LAW STUDENT WATCHES *12 ANGRY MEN* FOR THE FIRST TIME! (IMDB TOP 100)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 апр 2023
- #12angrymen #moviereaction #firsttimewatching
My name is Elie Moses and I am a 23 Year Old law and film student. I decided to watch the classical cult top 100 IMDB film 12 Angry Men (1957) for the first time! Here is my movie reaction!
Talk crap with me on Social Media!
TIKTOK - / eliemoses
TWITTER - / eliemoses14
INSTAGRAM - / eliemoses14
Business - eliemosesbusiness@outlook.com 
Развлечения
I'm impressed at your willingness to discuss each point along the plot line. Also, that you paused along the way to keep viewers from losing the thread of the storyline. The last hold-out juror, who tore up the picture of HIS SON, transferred his dissatisfaction with his own son to the defendant --- exactly as you interpreted the final voter's temper and overall behavior. Thanks for a wonderful analysis and reaction!
🫡🫡🫡🫡💜💜
@@eliemoses There was another court based drama that came out about the same time as this one that you would probably find interesting. It was also based on a play, but was loosely based on an actual trial. It features two acting legends Spencer Tracy and Frederic March. The movie is called 'Inherit the Wind' and was based on the "Scope's Monkey Trial" about the teaching of the theory of evolution. Tracy's character is based on legendary litigator Clarence Darrow and March is portraying William Jennings Bryan who argued the original case in 1925.
@@eliemoses In fact, there was a remake with the great Jack Lemmon in the leading role, for the fantastic Henry Fonda here. And there is also a German version, also from the time. This kind of play, is perctly for European actors. Such a thing is called here over, a chambers play. And what never ever someone mentioned is the fact, that no woman is in the whole play. That's very rare...
Yes, yes, yes...love the pauses. I watch reactions of movies I've already seen so it's perfectly fine to pause, that way nothing is missed.
In the USA it’s not so much classism as racism and anti immigrant feeling.
Lee J. Cobb put on an acting clinic in that final monologue. He made all of your possible dislike of his character evaporate in literally 5 seconds as he tears up the picture of him and his son and suddenly you feel nothing but empathy for him.
Lee J. Cobb is The MAN. A good heavy always makes the hero better.
@@racheldrum1982 Amazing actor - he pull you in as any type of character, from menacing to thoughtful and empathetic. My parents saw him on stage as Willie Loman in "Death of Salesman", and never forgot him.
He does evoke empathy, but the character stays despicable: He literally tried to have a potentially innocent young man murdered just to feel better about himself as a failed father. Conceding that he failed to do so is no redemption.
He’s well worth watching in the Marlon Brando classic, “On the Waterfront.”
@@dudermcdudeface3674 I totally agree. He's been a despicable father, harming his only son and then raging at the son as an ingrate who apparently no longer has contact with his dad. He's poisoned himself with warped macho values and bigotry for his entire life. We feel some empathy for his state at that point in his life, but he's to blame for his own misery. Nothing redeeming about suddenly realizing how wrecked his life has become and the begrudging admission that the case against the teenager wasn't strong enough to convict him.
twelve people. one room. No special effects. Just a great script and great actors making an all time great movie
The juror with the moustache is an IMMIGRANT -- and understands the system better than the US-born baseball fan.
I think Henry Fonder helping Juror 5 on with his jacket at the end is a nice touch.
Henry Fonda. Father of actress Jane Fonda
This was originally a stage play, so the filmmakers' challenge is to make a story that's confined to one room still visually interesting.
If you're into that, have you seen Carnage? It's by controversial director Roman Polanski but it's great. Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz, John C Reilly, basically it's about the parents of 2 kids who get into a fight at school or one was bullying the other, and it's the whole progressive vs conservative parenting situation.
Another great film that's like a play is Tape. Uma Thurman and I think her ex Ethan Hawke is in it and another guy, a bit ahead of its time because it deals with a sexual encounter that may not have been 100% cosentual. They meet in a motel and it's really tense as they talk thru their perspectives of what happened that night.
Actually, this was originally a live television performance (a common feature in TV's early years). Fonda, who produced the movie, ran into some opposition from the Hollywood money men, who argued why would anyone want to pay to see a movie they had already probably seen for free? It proved to be a wise move, as this movie is now a classic.
It was turned into a stage play as well. I once appeared in a local community theatre production as Juror No. 11, the foreigner. I particularly enjoyed the joke that he is the one to correct the other juror's grammar -- "He doesn't even speak good English."
It was originally a one-hour live television play.
The stage play was the first introduction, then came "Studio One" Twelve Angry Men (TV Episode 1954), and then this phenomenal piece of art in 1957 that you are watching, and 40 years later a remake starring Jack Lemmon in 1997 but the 97' remake really didn't have the steam and power as this earlier piece has.
Everyone in this film was an experienced stage actor. Learning lines is what they did for a living.
I also love how number 4 is (along with number 8) the most intelligent, rational and well-spoken out of the jurors yet still is one of the last to change their vote. he had good reasons to believe the boy is guilty unlike 10 with his prejudice or 3 with his emotions regarding his son. two people can both be rational and still have different view points
43:13 The boy in this movie is supposed to be Puerto Rican and that's what the old man keeps referring to when he talks about "them". Different adaptations use different marginalized groups. There is a Russian adaptation, that's very good, and the boy in that version is Chechen.
And if you're interested in watching another courtroom/lawyer movie, there is a comedy film titled "My Cousin Vinny" that's definitely worth a watch.
Puerto Ricans were the marginalised group of that era, as in _West Side Story._
My only complaint about this movie is that they showed the boy. It works fine showing him, but I love that the play leaves it totally open to interpretation.
Law students are actually required to watch My cousin Vinny. Here in Toronto at least when my fiancee was in law school. It's the most accurate depiction of a trial in a movie and it's an awesome film
I always thought this was a socioeconomic prejudice thing. The term flung around was slum-dwellers after all. Did I miss something
@@calebmorrow96 Often slum dwellers, though victims of economic prejudice, are also the victims of social prejudice. (hence Socio-economic) Slums are often filled with whatever prejudiced group is looked down upon at the time, and that prejudice is often (though not always) drawn on racial lines.
That is part of the brilliant writing of the play, and why I dislike that the movie showed the kid. It stays vague, and lets the prejudice be directed wherever it is most relevant.
One thing I like about old movies is they are like time travel. You see what everyday life was like, what people wore and cultural issues like women rarely serving on juries, or knives, not guns, being the weapon of choice for gangs. Also little details like the fact that men usually didn't wear wedding rings, that eyeglasses used to be heavier and uncomfortable and they used to have towel rolls in public bathrooms.
It was less common for men to wear wedding rings at that time. But sometimes it's simply personal preference; when I was married, I rarely wore my wedding ring or any jewelry because I don't like anything on my fingers or wrist. Without thinking, I would remove it and have trouble finding it again.
As a kid in the 70s, I still remember those cloth towel rolls in bathrooms, then a brief period when they had paper towel dispensers, then the air blowers were introduced. I don’t know that the energy for blowing your hands dry was cheaper than one paper towel pulled from the dispenser, but drunk guys on weekends would pull every paper towel from the dispenser and throw them around the bathroom destroying /wasting them, and even clogging all the toilets with them. You can’t do that with hot air.
I love the magnanimous, or generosity of, spirit Henry Fonda’s character shows to Lee J. Cob’s character at the end. No recriminations on the outbursts, just helping him put on the jacket, and making sure Cobb is ok to walk out. Brilliant direction.
I saw this film about 40 years ago. I said I'm not watching no black and white film, no action and it takes place in one room. As a teen after I saw it I can say it's one of my favorite films to date. The storyline, the stellar acting, cinematography .. makes it a masterpiece. I've watched this film so many times I lost count. And I'm grateful that reviewers like you got to see it!
black and whites are the best
Black and white became an art form, not a limitation. This was deliberately done in bnw for effect.
I am so glad that you pause the video when you are making comments. So many reactors talk over the dialog and miss important things!
I hung a jury once in New Orleans. A young male defendant on a parole violation charge that would have meant serious jail time. The case was the defendant's word against one police officer. No other witnesses, though several other people were present. No forensic evidence. We started out split, 6/6 (I voted not guilty) and there were some similarities to the movie. One juror who had plans that evening who would have voted any way just to get out of there. Jurors who said he was guilty because the police wouldn't have arrested him if he wasn't, or that he must be guilty because he had been convicted of other crimes before. The judge had obviously been on the prosecution's side for the whole trial, and particularly in his instructions to the jury. We started the case on a Friday afternoon, and when we couldn't reach a decision in two hours, the judge called us back in and said he would sequester the jury for the entire weekend if we didn't decide in the next half hour. All the other "not guilty" voters immediately switched to "guilty" and it was 11 to 1 with me the 1. Of course, the judge had been bluffing and ended up calling a mistrial.
Wow, that's courageous. As you were deliberating, did it occur to you that you were living in juror Davis's (Henry Fonda's) shoes?
A mistrial? God, the American justice system is busted
@@MrHarbltron Busted? The rule in most cases is the jury decision must be unanimous. Because of that, a hung jury is one of the reasons to declare a mistrial. It simply means the trial stops. If the prosecution still wants to pursue the case, a new trial is required.
The fault here is not with the "American justice system" per se, it's with the judge's decision to call a mistrial without allowing the jury to continue deliberating - sequestered or not. Yeah, sounds like the judge didn't care that it blatantly showed his personal opinion.
@@ArtamStudio But the judge can't "allow[] the jury to continue deliberating" forever. At some point it becomes clear it's not going to work out. Just _when_ the judge makes that call is at their discretion.
This is a masterpiece of cinema proving that a well presented story far outweighs big budget special effects. A couple of tricks the director used to increase the tension involved the camera angle going from using more far away overhead shots to slowly moving in closer with more head level shots and by the end of the film the camera at times was lower than face level looking upward. Also, as the film progressed the director had the walls of the room moved inward making a smaller room to create more of a claustrophobic feeling for the viewers.
I'm 66, and I grew up watching these actors in so many movies..They were all brilliant actors..I love seeing them do their thing in this one room. A true classic...Idk, but if you saw the movie "The Exorcist" you might have recognized that "fatherly" guy from that film..He played the detective in it...Another brilliant movie with him is the old classic broadway play, made into a movie, "Death of a Salesman"..He played the lead "Willie Loman."..His name was Lee J. Cobb...The little guy with the glasses (John Fiedler) you may recognize his voice from the old cartoon classic, "Winnie the Pooh"..He did the voice of 'Piglet."..Of course the late -great Henry Fonda here, playing the lead, was in so many classics...Great actor!..The rest had long acting careers, as well.
Most all of them character actors with many, many fine roles. I grew up seeing these men ply their craft.
This was director Sidney Lumet's first movie. He had been a forner child actor, theatre director and successful director of live TV. He rehearsed the actors for three weeks prior to filming as if it were a play as he did with all but one of his subsequent films
Classic films to watch (all the original versions and not remakes) : To Kill A Mockingbird, Some Like It Hot, All About Eve, The Great Escape, Rebel Without a Cause, Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, Double Indemnity, Psycho, Strangers on a Train, Chinatown, The Italian Job, Bullitt, The French Connection, The Birds, The Ladykillers, The Warriors, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Twelve Monkeys, Seven, The Sixth Sense, (quite a few Hitchcocks there, but he was the master)
If you like classic courtroom movies you might like Inherit the Wind (about the Scopes "Monkey trial")
“Them” is a deliberate reference to whatever ethnic group, minority, race, religion, color or background the boy represents. It was left vague, which makes it more timeless. However, it is possible from the boy’s looks and from the social prejudices in New York at that time that he was likely from Puerto Rico. Henry Fonda says “ she’s one of “them” too, why do you believe her (but not the boy) responding to the guy’s tirade earlier when he said “I’ve lived among “them” all my life…you can’t believe a word “they” say… The point is that the guy is being called out for his racism and how he uses it illogically and unfairly to justify his prejudices.
I like the thought of the vague dimension from “them” but I think it’s about smth more specific. Juror 5 gets upset at juror 10 calling people from slums trash (and ever since, he’s the one who answers juror 10 back every-time he makes a selfish remark), I think “them” refers to the low-class citizens living in slums and their stigmatisation of becoming criminals and uncultured. The defendant looks hispanic from Latin America (he doesn’t speak good English) but who says it’s the case for the woman or the old man? That’s why it’s still a bit vague because it could be about ethnicity
@@Kyroks_mpagreed. It's almost always a class issue too that gets mistaken as "racism". I've never met a person whose said they hated and thinks they're superior to someone based on their race. I always found that kind of strange to apparently be so present in 2024. In America anyways. And I live down in Alabama
@@tidepride86 “to be above a race” has been a big deal like slavery and the nazi regime, but I agree with what you’re trying to say. nowadays, discrimination, prejudices and racism in general often comes from social classes, which unfortunately coincides most of the time with races (white neighbourhoods vs black neighbourhoods yk?)
Othering.
@@Kyroks_mp well I have good news for people lol .....they don't really exist anymore lol. They kinda were done with 80yrs ago....both of em.
If I do meet a "racist" in person I'll probably get a picture taken with them. It's gonna be like finding Bigfoot
The last guy (Juror 3) lost his son because of an altercation, similar to the boy who was on trial and his father. And so, he projected his relationship with his son onto the defendant. His breakdown at the end admitting "not guilty" was, in a way, him admitting that his own son was also not guilty of what happened between them. At least that's how I read into it. One of my favorite sections of the film is when our main guy (Juror 8) and the man with the glasses & coat who doesn't sweat (Juror 4) sit down across from each other and discuss the case critically. Juror 4 genuinely thought the boy was guilty, for logical reasons; and so it is interesting when those two finally get to have their congenial argument while the rest of the room (more or less) stay out of it. Thanks for the video, was fun.
The elder juror is usually overlooked by reactors. But he is speaking from experience as an elder about the elder witness.
"What do you know about it?" He's elderly; he knows from experience right here in the jury room.
Need to remember the time this was written, and that some now established law and procedures weren't then. Miranda rights weren't established until the 60's, for instance. Likewise, an early plot point is the perceived ineptitude or disinterest of the defense attorney, granting the jurors some freedom in their deliberation.
Top five movies of all time. It shows you don't need computer graphics, special effects or even music. Just good acting and a great story. Love it.
The way this movie exposes and deconstructs the character’s explicit and implicit biases is phenomenal.
I really do appreciate this film, people always speak natively about the remake, but it's honestly very good. In fact the remake was the one I saw first fell in love from seeing it there. I truly enjoy them both, there are a few parts in the remake were I feel the actors gave an even stronger performance.
One thing I think is interesting is that everyone I’ve seen react to this film thinks that Henry Fonda’s character has some ulterior motive/insider info.
I’ve always seen him as painfully average. He is just a guy with a conscious-just like anyone in the audience. He is special because he literally is no different than the others in that room, but he has the courage to politely dissent. He shows that anyone can be him-hence they don’t give him or anyone else a name until the end. We can be anyone in that juror’s room-sometimes multiple people. It immediately becomes self-reflective.
Older films were made with the intention of making a work of art. Today's films are made like an assembly line process, with lots of specialized people involved pumping out a product and meeting budgets and time schedules. The people working on today's movies are just doing a job and will move on to the next project, while older movies were done with more heart and dedication.
An interesting thing about this movie is the truth is not resolved at the end of the movie. The jury did its job and moved on with the rest of their evening. There was no “smoking gun” like when other shows/movies used this trope at the end of those we find out somehow is the hold out juror was right after all and the defendant was indeed innocent so jury made the right decision. But we don’t really know in this one. We like to believe he was innocent but maybe he wasn’t after all and they let him go. The important thing was jury did its job establishing reasonable doubt THE END
I've watched this film several times over the years and Juror No4 is my favourite character.
He initially votes guilty because he genuinely believes the accused is guilty
He only changes his mind when he is convinced by the (lack of) evidence. He isn't swayed by personal prejudice or by any sort of hard luck stories. He tries his best to keep emotion out of it and just focus on the evidence.
The baseball guy (juror No6 I think?) is my least favourite because he never once actually cares about what is at stake. They could be sending an innocent boy to death (or letting a murderer go free!) and all he cares about is seeing his baseball game. he votes guilty but as soon as the tide starts to turn, he votes not guilty but not because he's been persuaded by the evidence/arguments, he just wants to see the baseball game.
Even Juror No3 (angry guy) was initially voting guilty because he genuinely thought the kid done it. He couldn't admit he was wrong for a long time (and this reluctance to admit he was wrong was clearly tied in to his relationship with his own son) but he did eventually come around and acknowledged that there was a reasonable doubt which is better (IMHO anyway) than Mr Baseball who never once considered what was at stake here
Most of this cast were Award winning Actors. Oscars, Oscar Nominations, Emmys,Tonys ....
Thank you for this! Knew you'd love this movie because the dialogue and cinematography really has to do the heavy lifting since the action never leaves the room. That, and the fact that you are a law student as well.
Another court movie to consider is the 1960 movie Inherit the Wind.
Oh, Hell Yes!
I've heard the name but haven't seen the film. Thanks for the recommendation!
Yes, moving from one great jury room drama to one great courtroom drama!
Based on an actual trial,
You’re watching somebody give a doctoral class in filmmaking basically all shop in one room, and all these actors all became icons in the film industry
Wedding rings for men weren't common. My parents had the first double-ring ceremony in their town.
This and Inherit the Wind, two of my all time favorite courtroom battles.
Another classic law movie is "Anatomy of a Murder" with James Stewart. They used to show it in law school because it brought forward a legal defense that hadn't typically been used before and commonly more so is now. I would like to see you react to it.
In my top ten of all time
Old guy juror knew everything about that old man because he is just like him, he voted first time "not guilty" for attention
Six dollars back in 1957 would be equal to $64.77 in 2023, quite a bit for a kid that lived in a slum to be carrying around.
This was actually Sidney Lumet's feature film debut as a director. One trick he did was, as the film progesses, he moved the walls of the set in, to increase the sense of claustrophobia.
Great Reaction to this Classic......
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.
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.....
Knew I won't be disappointed by the reaction.
Great movie and detailed reaction. It is great to see a younger generation still has appreciation for something classic like this.
Well done!
Much love 🩵🩵
An incredible film, just a pure classic that stands the test of time. This is a masterpiece by Sidney Lumet. Henry Fonda is superlative here, as is Lee J Cobb, interesting to see Jack Klugman, who was probably more famous for playing Pathologist Sleuth Quincey in cult 70s series. Incredible tension throughout with Fonda gradually turning them around. Great to see you Elie doing this absolute classics. Look forward to more of these. I would suggest another fantastic 50s film, Paths Of Glory starring Kirk Douglas and Directed by Stanley Kubrick. This film contains one of the greatest one take scenes in the history of cinema.
"Paths of Glory" is a brilliant Film. Maybe the greatest Anti- War Film ever! Staring Kirk Douglas and Directed by Stanley Kubrick!
Jack Klugman was also great in _The Odd Couple_ TV series with Tony Randall.
It's always very surprising when people don't pick up on the racism from juror 10. That's what juror 8 meant when he said "She's of THEM too, isn't she?"
This is the 7th reaction video to this movie I've seen this week. It's so amazingly good and I never get tired of seeing people discover it.
💜💜
I love all the moments when juror 3 realizes he played himself
"how could he be positive about anything"
"that's not the knife don't you remember"
"I'll kill him, I'll kill him for sure"
"you said we could throw out all the other evidence"
Sidney Lumet, the director, gradually compressed the size of the room as the film progressed. Together with the sweat buildup and the extreme closeups, it made us feel like we were in that tense room as well.
Lee j Cobb is the father of Julie Cobb, ed begley is the father of ed beglley Jr, Henry Fonda (guy in white suit) is father of Peter and Jane Fonda, grandfather of Bridget Fonda. Others have children who are actors but not as well known.
The man at the window is Henry Ford he was like the Thom Cruz of his time.
It wasn't about the case for for Juror #3, he was projecting. For him his own son was the defendant.
We will never know, but considering his breakdown in the end, he might not have been innocent in him and his son becoming estranged. Which would make this as much self-hate as hate why he is doing this. His breakdown in the end could be a sign that he accepts his own guilt in relation to his son. He knew for a while that he was wrong about the case, but couldn't admit it.
But that's just guessing.
In any case it shows how some personal opinions can influence us in other areas, which adds nicely to the the theme of 'those' people and other individual hang ups of people in the movie.
They were able to do oners back then with such ease, because most of the actors were stage actors as well as film. So, they had their lines memorized in huge chucks.
I didn’t notice before but Lee Cobb and George C Scott, who played this angry juror in the remake, both played Kinderman in the Exorcist franchise.
The actor that you said looked like someone's father, is Lee J Cobb, Juror #3, who I thought was the best actor in this movie. I hated him from the beginning, which was his role to play, and at the end, I felt sorry for him. I had a complete turn-around about him. This movie had an All-Star Cast, that the modern remake did not, and it flopped.
Great reaction.
I liked your little smile when Juror#8 put the second knife in the table.
I regret you skipped a line I truly love when juror#10 asks juror#11 :
- « Excuse me, please », why are you so polite ?
- For the same reason you are not, that’s the way I was brought up !
When you asked what juror#10 meant when speaking of « them », you suggested homosexuality…
Remember we’re in the fifties, when one wants to understand facts of a prior period, one should abandon the prejudices of his own time and try to consider the mentality of the period he is considering.
Your remark about the length of the takes is right : this is a reason why I am fond of old movies, they give you time to think, they do not fill your head with lots of images as if they wanted your brain to be suffocated, which is the feeling I have with many films nowadays.
Thanks from France 🇫🇷
You're right about the prejudices, but racism has definitely not gone yet. It was hopeful for me that a young reactor like this one didn't see race at all.
Anyone related to a defendant or victim, or who even casually knows them would not be allowed to sit on a jury no matter how minor or serious the charges are. It is assumed that their view would be prejudiced.
"Them." When Henry Fonda's character says "She is one of them, too" or something like that, it pauses you. Fonda is just repeating the word the other character had said a minute earlier i.e. "I've lived among THEM all my life..." Fonda is pointing out the man's prejudice is evident by his language.
In reality the introduction of the second knife would have resulted in a mistrial.
I served on Jury duty a couple years ago. The court left explaining reasonable doubt to the Attorneys. The prosecutor said nothing about it and the defense attorney did a poor job. This movie does a public service to help educate what reasonable doubt is and how to find it.
Wow, how strange that neither attorney explained the burden of proof. Were you not given written jury instructions, either?
From what I've heard/read the Director had the Jurors Rehearse 3 weeks to get the "Right Mood" of their character and how they'll react to each other... And in 1957, when the Film was made, 3 weeks was a long time to rehearse...
My parents were married in 1963 and my dad doesn't wear a wedding ring. They were just starting to come into fashion back then, I believe. Some men wore them, some didn't.
My dad sold his wedding ring to a pawn shop and I was so bummed out. He didn't need the money and it would've been nice to have an heirloom even if he'd moved on from my mum. Oh well.
It's not necessarily supposed to be very legally accurate but to illustrate racism, as well as classism, ageism issues etc... And what it takes to get people to overcome their prejudices and take an unbiased look at the issue.
It's an excellent film to use to discuss juror misconduct.
It's a great movie to show people why juries are important. Cops and judges deal with criminals all day, so you can't really trust them to recognize innocence. Especially when the person being charged has committed crimes before but just happens to be innocent of that particular charge. People who work all day trying to bring criminals down don't really care in that case: They figure they're guilty of something, so it might as well be this. The problem being that that mentality encourages crime by treating courts as ritual scapegoating rather than an attempt to establish facts of who did what.
I just found out this film and all its remakes are based on a 1954 TV episode of _Westinghouse Studio One_ on CBS, starring comedian Bob Cummings as the holdout juror later played by Henry Fonda, Norman Fell (famous from Three's Company and The Ropers, who also appeared on TV many times as a villain such as on The Bionic Woman) as the foreman played by Martin Balsam in the movie, and a young Vincent Gardenia (possibly best known for All in the Family and his role in the Death Wish movies starring Charles Bronson) as the bailiff.
Most of the actors in this were at the beginnings of their careers, but will become exceedingly famous.
It cracks me up how much you're looking for more complicated and complex story telling here; eg. missing wedding rings/secret jobs... Definitely interesting to see the evolution of film over the decades; how stories have become so much more involved.
If you really want to watch more classic movies featuring legal issues, here are 3 suggestions: 1 - "To Kill A Mockingbird", 2 - "Anatomy of a Murder", 3 - "The Fountainhead".
Great reaction video to this masterpiece. One answer to your question early on: You asked whether or not Lee J. Cobb (Juror #3, the last one to vote not guilty) had a son who was also an actor. I'm not aware of one. But the one who did was Ed Begley (Juror #10, the bigot), whose son Ed Begley Jr. got his break on St. Elsewhere in the '80s and went on to a very successful acting career on stage, TV, and film.
this is a good movie about various difficulty in changing people's opinion. The hardest person to change is the person with personal feelings attached.
Superb script, excellent actors! Upon further viewing, Lumet and his cinematographer Boris Kaufman cleverly manipulated the viewer by starting with wide, group shots progressing to extreme closeups. A masterpiece.
This is one of the greatest casts in Hollywood history. Aside from the legendary Henry Fonda and the all-time great Lee J. Cobb, there is a host of lesser but very bright lights like Jack Klugman, E. G. Marshall, Ed Begley, Sr., Martin Balsam, Jack Warden, Robert Webber, John Fielder, the ever-dependable Edward Binns, all actors who routinely put in extremely memorable performances. The whole movie just crackles. There are no special effects, no action sequences, one set, all talking and closeups, and you still can't take your eyes off the screen. They don't make 'em like this anymore.
The 1997 remake is in colour. Juror number 7 is played by Jack Lemmon and Juror 3 is played by George C. Scott.
There's been many homages in TV shows to 12 Angry Men especially in mystery shows like Monk, Veronica Mars and Murder, She Wrote. And it's been remade many times in multiple countries and languages, but I think now would be a good time to remake it in the US. The title would have to be changed now that women participate in jury duty. Maybe 12 Angry Americans.
I don't think it needs a remake. This film is truly timeless, even with it being in black and white.
they remade it about 30 years ago with a great cast including Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, Tony Danza, Edward James Olmos, Ossie Davis, William Petersen and James Gandolfini and it was absolutely horrible
The only thing better than this movie is to see it on stage.
I served jury duty a few years ago. The judge gave us explicit instructions regarding the law. It was a murder case.
Yet a jury could secretly practice jury nullification.
"Whaddya mean them?" I think he means Puerto Ricans who live in slums in New York.
I remember that cloth/towel thing in the bathroom when I was younger. Back then, we used it to dry our hands with it, and somehow didn't think much of it back then. Today, it seems so gross! LOL!
Always wanted to have jury service when it finally happened i was given a coroners court, it was so sad listening and watching the last days of someones life. 😢
I've seen more films than I can remember, but this is probably in my top 5, if not top 3. It's an almost perfect film.
Think about it: almost everything happens in a single room, there's not a single spoiled moment or piece of dialogue that doesn't reinforce or enrich the characters, and the plot is an unstoppable logical juggernaut that tackles issues like prejudice, race, age and more without batting an eyelash.
Oh, and it's almost 100 years old.
This was excellent, man! Great reaction! Love the detail and hearing your thoughts throughout! Yeah, Juror No.3 was projecting his own relationship with his son on to the accused and his father. Such a heartbreaking moment when he realises it himself, despite it being the 'final victory'. Love it! Awesome reaction!!
EDIT: Also, awesome Buffy hoodie! I need to get me one of those! XD
Thank youuu my dude🫡🫡
Although this movie is saying things about class, it is also pointing out issues about prejudices regarding race or ethnicity. The movie purposefully keeps the race of the defendant vague so the viewer can project their own feelings, or interpretations, based on their own experiences. ( I have seen several Black reactors state they thought the boy was Black.) However, due to the fact that the teleplay was written in 1947 and the movie produced in 1957 with a setting in New York, it is generally accepted that the boy was supposed to be from Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans have US citizenship and between 1950 and 1960 there occurred what is called "the Great Migration" where 21% of the Island population left for mainland USA with many of those ending up in New York. The movie "Westside Story" released in 1961 also deals with the explosion of Puerto Ricans migrants in New York. Also, the Switchblade or Switch Knife was linked in tabloids to the influx of Puerto Ricans as a campaign to paint the migrants as violent and unruly which lead the knives from being banned from sale or manufacture by a bill submitted by a New York politician in 1954. But interesting fun fact is the actor playing the defendant was not Hispanic but was was of Italian heritage and this was his only movie role.
1957 is long long before a Steadicam existed so when you describe the shot you will have to find something else to explain it. In fact film cameras in 1957 were absolutely massive. First major film to have anything that you could hold in one hand as a film camera was easy ride which made attaching camera to various parts of motorcycle possible. I think the first major release of a film where they had a Steadicam was The Shining.
Brilliant performances in this fantastic bottle-movie.
When that guy said he was one of his executioners he was talking figuratively. He didn't mean that he would physically push the switch. Let's be careful with the literal thinking. The guy was very excited so he said what made him feel good, not the reality of the facts.
Probably my favorite movie. Ridiculously good
It's interesting to me that your first supposition is that Juror 8 must have had some stake in the game in order to ask questions, either as an investigator or someone somehow related to the case. I think this is a product of decades of Hollywood hackery. It's quite popular to downplay the drives of curiosity or responsibility in favor of quick and easy motives in depicting a character. Very telling. People raised in the current climate of movies are always waiting for the twist, even when there is no evidence a twist is forthcoming. It's because a twist is an easy way to make a movie memorable. But it's not necessary in every story. Sometimes facts are uncovered and it changes the narrative.
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind and/or children of men
When Henry Fonda first says 'them' he is responding to the comments the other juror made a few minutes earlier, when he said 'they' were born liars and so on.
Not every man used to wear a wedding ring: my father never did.
You skipped the post credits scene that sets up the extended X-Angry Cinematic Universe.
i watched this film age 16-17, in school (psychology class). I hate slow movies, never watched an old movie before, and yet... it enthralled me. the other kids were bored and uninterested but i was HOOKED. i had to finish watching it at home, cause we didn't have time to finish the movie in class. it changed me, man. one of the best movies i've ever watched, it's such a msterpiece. i hope they remake it for current audiences, so people like my peers,, who mostly lost interest due to it being black and white and with old timey lingo and music, can enjoy the extremely engaging characters and drama! i know they're making a musical about it,, hope that will draw attention to the old movie as well!
Been condition to modern movies and their "twist at the end" gimmick distracted you from the climax, you tried to think ahead of the movie so you missed the emotional ride.. This is just good old fashion writing, no twist but an excellent climax. Interesting. Great work by the way.
"The Verdict" and "A Civil Action" are also great law-related movies! Suggested by a fellow law student :)
"A Civil Action" is the only film I've seen with John Travolta. I loved his character arc from hotshot lawyer to someone who begins to really care, breaking himself against the system. And for all that he was on the "bad guys" side, I remember Robert Duvall also being a really likeable character.
Watching the top 100 IMBD films is a great idea. You will watch some of the finest movies ever made and give you a solid basis for viewing/reviewing other films in your life.
You bring up a point I've made for a long time here. Considering the theme of prejudicing people's opinions, the choice to show the defendant is an interesting one. The fact that he looks scared and innocent makes a lot of people side with him immediately. I wonder what would happen if we either didn't see who was on trial, or if he looked more like the stereotype for a hardened criminal, rough and remorseless. Not a criticism of the movie or anything, just an interesting choice. This is an all-time great.
In the original play this was based on, we never see what the boy looks like. However, the stage direction notes describe him as Puerto Rican.
Last juror said "not guilty" to his own son. His son wasn't guilty in their bad relationship but that last juror was, it's really great scene
Nice catch with the stabbing scene. You guessed it correctly how they the switchblade is to be used from below.
Yeah, it's really a perfect movie. I hope you got tons of filmmaking info from this, ellie.
This is not a cult classic. Just a classic.
I don't know the law in the US but in the UK, once Henry Fonda produces that knife in the Jury room we have a miss trial.
my dad made me watch this when I was around 10 and I hated the first few minutes because it was in black and white but by the end it became one of my favorite films of all time
Jurors like this really exist. They should be forced to work to a minimum set time each day there is no incentive to finish early and rush a judgement
So long as they were compensated for their time properly, I could get behind that. One of the main problems with Jury duty is that it often pays shit.
@@ronaldolson6553 Sometimes home insurance covers it