60 minutes, and many especially in the 1950’s could run up to 2 hours, but the average still is 90. The few that were very long often had an intermission to give the audience a break. Today, many films have become longer, although without intermissions. Scripts written in the 1930’s and 40’s were intended to be concise, “get-to-the-point” quickly, reduce a lot of talky explanations by incorporating more into the setting, the blocking, having actors move in and out of scenes to eliminate the need for constant cutting and closeups were only used when absolutely necessary. “Film Noir” movies often could be completed in under 90 minutes because they were meant to be made without any “fluff” and focused on lean, sparse storytelling with no fat.
Reasonable Doubt Equals Not Guilty... And This Is What The Film/Story And Our Judicial System Is About...
Everyone on the jury was acclaimed either on stage, screen or television…the jury foreman..head of the table..Martin Balsam..small part in Breakfast at Tiffany’s..as a movie producer..played with Paul Newman in HOMBRE..no.3 ..Lee J. Cobb..great actor..like a lot of actors later in a career..was in a tv series…The Virginian in the late 60’s..#4..E.G.Marshall..tv..father-son defence lawyer series called The Defenders..then you have Jack Klugman..2 successfull series…The Odd Couple with Tony Randall..and Quincy,M.E.for 6 or 7 years..guy with tickets..Jack Warden..great character actor..played with Kurt Russell in Used Cars..and with Sandra Bullock in While You Were Sleeping..the original NO vote is Henry Fonda..Academy Award for The Grapes of Wrath..1940..and another one for On Golden Pond..with his daughter Jane Fonda..a lot of talent in the room..and the reference to They..anyone living in the projects..the poor in lower rent housing..poor people in general..anyone who isn’t white..middle class..not racist technically..and the projects may have Irish, black, Hispanic..or white..living there ..
This is one of my favorite movies, wonderful cast and a wonderful story!
The walls of the set were movable so that the room itself could be made larger or smaller in order to create a feeling of tension or relief.
4 juror in the end said "not guilty" to his own son. Also notice camera work during this movie, how less and less space became in the frame, people filled the whole frame, when in the beginning there was much more space. In genius scene in the end, when juror 4 was still stubborn to admit himseld that his son is not guilty as well as this dude on trial, notice how he was smaller in the frame than face of any other juror, he was very small in the frame, and when he broke down he filled the whole frame becoming as big as everyone else. Camera work is 10/10 in this movie. Thanks for video
My favorite juror is the watchmaker # 11. A superb script acted by the best actors in the fifties. I also liked the respect juror # 6 had for the old man.
Double features (two movies on the same program) were common up through the mid-1970’s. They usually consisted of a main and a secondary feature.
31:55 Movies back in the day were an all night affair even to a degree up to the 80's, families & couples went out for dinner first, then to the movies which were sometimes a single movie on busy nights or with a slight discount a double feature on slow turnout nights, then if it was a couple dating, out for a few drinks before returning home while families would head straight home to put the kids to bed. Movie nights were a special event to be enjoyed, not rushed through as they are today, they even had intermissions 1/2 way through the movie to allow toilet breaks & buy more confectionary & drinks. A GREAT movie based on a strong script shot in one room (largely) not the action & special effects we have today.
The cast is comprised of major actors of the day. Also, a night at the movies was special. In addition to two features, there were cartoons and newsreels (the predecessor of television news that didn’t die out immediately). The second feature was often a lesser known movie paired with a “main attraction” to increase its viewership.
The jury doesn't determine whether the defendant is guilty or innocent. They determine whether the prosecution proved guilt.
You are right ..the Jury Forman..is actor Martin Balsam..he was in "Psycho" and "Murder On The Orient Express"(1974)
Security Arms ... lol
18:14 The exception is maybe Henry Fonda who for sure is a great actor, but is also a handsome man going by the standard of that time.
14:16 The fact that a juror walked around the defendants neighborhood and brought in a piece of evidence would cause a mistrial, and that juror could face jail for doing it
Enjoyed your commentary!
Back then one saw two movies, a cartoon, and newsreel. And one could sit and watch the films as long as you wanted on the one ticket. We typically watched them at least two-three times.
Was so excited to see this 😁 yes we don’t know whether he was guilty or they just had to have reasonable doubt
32:00, movies back then where around 90 to maybe 100 minutes on average so movie theaters could and did have second features.
The foreman is Martin Balsam. Henry Fonda is the juror discussing the case. Watch Henry Fonda in "Mr. Roberts". This movie was shot in sequence, which they didn't do very often.
32:08 It was common for there to be a feature, a second feature, a newsreel, a cartoon and trailers for the price of admission (this was un the days before television.
Disrespect of old people used to be a very big thing. People used to confront other people more in the past. We don't dare now.
With a lot of crime shows, proving an accused person is innocent depends on figuring out "who really done it". That is usually impossible. I like that this is based on "reasonable doubt", like a real court case.
10 of these jurors were prominent actors during this period from the 40's thru the 70's and not as you claimed, as just a group of ordinary actors. You may want to withhold your opinion, when there are facts which would prove otherwise. For instance, Henry Fonda was one the greatest actors of all times, etc. FYI
Peace!!!
I've seen this movie countless times, yet I still can't tell you who Jurors #9 and #11 are, and until I started watching old Westerns, I wouldn't have known who #6 was, either. The rest were either well established or up-and-coming (now well known) actors.
I just noticed the ashtrays and remember only limited smoking.
When you talked over the "horn works, try your lights" joke at 4:08, I bailed.
"Lay you out with your toes sticking up in the air." That was an expression back in the 40s and 50s. If you're knocked out unconscious, your body is limp and relaxed, your muscles in your feet and ankles would not be standing straight up if you were laying on your back. If you were dead then Rigor Mortis has set in and all of your muscles are tensed up and so your toes would be sticking straight up in the air.
Jury duty is boring if you don't get put on a jury; you sit there all day and go home. But if you get on a jury and like people-watching it's usually interesting. I've been on four juries -- a traffic case, a civil trial involving three siblings fighting over their dad's company, a murder trial, and a felony case. The felony trial was in New Orleans, and I hung the jury, 11 to me. The only evidence was the defendant's word against one police officer, no physical evidence, no other witnesses, and I didn't think they had proven his guilt. We started out 6 to 6 but the judge was obviously on the prosecution's side, and after about an hour in the jury room he called us in and said if we didn't make a decision he was going to sequester us for the weekend. When we got back in the jury room everyone but me voted guilty, and half an hour later the judge called a mistrial and sent us home.
Uaually, the movies was one movie theater. Not 10 or 14. That one giant screen would show a movie at a certain time. Then, after that movie another movie would show, and then after that, another movie would show. If you sat in the theater, and didn't make a scene, "talking, etc." then you could potentially sit through a second movie or a third.......if you could hold your pee. You needed a ticket. There was also a man that would patrol up and down the aisle and make people stop talking and stop people from putting their feet up. He'd show up with a flash light and shine it on you if you put your feet up on the seat in front of you, even though nobody was sitting in it.
The one racist juror, the one that everyone turns their back on, is the father of the actor who played Clifford from Better Call Saul; Clifford plays the guitar in his office to relax; the firm that Jimmy purposely gets himself fired from so he can keep the bonus.
I've been on two juries, once as an alternate and once as the foreman. As the alternate, I was not excused when the jury went in to deliberate. I was surprised that the judge excused the alternates at the beginning of the film. If the alternates are excused and it ends up being a multiple day deliberation, what happens if one juror gets sick? I had to wait in the courtroom and could not talk to anyone so that I couldn't find out more information about the case than the jury already knew, just in case I got called to replace one. This was before laptops or smartphones, so all I had was a book to read. Fortunately, it only took a day of deliberation.
For the jury where I was the foreman, it seemed pretty cut and dried. We had store surveillance evidence and several witnesses. We saw the weapon used, a BB gun. One charge was that the accused used a firearm. I'm not sure how it is in other states, but in California a BB gun is not considered a firearm because it does not use gunpowder. So we had to find the accused not guilty of that charge. On the other charges, we found the accused guilty. There were disagreements, but nothing as bad as in this movie. Some people didn't want to participate in anything other than the jury votes, so, as foreman, I had to ask them direct questions to get them to participate.
I've also been called to report to jury duty several other times, but have been excused by one side's attorneys or the other. No reason was ever given, although I am pretty certain that I could figure out why. Not that I'm complaining. Other times, they've filled the jury before they ever got to me. While being in a jury can be interesting, it is a huge responsibility. Not being selected is very boring, as at least one other person has said.
Movies at that time were often double features--sometimes two very different movies.
Big up yourself, you are clever and cool. Are you russian? Big up yourself boss 😎👌
Funny the guy who was called sonny was about 34 years old at the time.
"It's all about doubt".
In a way I agree with that.
That's why in my opinion this movie is still important now, doubt having apparently hard time out there.
You asked about the movies that the characters saw. Double fetchers were back in those days.
Another Great Older Film
that is based on a true story
Birdman of Alcatraz 1962
This movie has some history...In the early days of television, it was chapter of Studio One (1954) again in 1997 TV movie Tony Danza,Courtney B. Vance, James Gandolfini.
35:16 The guy who was yelling is on the side of "guilty". But he is not listening to bigotry.
The father did time for forgery. It's possible he had enemies.
Movies back then did cast some of the hottest looking people depending on the movie. This just happens to be a movie that is not about glamour.
Yes, this was based on a play. It was actually a television play. Back during the time of live TV, it was not uncommon to have plays on television.
Here is that live version
ruclips.net/video/7DkI2I0W5i8/видео.htmlsi=M7wGjR4W6cL3jOSY
The same director made the excellent 1980's film "The Verdict," with Paul Newman.
Lumet also directed Dog Day Afternoon, Network, Serpico, Fail Safe, Murder on the Orient Express, The Pawnbroker, Long Day's Journey into Night and more.
@@jamesdrynan And the film "A Face in the Crowd" CRUSHES "Network".
The foreman is private investigator Arbogast from Psycho.
Key question: What does the elderly juror know about what it's like to be elderly?
It is not the job of a jury to find out who did it only if there is a reasonable doubt as to the accused in front of them. Its not "well, we can't figure out who else could have done it, so you're guilty!"
Don’t courts generally operate from 9-5? I’ve always wondered why the jury is still working at 6pm and after. Wouldn’t they head out at 5 and come back in the next day to continue?
12 angry supermodels would be nice to look at but the acting would not exist and this movie is ALL ABOUT THE ACTING.
Switchblades were illegal. The store owner who sold it said it was the only one he'd seen -- was he lying?
Ah I see. Store owner claims he doesn't have more switchblades when police come. Doesn't want to be arrested himself
@@gemstonegynoid7475 And the boy's farther did time in prison for forgery. It's probable he had criminal associates, and that they weren't all friends.
Why are you letting him slip through our fingers??!!
Filmed as a one act play..
Acters? I thought this was a documentary.
So he's a killer because he stabbed his own father. We know he's guilty because he is a killer because only a killer would kill his father. Wow!
Please do not confuse racism with immigration. Migrants come from all races. In deed, race has nothing to do with immigration. And in truth, only a person's own perception of migrants, makes race a factor of immigration.
And yes, I have sat on the jury. The Grand Jury. Where we decided not on one case, but 30 to 40 cases a day, we judged. Yet, not on the guilt or innocence of the accused. But on weather or not there was sufficient evidence to warrant a trail. A fact of which, I was constantly having to remind the other jurors of, as like these "12 Angry Men," they all just wanted to go home. Which meant, they were all willing to believe, whatever the DA told them to believe.
So I guess you could say, I was Juror #8, as I was always questioning the evidence. And note, the Grand Jury is not like the Petite Jury in that we had the power to call forth the witnesses in the case, and question them directly. And man I could tell you stories of how both the DA and his witnesses, would deliberately skew the evidence, and even use the jurors bigotry, to get an indictment.
I could also tell you of how I personally, questioned an admitted murderer. And yes, I tried every way in the world to get that man to reverse his testimony. But sometimes the truth, us just simply the truth.
So yeah, it is a huge burden to bare when you send a man to the chair. But I say if you ever get the chance to serve on a jury, Do it!
Because otherwise a guilty man might go free, or an innocent man may die.
I have a thought, the dad was abusive towards his son. He was likely abusive to other people and he got killed for it.
"Them" meant Puerto Ricans.
Dad hits him and he plunges his knife into the dad's heart. You call that self-defense? Who, who do you think you are? Why would anybody do that? You wouldn't do that... would you?
I've always thought the guy was guilty but that enough reasonable doubt was raised that I probably would vote not guilty. However, Henry Fonda bringing the knife would have meant nothing. They're not identical, they're similar. Plus, his main argument is "it's possible". It's possible a plane falls from the sky a kills me in my home tomorrow but it's nowhere near probable. Most things are possible, that's not the standard, nor should it be. It needs to be, at the least, probable.
I completely agree. The eyewitness testimony had to be dismissed, but the son was still the most likely person to have done it. I also like that the reviewer noted the discussion about how juror #4 (who is my favorite) didn't remember every single solitary facet of going to the movies several days before was weak.
The knives would not need to be identical. No one had the alleged two knives (the murder weapon and the knife the boy bought) at the same time and compared them in detail, nor were there any serial numbers or other definitive identifying characteristics. The police showed the murder weapon to the boy's friends, who saw their friend's knife the day before. The friends were going off memory when they said it was the same knife. Hell, in the movie, juror 3 thought the knife he picked up was the murder weapon, but it was the one that juror 8 had bought: and he had seen the two knives within a few minutes of each other and he misidentified it.
Further, as I pointed out in my comment to this reaction, there doesn't need to be 2 nearly identical knives, so the "million to one" scenario disappears. The boy said the knife fell out of a hole in his pocket sometime from when he left to go to the movies and when he got back. It could have fallen out of his pocket as he was closing the door to his apartment to go to the movies. That scenario does not require a second knife at all, and puts the murder weapon at the scene of the crime to begin with.
Remember, they said the prosecution had made a big deal about the uniqueness of the knife. I think when #8 found one that was identical or nearly identical, it's what started him having doubts.
For me, the arguments of #11 and #5 made the most sense. If the boy did it and had the presence of mind to clean the fingerprints off the knife, why not just take the knife with him instead and dump it? If he killed him, why go home? And, as #7 told us, the boy had been arrested for knife fighting, and #5 had seen knife fights, so the stab wound was inconsistent with switchblade usage.
In the sequel they learn the kid did really kill his father and they must band together one last time to hunt him down.
Please do not use extreme cuss words in your reactions.
Some kids nowadays are TOO SOFT, TOO LIBERAL & SNOWFLAKES!!!
I note the 36 minute mark - OJ - ya the SOB was guilty and killed 2 persons - one was his wife.
Furman (the policeman) IMO planted evidence to secure OJ's fate - Furman was a racist IMO, but I also think OJ was a killer so on the same page of "the guy is guilty".
what a Good police officer dose is NOT PLANT EVIDENCE per the guy you THINK is guilty - instead you do not plant evidence, and instead remain impartial (Ferman was a racist IMO, and he planted evidence against OJ - I think he thought he was guilty (as do/did I) and then planted evidence too (uncool and illegal).
What is sad is that the mostly Black (and why does one's color matter in the ideal per Justice - it don't!!!!!!! but there is a history of white cops planting evidence against a black suspects - so that history via that jury let a guilty man go free IMO).
So - what happened IMO is that OJ looked guilty, and would have been judges so, but instead Ferman planted evidence to secure OJ guilty, and so the planting of evidence backfired and the jury ruled "innocent" Furman fuked you and me and the jury (if I were on the jury I'd be able to see the difference of "planting evidence" from Guilt - i.e. it is fully reasonable that Furman planted evidence deu to being racist, and a cop - and thinking OJ was guilty - but need "help" via planting evidence to make it so..................The jury through out the baby with the bathwater - "Furman is a racist and planted evidence against OJ, so OJ was framed"....................sadly so but predicable via history of racism. It is possible that a racist was right and OJ was guilty (which I think both in this case) - sad that the jury could not think like me at that time.
Nothing more to add, except the names on the movie poster - Eg Bagly, E.G. Marshall, and Jack Warden (the later played The President of the US in "Being There" - a top 5 of all time movie - now forgotten (Ordinary People is another top5 of all time forgotten).
Ya Marshall played a few roles, and Warden..................but no name on the poster for Martin Balsom or Jack Clugman????????????????? - ya i understand, they were not well know when the movie came out, but they became very "popular" years later - esp Klugman - Quincy TV show, The Odd Couple TV show. Balsom was in "Psycho", "7 days in may" later - both excellent moves 9's at least.
so ya.
2-cents.
Since you asked my opinion of the movie here it is.
Overall it defintitely holds your interest to see how Henry Fonda is going to win over each of eleven other jurors to vote not guilty. But it does have its flaws regarding the dialogue.
For one thing, Ed Begleys character, the bigot was a typical strawman style bigot. He is fashioned the way liberal directors in the 50s imagined bigots to be so that they can easily destroy their arguments. Real bigots are not so easily exposed. And he and the spurned father character (played by Lee J. Cobb) were also won over way too easily. I saw nothing said to them convincing me that they would be moved to switch sides.
They way Fonda was picking them off, one juror at a time was not realistic either. Given the facts of the dcase I can't see anyone other than Fonda and the old man voting not guilty until the eyewitness testimony of the old man and the woman was called into question. They should have all been siding with E.G.Marshall (the guy with the glasses) until he caved in.
But my biggest beef with the movie is that there are so many others from the 50s that are so much better than this one that no one ever reacts to. All people seem to know about (or care about) is this movie (with its flawed script) and REAR WINDOW (a very typical Alfred Hitchcock murder.mystery that people today seem to be worshipping for some odd reason)
But here's a recommendation (from my personal favorites list) for 20 other US films from the '50s (listed in no particular order) that are vastly superior to this one, and virtually timeless, that people should be reacting to.
ON THE WATERFRONT (high drama)
HARVEY (screwball comedy)
INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (classic horror)
EAST OF EDEN (high drama)
THE BIG COUNTRY (western)
HOUDINI (biographical)
THE SPIRIT OF ST. LOUIS (biographical)
SOMEBODY UP THERE LIKES ME (biographical)
BORN YESTERDAY (light comedy drama)
WE'RE NO ANGELS (comedy drama)
BUS STOP (light drama)
THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER (psychological thriller)
THE AFRICAN QUEEN (drama)
PATHS OF GLORY (high drama)
MOULIN ROUGE (biographical)
DEATH OF A SALESMAN (high drama)
WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION (courtrom drama)
ANATOMY OF A MURDER (courtroom drama)
THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA (suspence drama)
NORTH BY NORTHWEST (suspence drama)
And there are others
Do you have snot in your nose? Sounds l8ke it