Thank you for posting this. I'm 68, and I remember seeing programs like this. Even at 10 years old, I was fascinated. I don't think that there will ever again be live broadcast dramas like this. It was like being in the front row of a Broadway Theater.
@@strandedodin7804 - Yup, and I've seen so much in recent history. From the JFK assassination to landing on the moon & watergate. etc. that I wouldn't give that away for almost anything except for being 29 again. How old are you ?
@@purplelove2863 -Thankyou so much for asking. This same website also has Requiem For A Heavyweight with Jack Palance - Also the theatrical release of 12 Angry Men (1957) is as good as the TV version. Fail Safe (1964) is another great Henry Fonda movie. I will add that Death Of A Salesman is a great story, although I've been unable to find the TV version i saw in 50's-60's.. If you like my suggestions I will be more than happy to send you more Thanks, Ted
This is probably the most performed version of the story, especially for small community theaters as it only runs an hour. However, the screenplay for the movie best sells juror 3's motivation. I was Juror 3 in a 2013 production and it was difficult having to make a huge 180 degree turn at the end. Franchot Tone does an extraordinary job selling that turnaround.
The 1957 version was obviously the strongest, but this 1954 was done live without retakes - all by memory - it was a play. The actors here were also a great batch of character actors of the same time. They had to memorize their roles for an act that lasted almost 1 hour without mistakes. Vincent Gardenia was the unaccredited role as the bailiff - of course he himself became a great comedy and serious actor.
Agreed. While this performance pales in comparison to the 1957 feature film, credit does have to be given to the live performance of a dialogue heavy play. The 1957 features proves a few things. First, the material in "better actors" hands. This is not a knock on the actors here (although the old man and the immigrant are played by the same actor in both), but the 1957 movie has both huge actors and character actors. Second, the 1957 version shows the true promises of movies beyond just filming of stage plays. Movies allow development, editing, and retakes that a live performance doesn't. You can see the benefit that provides when you compare the 1957 movie version to this. So a lot of credit to the filmmakers themselves. Directing live performance and movies are totally different things. Credit to both. Also, Robert Cummings is not Henry Fonda. And Franchot Tone doesn't have the gruff power and force that Lee J. Cobb brought to the role.
@@unfuzzy The difference is the amount of time they have to prepare and rehearse. A Broadway show will be performed repeatedly in front of paying audiences, while a teleplay like this will be performed only once (and then rebroadcast on the West Coast 3 hours later), funded entirely by Westinghouse advertising, so it wasn't exactly a big budget. You can see the actors stumbling over some of their lines here, particularly Robert Cummings. They chose him for the lead role, presumably because they thought he would be the best at it, yet he still struggled a lot, since he had by far the most lines to memorize.
@@EebstertheGreat you don't think teleplays were rehearsed before they aired?? yes, robert cummings had a lot of lines to memorize - no more than the guy who played his role when they did this onstage. you're making it sound like it's a miracle they remember their lines at all!
@@unfuzzy I'm acknowledging that teleplays were rehearsed less than Broadway shows, as you can clearly tell just by watching this. Nobody is saying that memorizing lines quickly is unusual or extremely impressive.
Vincent Gardenia is the court officer. It's great to see these old programs and to try to identify the performers, some of whom went on to long and productive careers.
Being 57 and from Holland, I missed this whole episode of television's infancy. Watching this 69 years later, it still captures me very strongly. Not only the fact that it's television history, the restauration of the original picture/frame rate, also the case itself presented as a television play is something to watch. We can learn from this. All of us...
Originally telecast on September 12, 1954. Yes, for years, only the FIRST half of the program was available for viewing, because no one knew where a copy of the FULL episode was. ONE of them was eventually found in the possession of someone in the legal profession......
This is one of the best performances for early television I have ever seen. It was a new medium, and for real it had to be pretty hot in there under the TV lights--and you needed A LOT of them back them. And they had to do it end to end, in real time. I found the acting to be pretty realistic--surprisingly so, since most of these guys were not used to TV. Great post. Great job.
These old Television program restorations are awesome. The cleaned up picture combined with the 60fps frame rate, this is exactly what these programs would look like if they were viewed on a videotape reel as opposed to a kinescope film-reel. You almost can’t tell the difference! I hope you end up uploading more in the future. :)
The restoration is great--but grater-- the actors, as they were, in a tight studio,3 or 4 hulking tv cameras tight at their back, heat from the studio lights of the day, no tape, no edits--quite astonishing. Lucky old me, saw it as it was, then the 1957 movie, both with parents who loved LIVE TV dramas. Having seen the '57 film a bunch of times , this compares favorably. It's raw as it was on the little 21 inch B&W TV screen. The actors and director/s had to nail it to the second, in addition to the lines. Only breaks were for the commercials, a glass of water, make-up touch-ups and deep breath.
Judging by the quality of old products, I would assume many of these are still around and in full functioning order. For proof, go look at the original broadcast of Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer, which was sponsored by GE. Half of the comments are people saying how they still have the items in the commercials.
I like that in the movie the old man does not use glasses, saying he has a good vision 20/20, yet in this version he uses glasses. I love the movie and this live performance was good too
For teachers out there...end of Act I is at 24:00, end of Act II is at 36:00. It follows the Sherman Sergal play adapted from the TV show pretty closely.
I find it somewhat amusing that teachers are using this so much for class. Haha! My interest in restoring these kinescopes has resulted in homework assignments. I’m sure students have an effigy of me somewhere. Must be where my back pain comes from.
@@nbntelevision1as a student, this film what is amazing and gave me a good idea of how to perform as a jurist when I became an adult. Watching the film was important to my life and a good civics lesson.
I love the 1957 film, but this live tv version is awesome! I so wish network tv would rediscover its roots and try this again. That’s of course without the unnecessary vulgar language and content present in today’s shows. I felt like I used a time traveling tv because the commercials were left in this program! I loved those commercials as much as the show itself. Thanks very much for this wonderful video, that I just happened to find.
This is the first time I'd seen this version of this story about racism, prejudice and bigotry. It still stands up rather well Sixty six years after its live filming. Personally I preferred the Sidney Lumet version, which has been regarded as the 2nd greatest courtroom drama of all time .Despite getting academy award nominations it lost out to 'The Bridge on the River Kwai' which won 7AA's. But if you want to see the greatest courtroom drama of all time then 'To Kill a Mockingbird' is a masterpiece of the genre. It's also one of my favourite films of all time. If you've never seen it before - make it a must see.
I saw this originally at the Paley Center; their copy is kind of a mess (to say the least) compared to your work here. Thanks so much--this is a joy to watch thanks to your work.
As a broadcast engineering professional and a fan of golden age live television, I am utterly shocked and delighted by the results of this restoration. I've seen another kinescope of this program. When you consider how much visual data is lost between the old 60Hz/30FPS B&W broadcast and the 24FPS kinescopic transfer, it's amazing that you were able to recover that much detail. It's even more interesting if you were working off of a videotape original, which was most likely a down-generation copy that was recorded on a later color NTSC system that was interlaced 262 lines, rather than the original B&W progressive 525 lines. I could go on and on. The typical geometric distortion caused by the convex shape of the CRT tube (which makes all kinescope "bulge" in the center) seems like it has been corrected in the graphics suite. I can't figure out how you suppressed all of the bloom and flare that seems unavoidable in those old live productions with the harsh lighting and primitive pickup tubes of the age. This is truly amazing. Very well done!
As far as I know all professional videotape standards recorded the full 525i signal. I have never seen a videotape that only did 262i as that would be NONcompatible for NTSC broadcast (and fail to display on American televisions) .
Acting and script definitely needed improvements and Reginald Rose made it so. The movie version is so much better. But it is interesting to watch this earlier version to see where revisions were made and to compare the acting. Thanks for this upload.
Being made only a few years before the 1957 Henry Fonda film, these two adaptations are ripe for comparison, even though it must be taken into consideration that the limitations of the television medium at the time puts it at a natural disadvantage. I think the movie is superior, but not really because there are too many things that can be faulted in the TV version; it's just that all the great things in the TV version (including excellent performances) are also present in the movie. Some changes for the movie that I liked include: 1. A greater emphasis on the characterisation of each juror, including backstories for most of them. This is especially noticeable for Jurors 1, 2, 6 and 12, who don't really have separate identities in the TV version. The TV version compensates slightly by having 2 and 6 responsible for the revelation about the woman's glasses (done by Juror 9 in the movie but not feasible in the TV version as Joseph Sweeney wore glasses). 2. Ed Begley's initial introduction as a more jovial, comical character in Juror 10, before he increasingly becomes hostile as he realises others don't share his views. 3. The conversations in the bathroom, most significantly between Jurors 6 and 8, where Juror 6 asks an unanswered question: What about if they're about to exonerate a guilty man? 4. More emphasis on the cause of Juror 3's antagonism in relation to his own son. It's brought up in the TV movie, but Lee J. Cobb's acting at the end...unforgettable. 5. Making Juror 5, as opposed to Juror 8, responsible for the revelation about how the knife was used. His background made this a more appropriate choice. 6. Further emphasising Juror 7's indifference to the goings on with his constant baseball references. The change from his having theatre tickets to baseball tickets is a minor one, but it allows for a lot more talk without it getting repetitive. 7. The brilliant use of camera angles in the film to make it increasingly claustrophobic. This is, of course, much harder to do in the live TV medium (some of the cameras are even visible here), but those angles in the film are masterful. 8. The extra running time. I don't know if Rose had written the script for the film first and then cut it down for the television play, but I feel the pacing is a little off in the TV version, but I'm not convinced that my opinion isn't just being coloured by the film. Even with the longer running time, there doesn't seem to be a moment in the film wasted. Just some thoughts. You'll note that I don't have too much criticism for the TV version. It really is good and deserved its Emmys.
Also, I haven't verified it but I have seen statements twice now that the film version actually made the jury room smaller in the second act and then smaller again in the third act!
I went to The Museum of TV and Radio to watch as many of these old kinescopes as I could before launching my own project of theatre on live television. It was very difficult but felt great when things went well.
Bad Maria Productions I launched the first live radio series in Calgary in 80 years myself. I’d love to know how you went about your production on television. It’s something I’d like to accomplish here as well.
The stage play and film that Rose expanded from this is vastly better. "You open your mouth again and I'll split your skull is a terrible line, a terrible tactical mistake. In the longer version his otracizing by silence was much more devastating, if a bit too schematic, like a ballet.
@@sgtpepper1138yes taking glasses into bed with you is a good recipe for breaking them. Plus you can't lay your head on the pillow without them pushing into your nose. I guess it's different for people who sleep on their back. My glasses always go on to the nightstand.
Betty Furness Westinghouse commercials too! Wow! I remember her on ch.4 news in nyc as their consumer affairs commercial. She was also nyc consumer affairs commissioner.
This looks amazing! I once tried similar techniques on Tales of Tomorrow, but it took hours to do even one shot and it still didn't look as good as this.
Indeed it does. This is why I haven't made any more yet. I'm currently installing a mainframe to reduce the processing time. It used to take 8 hours for about 10 minutes of footage. While not completed yet, the mainframe can process video in near real-time. Once it is completed, I'll be posting more.
Yikes. That frame rate conversion from 24 to 60 produced a lot of digital artifacts from the optical flow process. I find it rather distracting. But, this is still easier to watch than the 240P version on RUclips.
Share this link far and wide, fans, because the 4K version of the 1957 film hits street on Tuesday - and it does NOT have this or ANY of the other extras that are on the previous Criterion Blu-Ray release. Incidentally, there can be absolutely nothing more 1950s than that opening Westinghouse ad.
Having seen the film version so often, I think that the changes Rose made in his screenplay were well-advised. Among many other alterations, the changing of juror #3's vote is dispensed with quickly, the justification being that his courage was questioned by juror #9. An admirable effort by all, certainly. However, the movie is a masterpiece.
67 years later I still do not have a dish-washer or a frost-free refrigerator! I do, however, have a steam-iron, except that it has sat unused on a closet shelf for 15 years, thanks to knit-shirts and permanent-press clothes.
Thanks to Terry Teachout, theatre and cultural critic for the Wall Street Journal, for his excellent column on this version of TWELVE ANGRY MEN in today's paper.
2:12, Norman Fell, the original foreman of the jury in this film. Three years later, his rival Jack Klugman was in the film as the juror that grew up in the slums. I couldn't imagine Fell taking on the foreman role in the 1957 film and working with Klugman.
In a comment on a clip from the 1957 movie, I stated that in no other film was the acting more critical to the film's success, since it must create the drama, emotional and psychological tension and suspense that are usually produced in part by music, scenery and special effects. Seeing this version, that becomes all the more evident, because the difference between the two is so immense due to the far superior actors in the movie, in particular, Henry Fonda, Lee Cobb and Jack Warden. The shorter time also leaves less room for personality developments that add to the interpersonal tension and the psychological aspects that lead them to change their votes. Here, the vote changes make zero sense, especially the last one, where he seems to give in just to end his holdout, rather because they force him to acknowledge that he is taking out his anger at his son on the defendant. The later TV movie, with an all-star cast, incl. George C. Scott, Tony Danza, Jack Lemmon, Edward James Olmos, Hume Cronyn and James Gandolfini was also far superior, though I still give the medal to the film version.
the ironic thing about the commercial at the beginning is that Westinghouse is now known as a cheap brand that isn't nearly as reliable as it's mostly asian competitors. For instance, My grandfather was given a Westinghouse Smart TV for Christmas two years ago. I got one of the same model. Within 3 months his had bricked itself while mine had a defect to begin with where the remote didn't work no matter what. When he tried to use the warrenty, he discovered 2 things. 1. you have to pay for shipping both ways and for a TV that size, it'd be several hundred dollars. Their warranty also left so many loopholes that they could basically look at it and , without looking at it say that it isn't covered and send it back unrepaired. 2. Westinghouse filed Chapter 11 or 7 bankrupcy only a week before, so they're already pretty much out of business anyway
It is and it isn’t a Westinghouse. Westinghouse as it was back in the day doesn’t exist. An Asian company bought the intellectual property and proceeded to make products on the cheap. Indeed, Westinghouse is now considered a lower-end product.
Nicholas Stix If not that something else. They’re like RCA, both were great companies who were innovative if not revolutionary, and they’ve been reduced to brand names for substandard products.
Be advised: This is not a movie. This is the original live television version. The movie came three years later I’m 1957, so if you’re looking for the movie, you’ll need to search “Twelve Angry Men 1957.” It’s 90 minutes and has a different cast. I wouldn’t want you being quizzed on the TV teleplay if you were to watch the film instead.
@@littlewriterboy Yeah. This was broadcast on live television when that was the norm. Videotape hadn’t yet been invented, so everything was happening at the moment you were watching.
Demonstrating the fine quality of live television broadcasting available in the early 1950s. A stage p!ay presented for you in your own living room. Live performance not only requiring a cast of stellar actors but an expertise in the technical aspects of camera work and lighting. Some of the actors appearing here also appeared in the later movie version. Robert Cummings does fine but doesn't transmit the self-confident authority of Henry Fonda who played that role in the movie. All in all, this TV version well worth watching.
Some of the actors - such as Joseph Sweeney ('the old man') and George Voskevec (the European) reprised their roles in the 1957 film Worth seeing this version. Obviously a bit stagey and less-polished than the Sidney Lumet take but still worth seeing. Thanks for the upload!
You're doing fantastic work! It'd be great if you'd also restore some Golden Age Live Television Comedy...Sid Caesar classics like "This Is Your Story", "Aggravation Boulevard" & "Gallipaci"...a Dean Martin & Jerry Lewis Colgate Comedy Hour...and how terrific it would be to see an early Texaco Star Theatre with Milton Berle looking live again! Hope you'll be getting around to those soon.
Bob Waldman I've really been wanting to restore some variety shows, but most of the source material is too lousy to even attempt. If yourself or anyone knows of some good sources to get quality kinescope copies, I would really love to know. I'd definitely restore those.
NBNTelevision Also check out AMC The Martin & Lewis Show 2 DVD set...it's pretty good. Not as good as the Caesar collection, but good. The 6/24/51 episode is M&L at their live TV best. You can find it on Amazon.
It's really nice to see this with less flicker and the frame rate restored by interpolation. It would be even nicer if the specks of dust, appearing as random black and white marks, were removed; if the distortion from aiming a kinescope at the curved face if a CRT were corrected; and if a little noise reduction were applied to the sound.
This is the result after all of that has been done. The “distortion” is called linearity and it was a particularly hard problem to adjust linearity of all the cameras and have them match. Just one of the issues of early television. The film on this was very dirty and it has been cleaned I assure you. Sometimes one can go too far when applying a cleanup. The audio track also has noise reduction, but one can only go so far with that as well, before the software begins to eliminate legitimate audio. I also applied an exciter to the audio for increased frequency range as an optical sound track on film tops out at about 6-7K. I used to post example comparisons between unrestored and restored, but I think viewers became bored with that.
@@AMEER-114- do you have a need to be such a bitch? Its just a damn spelling mistake. You dont have to raze hell and be a grammar nazi yet you chose too for no discernible reason.
@@DxGamer6767 i think thou protesteth too much. Or... You couldve said.... "Dang I was careless, even simple errors like that make me appear as a purveyor of confusion and cause my statement to lose my intended meaning and the reader to have to struggle to figure it out. I regret this enough to make sure Im more careful from now on. I want to thank you for pointing it out. I see you are for clarity in communication and thats a good thing" JESUS CHRIST BE PRAISED
Seeing work like this is remarkable and frustrating all at the same time. Remarkable because the results speak for themselves...frustrating because the rights holders should see the value of this!! Can you imagine the Honeymooners lost episodes, the Sid Caesar broadcasts, and other kinescope-based programming being upgraded in this way? It would be a revelation!
Jason Wentworth Thank you! Well, I’m working on some additional content when I can. I would love for CBS to release Playhouse 90. The only honeymooners episodes that exist were recorded on film via an Electronicam. The good news is that the 39 episodes in existence I can convert to look “as if” it was live TV.
@@nbntelevision1 I'm following you now just for this response. Like you, I grew up with Franklin J. Schaffner films and was his biggest fan I knew. Keep up the great work - CBS needs to hire you now!
@NBNTelevision I'm all about bringing back in 4K all the "lost" episodes of "The Honeymooners" you can find. I hate, if what you say is true, that basically everything from the DuMont Network is at the bottom of the East River now. It's hard enough to resurrect the BBC's tapes from the 1960s without knowing that an entire history of a network's programming is gone.
Two actors reprised their role for the 1957 film version. The old man and the immigrant. Sadly Edward Arnold died in 1956 or he might have been in the theatrical version too.
Big props to these guys for doing it straight through on live TV. If we didn't have the 157 film version, in comparison to which everything else falls short, it could even be called a classic. If I had to be picky, I'd argue that Lee J. Cobb's Juror #3 is far superior to Franchot Tone's performance here. Perhaps, given the restraints of the production, Tone just doesn't have the latitude to develop and flesh out the character, but with Cobb, you can see a profoundly damaged but fundamentally decent man dealing with a terrible personal trauma, and that's what's warping his judgment. Tone's character, far as I can see, is just an asshole.
Yeah. Still I prefer this finale and the line about being alone. Because fundamentally this is about not being a sheep, reasoning with your own mind. We don't know what makes n.3 so obtuse here, the movie gives a reason but I prefer movies where characters are not furnished complete with all the answers like in here. He's an asshole, but an intriguing one. About the actors, I think Fell might be preferable to Balsam (maybe because here he's got less to say) and Abel to Marshall who plays his character too literally.
@@trickydick6152 Interesting that you pick up on the contrast in the way Abel and Marshall portray Juror #4. The template calls for a cerebral, analytical guy who's driven strictly by facts and by logic, which Marshall captures quite well -- and yet here's Abel, who does the same thing, coming all the way around the table, getting right up in the racist asshole's face, and threatening to split his skull open if he doesn't sit down and shut the fuck up.
NBNT, Thank you for another great restoration! I look forward to more, especially the Playhouse 90s. Also, is it possible to restore any programs from different genres? there are very few soap operas that survive from this era at all, as most of the tapes were wiped and reused and the kines recycled for their silver. Is there any chance of restoring any episodes? Tales of Tomorrow is another show that might be worth considering. It was an adult sci-fi anthology which probably influenced The Twilight Zone, and one episode of Tales is based on the same story as a a TLZ episode. And then there's the kid stuff, Tom Corbett and Space Patrol, kids' sci-fi, although Space Patrol had a significant adult crossover viewership. Space Patrol had an almost incalculable influence on Star Trek TOS. Virtually every device and concept on TOS was on Space Patrol first. At least one series of SP episodes, "The Androids of Algol," bears a striking (if not suspicious) resemblance to the TOS episode "What are Little Girls Made Of." Just my 2 cents, ANY restorations will be greatly appreciated by me and, I'm sure everybody else. Thanks again.
As Archie and Edith used to sing, "those were the days."- a time when the American television viewing public had the class, patience, good taste, and open-mindedness to watch an hour program with no shooting, no car chases, no special effects, no stupid jokes.
ricky coker And today you can get an iron that would absolutely blow away the iron advertised for much less than half that. Technology, stuff gets better and cheaper. Always has, always will.
Actually that $17.95 from 1954 if it was in silver coins of the era would be worth $360 to $400 now depending on the denomination of the coins and the current spot price of silver $17.95 in today's coins would be worth about $5 in metal value
I am most likely in the minority, but while I think most of the characters are better in the 1957 movie version (yes, I know that two of them are the same), I think the guy who played #8 in this version did a better job of portraying the character than Henry Fonda. I think he is more believable as a person who sincerely thinks the accused may be not guilty. Fonda seems to come across some times as a person who is more interested in just getting his way and thus "winning" the fight, although Fonda's attitude may have helped the overall success of the movie. It would have been nifty, though, to see how the TV #8 would have done in the expanded 1957 movie version.
Most of this does just enrich my appreciation for the interpretations that came after, the ending especially, but the one guy definitely snuck armor under his suit, cause after the angriest man goes to stab him my brain almost thought the hole in his vest was from the demonstration and not for a button.
DonPeyote You can also see one on the right at 12:56 with a giant CBS logo on the side of it. Gotta love seeing that technology in action (even if it was by accident).
DonPeyote Eh. It’s good that you can rarely see the camera anyways considering this was 1. Made in the 50s when editing was not as good due to limited technology. 2. Life TV performance.
I LOVE THE PLYHOUSE 90 I ABOUT 50 OF THEM ON DVD EVEN THE FIST AND LAST ONE BUT I LIKED SOMEONE TO FIND AND POST MORE OF THE PRODUCERS SHOWCASE FILMS NBC 1954-1957 I HAVE SOM,E OF THEM TOO ON DVD FROM VIA
Very good. I watched the Tony Hancock version of this and hadn't realised it had been done before. Of course the Hancock version had a twist at the end.
Thank you for posting this. I'm 68, and I remember seeing programs like this. Even at 10 years old, I was fascinated. I don't think that there will ever again be live broadcast dramas like this. It was like being in the front row of a Broadway Theater.
You 69 yet
@@strandedodin7804 - Yup, and I've seen so much in recent history. From the JFK assassination to landing on the moon & watergate. etc. that I wouldn't give that away for almost anything except for being 29 again. How old are you ?
Can you recommend any others for me to watch? This wasn’t my era, and I’d love to watch more like this!! This is so awesome for me to watch this!
@@purplelove2863 -Thankyou so much for asking. This same website also has Requiem For A Heavyweight with Jack Palance - Also the theatrical release of 12 Angry Men (1957) is as good as the TV version. Fail Safe (1964) is another great Henry Fonda movie. I will add that Death Of A Salesman is a great story, although I've been unable to find the TV version i saw in 50's-60's.. If you like my suggestions I will be more than happy to send you more Thanks, Ted
@@theolamp5312 thank you so much, I will check them out!!
This is probably the most performed version of the story, especially for small community theaters as it only runs an hour. However, the screenplay for the movie best sells juror 3's motivation. I was Juror 3 in a 2013 production and it was difficult having to make a huge 180 degree turn at the end. Franchot Tone does an extraordinary job selling that turnaround.
The 1957 version was obviously the strongest, but this 1954 was done live without retakes - all by memory - it was a play. The actors here were also a great batch of character actors of the same time. They had to memorize their roles for an act that lasted almost 1 hour without mistakes. Vincent Gardenia was the unaccredited role as the bailiff - of course he himself became a great comedy and serious actor.
Agreed. While this performance pales in comparison to the 1957 feature film, credit does have to be given to the live performance of a dialogue heavy play. The 1957 features proves a few things. First, the material in "better actors" hands. This is not a knock on the actors here (although the old man and the immigrant are played by the same actor in both), but the 1957 movie has both huge actors and character actors. Second, the 1957 version shows the true promises of movies beyond just filming of stage plays. Movies allow development, editing, and retakes that a live performance doesn't. You can see the benefit that provides when you compare the 1957 movie version to this. So a lot of credit to the filmmakers themselves. Directing live performance and movies are totally different things. Credit to both.
Also, Robert Cummings is not Henry Fonda.
And Franchot Tone doesn't have the gruff power and force that Lee J. Cobb brought to the role.
you talk about these people having to memorize their roles - that's what play actors do all the time!
@@unfuzzy The difference is the amount of time they have to prepare and rehearse. A Broadway show will be performed repeatedly in front of paying audiences, while a teleplay like this will be performed only once (and then rebroadcast on the West Coast 3 hours later), funded entirely by Westinghouse advertising, so it wasn't exactly a big budget. You can see the actors stumbling over some of their lines here, particularly Robert Cummings. They chose him for the lead role, presumably because they thought he would be the best at it, yet he still struggled a lot, since he had by far the most lines to memorize.
@@EebstertheGreat you don't think teleplays were rehearsed before they aired?? yes, robert cummings had a lot of lines to memorize - no more than the guy who played his role when they did this onstage. you're making it sound like it's a miracle they remember their lines at all!
@@unfuzzy I'm acknowledging that teleplays were rehearsed less than Broadway shows, as you can clearly tell just by watching this. Nobody is saying that memorizing lines quickly is unusual or extremely impressive.
Vincent Gardenia is the court officer. It's great to see these old programs and to try to identify the performers, some of whom went on to long and productive careers.
Being 57 and from Holland, I missed this whole episode of television's infancy. Watching this 69 years later, it still captures me very strongly. Not only the fact that it's television history, the restauration of the original picture/frame rate, also the case itself presented as a television play is something to watch. We can learn from this. All of us...
Originally telecast on September 12, 1954. Yes, for years, only the FIRST half of the program was available for viewing, because no one knew where a copy of the FULL episode was. ONE of them was eventually found in the possession of someone in the legal profession......
This is one of the best performances for early television I have ever seen. It was a new medium, and for real it had to be pretty hot in there under the TV lights--and you needed A LOT of them back them. And they had to do it end to end, in real time. I found the acting to be pretty realistic--surprisingly so, since most of these guys were not used to TV. Great post. Great job.
These old Television program restorations are awesome. The cleaned up picture combined with the 60fps frame rate, this is exactly what these programs would look like if they were viewed on a videotape reel as opposed to a kinescope film-reel. You almost can’t tell the difference! I hope you end up uploading more in the future. :)
The restoration is great--but grater-- the actors, as they were, in a tight studio,3 or 4 hulking tv cameras tight at their back, heat from the studio lights of the day, no tape, no edits--quite astonishing. Lucky old me, saw it as it was, then the 1957 movie, both with parents who loved LIVE TV dramas. Having seen the '57 film a bunch of times , this compares favorably. It's raw as it was on the little 21 inch B&W TV screen. The actors and director/s had to nail it to the second, in addition to the lines. Only breaks were for the commercials, a glass of water, make-up touch-ups and deep breath.
These are great restorations. The Museum of Television and Radio should hire you.
Albin Kampfer Thanks! I'll keep posting these as much as I can. It's nice to know people enjoy them.
yes I love these tv films too
you bet we do, and having once worked at MT&R- you do a better and more comprehensive job. PLEASE keep up the great work! And the great posts!
@@nbntelevision1 I could hazard a guess that in the future, you will have potential in the future.
it's crazy how clear it is! it feels like watching it live.
Man, these Westinghouse products are pretty neat!
no kidding. imagine having air conditioning in the WHOLE HOUSE !
They're keen!
Judging by the quality of old products, I would assume many of these are still around and in full functioning order. For proof, go look at the original broadcast of Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer, which was sponsored by GE. Half of the comments are people saying how they still have the items in the commercials.
Pleased to see that juror #9 is the same three years later.
So is #11.
Joseph Sweeney
@@fuerLutzi George Voskovec
@@mahajoma1 sans moustache...
I like that in the movie the old man does not use glasses, saying he has a good vision 20/20, yet in this version he uses glasses. I love the movie and this live performance was good too
The 1957 movie with Henry Fonda is AMAZING, and I highly recommend it. But it's good to see this version also!
😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
For teachers out there...end of Act I is at 24:00, end of Act II is at 36:00. It follows the Sherman Sergal play adapted from the TV show pretty closely.
I find it somewhat amusing that teachers are using this so much for class. Haha! My interest in restoring these kinescopes has resulted in homework assignments. I’m sure students have an effigy of me somewhere. Must be where my back pain comes from.
@@nbntelevision1as a student, this film what is amazing and gave me a good idea of how to perform as a jurist when I became an adult. Watching the film was important to my life and a good civics lesson.
I love the 1957 film, but this live tv version is awesome! I so wish network tv would rediscover its roots and try this again. That’s of course without the unnecessary vulgar language and content present in today’s shows.
I felt like I used a time traveling tv because the commercials were left in this program! I loved those commercials as much as the show itself. Thanks very much for this wonderful video, that I just happened to find.
"Vulgar" language makes TV shows seem more realistic because the characters speak like real people.
This might sound odd but I enjoyed the commercials just as much as the film! 😊
22:31 Westinghouse steam iron only $17.95.
Adjusted for inflation, $17.95 in 1954 is equal to $204.69 in 2024.
Wow
I've seen two productions of this play - one in the US when I lived there, and the other here in England. Both were tremendous and gripping.
This is the first time I'd seen this version of this story about racism, prejudice and bigotry. It still stands up rather well Sixty six years after its live filming. Personally I preferred the Sidney Lumet version, which has been regarded as the 2nd greatest courtroom drama of all time .Despite getting academy award nominations it lost out to 'The Bridge on the River Kwai' which won 7AA's.
But if you want to see the greatest courtroom drama of all time then 'To Kill a Mockingbird' is a masterpiece of the genre. It's also one of my favourite films of all time. If you've never seen it before - make it a must see.
Brilliant! Thank you for this upload and keeping the advertisements, which I loved! “You can be sure...if it’s Westinghouse!” 🥰
Classic time capsule 🎥
My theater prof made me watch this. Had regrets at first but it turned out to be really good.
I saw this originally at the Paley Center; their copy is kind of a mess (to say the least) compared to your work here. Thanks so much--this is a joy to watch thanks to your work.
dugsdale Thank you! Would that I could have access to the Paley Center’s content. Would love to restore the pre-tape years of Playhouse 90.
Watching this amazing production of TWELVE ANGRY MEN on September 24, 2019.
I was only 7 days old when this was first telecasted. John Sweeney and George Voskevec were in the original 1957 movie with Henry Fonda.
As were John Fiedler (voice of "Piglet"), Jack Klugman, Martin Balsam and one other famous one I recognized, but can't recall his name.
@John Power I don't care what you think. That is my point.
@@ddivincenzo1194 Norman Fell, the jury foreman (Mr. Roper from "Three's Company")
Excellent job and great show,,Nice to see Norman Fell in that ......Buzz
Thanks Buzz! Norman was partially why I chose this one. People have been requesting comedies, so I'm trying to focus on that for a little while.
Interesting that he is credited as Norman Feld here (his real name)...
As a broadcast engineering professional and a fan of golden age live television, I am utterly shocked and delighted by the results of this restoration. I've seen another kinescope of this program. When you consider how much visual data is lost between the old 60Hz/30FPS B&W broadcast and the 24FPS kinescopic transfer, it's amazing that you were able to recover that much detail. It's even more interesting if you were working off of a videotape original, which was most likely a down-generation copy that was recorded on a later color NTSC system that was interlaced 262 lines, rather than the original B&W progressive 525 lines. I could go on and on. The typical geometric distortion caused by the convex shape of the CRT tube (which makes all kinescope "bulge" in the center) seems like it has been corrected in the graphics suite. I can't figure out how you suppressed all of the bloom and flare that seems unavoidable in those old live productions with the harsh lighting and primitive pickup tubes of the age. This is truly amazing. Very well done!
As far as I know all professional videotape standards recorded the full 525i signal. I have never seen a videotape that only did 262i as that would be NONcompatible for NTSC broadcast (and fail to display on American televisions)
.
P.S. you also said the original broadcast was 525 progressive. No. NTSC is an interlaced standard (525i not 525p)
.
This is amazing. Thank you so much for sharing, I've wanted to see this version ever since I heard it existed.
I think I've seen close to a dozen different versions of this done by now, and no matter which one it is, #4 and #11 are always my favorites
That's a 144 Angry Men ---- almost enough to swing that last election.
Acting and script definitely needed improvements and Reginald Rose made it so. The movie version is so much better. But it is interesting to watch this earlier version to see where revisions were made and to compare the acting. Thanks for this upload.
Who is watching this in 1958? Yikes! My time travell worked!!
Rafay Babar 1963 here. I’m at the Trade Mart waiting for the President. He’s running a little late....
@Emily Moss whoa this is heavy
You have RUclips ?
Being made only a few years before the 1957 Henry Fonda film, these two adaptations are ripe for comparison, even though it must be taken into consideration that the limitations of the television medium at the time puts it at a natural disadvantage. I think the movie is superior, but not really because there are too many things that can be faulted in the TV version; it's just that all the great things in the TV version (including excellent performances) are also present in the movie.
Some changes for the movie that I liked include:
1. A greater emphasis on the characterisation of each juror, including backstories for most of them. This is especially noticeable for Jurors 1, 2, 6 and 12, who don't really have separate identities in the TV version. The TV version compensates slightly by having 2 and 6 responsible for the revelation about the woman's glasses (done by Juror 9 in the movie but not feasible in the TV version as Joseph Sweeney wore glasses).
2. Ed Begley's initial introduction as a more jovial, comical character in Juror 10, before he increasingly becomes hostile as he realises others don't share his views.
3. The conversations in the bathroom, most significantly between Jurors 6 and 8, where Juror 6 asks an unanswered question: What about if they're about to exonerate a guilty man?
4. More emphasis on the cause of Juror 3's antagonism in relation to his own son. It's brought up in the TV movie, but Lee J. Cobb's acting at the end...unforgettable.
5. Making Juror 5, as opposed to Juror 8, responsible for the revelation about how the knife was used. His background made this a more appropriate choice.
6. Further emphasising Juror 7's indifference to the goings on with his constant baseball references. The change from his having theatre tickets to baseball tickets is a minor one, but it allows for a lot more talk without it getting repetitive.
7. The brilliant use of camera angles in the film to make it increasingly claustrophobic. This is, of course, much harder to do in the live TV medium (some of the cameras are even visible here), but those angles in the film are masterful.
8. The extra running time. I don't know if Rose had written the script for the film first and then cut it down for the television play, but I feel the pacing is a little off in the TV version, but I'm not convinced that my opinion isn't just being coloured by the film. Even with the longer running time, there doesn't seem to be a moment in the film wasted.
Just some thoughts. You'll note that I don't have too much criticism for the TV version. It really is good and deserved its Emmys.
In addition to all your excellent points, I think the movie acting of Fonda, Warden, Cobb among others, was far superior.
Also, I haven't verified it but I have seen statements twice now that the film version actually made the jury room smaller in the second act and then smaller again in the third act!
That briefly glimpsed bailiff is Vincent Gardenia, uncredited!
I went to The Museum of TV and Radio to watch as many of these old kinescopes as I could before launching my own project of theatre on live television. It was very difficult but felt great when things went well.
Bad Maria Productions I launched the first live radio series in Calgary in 80 years myself. I’d love to know how you went about your production on television. It’s something I’d like to accomplish here as well.
Bad Maria Productions Sounds Great! yycradioplayhouse@gmail.com would be a good point of contact at your leisure.
The stage play and film that Rose expanded from this is vastly better. "You open your mouth again and I'll split your skull is a terrible line, a terrible tactical mistake. In the longer version his otracizing by silence was much more devastating, if a bit too schematic, like a ballet.
"Yes, we hear you. Now sit down, and don't open your mouth again." - spoken with finality by the great E. G. Marshall
Thank you so much for posting this and all of your effort, it's awesome.
This is great! Thanks for restoring it and putting it up.
"nobody wears their glasses to bed that's crazy!"
Me: *slowly glances sideways and laughs*
My wife does most of the time, I don't know how. I've worn glasses since I was about 6 and don't think I've ever done that, well, on purpose anyway.
@@sgtpepper1138yes taking glasses into bed with you is a good recipe for breaking them. Plus you can't lay your head on the pillow without them pushing into your nose. I guess it's different for people who sleep on their back.
My glasses always go on to the nightstand.
Betty Furness Westinghouse commercials too! Wow! I remember her on ch.4 news in nyc as their consumer affairs commercial. She was also nyc consumer affairs commissioner.
This looks amazing! I once tried similar techniques on Tales of Tomorrow, but it took hours to do even one shot and it still didn't look as good as this.
Indeed it does. This is why I haven't made any more yet. I'm currently installing a mainframe to reduce the processing time. It used to take 8 hours for about 10 minutes of footage. While not completed yet, the mainframe can process video in near real-time. Once it is completed, I'll be posting more.
Incredible!
Thank you for the restoration and posting.
I love it when the lost becomes found again. : )
Checked IMDB. Edward Arnold died a year befor the Lumet/Fonda movie was made. Damn it.
A great.
Yikes. That frame rate conversion from 24 to 60 produced a lot of digital artifacts from the optical flow process. I find it rather distracting. But, this is still easier to watch than the 240P version on RUclips.
Share this link far and wide, fans, because the 4K version of the 1957 film hits street on Tuesday - and it does NOT have this or ANY of the other extras that are on the previous Criterion Blu-Ray release. Incidentally, there can be absolutely nothing more 1950s than that opening Westinghouse ad.
nice to see a couple actors in the film that were in this tv show as well
Having seen the film version so often, I think that the changes Rose made in his screenplay were well-advised. Among many other alterations, the changing of juror #3's vote is dispensed with quickly, the justification being that his courage was questioned by juror #9. An admirable effort by all, certainly. However, the movie is a masterpiece.
Many people would enjoy a restoration the 1958 presentation "The Other Place" on Studio One. Please someone, put it on RUclips.
Tony Minnichsoffer If I can obtain a good source copy, I'd be happy to restore it. Sometimes the hardest part is finding good source material.
Thank you so much. Really appreciate your efforts. This is so great.
I just want to watch 1950's commercials from now on.
Yeah. The commercials are fascinating.
67 years later I still do not have a dish-washer or a frost-free refrigerator! I do, however, have a steam-iron, except that it has sat unused on a closet shelf for 15 years, thanks to knit-shirts and permanent-press clothes.
Thanks to Terry Teachout, theatre and cultural critic for the Wall Street Journal, for his excellent column on this version of TWELVE ANGRY MEN in today's paper.
Edward arnold a truly wonderful actor
Always, Always a great movie, with top actors
Ham Graseley This was the television version that preceded the movie.
So well done. Thank you for posting.
Considering this was live the camera work was great & the editing helps to maintain the viewer’s focus.
Fabulous restoration!
Thanks a TON for this upload
2:12, Norman Fell, the original foreman of the jury in this film. Three years later, his rival Jack Klugman was in the film as the juror that grew up in the slums. I couldn't imagine Fell taking on the foreman role in the 1957 film and working with Klugman.
In a comment on a clip from the 1957 movie, I stated that in no other film was the acting more critical to the film's success, since it must create the drama, emotional and psychological tension and suspense that are usually produced in part by music, scenery and special effects. Seeing this version, that becomes all the more evident, because the difference between the two is so immense due to the far superior actors in the movie, in particular, Henry Fonda, Lee Cobb and Jack Warden. The shorter time also leaves less room for personality developments that add to the interpersonal tension and the psychological aspects that lead them to change their votes. Here, the vote changes make zero sense, especially the last one, where he seems to give in just to end his holdout, rather because they force him to acknowledge that he is taking out his anger at his son on the defendant. The later TV movie, with an all-star cast, incl. George C. Scott, Tony Danza, Jack Lemmon, Edward James Olmos, Hume Cronyn and James Gandolfini was also far superior, though I still give the medal to the film version.
the ironic thing about the commercial at the beginning is that Westinghouse is now known as a cheap brand that isn't nearly as reliable as it's mostly asian competitors. For instance, My grandfather was given a Westinghouse Smart TV for Christmas two years ago. I got one of the same model. Within 3 months his had bricked itself while mine had a defect to begin with where the remote didn't work no matter what. When he tried to use the warrenty, he discovered 2 things.
1. you have to pay for shipping both ways and for a TV that size, it'd be several hundred dollars. Their warranty also left so many loopholes that they could basically look at it and , without looking at it say that it isn't covered and send it back unrepaired.
2. Westinghouse filed Chapter 11 or 7 bankrupcy only a week before, so they're already pretty much out of business anyway
It is and it isn’t a Westinghouse. Westinghouse as it was back in the day doesn’t exist. An Asian company bought the intellectual property and proceeded to make products on the cheap. Indeed, Westinghouse is now considered a lower-end product.
@@PGar58 You're breakin' my heart! Didn't Westinghouse used to sponsor the national high school science competitions?
Nicholas Stix, Uncensored
Nicholas Stix If not that something else. They’re like RCA, both were great companies who were innovative if not revolutionary, and they’ve been reduced to brand names for substandard products.
I have to watch this movie for a class but I genuinely like this movie now. Great restoration, amazing job!
Be advised: This is not a movie. This is the original live television version. The movie came three years later I’m 1957, so if you’re looking for the movie, you’ll need to search “Twelve Angry Men 1957.” It’s 90 minutes and has a different cast. I wouldn’t want you being quizzed on the TV teleplay if you were to watch the film instead.
And thank you for the complement on the restoration! I do my best to get these looking like the day they were broadcast.
@@nbntelevision1 I hadn't realized that this was just a play and not necessarily a movie , but this is the correct one for my class.
@@littlewriterboy Yeah. This was broadcast on live television when that was the norm. Videotape hadn’t yet been invented, so everything was happening at the moment you were watching.
Demonstrating the fine quality of live television broadcasting available in the early 1950s. A stage p!ay presented for you in your own living room. Live performance not only requiring a cast of stellar actors but an expertise in the technical aspects of camera work and lighting. Some of the actors appearing here also appeared in the later movie version. Robert Cummings does fine but doesn't transmit the self-confident authority of Henry Fonda who played that role in the movie. All in all, this TV version well worth watching.
Some of the actors - such as Joseph Sweeney ('the old man') and George Voskevec (the European) reprised their roles in the 1957 film
Worth seeing this version. Obviously a bit stagey and less-polished than the Sidney Lumet take but still worth seeing. Thanks for the upload!
You're doing fantastic work! It'd be great if you'd also restore some Golden Age Live Television Comedy...Sid Caesar classics like "This Is Your Story", "Aggravation Boulevard" & "Gallipaci"...a Dean Martin & Jerry Lewis Colgate Comedy Hour...and how terrific it would be to see an early Texaco Star Theatre with Milton Berle looking live again! Hope you'll be getting around to those soon.
Bob Waldman I've really been wanting to restore some variety shows, but most of the source material is too lousy to even attempt. If yourself or anyone knows of some good sources to get quality kinescope copies, I would really love to know. I'd definitely restore those.
NBNTelevision The Sid Caesar Collection DVD sets have good remastered video from kines. Particularly from Caesar's Hour.
Bob Waldman Thank You! I'll check them out.
NBNTelevision Also check out AMC The Martin & Lewis Show 2 DVD set...it's pretty good. Not as good as the Caesar collection, but good.
The 6/24/51 episode is M&L at their live TV best. You can find it on Amazon.
@@nbntelevision1do you have a Season 7 Episode 9 titled Let Me Go Lover????
Im Angered because i have to watch this for School. But it is a cool restoration.
hahahaha Same
Even i have to watch it for my clg assignment 😂
im hoping through that now
Four Angry Students. 😉
As much as I love the '57 film with its a-list cast, this is really well-acted for a TV play!
This is awesome! Thank you so much for posting
It's really nice to see this with less flicker and the frame rate restored by interpolation. It would be even nicer if the specks of dust, appearing as random black and white marks, were removed; if the distortion from aiming a kinescope at the curved face if a CRT were corrected; and if a little noise reduction were applied to the sound.
This is the result after all of that has been done. The “distortion” is called linearity and it was a particularly hard problem to adjust linearity of all the cameras and have them match. Just one of the issues of early television. The film on this was very dirty and it has been cleaned I assure you. Sometimes one can go too far when applying a cleanup. The audio track also has noise reduction, but one can only go so far with that as well, before the software begins to eliminate legitimate audio. I also applied an exciter to the audio for increased frequency range as an optical sound track on film tops out at about 6-7K. I used to post example comparisons between unrestored and restored, but I think viewers became bored with that.
I would not be bored with that. Post away!
Excellent Excellent movie. Thank you
Kinescope has always fascinated me. To your credit, it doesn't look like a Kinescope.
‘Kinescope” yeah right...it’s just recording a tv with a movie camera
my school made me watch this, it was very tough finding this tho, all of the ones I found where the 2 other ones released. gotta be honest, nice vid
"Where the 2 other ones"
Huh?
@@AMEER-114- the other two versions of the film, you know, the 1957 and the 1997
@@DxGamer6767 is English your 2nd language ?
"Where" makes no sense.
It is totally different than
"WERE"
@@AMEER-114- do you have a need to be such a bitch? Its just a damn spelling mistake. You dont have to raze hell and be a grammar nazi yet you chose too for no discernible reason.
@@DxGamer6767 i think thou protesteth too much.
Or...
You couldve said....
"Dang I was careless, even simple errors like that make me appear as a purveyor of confusion and cause my statement to lose my intended meaning and the reader to have to struggle to figure it out. I regret this enough to make sure Im more careful from now on.
I want to thank you for pointing it out. I see you are for clarity in communication and thats a good thing"
JESUS CHRIST BE PRAISED
The thing that always got me about this movie is it they’re so violent.
Seeing work like this is remarkable and frustrating all at the same time. Remarkable because the results speak for themselves...frustrating because the rights holders should see the value of this!! Can you imagine the Honeymooners lost episodes, the Sid Caesar broadcasts, and other kinescope-based programming being upgraded in this way? It would be a revelation!
Jason Wentworth Thank you! Well, I’m working on some additional content when I can. I would love for CBS to release Playhouse 90. The only honeymooners episodes that exist were recorded on film via an Electronicam. The good news is that the 39 episodes in existence I can convert to look “as if” it was live TV.
@@nbntelevision1 I'm following you now just for this response. Like you, I grew up with Franklin J. Schaffner films and was his biggest fan I knew. Keep up the great work - CBS needs to hire you now!
@@gpwerner I would love nothing more than access to their libraries, especially Playhouse 90 for restoration. I’d be there in a heartbeat.
@NBNTelevision I'm all about bringing back in 4K all the "lost" episodes of "The Honeymooners" you can find. I hate, if what you say is true, that basically everything from the DuMont Network is at the bottom of the East River now. It's hard enough to resurrect the BBC's tapes from the 1960s without knowing that an entire history of a network's programming is gone.
Two actors reprised their role for the 1957 film version. The old man and the immigrant. Sadly Edward Arnold died in 1956 or he might have been in the theatrical version too.
Even the 1997 remake was just as good as the orginal film version. I watch it all the time. Its staked with great actors as well.
Thank you much so much better than the 1997 version
Fun Fact: The Actor, Joseph Sweeney, who played Juror #9, was also in the 1957 version of 12 Angry Men, Playing Juror #9
As is George Voskovec, playing number 11.
Big props to these guys for doing it straight through on live TV. If we didn't have the 157 film version, in comparison to which everything else falls short, it could even be called a classic. If I had to be picky, I'd argue that Lee J. Cobb's Juror #3 is far superior to Franchot Tone's performance here. Perhaps, given the restraints of the production, Tone just doesn't have the latitude to develop and flesh out the character, but with Cobb, you can see a profoundly damaged but fundamentally decent man dealing with a terrible personal trauma, and that's what's warping his judgment. Tone's character, far as I can see, is just an asshole.
Yeah. Still I prefer this finale and the line about being alone. Because fundamentally this is about not being a sheep, reasoning with your own mind. We don't know what makes n.3 so obtuse here, the movie gives a reason but I prefer movies where characters are not furnished complete with all the answers like in here. He's an asshole, but an intriguing one. About the actors, I think Fell might be preferable to Balsam (maybe because here he's got less to say) and Abel to Marshall who plays his character too literally.
@@trickydick6152 Interesting that you pick up on the contrast in the way Abel and Marshall portray Juror #4. The template calls for a cerebral, analytical guy who's driven strictly by facts and by logic, which Marshall captures quite well -- and yet here's Abel, who does the same thing, coming all the way around the table, getting right up in the racist asshole's face, and threatening to split his skull open if he doesn't sit down and shut the fuck up.
NBNT, Thank you for another great restoration! I look forward to more, especially the Playhouse 90s.
Also, is it possible to restore any programs from different genres? there are very few soap operas that survive from this era at all, as most of the tapes were wiped and reused and the kines recycled for their silver. Is there any chance of restoring any episodes? Tales of Tomorrow is another show that might be worth considering. It was an adult sci-fi anthology which probably influenced The Twilight Zone, and one episode of Tales is based on the same story as a a TLZ episode. And then there's the kid stuff, Tom Corbett and Space Patrol, kids' sci-fi, although Space Patrol had a significant adult crossover viewership. Space Patrol had an almost incalculable influence on Star Trek TOS. Virtually every device and concept on TOS was on Space Patrol first. At least one series of SP episodes, "The Androids of Algol," bears a striking (if not suspicious) resemblance to the TOS episode "What are Little Girls Made Of."
Just my 2 cents, ANY restorations will be greatly appreciated by me and, I'm sure everybody else.
Thanks again.
Juror 9 is Joseph Sweeney, the same guy who played the old juror in the 1957 film version. But here he wears glasses.
"I speak from experience" ouch
Didn't like that line, kinda undermined the character. I'm glad it was removed for the movie.
This restoration is amazing.
As Archie and Edith used to sing, "those were the days."- a time when the American television viewing public had the class, patience, good taste, and open-mindedness to watch an hour program with no shooting, no car chases, no special effects, no stupid jokes.
That $17.95 iron from Westinghouse in 1957 would be $163.75 in 2019 dollars adjusted for inflation.
ricky coker And today you can get an iron that would absolutely blow away the iron advertised for much less than half that. Technology, stuff gets better and cheaper. Always has, always will.
Actually that $17.95 from 1954 if it was in silver coins of the era would be worth $360 to $400 now depending on the denomination of the coins and the current spot price of silver
$17.95 in today's coins would be worth about $5 in metal value
watching this for my "theater homework" from home because of Covid, oop
I am most likely in the minority, but while I think most of the characters are better in the 1957 movie version (yes, I know that two of them are the same), I think the guy who played #8 in this version did a better job of portraying the character than Henry Fonda. I think he is more believable as a person who sincerely thinks the accused may be not guilty. Fonda seems to come across some times as a person who is more interested in just getting his way and thus "winning" the fight, although Fonda's attitude may have helped the overall success of the movie. It would have been nifty, though, to see how the TV #8 would have done in the expanded 1957 movie version.
Most of this does just enrich my appreciation for the interpretations that came after, the ending especially, but the one guy definitely snuck armor under his suit, cause after the angriest man goes to stab him my brain almost thought the hole in his vest was from the demonstration and not for a button.
This is the CBS Television Network.
Bob Cummings seemed to be having difficulty remembering his lines.
Excellent. Thank you.
29:42 ha, you can see the TV camera :)
Ooooh, good catch!
DonPeyote You just had to ruin this amazing performance, did you?
Peter Andreev To be fair, mist TV sets back then probably cropped that part of the screen anyway so most people probably didn't notice at the time.
DonPeyote You can also see one on the right at 12:56 with a giant CBS logo on the side of it. Gotta love seeing that technology in action (even if it was by accident).
DonPeyote Eh. It’s good that you can rarely see the camera anyways considering this was
1. Made in the 50s when editing was not as good due to limited technology.
2. Life TV performance.
That westinghouse fridge from 1957 is better than any I've ever owned
Norman Fell, aka Stanley Roper as the jury foreman, if you need him. I think he was in over his head...
WHEN ACTING WAS ACTING !!!
Omg I just watched another one of this and this one is better quality omggg 😭😭😂😂
Aisha Alam Thank you! I am pleased that my restoration is appreciated.
Thank you
Bob Cummings does a good job in what will become the Henry Fonda role.
This is the weirdest episode of Three's Company I've ever seen
I LOVE THE PLYHOUSE 90 I ABOUT 50 OF THEM ON DVD EVEN THE FIST AND LAST ONE BUT I LIKED SOMEONE TO FIND AND POST MORE OF THE PRODUCERS SHOWCASE FILMS NBC 1954-1957 I HAVE SOM,E OF THEM TOO ON DVD FROM VIA
Joseph Sweeney played his part again in the famous Sidney Lumet movie.
As did George Voskovec.
who actually watched the whole video
Very good. I watched the Tony Hancock version of this and hadn't realised it had been done before. Of course the Hancock version had a twist at the end.