Very important... you have to watch Witness for the Prosecution... it is another much earlier Courtroom Drama. With some funny characters. It follows a case of a man charged with murder, who everyone thinks is guilty just like this one.... these 2 movies go together, even though they were filmed decades apart. I you liked this one you'll love the other one.
The boy is guilty far beyond reasonable doubt, cause "losing" his knife only hours before his father gets killed and someone else buying a similar looking knife and killing the dad? These 2 facts combined mean the chances are a million to one, they even said it in the movie explicitly, but they just ignored that extreme high (im)probability later for storytelling reasons. No8 when buying a similar knife in a pawn shop was exactly aware of what he was looking for, the mysterious murderer had to pick a weapon just by a lucky guess and he didnt buy a bat or a gun, he bought a knife a very similar looking one too, sorry that is too far beyond any reasonable assumption. Real supreme court justice Sotomayor stated the same about this movie.
It took me 50 or 60 times seeing this film, but a few years ago on the 50th or 60th I finally noticed (based on their suit colors) how Juror #3 can be seen in the final shot, leaving the building at the same time as Juror #8. You know 8 is walking away with purpose, likely to decompress at home after a job well done. But 3 is walking much slower, and he's still hunched. He has a lot to think about. Little unexpected details like that keep popping up on rewatches.
Eventually I did. For example they would've gone full speed ahead with deliberations, while Juror 9 was still in the bathroom, if Juror 6 hadn't spoken up.
Lee J Cobb’s turn as Juror 3 is my favorite portrayal of any role, by any actor, ever. I first saw this when I was 14, and I remember thinking that I finally understood what people meant by saying that a supporting actor "stole the show".
I am always really happy to see young people checking this one out for the first time...especially my favorite reactors. Sidney Lumet is one of the great directors of all time, and this is his first movie and also one of his best. Another movie by Lumet that I always recommend is Fail Safe from 1964...it also stars Henry Fonda. Other older movies that I suggest that were not made by Lumet are...To Kill a Mockingbird(1962), Inherit the Wind(1960), and Judgement at Nuremberg(1961)...all three are highly renowned courtroom dramas filmed in black and white.
In 1769, English jurist William Blackstone said, "the law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer." That has been the basis of both English and American criminal law ever since. Sadly, over the years many innocent people have been imprisoned - and some put to death - due to prejudice, malfeasance, and some honest mistakes.
Very few movies evoke as much discussion as this one does; that is it's great virtue. It truly thrills me when I see reactions to the great movies made before the 1970's.
"They" , that the racist juror is referring to are Puerto Ricans. In the Fifties, there was an influx of Puerto Ricans in NYC displacing previous residents. With gentrification came hostility and negative attitudes from the remaining residents. I was born in the Bronx in the 70's, and heard older people talk about the 50's in NYC often.
Jack Warden's character's hurry to get the vote over with so that he won't miss his baseball game always reminds me of Alexander Pope's line "And wretches hang that jurymen may dine."
THE EYEWITNESS: The woman who said she witnessed the stabbing claimed to be able to positively identify the killer, even though she witnessed the stabbing from 60 feet away, at midnight, while lying in bed trying to get to sleep, without wearing her glasses, while having to see through the windows of a passing elevated train, with only a three-second or so glance. Any rational person would have a reasonable doubt about her ability to do so.
The defendant -- boy, really -- is Hispanic. And key question: What does the elderly juror know about what it means to be elderly? The juror with the moustache is an immigrant. He understands the justice system better than most of the US-born jurors.
I think the elderly juror was willing to extend deliberation for the same reason he understood the viewpoint of the elderly witness...a last chance to participate in something meaningful.
@@kirkdarling4120it makes sense. Heck something I noticed the more I watched is that 4,5 and 9 relate or resemble the eyewitnesses and the accused (4 who only cares about logic and facts yet didn’t think about the woman wearing the glasses since he himself wears them. 5 is obviously a slum kid just like the accused so he understands him better than the others. 9 as you said is exactly like the old man witness, he’s most likely the oldest one in the room so he can relate because HE is that old man). Another one is when they were voting for the first time, while the others raised their hands quickly and no hesitation, 2,5,6,9 and 11 raised their hands rather reluctantly (already hinting who’s gonna flip). I’m telling ya this movie is really something 😊
This movie was a mandatory must watch at Harvard law school. Most of the students did not watch it, those who did see it went to on become better people.
@@fightingidiocy7724 Another great must-see film -- 6 Oscars -- is the 1966 "A Man for All Seasons," about Sir Thomas More. Splendid exploration of moral/ethical reasoning.
I don't know why but my favorite scene is when the racist guy gives his rant near the end... Even back in those days he was the only one out of twelve that looked at the world that way... I appreciate how you noticed even the angry Father wasn't enjoying what he was hearing. Great movie pick. Cheers from Ohio
It's troubling how many people misunderstand or reject the concept of reasonable doubt and the prosecution's burden of proof. Some believe jurors are supposed to weigh the evidence and side with whichever is heavier, however slight. Others understand the system but disregard it because they feel it's better to convict an innocent person than let a guilty person go free. Then there are those who simply don't care. It's a mix of ignorance, vindictiveness, and laziness, and I fear it represents the majority of the population. This movie addresses that well. I’ve heard people theorize that the defendant was actually guilty and the jurors allowed themselves to be manipulated by one man. They suggest this is the failure of the justice system. That is nonsense. The jurors acknowledged several times that the defendant could very well have been guilty but that they also weren't completely convinced. There existed reasonable doubt. It doesn't really matter how that doubt came to be. What matters is that it existed and it was reasonable. A "not guilty" verdict is not a declaration of innocence; it simply states that the prosecution failed to eliminate reasonable doubt. I'm happy we have reactors keeping these movies and their topics alive.
Remember, though, that innocence is supposed to be presumed and that presumption must be overturned by the prosecution. You are correct that the jury does not _declare_ the defendant innocent. But if the prosecution fails to overturn the initial presumption of innocence, then the defendant continues to be presumed innocent.
Yeah, Ricans were the "them" at the time this was written and filmed. Irish, Italian, Jewish, Chinese, African American, Hispanic, etc., etc. - there always seems to be some group of "others" demagogues have demonized to blame for society's ills and make it easy for the rest to avoid any self-examination as to the real causes.
Juror #4 accurately recites the timeline of the night of the murder. At around 10:00 PM the boy went home briefly before going to the movies. If he lost the knife he'd just purchased while he was still in the apartment building, say, on the floor of his apartment, or going up or down the stairs, someone who went to visit his father might have seen it and pocketed it. His father, who had spent five years in prison, probably ran in rough social circles. If he got into an argument and the visitor used the knife to kill him in the heat of the moment the idea of coincidence tightens up. The police never hunted for another suspect.
The kid ran with a tough crowd as well, and almost certainly showed the knife to his running buddies. They could also have found the knife (or even picked his pocket).
Well done Nia, you gave this movie lots of real time, this movie needed it. There are 2 early versions of 12 angry men both with famous actors you may not know, in my opinion this is the best one. Do appreciate your comments and awareness. Keep up the great work 😊.
It was originally written and broadcast as a live TV teleplay. It's available here on RUclips. Has some of the same cast. Very interesting to watch. Rough like watching a stage play (because it is), complete with flubbed lines.
For more court room drama check out "A Time To Kill" (1996), "A Few Good Men" (1992) and "Primal Fear" (1996). :) Top tiers actors in all of them, with some fantastic performances.
Here's perspective about WWII - My father was a nose gunner on a bomber. Jet airplanes were nearly non-existent during WWII. Germany had a few, as did a few other countries. However, the vast majority of planes in WWII were propeller planes. That's what the brain does. You get used to inputs from the eyes and ears and your brain assembles from common things you might have seen in the past.
Actually if you look closely, the angry guy got out of his chair and turned to the window before the racist started speaking. He was frustrated that the last vote didn't go his way. Pretty cool way to get the table almost empty without having him pick a side based on the other guy's bigotry.
The point of this film isn't to find out if the defendant killed his father, or if he didn't then who killed him. It's to determine if he should be found guilty. In all likelihood in this world they will never find out who killed the father, since the authorities assumed it was the son and didn't look for other suspects, and after this verdict they'll just assume "the jury got it wrong" and not look for any other suspects.
I really like this movie and watched 3 different reaction videos for this movie over the past few months, before watching yours. I was annoyed by the reactions on those videos. It was refreshing to listen to your opinions, which were well thought out and to see that you had an excellent understanding of this movie. And you’re correct when you say that the kid could actually be guilty.
I love the fact that this story is all about group think and confirmation bias, not about the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Also love the shot towards the end from inside the closet.
I will always prefer a system that frees a guilty person than one that kills an innocent one. One of my favorite films ever made. No special effects, no fight scenes, no romantic subplot, just people exchanging words… and it’s riveting from beginning to end.
37:50 I feel like a lot of people aren’t very understanding of Juror 12. The reason he flip flops is because he struggles to get his thoughts in order, and it’s clearly something he’s aware of and a bit embarrassed by. He relies on others laying things out in a “logical sequence” before he passes judgement. Definitely the kind of character who might get pegged as neurodivergent if this movie came out today.
Great Reaction to this Classic...... (My Standard Post So some might have already been mentioned)..... I saw this Presented Muliple Times as a play in High School (Early 1980's)....... Shout out to the Legends in this Movie...... Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Jack Klugman, Martin Balsam, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, Ed Begley Director Lumet wrote in an article: "I shot the first third of the movie above eye level, shot the second third at eye level, and the last third from below eye level. In that way, toward the end, the ceiling began to appear. Not only were the walls closing in, the ceiling was as well. The sense of increasing claustrophobia did a lot to raise the tension of the last part of the movie." The kid not remembering the films is a believable statement. Movie houses weren't multi-screen when this movie was made. A cinema showed one or two movies so in the evening you could buy a double feature ticket without ever asking the name of the films. An angry kid wanting to get out of the summer heat buys a double feature ticket and spends the time stewing in anger paying no attention to the films is quite believable. The hand towel machine in the restroom doesn't reuse the same cloth. As you pull it down off the top reel, it wraps around another reel in the bottom. Eventually you pull all the towel off the top reel. At that point, all the used towel is wrapped on the bottom reel and can be removed to be laundered. These still exist today ion some places and there's usually a service company that supplies clean rolls and washes the dirty ones. The "Them" they are refering to in the original script were "Puerto Ricans" who had Immigrated......
It is a belief in the American Justice System that it is better to let 10 Guilty People go free, instead of sentencing 1 Innocent..... Partly because it is believed that a guilty person will commit another crime and hopefully get sentenced for that one........ Another Classic Movie that (mostly) takes place in one room, is "Arsenic and Old Lace"(1944), It had a long run on Broadway, and the movie was shot using most of the actors from the Broadway Production.....
Good luck figuring the suit colors. The white suit could have been white, light blue, light tan, or pink. The entire movie is shown black and white. Good reaction and a great study in acting. One room, no explosions or car crashes. Have you seen "Rear Window"? it is in color.
The subtly of characterization was impressive. Did you notice that Juror 6 (the house painter) had been closely attending to Juror 9 (the old man) from the very beginning. So, it was not a surprise that he defended the old man so vigorously. Juror 4 (the stock broker) was characterized as highly logical and intelligent from the beginning, including being a bridge player...bridge being known at the time as the "thinking man's card game." The high school football coach tried to keep things organized, which was what he was accustomed to doing with a bunch of "boys." Also, he was wearing a polo shirt with a tie. The tie was for when he was in the classroom, then he could pull it off and wear just the polo shirt when coaching after classes. I don't know what the NY laws were in 1957, but a mistrial would be declared today if anyone pulled the knife stunt that juror 8 pulled. New evidence can't be produced after the trial, when it can't be cross-examined. I've sat on a couple of juries (one was a military court-martial, one a civilian federal court). In the civilian case, the trial lasted 4 hours, but we deliberated 4 days. The initial vote was 11 to 1 for guilty, like in this trial. By the end, we voted 12-0 for acquittal. I was one of the very last to change my vote on the 4th day. I experienced the same moment as Juror 4, that slow realization that the one piece of evidence I was standing on wasn't so solid after all.
The first jets were introduced by the Germans at the very end of WWII, 1945. Also, the kid is a young adult, 18, not a child. And the question before the jury is not the death sentence and it's merits or demerits, it's simply reasonable guilt, or not.
There was an episode of Twilight Zone (I think, maybe it was Hitchcock…) that parodied the tendency to commit crimes in hot weather. There was an episode of “Murder, She Wrote” starring Angela Lansbury, in her own episode of a closed door jury. They switched it at the end. The jury went from mostly guilty to mostly innocent to guilty. It’s obviously taken inspiration from “12 Angry Men”
I'm so happy you did this one- and not only because you're easy on the eyes! LOL- as it's a master class on scriptwriting, camera direction, and acting. Almost everyone in the jury room was already a top-tier actor in his own right, or went on to brilliant careers in Hollywood afterward. And you're absolutely right- we say the same things today about kids that these guys did decades ago!
You say you can't vote guilty unless you know he's guilty. There's only 2 real ways you could actually know (1 in this movie). That's if you were actually there when it happened or there was video evidence. Those are the only 2 surefire ways to know. So according to your reasoning, without video (since no juror would have been at the crime), no one should be found guilty because the jurors don't actually know.
Of course, even video can be faked (which is why such evidence must be accompanied by a sworn affidavit by the photographer that it is a true representation of the scene).
Dunkirk is an easy movie to get confused watching. You have three stories with vastly divergent timelines. You see scenes out of sequence with where you are in another storyline. If I'm not mistaken the man on the boat was rescued after the plane went down in the plane storyline and before the boat was sunk in the Pier storyline. Interesting bit about the set for the jury room. The walls were movable. They changed the size of the room to increase tension or, like during the racist rant, larger so that the other actors could seperate themselves and isolate him even more.
Love this movie, shot essentially in one or two rooms, written tightly with developed characters and played by actors at the top of their game. The interaction between the characters gives this movie all the drama it needs. I actually like the fact that we don't know if the defendant is innocent or not. That's the point. The logic of the evidence is supposed to determine the case.
Great reaction as always ❤ Easily one of my personal top 10 movies ... Great actors great direction great screenplay... I've seen this movie easily 100x never stopped watching
So so so many classics you'd love: To Kill a Mockingbird Casablanca Night of the Hunter Sunset Boulevard In the Heat of the Night Network Guess Who's Coming to Dinner Dr. Zhivago Dog Day Afternoon Bridge on the River Kwai The Wizard of Oz
My absolute favorite movie that I think you’d love if you haven’t seen it is A TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN - starring Peggy Ann garner. Another favorite of mine worth watching,… Kirk Douglas A DETECTIVE STORY. Phenomenal acting and heart touching.
There's a 1997 TV version of 12 Angry Men which, while not as iconic as the 1957 version, is still pretty good. The original writer adapted his own script for the remake, making just a few updates. For one, the jury is more diverse (though there are still no women on it because I guess that would have meant changing the title). Also, after Juror 11 chides him for seemingly changing his vote arbitrarily just because he wants to go to the baseball game, Juror 7 admits that he doesn't think that the kid is guilty and unlike in this movie, you can tell that he actually believes it and feels that voting not guilty is the right thing to do. On the other hand, the openly racist juror, 10, is the one who makes it clear he's only voting not guilty so he can leave.
The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until found guilty. So the jury doesn't determine whether the defendant is guilty or innocent. They determine whether the prosecution proved guilt.
The _presumption_ of innocence is what a lot of people don't understand. The jury is _supposed_ to be biased toward the defendant. As the trial begins, the jury's viewpoint should be, "The defendant looks innocent to me." It's the prosecution's job to _change the jury's mind._
@@kirkdarling4120 The jury is to base its decision not on bias but on the evidence presented in court. They are then to evaluate the credibility of the evidence. Unless they determine that the prosecution proved guilt, the defendant remains innocent.
It's better to let 99 guilty people go free than to convict one innocent person. If you don't believe me, then imagine you are that innocent person on trial.
The ONLY flaw I can think of in this movie is that making the accused a child makes the audience immediatly assume he's NOT guilty, which I think lessens the theme a bit.
Well, he is supposed to be 18, but I'd agree that using a baby-faced actor is a flaw. It shouldn't matter if the accused were 30 and ugly, because reasonable doubt should still be the most important factor.
He's really only a "child" in today's eyes. In 1957, an 18-year-old would have expected to be doing nearly a man's level of labor for a couple of years.
It's a wonderful life is another classic that you should watch it's a christmas movie i already recommend this but i will recommend again in case you forgot
He did it and they let him slip through their fingers ! Dont you guys make the same mistake by letting these movies slip through your fingers........ Blue Collar - Richard Pryor The Brave - Johnny Depp Nightcrawler - Jake Gyllenhaal The Game - Michael Douglas American Psycho - Christian Bale Cult classics
Eye witnesses are the worst witnesses because trauma warps the narrative. Casual observers are the best witnesses because they only tell what they could interpolate at that moment and don't try to make the story any more glorious than the event.
I can actually see the producers of The Simpsons thinking of the juror with baseball tickets and a fishing cap to some extent when they envisioned Homer Simpson. He is the archetype of the limited imagination limited perspective a bit below average man who has been a common sight in film and TV since. Notice his very Homer like fishing hat. On occasions such as the immigrant pressing him why not guilty now his Uhh.. and Duhhh.. are straight from Homer.
I like how you make your own dialogue and rebuttals to the scenes instead of just watching and listening to what the actually dialogue and moviemaking is trying to say.
What kind of man (or woman) are you?? To not check out the full reaction here: www.patreon.com/posts/116417511?
Very important... you have to watch Witness for the Prosecution... it is another much earlier Courtroom Drama. With some funny characters. It follows a case of a man charged with murder, who everyone thinks is guilty just like this one.... these 2 movies go together, even though they were filmed decades apart. I you liked this one you'll love the other one.
The boy is guilty far beyond reasonable doubt, cause "losing" his knife only hours before his father gets killed and someone else buying a similar looking knife and killing the dad? These 2 facts combined mean the chances are a million to one, they even said it in the movie explicitly, but they just ignored that extreme high (im)probability later for storytelling reasons. No8 when buying a similar knife in a pawn shop was exactly aware of what he was looking for, the mysterious murderer had to pick a weapon just by a lucky guess and he didnt buy a bat or a gun, he bought a knife a very similar looking one too, sorry that is too far beyond any reasonable assumption. Real supreme court justice Sotomayor stated the same about this movie.
It took me 50 or 60 times seeing this film, but a few years ago on the 50th or 60th I finally noticed (based on their suit colors) how Juror #3 can be seen in the final shot, leaving the building at the same time as Juror #8. You know 8 is walking away with purpose, likely to decompress at home after a job well done. But 3 is walking much slower, and he's still hunched. He has a lot to think about.
Little unexpected details like that keep popping up on rewatches.
Did you notice that the juror who defended the old man had been attentive to the old man from the very moment they entered the jury room?
Eventually I did. For example they would've gone full speed ahead with deliberations, while Juror 9 was still in the bathroom, if Juror 6 hadn't spoken up.
Lee J Cobb’s turn as Juror 3 is my favorite portrayal of any role, by any actor, ever. I first saw this when I was 14, and I remember thinking that I finally understood what people meant by saying that a supporting actor "stole the show".
I am always really happy to see young people checking this one out for the first time...especially my favorite reactors.
Sidney Lumet is one of the great directors of all time, and this is his first movie and also one of his best. Another movie by Lumet that I always recommend is Fail Safe from 1964...it also stars Henry Fonda.
Other older movies that I suggest that were not made by Lumet are...To Kill a Mockingbird(1962), Inherit the Wind(1960), and Judgement at Nuremberg(1961)...all three are highly renowned courtroom dramas filmed in black and white.
A real classic. One of the tightest scripts ever, filmed just like a stage play. It doesn't get much better than this.
Totally, I honestly didn’t even think of the fact that it’s mostly set in one location. It was so engaging I didn’t even notice
It was originally written as a TV play then became a stage play. The film was made a couple of years later. An all-time classic.
You got to give credit to the actors too. The remake didn’t come close to the original.
heheehe
because it was a stage play...
In 1769, English jurist William Blackstone said, "the law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer." That has been the basis of both English and American criminal law ever since. Sadly, over the years many innocent people have been imprisoned - and some put to death - due to prejudice, malfeasance, and some honest mistakes.
Very few movies evoke as much discussion as this one does; that is it's great virtue. It truly thrills me when I see reactions to the great movies made before the 1970's.
"They" , that the racist juror is referring to are Puerto Ricans.
In the Fifties, there was an influx of Puerto Ricans in NYC displacing previous residents.
With gentrification came hostility and negative attitudes from the remaining residents.
I was born in the Bronx in the 70's, and heard older people talk about the 50's in NYC often.
Jack Warden's character's hurry to get the vote over with so that he won't miss his baseball game always reminds me of Alexander Pope's line "And wretches hang that jurymen may dine."
A very old problem indeed. Well referenced! 🤓
THE EYEWITNESS: The woman who said she witnessed the stabbing claimed to be able to positively identify the killer, even though she witnessed the stabbing from 60 feet away, at midnight, while lying in bed trying to get to sleep, without wearing her glasses, while having to see through the windows of a passing elevated train, with only a three-second or so glance. Any rational person would have a reasonable doubt about her ability to do so.
You're letting him slip through our fingers!!
Whether or not the boy actually commented the murder is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt
The defendant -- boy, really -- is Hispanic.
And key question: What does the elderly juror know about what it means to be elderly?
The juror with the moustache is an immigrant. He understands the justice system better than most of the US-born jurors.
I think the elderly juror was willing to extend deliberation for the same reason he understood the viewpoint of the elderly witness...a last chance to participate in something meaningful.
@@kirkdarling4120it makes sense. Heck something I noticed the more I watched is that 4,5 and 9 relate or resemble the eyewitnesses and the accused (4 who only cares about logic and facts yet didn’t think about the woman wearing the glasses since he himself wears them. 5 is obviously a slum kid just like the accused so he understands him better than the others. 9 as you said is exactly like the old man witness, he’s most likely the oldest one in the room so he can relate because HE is that old man).
Another one is when they were voting for the first time, while the others raised their hands quickly and no hesitation, 2,5,6,9 and 11 raised their hands rather reluctantly (already hinting who’s gonna flip). I’m telling ya this movie is really something 😊
This movie was a mandatory must watch at Harvard law school. Most of the students did not watch it, those who did see it went to on become better people.
It saddens me that most of the students didn’t watch it :(
@@NiaMakiReacts Me too
also at my junior of Catholic High School! 1989, part of Theology 3/Morality
It's been a staple in law schools for decades.
It's a civics lesson about the jury process being a check against state power.
@@fightingidiocy7724 Another great must-see film -- 6 Oscars -- is the 1966 "A Man for All Seasons," about Sir Thomas More. Splendid exploration of moral/ethical reasoning.
I don't know why but my favorite scene is when the racist guy gives his rant near the end... Even back in those days he was the only one out of twelve that looked at the world that way... I appreciate how you noticed even the angry Father wasn't enjoying what he was hearing. Great movie pick.
Cheers from Ohio
Yeah man, that was a great scene. I wasn’t sure who else would feel that way but I liked that in the end even he reflected on it and changed his mind.
And these days, some people would have everyone believe such prejudices are much more common now than they were back then.
It's troubling how many people misunderstand or reject the concept of reasonable doubt and the prosecution's burden of proof. Some believe jurors are supposed to weigh the evidence and side with whichever is heavier, however slight. Others understand the system but disregard it because they feel it's better to convict an innocent person than let a guilty person go free. Then there are those who simply don't care. It's a mix of ignorance, vindictiveness, and laziness, and I fear it represents the majority of the population. This movie addresses that well.
I’ve heard people theorize that the defendant was actually guilty and the jurors allowed themselves to be manipulated by one man. They suggest this is the failure of the justice system. That is nonsense. The jurors acknowledged several times that the defendant could very well have been guilty but that they also weren't completely convinced. There existed reasonable doubt. It doesn't really matter how that doubt came to be. What matters is that it existed and it was reasonable. A "not guilty" verdict is not a declaration of innocence; it simply states that the prosecution failed to eliminate reasonable doubt.
I'm happy we have reactors keeping these movies and their topics alive.
Remember, though, that innocence is supposed to be presumed and that presumption must be overturned by the prosecution. You are correct that the jury does not _declare_ the defendant innocent. But if the prosecution fails to overturn the initial presumption of innocence, then the defendant continues to be presumed innocent.
“THEY”, being referred to, are the Puerto Rican community in New York City.
They're eating the dogs. They're eating the cats. They're eating the pets of the people that live there.
Yeah, Ricans were the "them" at the time this was written and filmed. Irish, Italian, Jewish, Chinese, African American, Hispanic, etc., etc. - there always seems to be some group of "others" demagogues have demonized to blame for society's ills and make it easy for the rest to avoid any self-examination as to the real causes.
Yes, we can presume that if we understand the context of the time. But the movie ages well because it doesn't make that explicit.
Juror #4 accurately recites the timeline of the night of the murder. At around 10:00 PM the boy went home briefly before going to the movies. If he lost the knife he'd just purchased while he was still in the apartment building, say, on the floor of his apartment, or going up or down the stairs, someone who went to visit his father might have seen it and pocketed it.
His father, who had spent five years in prison, probably ran in rough social circles. If he got into an argument and the visitor used the knife to kill him in the heat of the moment the idea of coincidence tightens up. The police never hunted for another suspect.
The kid ran with a tough crowd as well, and almost certainly showed the knife to his running buddies. They could also have found the knife (or even picked his pocket).
You see, THIS is why the movie is so great. 67 years later and we’re still discussing it
Well done Nia, you gave this movie lots of real time, this movie needed it. There are 2 early versions of 12 angry men both with famous actors you may not know, in my opinion this is the best one. Do appreciate your comments and awareness. Keep up the great work 😊.
Red Dragon? Eesh. I saw that once, and that was enough. I'd happily watch 12 Angry Men (1957) twelve times more often than Red Dragon. 😄
agreed and, in fact, have
Great movie. And yet, no fights, car chases, special effects or "skin".
Just great writing and EXCELLENT actors at the top of their game.
And at the end, helping the man put his coat/jacket on. Class
Great Cast.Henry Fonda was Obviously the Best Known Actor,But The Majority of the Other Actors Went on to Have Very Good Careers.
Most of this cast were giants of the stage and screen from the 1920’s until the 1980’s.
It was originally written and broadcast as a live TV teleplay. It's available here on RUclips. Has some of the same cast. Very interesting to watch. Rough like watching a stage play (because it is), complete with flubbed lines.
Thanksgiving, but Nia doing “12 Angry Men” ? Feels like Christmas !
For more court room drama check out "A Time To Kill" (1996), "A Few Good Men" (1992) and "Primal Fear" (1996). :) Top tiers actors in all of them, with some fantastic performances.
holy cow ya missed To Kill A Mockingbird,
@@fightingidiocy7724 I haven't actually seen that o.O
The same director, Sidney Lumet, Also made the great 1980s film "The Verdict," starring Paul Newman.
Here's perspective about WWII - My father was a nose gunner on a bomber. Jet airplanes were nearly non-existent during WWII. Germany had a few, as did a few other countries. However, the vast majority of planes in WWII were propeller planes. That's what the brain does. You get used to inputs from the eyes and ears and your brain assembles from common things you might have seen in the past.
Actually if you look closely, the angry guy got out of his chair and turned to the window before the racist started speaking. He was frustrated that the last vote didn't go his way. Pretty cool way to get the table almost empty without having him pick a side based on the other guy's bigotry.
Good point.
Loved your reaction! I've always imagined (in my private sequel) that Juror #3' s experience prompts him to reconcile with his son.
The point of this film isn't to find out if the defendant killed his father, or if he didn't then who killed him. It's to determine if he should be found guilty. In all likelihood in this world they will never find out who killed the father, since the authorities assumed it was the son and didn't look for other suspects, and after this verdict they'll just assume "the jury got it wrong" and not look for any other suspects.
I really like this movie and watched 3 different reaction videos for this movie over the past few months, before watching yours. I was annoyed by the reactions on those videos. It was refreshing to listen to your opinions, which were well thought out and to see that you had an excellent understanding of this movie. And you’re correct when you say that the kid could actually be guilty.
I love the fact that this story is all about group think and confirmation bias, not about the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
Also love the shot towards the end from inside the closet.
The holdout is the great Henry Fonda, who also produced. It bombed at the box office.
I seen this in the late 70s for the first time when I was a kid. I remember feeling a sense of relief when the fan came on.
I will always prefer a system that frees a guilty person than one that kills an innocent one. One of my favorite films ever made. No special effects, no fight scenes, no romantic subplot, just people exchanging words… and it’s riveting from beginning to end.
A Classic movie, Henry Fonda was a huge actor at the time and most of the other actors were well known.
I love this movie. There are so many good messages embodied in it. One of the messages I like is that one person can make a difference.
37:50 I feel like a lot of people aren’t very understanding of Juror 12. The reason he flip flops is because he struggles to get his thoughts in order, and it’s clearly something he’s aware of and a bit embarrassed by. He relies on others laying things out in a “logical sequence” before he passes judgement.
Definitely the kind of character who might get pegged as neurodivergent if this movie came out today.
Also the fact that each juror’s job somehow has a strange role in his decision. 12 is an Ad man so it makes sense why he’s the way he is.
Delightful reaction. Thanks for sharing.
Great Reaction to this Classic...... (My Standard Post So some might have already been mentioned).....
I saw this Presented Muliple Times as a play in High School (Early 1980's).......
Shout out to the Legends in this Movie...... Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Jack Klugman, Martin Balsam, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, Ed Begley
Director Lumet wrote in an article: "I shot the first third of the movie above eye level, shot the second third at eye level, and the last third from below eye level. In that way, toward the end, the ceiling began to appear. Not only were the walls closing in, the ceiling was as well. The sense of increasing claustrophobia did a lot to raise the tension of the last part of the movie."
The kid not remembering the films is a believable statement. Movie houses weren't multi-screen when this movie was made. A cinema showed one or two movies so in the evening you could buy a double feature ticket without ever asking the name of the films. An angry kid wanting to get out of the summer heat buys a double feature ticket and spends the time stewing in anger paying no attention to the films is quite believable.
The hand towel machine in the restroom doesn't reuse the same cloth. As you pull it down off the top reel, it wraps around another reel in the bottom. Eventually you pull all the towel off the top reel. At that point, all the used towel is wrapped on the bottom reel and can be removed to be laundered. These still exist today ion some places and there's usually a service company that supplies clean rolls and washes the dirty ones.
The "Them" they are refering to in the original script were "Puerto Ricans" who had Immigrated......
It is a belief in the American Justice System that it is better to let 10 Guilty People go free, instead of sentencing 1 Innocent..... Partly because it is believed that a guilty person will commit another crime and hopefully get sentenced for that one........
Another Classic Movie that (mostly) takes place in one room, is "Arsenic and Old Lace"(1944), It had a long run on Broadway, and the movie was shot using most of the actors from the Broadway Production.....
Great reaction & commentary. 👍
The man in the white suit--the one who voted "Not Guilty" at first --is Henry Fonda, also known as Jane Fonda's father.
Good luck figuring the suit colors. The white suit could have been white, light blue, light tan, or pink. The entire movie is shown black and white. Good reaction and a great study in acting. One room, no explosions or car crashes. Have you seen "Rear Window"? it is in color.
Long Live those Curls!!! Another banger movie too...we're on a great streak here
🤣 long live the curls hahaha
The subtly of characterization was impressive. Did you notice that Juror 6 (the house painter) had been closely attending to Juror 9 (the old man) from the very beginning. So, it was not a surprise that he defended the old man so vigorously.
Juror 4 (the stock broker) was characterized as highly logical and intelligent from the beginning, including being a bridge player...bridge being known at the time as the "thinking man's card game."
The high school football coach tried to keep things organized, which was what he was accustomed to doing with a bunch of "boys." Also, he was wearing a polo shirt with a tie. The tie was for when he was in the classroom, then he could pull it off and wear just the polo shirt when coaching after classes.
I don't know what the NY laws were in 1957, but a mistrial would be declared today if anyone pulled the knife stunt that juror 8 pulled. New evidence can't be produced after the trial, when it can't be cross-examined.
I've sat on a couple of juries (one was a military court-martial, one a civilian federal court). In the civilian case, the trial lasted 4 hours, but we deliberated 4 days. The initial vote was 11 to 1 for guilty, like in this trial. By the end, we voted 12-0 for acquittal. I was one of the very last to change my vote on the 4th day. I experienced the same moment as Juror 4, that slow realization that the one piece of evidence I was standing on wasn't so solid after all.
The first jets were introduced by the Germans at the very end of WWII, 1945. Also, the kid is a young adult, 18, not a child. And the question before the jury is not the death sentence and it's merits or demerits, it's simply reasonable guilt, or not.
As an ISTJ thanks for the comparison.
😂 he was just suuuuper logical and rational, the opposite of the extremely emotional person that I am 😅
Just like a jury in real life, you never know if the defendant actually did the murder or not.
Fun fact: Statistically, crime slightly increases on hotter days than colder ones.
There was an episode of Twilight Zone (I think, maybe it was Hitchcock…) that parodied the tendency to commit crimes in hot weather.
There was an episode of “Murder, She Wrote” starring Angela Lansbury, in her own episode of a closed door jury. They switched it at the end. The jury went from mostly guilty to mostly innocent to guilty. It’s obviously taken inspiration from “12 Angry Men”
I'm so happy you did this one- and not only because you're easy on the eyes! LOL- as it's a master class on scriptwriting, camera direction, and acting. Almost everyone in the jury room was already a top-tier actor in his own right, or went on to brilliant careers in Hollywood afterward. And you're absolutely right- we say the same things today about kids that these guys did decades ago!
You say you can't vote guilty unless you know he's guilty. There's only 2 real ways you could actually know (1 in this movie). That's if you were actually there when it happened or there was video evidence. Those are the only 2 surefire ways to know. So according to your reasoning, without video (since no juror would have been at the crime), no one should be found guilty because the jurors don't actually know.
Of course, even video can be faked (which is why such evidence must be accompanied by a sworn affidavit by the photographer that it is a true representation of the scene).
Dunkirk is an easy movie to get confused watching. You have three stories with vastly divergent timelines. You see scenes out of sequence with where you are in another storyline. If I'm not mistaken the man on the boat was rescued after the plane went down in the plane storyline and before the boat was sunk in the Pier storyline.
Interesting bit about the set for the jury room. The walls were movable. They changed the size of the room to increase tension or, like during the racist rant, larger so that the other actors could seperate themselves and isolate him even more.
Love this movie, shot essentially in one or two rooms, written tightly with developed characters and played by actors at the top of their game. The interaction between the characters gives this movie all the drama it needs. I actually like the fact that we don't know if the defendant is innocent or not. That's the point. The logic of the evidence is supposed to determine the case.
A similar film is Kurosawa's "Rashomon," about the difficulty of determining what really happened.
Great reaction as always ❤ Easily one of my personal top 10 movies ... Great actors great direction great screenplay... I've seen this movie easily 100x never stopped watching
What a gem of a classic film! Probably Jack Lemon’s greatest role, apart from The Odd Couple.
Jack Lemmon was in the 1997 remake. This is the 1957 version starring Henry Fonda.
Do you mean Jack Klugman?
He played Oscar on the television version of The Odd Couple.
It’s one of my favorite sitcoms of all time.
Ah. You’re right! I mixed up Fonda for Lemon. I always thought Lemon was in the original.
Can’t forget Quincy medical examiner
@@johncurtis7186 Jack Lemon was in the film version of _The Odd Couple._
A darn good movie .I remember seeing this movie when i was 11 years old .
My eyes are burning from allergies but looking at you makes it better.
What a good movie, still so up to date
Ayy I was the 100th like! Great movie! This will keep me entertained for an hour a work today
Some films can't be improved. This is one of them.
43:53 That’s my twisted theory also. 🤣 These days, he’d just run for president: can’t touch him then. 🙄
So so so many classics you'd love:
To Kill a Mockingbird
Casablanca
Night of the Hunter
Sunset Boulevard
In the Heat of the Night
Network
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
Dr. Zhivago
Dog Day Afternoon
Bridge on the River Kwai
The Wizard of Oz
An all time classic
My absolute favorite movie that I think you’d love if you haven’t seen it is A TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN - starring Peggy Ann garner. Another favorite of mine worth watching,… Kirk Douglas A DETECTIVE STORY. Phenomenal acting and heart touching.
Very enjoyable reaction, thanks! It's a great film.
thank you for watching and dropping a comment!!
There's a 1997 TV version of 12 Angry Men which, while not as iconic as the 1957 version, is still pretty good. The original writer adapted his own script for the remake, making just a few updates. For one, the jury is more diverse (though there are still no women on it because I guess that would have meant changing the title). Also, after Juror 11 chides him for seemingly changing his vote arbitrarily just because he wants to go to the baseball game, Juror 7 admits that he doesn't think that the kid is guilty and unlike in this movie, you can tell that he actually believes it and feels that voting not guilty is the right thing to do. On the other hand, the openly racist juror, 10, is the one who makes it clear he's only voting not guilty so he can leave.
The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until found guilty. So the jury doesn't determine whether the defendant is guilty or innocent. They determine whether the prosecution proved guilt.
The _presumption_ of innocence is what a lot of people don't understand. The jury is _supposed_ to be biased toward the defendant. As the trial begins, the jury's viewpoint should be, "The defendant looks innocent to me." It's the prosecution's job to _change the jury's mind._
@@kirkdarling4120 The jury is to base its decision not on bias but on the evidence presented in court.
They are then to evaluate the credibility of the evidence.
Unless they determine that the prosecution proved guilt, the defendant remains innocent.
It's better to let 99 guilty people go free than to convict one innocent person. If you don't believe me, then imagine you are that innocent person on trial.
It's not about the verdict it's about 12 angry men reaching a verdict against all pre conceived prejudice
Notice he said it's ALMOST unbearable and that you can HARDLY hear yourself think..clearly it IS bearable and you CAN hear yourself think
The ONLY flaw I can think of in this movie is that making the accused a child makes the audience immediatly assume he's NOT guilty, which I think lessens the theme a bit.
Well, he is supposed to be 18, but I'd agree that using a baby-faced actor is a flaw. It shouldn't matter if the accused were 30 and ugly, because reasonable doubt should still be the most important factor.
He's really only a "child" in today's eyes. In 1957, an 18-year-old would have expected to be doing nearly a man's level of labor for a couple of years.
Let's Go Legend
Why in God's name would this masterpiece be ever tied with Red Dragon for anything? 🤨
The all-American baseball fan is spineless.
Great reaction to this movie.
"They" would imply any one that is not lily white. Being NY, it likely means Puerto Ricans.
Excellent b&W classic.
I remember reccomending this when we played minecraft ^^
19:15 Suddenly, my throat is dry and scratchy. 🤔
Hello my lovely!! This is an all-time great!
Hey hey, good morning!!! ☀️ hope you’re having a great day!
This is one of the greatest movie ever.
A marvel at how to use a single location and make it riveting.
Yeah I didn’t even realize this was all shot in 1 place! This was done so well!
Mia is 🔥
Heyyyy! Happy hump day!
@@NiaMakiReacts : Same, and Happy Thanksgiving, to you and your family.
The boy's father did time in prison for forgery. He probably had enemies.
Oh, I don't know. His Son is a murderer, and everyone seemed to love him.
@@gravitypronepart2201 What!?
It's a wonderful life is another classic that you should watch it's a christmas movie i already recommend this but i will recommend again in case you forgot
I would have watched this yesterday when you first put it out, but I had Jury Duty...
Try the original B&W version of D.O.A.
I like your channel a lot. Please try Freedom Writers with Hilary Swank, based on a true story, I cant wait for it!
He did it and they let him slip through their fingers !
Dont you guys make the same mistake by letting these movies slip through your fingers........
Blue Collar - Richard Pryor
The Brave - Johnny Depp
Nightcrawler - Jake Gyllenhaal
The Game - Michael Douglas
American Psycho - Christian Bale
Cult classics
Blue Collar is an excellent display of how people who actually have common interests get played against each other by larger forces.
0 jets in Dunkirk
This was done during a time when America overwhelming supported capital punishment. I wonder how much things have changed
this is one reason i would never support Capital punishment , law is not a 100% exact science ,the poor will always get a lousy defense
Eye witnesses are the worst witnesses because trauma warps the narrative. Casual observers are the best witnesses because they only tell what they could interpolate at that moment and don't try to make the story any more glorious than the event.
👍👍👍👍👍👍
I've seen 2,219 movies. This is #1. It's all downhill from here.
I can actually see the producers of The Simpsons thinking of the juror with baseball tickets and a fishing cap to some extent when they envisioned Homer Simpson. He is the archetype of the limited imagination limited perspective a bit below average man who has been a common sight in film and TV since. Notice his very Homer like fishing hat. On occasions such as the immigrant pressing him why not guilty now his Uhh.. and Duhhh.. are straight from Homer.
But the kid was still guilty...
He was obviously guilty. Any one piece of evidence could have been unreliable, but not every piece.
I like how you make your own dialogue and rebuttals to the scenes instead of just watching and listening to what the actually dialogue and moviemaking is trying to say.