12 Angry Men (1957) Movie Reaction | FIRST TIME WATCHING | Film Commentary
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 июл 2024
- Here it is! 12 Angry Men. It took a while to finish the edit, but this film was brilliant and I loved piecing it all together from the evidence when watching.
P.S. I'm trying out not censoring certain words (that I normally would), to see if the video is affected.
TIMESTAMPS
0:00 Intro
0:40 Reaction
37:09 Review & Trivia
🎥 PATREON INFORMATION:
See my full-length reaction on Patreon, PLUS extra benefits! *
/ movieswithmarty
*Extra benefits include: Early Access to RUclips Videos, FULL Length versions of RUclips Videos, an MP3 version you can download to sync up and access to Polls for what I watch next. PLUS, you can REQUEST something for me to watch and get your name in the CREDITS!
🎥 Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/MoviesWithMarty/
🎥 SUBSCRIBE for the newest videos: shorturl.at/aqwGO
Join our little community for some quirky reviews, Film & TV commentary & criticisms, along with some unique comedy references at times. You can watch along with me as I discover new favourites and revisit some old favourites.
Business Inquiries: movieswithmarty@hotmail.com
Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the copyright act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.
#12angrymen #twelveangrymen #henryfonda #leejcobb #jackklugman #courtcase #1957
#moviereactions #filmreactions #commentary #filmcommentary #moviecommentary #movieswithmarty #reactions #reviews #moviereviews #filmreviews Want to rent movies? I genuinely use Cinema Paradiso, so here's a referral link:
www.cinemaparadiso.co.uk/affi... 
Развлечения
![Cordae - Saturday Mornings (feat. Lil Wayne) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z2GYJua09F0/mqdefault.jpg)
One of the greatest films of all time. One room. No special effects or explosions. Just great actors and a great screenplay! Wish Hollywood could remember how to do films like this.
There was one low tech special effect…
The walls of the room are slowly moved closer together. It’s subliminally adds to the tension.
@@JasonJrakeYes, I've heard before that was done. Basically injecting claustrophobia into that environment as a reflection of their debate.
I was entirely taken aback when he shrieked "Oh, it's Quincy!" I don't think I've ever seen anyone recognize Jack Klugman.
@Hexon66 3 of my late mother's favorite actors are in this movie. Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall from The Defenders one of her favorite shows & Jack Klugman as she watched Quincy faithfully. If I didn't recognize those 3 she would be spinning in her grave
I know,I am glad you noticed it was Quincy. I seen many reactions of this great movie. Kudos to you for noticing, no one else did.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone NOT recognize Jack Klugman. But I'm from a slightly older generation.
@@AnnaB22 And to me he's not Quincy -- he's Oscar Madison.
@@LazlosPlane Me too
One of the things that really screams out to me in this film is the idea of what a man is. The "macho" men appeared to be little more than children. The reasoned men appeared to be mature, rational, and responsible grown up men. As the deliberations continued, they all changed their minds without losing anything for it, the way rational men would change their minds. They never lost their cool, never resorted to names, never began screaming, in other words they were the real men. Respect - the "macho" men lost it all and the rational men gained it all. I think that is a message that resonates so much today.
Anyone who boasts and advertises his manliness is no man at all. A real manly masculine man is humble and smart to know when to be peaceful and when to pick up his weapon and defend himself and those who he loves
Right. Juror 3 is trapped in his idea of toxic masculinity
@@nicholasschroeder3678 I think you mean toxic behaviour or lack of masculinity because the whole idea that a toxic person can be even remotely masculine is ridiculous
In other words no such as toxic masculinity 😌
@@mohammedashian8094 Someone who's idea of what it is to be masculine can he toxic, as Juror 3 so well illustrates. Tellingly, Juror 6 is ready to throw down several times, which makes him rather funny, but since he's challenging a bully and defending an innocent, his threats are considered legit expressions of masculinity. I doubt anyone ever watched the film and thought he was a jerk or wrong, but maybe a little too eager to settle matters with his fists. It does make him funny, though.
@@nicholasschroeder3678 the idea might be toxic but it itself is not toxic simple as that
I am so happy this film is remembered as the masterpiece it is. I always appreciate your reactions to older films. Thank you as always 🙏
Thank you so much Douglas! Oh it truly is a masterpiece. Filming in ONE location?! With this much drama and tension? Brilliant! I really liked figuring out along with them. I'm hoping there is more out there like this. The only one I know is Locke, as mentioned in the video. That is just Tom Hardy and a few voices on the phone though. Thank you, I always love watching the older films. They just have something about them that's so magnetic in comparison to modern day films. You're very welcome Douglas! I hope you're well and thank you for watching
@@MoviesWithMartyHave you tried any Agatha Christie movies? Some of them take place in one location. Like Murder On The Orient Express (train) or And Then There Were None (ski lodge).
@@MoviesWithMarty I would also like to recommend Christie, if you like to figure stuff out, the Witness For The Prosecution (1957), and the Death on The Nile (1979)
@@toodlescae and then there were none the original, there was one before that set on an island, theres one set in a desert, as well they remade it several times
@@Greenwood4727 still all in one place though I think though right?
Great movie. Outstanding acting performance from Lee J Cobb as the last holdout.
Fact!
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 you feel nothing but empathy for him.
It is easy for us to judge him , yet there may be myriad biases and prejudices we operate under without even being aware of them.
@@kallemattiwaris2422 yes, but he didn't even try to stay objective and rational.
I've no sympathy for a man that drives his son away and then cries about it after trying to kill an innocent man as a proxy for his son. Trash person but he did at least change his vote so he's not all the way trash.
Keep away from serving as a juror if you forgive everything for a few tears.
Not guilty, not angry. This is one of the few 10 out of 10 films. Lumet is pronounced loo-met, hard "t". The acting, direction, cinematography are all excellent. So glad you watched and enjoyed this classic film. ❤
Good reaction.
Movie theaters were air conditioned, and people's apartments usually weren't, so people often just went to the theater just to get out of the house without really paying attention to the playbill. There were often two movies playing for the evening, and they may or may not have had much media buzz.
It's interesting to rewatch this movie paying attention to the men as they listen to each speaker. The actors (who mostly when on to fairly substantial acting fame...in the US they were those actors you saw all the time) stay well in character when the focus is not upon them. For instance, the short-sleeved guy who defended the old man had helped the old man into his chair at the very beginning. It's interesting to watch them as their minds churn and change.
Back in the 80s I served on a federal felony trial that brought this to my mind. The trial itself took only half a day, four or five hours, and open-and-shut case of a big man who had beaten up a meter maid over a parking ticket. The initial vote was, 11-to-1 for guilty, like this case. One woman refused to vote guilty. We deliberated for _four more days._ Eventually, we did pick apart each bit of evidence. I was one of the last holdouts for guilty myself, rather like the juror played by E.G. Marshall in this case. The prosecutor was flabbergasted...she thought she'd nailed it.
"They" used in the context of this movie can mean several things. Sometimes it refers to race, but it also refers to class. The young man on trial, and Jack Klugman (aka Quincy) are both referred to as they.
I was a child during the 1960s and a teenager in the 70s. I grew up watching all these actors on TV, so they're familiar faces and names to me (with the sole exception of Joseph Sweeney, who was mostly a stage actor). This is a HEAVYWEIGHT cast of incredible actors! Add a great script and beautifully stark b&w cinematography and what have you got? A classic film. Jack Klugman (he looks so young here!) described this film as the most enjoyable acting experience of his entire career. I don't know anyone who doesn't love this movie, once they've seen it. (Except for one woman I got into an online argument with about the film; she claimed it was a "woke" liberal propaganda movie. I disagreed.) This movie is guaranteed to turn b&w haters into b&w lovers. After seeing this, they have a whole new appreciation for monochrome. Anyway, I loved your reaction to "12 Angry Men" (as I previously enjoyed your takes on "The Andromeda Strain," "Fantastic Voyage," and "2001"). Keep 'em coming, Marty!
And for some (like the ubiquitous John Fiedler), perhaps the height of their career.
G gg!
This is my absolute favorite film. I watch it, on average, once a week. I've probably seen it a thousand times, and I can always watch it one more time. It is brilliantly paced, brilliantly directed, and the acting is supreme.
Wow. I watch it every two or three years and thought that was a lot (at least for a drama). 😄
Ever seen the remake made in 1997?
Not guilty, not angry. Great reaction to a great film.
I like that the film leaves open the actual guilt or innocence of the accused. This way, the audience, like each juror, does not know if the jury's decision was accurate because the more important question of whether or not the jury's decision was right in terms of being just was answered. The jury's decision was right and just because they concluded that there was reasonable doubt, not because they were sure that accused was not guilty.
Three great B/W Court Dramas .... "Witness for the Prosecution", "Judgement at Nuremburg" and my Favourite of all time "Inherit the Wind"!
"To Kill a Mockingbird".
@@jnagarya519 `Fury` 1936, ´Anatomy of a murder´ 1959 and in colour ´The Verdict´ 1982.
Other wonderful courtroom dramas: "To Kill a Mockingbird", "Witness for the Prosecution", "Judgement at Nuremberg", "Inherit the Wind", and "Anatomy of a Murder". All classics.
Trivia John Fieldler who plays bald timid Juryman had a long career and was the voice of piglet in the Disney films
Those cone shaped cups were very popular for a very long time. You would see them at water coolers. They were designed just so you could drink your water while standing at the cooler and then toss the cup into the trash. You wouldn’t take your cup to a table because of a shape. You wouldn’t be able to set it down. These days you would see regular paper or plastic cups and cones at water coolers.
One of my favorite movies. It was originally a one-hour live teleplay. It was Sidney Lumet's first feature after being a child actor and director in theatre and live TV (although he did not direct the original version). As an actor myself, I can tell you the actors were not "fed up" after two weeks of rehearsal. Rehearsal is where actors get to explore their roles and the script, get used to the other actors, etc. Lumet (pronounced Lu-met). Rehearsed all but one of his films. In his book "Making Movies" Lumet wrote that when they were making the movie whenever Henry Fonda and the continuity girl disagreed on something Fonda turned out to be right. Another great Sidney Lumet legal drama - THE VERDICT (1981).
Great acting across the board, especially by Lee J Cobb!
Excellent reaction, my man! I love the empathy you have towards juror No. 3 at the end, he is such a fascinating character (as they all are, tbh)!
Thank you so much! He really is fascinating, alongside the others who are too. It's an incredibly well written and acted classic. Thanks for watching along and checking it out, I appreciate it!
Two films by Hitchcock take place in a small area: Rope takes place in one apartment, Lifeboat takes place entirely in a...lifeboat. Dial M for Murder also is mostly in a flat in London.
I’ve been watching reaction videos for about two years now I think you’re the only person who recognized Jack Klugman. Not a single American reactor knows he is.
While watching DUNE, I thought of this film when it is said that the Fremen are "dangerous and unreliable." I said, "Oh, there're some GOOD things about them, too. I've known a COUPLE who were okay."
What good direction by Sidney Lumet. The way he had the camera pov change as the intensity in the room changed, really added to the drama between the characters. Great film.
Lumet was one of the great film makers in the 50's 60's, 70's and 80''s. Perhaps his masterpeice is Dog Day Afternoon (1975) about a botched bank robbery based on a true story featuring a terrific performance by Al Pacino. I think you would really enjoy iit. Fonda's film Oxbow Incident is very similar to 12 Angry Men and is about a lynching in the old west.
Juror 3 not only saying the defendant is not guilty, but also his son. Touching moment
I knew one of these actors, Edward Binns, he’s the one that said he “lay out” the guy who was bullying.
I owned a Dry Cleaner in a small town in the western hill of Connecticut, and he bought a summer home in the area. He would frequent our business, he was a nice guy.
I was born in the middle of that hot summer in 1957. It still stands up so well, doesn't it all? Helps make me feel like a classic myself. A very brilliant courthouse drama is "To Kill a Mockingbird"
Lifeboat (1944) by Alfred Hitchcock is a movie entirely set in a lifeboat. It's Hitchcock so it's a classic. A modern movie set all in a boat is All is Lost (2013), starring Robert Redford.
Lifeboat is okay, not his best. And Hitchcock made plenty of turkeys, so they aren't all classics!
Another great film to watch, Marty is "Patterns" (1956) starring Van Heflin and Ed Begley. It is a film that stands the test of time because little, if anything is any different people wise today than when it was made. Written by Rod Serling. It is on RUclips at present.
I always find the scene where they all turn their backs to the old man while he goes on a racist tirade SO important and it annoys me that not many reactors understand it or find it as important as me. It's the rare, very well done example, that when you talk to people who use hate speech you don't give them credibility by debating them. You ignore them and if they don't stop you exclude them. Because everyone else is in agreement that certain things like human dignity are not up for debate. We live in a time where every asinine, inflammatory and simply fascist opinion gets view and airtime, which legitimizes these radical viewpoints in the mind of the public. I'm not pro ignoring political and cultural problems that arise but when certain terrible takes and opinions arise it would sometimes be better if we all punish these instigators of hate and unrest with non engagement and no-airtime. That would often take their thunder.
Like so-called "anti-fascist" types don't cancel people already for perfectly normal opinions which even they held 5 years ago. The problem is that many people are eager to declare any speech which disagrees with them as racist, sexist, or homophobic even when it is obviously none of the above. In this particular scene, it isn't just that what he said was racist (though it was), it was that any reasoning based on those ideas have no place in legal deliberations.
These were some of the greatest actors of their day. The cast was stellar.
I saw this film years ago in the very early 80s. My mom saw it in the theater in Baltimore when it originally dropped. She's the one who taught me that 12 ANGRY MEN was originally Broadway play that was actually staged by this film's director; which also had a couple of those actors in this feature.
So you can see the staging & setup in a solitary juror's room with elements of heat, peer pressure, not caring, personal prejudices, etc. This film is relavent to this very day.
Amazing film.
I adore this film. Only came to it after seeing the stage play. Lumet truly captured what it was like to be in that room, and helping us the viewers be that 13th juror. Brilliant performances all around. Not guilty….(not angry) 😉
Glad to make my acquaintance with your channel, Marty. You did a very nice job with a wonderful, substantive film. Enjoyed visiting it with you. All the best, sir.
The Oxbow Incident was similarly themed, in that Henry's character argues against making a quick judgement for guilt. This time, however, he is arguing with a lynch mob, not a jury.
One of my favorite details that I just picked up on on my yesterday (3rd time) viewing is that originally the glasses guy says he never sweats, but when doubt arises that the boy is guilty he has a single bead of sweat drip down his face
i say henry fonda killed the father.. hed been watching the young hoodlum getting beat by his father all week, and came up with this plan to kill him using a knife just like the boy had.. then by chance, he also happend to get on the jury for the case.. being the only one that knew for sure the kid didnt murder his father, and also knowing how easily swayed the common man is, and how incapable of forming logical arguments against his own, he went home satisfied and feeling pretty smart with himself... its possible.. its possible!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I had the same thought when he showed he had the same knife, however I dismissed the idea when I saw that he left it lying on the table.
Imagine the court clerk accidentally bags that knife too as evidence.
The case would have had to be reopened.
In real life I think it isn't allowed to bring in new exhibits at that stage of the process. Juror #1 should have objected.
@@anichtyofagist no, the clerk pocketted the knife, and went out that night looking for trouble
Glengarry Glen Ross is a David Mamet-written film shot in limited, 2 or 3, locations. Not one jury room like this film, and only occasional with several characters together, but very much a dialogue driven film.
This is one of my favorite movies of all times.
I love they left the reality of the story out. They never say if the kid killed his father or not.
They kids guilt was not the point of the story.
The story was about a reasonable doute not if the kid was guilty or not guilty. Which is why they never say if he did it or not.
Love this movie, i think it is one of the best movies of all time.
Thank you for watching and appreciating one of my all time favorite movies. It's a movie that shows great dialog by great actors can be captivating. Not guilty, not angry.
Thank you so much Bob, for the lovely comment and for my first super thanks! It's really appreciated. I'm so glad I could watch one of your favourites, which is now one of mine too. I can see why, with the superb acting / script, yeah. Plus, the tension built, that cinematography and the lighting is also top tier! Thank you so much for that, for watching all the way to the end. Have a wonderful day Bob!
Not guilty, not angry. Excellent film and dialogue. My favorite parts of the film was when our last hold out would consistently talk so much that he would prove the point of our first hold out. "He was an old man, he was confused, how could he be sure of anything?" "He was seen ramming this knife into his father." (" That's not the knife.") "I"ll kill you, I'll kill you!" ("You don't really mean that you'll kill me do you?") 😂😂😂 Great movie.
I've seen this masterpiece of a film countless times and I love it more with each viewing. I think my fascination with this movie has a lot to do with how relevant I think it remains and how important I think it is that we, society I mean, take lessons from entertainment which seems too often be lost in our simply being entertained as an act of pure escapism to reality.
Easily one of the Top Ten films all time. Another superb court room thriller {this time seen thru the eyes of the judge} is The Star Chamber - 1983 starring Michael Douglas.
For a movie that came out 66 years it’s amazing how WELL it aged or rather haven’t aged a bit if that’s not the definition of a timeless masterpiece then I don’t know what is
Hey, Marty! This was originally a teleplay for a "Playhouse 90"-type show in the '50's which were basically filmed theatrical productions broadcast during the early days of American TV. Before formulaic sitcoms and dramas became TV staples, actual playwrights were tapped to provide original or adapted content of high quality. The story really works as a theatrical piece with 12 players in one setting. A few years later, the great Sidney Lumet (pronounced Loom-ET) directed it for film. Lumet is considered one of the quintessential New York directors like Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese and Spike Lee. The film is considered one of the greatest courtroom dramas ever made.
It is my 11th favorite film of all time!
I like how Fonda's chief antagonists are fire and ice: the bombastic Lee J. Cobb and the coolly logical E.G. Marshall.
The cast was stacked with some of the best character actors of the day some of which had amazing careers like Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Jack Warden, Ed Begley and Robert Webber. However, it's live-wire Lee J. Cobb who steals the spotlight with his histrionics and rage!
When he has his breakthrough and realizes why he's rushed to judgment, his collapse is shattering and brings me to tears every time.
Henry Fonda's magnanimity as he helps him to his feet and gives him his coat is equally moving.
Foreigner George Voskovec and the elderly Joseph Sweeney were holdovers from the TV production.
A remake was made for cable TV with a black Mykelti Williamson portraying a reverse racist. Jack Lemmon had the Fonda role and George C. Scott had the Cobb role. Edward James Olmos played the foreigner, Tony Danza was the sports guy, Armin Mueller-Stahl was the logical stockbroker and James Gandolfini was the blue collar guy.
Another remake was considered by adding women to the mix. The project was abandoned because the inclusion of female energy would change the dynamic of the story and the energy of the room.
I just started watching but im laughing so much at you putting yourself in the jury. Bravo!
The little man with glasses and a soft voice is John Fiedler. The voice of Disney’s piglet.
It was?! I loved Piglet, I had no idea that was him. Thank you for letting me know and thanks for watching
Great reaction!! I first watched this film on TV when I was in the 8th grade, but I had to go to bed before it was over. The next day my English teacher talked about it in class. The Ox-Bow Incident (1943) is a really good film and is well worth a watch and reaction.Not Guilty, Not Angry.
Marty: Let’s see if together we can figure out what happened before they can, if this is that kind of film
Me: Oh-hooooh! It’s not!
A great reaction to a great film but, as you saw, in the end it’s more about the concept of reasonable doubt than being absolutely certain about what transpired.
Yeah! It's a wonderfully written and acted out concept. Totally drew me in! Thank you for watching and commenting. Also, I love the above comment too haha!
Well, thank you for that. This is one of my favorite films of all time - I’ve watched it seven or eight times, and watched more than two dozen reaction videos like this. And yet I’ve never noticed Juror #3 walking down the courthouse steps alone in the last scene, not until you pointed it out. NICE catch!
Now I’ll invite you to watch one of my other all-time favs, His Girl Friday, and see if you can guess before it happens, why one of the criminal court reporters is called, “Stairway Sam.”
At 29:40, they're moving away because the man is again expressing his prejudice. As you heard earlier, "one of them", it's because the boy on trial is Puerto Rican. "a few of them are okay", etc.
This was Sydney Lumet's first film. See "The Verdict,' with Paul Newman. also directed by Sydney Lumet.
Several historical notes.
Theaters were air conditioned (and heated then). They were cheaper than today and showed hours of entertainment. There would be the first feature and a second feature along with newsreel, short films,and cartoons. You could buy a ticket and stay through multiple shows. Or come in late.
My grandparents used to go to have something on in the background, much as people do with the television now. They would have better air conditioning and heat than at home and not feel as isolated as in their apartment. My granddad even studied at the movie theater. My grandmother also used the movies as a babysitter.
So, he did not recalling what he saw - well, we have to trust the police who had already decided his guilt and allegedly threw him down the stairs on that. This was before the police brutality laws or Miranda rights.
As to the pawn broker saying he'd never seen another knife like it. He's admiting in court to selling an illegal weapon. How likely is he to say that he has boxes of them and they are a best seller? This is back when it was very common for even businessmen but certainly working men and school boys to still carry pocket knives. Not switchblade mind you. But knives were common. And between the wars both with both Japan and Korea and so many bases in the South Pacific, to act like that was a unique design beggars belief.
It seems that the seller agreed to testify so they were not prosecuted for providing a murder weapon.
Glasses were glass then. Frames were heavy.
Marty, nickel, lovely to meet you, and to encounter a fan of the complete storytelling art of the movies, especially on such a saturated and homogenous market such as this. Great choice in film here too, and a great one to find your channel to. This is one of the most interesting and intimate movie-watching experiences, it's almost the kind of thing Tarantino must've been going with in Hateful Eight, although that was much more of a killer's ballroom story. What really gets me is just the tangible everything in the movie, the noises, the implication and appearance of claustrophobic humidity, the _damn coughing_-- that's kind of perfect, NOBODY likes a cougher, least of all bank customers. You feel like you're gonna snap and say something incorrect, but you can't lose your cool in times like this, a person's life is at stake! Could've been yours.. for all the viewer really knows about the kid involved, it might as WELL be us.
I look forward to watching up on your channel, for damn sure!
You might be amazed at how many incredible movies were made before 1970.
Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949) is an unbelievably witty and wicked black comedy featuring Alec Guinness as twelve murder victims.
The Thief of Bagdad (1940) will blow your mind. Not only is it an incredible fantasy, but it's proof that amazing special effects were possible even back then. It's in color, by the way.
Detective Story (1951) is almost entirely set in a single room, with an intensity of writing that will astonish you. It stars a young Kirk Douglas, and the topic is incredibly timely.
The Third Man (1949) features some of the greatest writing, acting, cinematography, and music that has ever been seen in cinema. It's classic film noir that was far ahead of it's time.
In the Heat of the Night (1967) is absolutely electrifying. It stars Sidney Poitier and you won't forget it.
Let's see... There's The Great Escape, Frankenstein, Dracula, Bride of Frankenstein, Casablanca, The Fly, To Kill A Mockingbird, Psycho, The Grapes of Wrath...
I would like to commend you on picking up on two things. I have watched dozens and dozens of reactions to this film and few if any pick up on the old man identifying with the old man witness. He was feeling the same way, he saw himself in the witness who had a stroke. An even bigger thing you picked up on that few do is the humanity of Henry Fonda's character in showing compassion to the last holdout by helping him with his jacket. He had baited and been confrontational with him but in the end as a father he felt and had compassion for his pain from having destroyed his relationship with his son. Great job!
23:59 I like this scene because it doesn't have anything to do with the rest of the movie, which is mostly angry conflict. As the rain comes down, two of the men get to calm down and have a genuinely friendly moment. Juror #1, the foreman, was played by Martin Balsam. He was in Psycho, and a number of other well-known movies.
The guy you called after the character name Quincy was 34-35 at this time. amazing.
Woah! Was he?! A similar age to me.. I had no idea, I swear he just doesn't age haha. Thank you for the info Danny! I hope you're well!
The Usual Suspects (1995) gets people trying to figure out who is a certain key character.
Also, Marty, it's "loo-MET" with a soft E, and a hard, pronounced T. He was from the US. That's just the way he pronounced it. Also, this was his first film, and he made many other great ones, one mostly overlooked of which was 1998's *_Running on Empty_* with Judd Hirsch, Martha Plympton and River Phoenix. Fantastic movie for you to react to. No one else is really doing it. Terrifically good film.
one of the things I love about this film is that we never know for sure whether the kid did it or not. We're shown all the evidence, we know what they believe, and we can form our own opinion. But it never tells us whether he really did it or not. Cos that's not the point.
Also, brilliant script, acting, cinematography, and direction.
Oh-The Wrong Man, it’s amazing and of coooourse it was based on a true story: Fonda plays a musician who looks like a man who is guilty of murder, and Alfred Hitchcock directed it. It is absolutely creepy because it was true! ( I wanted to suggest that you see Henry Fonda movies, such as the Steinbeck movie The Grapes of Wrath, and The Ox Bo Incident (Fonda himself had witnessed a lynching) and Jezebel with Bette Davis. Ohmigod, you have to see Bette Davis in In This Our Life, she is so incredibly yet casually evil.)
One of my absolute favorite films. One scene has caught my attention each time I've watched this masterpiece countless times: Jury number 3 (who pleads guilty to the last) speaks on one occasion about the "kids of today" no longer having any respect for their elders. With a proudly swollen chest, he reports on how he addressed his own father as "Sir" and asks why this is no longer the norm today. A short time later, however, he smacks the old man, jury number 9, on the other side of the table so disrespectfully that jury number 6 gets up from his chair and rebukes number 3 sharply. He even threatens that he'll knock him out if he does it again. These events were extremely interesting for me to observe. One of many great scenes.
You should review
Judgment at Nuremberg
staring
Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster, Richard Widmark, Maximilian Schell, Werner Klemperer, Marlene Dietrich, Judy Garland, William Shatner, and Montgomery Clift
Nominated for 12 Academy Awards
I love how the film makes clear, that the the duty of a jury is NOT to determine actual guilt or innocence. Something which is usually not possible to determine with absolute certainty, and so the film never answers. Rather, the jury’s duty is only to determine whether or not there is reasonable doubt of guilt.
Regarding the cinematography, the camera begins the film by shooting from a distance from the actors, and from above their head height. As the film progresses, the camera moves in tighter and tighter to the actor’s faces, and also slides down to shooting from below their head height.
Right. My brother the lawyer sometimes reminds me that juries do not pronounce the defendant 'innocent', but 'not guilty'.
There have been many movies showing the jury room as a drama over the years, but this Movie is the original, which influenced the others. They shot it like a play, because that's what is was.
First person I've seen that recognized Jack Klugman as Quincy, ME.
My favoritd detective series is the Thin Man series of 6 movies. The first one, The Thin Man, was released in 1934. Filming took only 2 weeks but it's a great film. Based on the novel of the same name by Dashiel Hammett. Murder mystery and humor blend together for a very entertaining film.
One of the movies of my youth. Incredible writing and acting by all. This kind of simple, yet smart movie is sorely lacking today. So glad younger generations are discovering it.😊
I still weep when he says "Not guilty" and breaks down.. THE PERFORMANCES IN THIS FILM.... ALL OF THEM ARE SUPERB...
12 very very distinctive characters.. POWERFUL!! It is also POWERFUL to think of the importance of this in our society as well!!
It points out how the U.S. justice system works, that it operates on 'reasonable doubt'. Henry Fonda says a number of times through the film he doesn't know if the kid committed the crime he only talks about 'reasonable doubt'. Just a brilliant film.
Not supposed to discuss the case outside the jury room! I remember having to keep that in mind while a fellow juror talked about it during lunch break.
Oh no, really?! Hopefully that didn't impact anything for you. It must have been tough to not take any of that back in with you. Thanks for letting me know your experience!
I'd heard that you're not allowed to discuss it outside the room, but it's great to hear accounts that really happened. Thanks for watching!
The star, Henry Fonda, has been in a lot of great movies as both hero and villain. One of my favorites is Mr. Roberts. He played an XO to a supply ship during WWII. The CO is demanding to have everything his way. It's filled with comedy as the crew tried to figure out how to deal with the CO while relying on the XO. He played a villain in Once Upon a Time in the West. It's a spaghetti western which meant it was made by Italians with awful dubbing so all the cast appeared to speak English.
@subitman12 When my oldest grandson was living with his mother we would spend time together watching older movies. His favorite one was Mr. Roberts. I have loved that movie since I was a young teenager having discovered it on a local tv station & have re-watched it multiple times. It is a hidden gem that I dearly wish other people would discover
@@cathleencooks748 The CO in Mr. Roberts was played by James Cagney. My favorite Cagney movie is Yankee Doodle Dandy, a musical also during WWII as people trying to raise support for war bonds by touring the country to raise war bonds and also performing for the troops.
I love it when people react to this movie, it’s an underrated gem and yet it seems to be gaining more attention which is good to see. I loved your reaction in particular, you were invested! Thank you for giving us this video, it was a treat to watch!
An eyewitness saw the killing, one juror said at the beginning "She saw the killing through the last two cars. She remembered the most insignificant details". Guessing about the indentations around her nose later, after such a statement is strange at least! Her testimony was made in court and it was good enough for No8 not to oppose her statement in detail, he just switched the topic when mentioned, started a journey along many other points, but in the end they never synchronized her statement with the indentations. Does the murdered father not at least deserve a short revisit of the testimony, to find out what details the eyewitness was talking about? Therefore the boy is guilty or at least this jury is very sloppy and not capable to make a substantial verdict.
A remake was done in the episode of the TV series " The Dead Zone " the name is " Unreasonable Doubt "!
if i remember juror 1s story well its basically analogues to the story so far in terms of jurors voting one way and how the storm cuts in dramatically, basically setting up the second half that is entirely backed by rain and how the game changes as the tempreture cools and the fan starts working to bring back level heads
One of the hardest things most people born within the past 40 years or so to understand is the time frame when this movie came out. 1957... just 4 years after the Civil Rights case Brown v. Board of Education which ended segregation. Secondly, this movie appears to be in New York which up until 30 years before saw the largest migration of immigrants in US history come. Creating the slums like Little Italy, Little Odessa, the Jewish Ghettos, etc...
The primary bigotry exhibited is not racial, but social. Immigrants like the kid on trial or Juror #11 and how they are looked upon or treated by people who have lived in America for a few generations.
It takes a generation or more to overcome prejudices that people were ingrained with from birth. Not necessarily their fault, just the environment and times they lived.
Lastly for context, the Old Man on the jury was in his 70s when he acted in this movie, meaning he was born in the 19th century. (1880s)
These were all experienced stage actors who were used to weeks of rehearsing together, so I do not see how being in the same room before shooting would have been any kind of strain on them. Also, they were mostly experienced film actors who were used to filming out of sequence, so that would not seem to cause them any difficulty. The fact is that this is a great film because there are great actors performing a great script under the guidance of a great director. Let me also echo the comments of others who recommend Henry Fonda films (personally I prefer the Oxbow Incident to the Grapes of Wrath).
Grapes of Wrath and Ox-Bow Incident are both excellent! (There's some thematic crossover between 12 Angry Men and Ox-Bow). Loved your reaction... thank you!
As is My Darling Clementine
There is a wonderful take-off of this by Tony Hancock. He plays the Henry Fonda part and convinces all the other jurors that the defendant is not guilty (in a 30 minute show). Just as everybody changes their minds as it's about to finish, he suddenly goes the other way, and starts voting guilty!!
The Ox-Bow Incident was an amazing movie and very underrated today. It, in ways, is similar to 12 Angry Men but very different in another and told from yet another angle. It's definitely must-see.(Not guilty, not angry).
Why don't we see the jury side? Because this film did it so well that no-one else wants to step into that bear trap. Hmmm ... one room ... well the stage play Harvey is one room and the film is basically two rooms. Rear Window is basically one room. Rope is done as a one shot film no cuts. Arsenic and Old Lace is basically one room. Mr. Roberts is also a stage play turned into a film and is two rooms. That's all I'm recalling right now.
27:00 This is the one part of the debate i found unconvincing either way. The father was 6'2" and the knife wound was at a downward angle. That means that either the Klugman character was wrong and the killer did use the switchblade overhand, or else the killer was much taller than the father -- maybe 7 feet?
For another legal film with Henry Fonda, I strongly suggest “Gideon’s Trumpet.”
I'd recommend "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Maltese Falcon"
Juror number 4 is my favorite character, even though he's essentially one of the antagonists. He has no emotional investment and depends just on the facts. He acknowledges when others make points, and he argues his own positions based on rational points. And he's visibly irritated when some of the other characters aren't taking the proceedings seriously.
Often, when Henry Fonda or another character make a point, you can see Juror 4 looking at the table and having a good long think to himself. Although he's the second last to change his mind, he is carefully considering everything being said and doesn't have an entrenched position.
In answer to your question: I think the boy actually was guilty. Although it's possible to poke holes in the evidence presented, what the jurors are doing is introducing facts that are not in evidence in order to make their decision. They decided that some testimony should be thrown out because they MADE THINGS UP about the person offering it and just decided what they made up was fact. They're not supposed to do that. Even IF we could agree that some of the evidence is in question, when you have ALL of the evidence aligning with the position that the boy is guilty, the odds of ALL of it being wrong rises to the level of stretching incredulity. You get to the point where you have to accept that either he's guilty, or he's being framed. Because that's the only explanation that could explain all the evidence pointing towards him.
However, having said that, there may be more to the story. For example, the kid might have killed him in self defense. We don't know, because the movie never gives us that. And it doesn't need to in order to tell the story it does.
A lot of legal scholars to have examined this movie agree that the - although it's a great story - the jurors were actually wrong. And they break all kinds of rules that jurors are instructed to follow in order to make sure justice is applied.
This movie stars some of the greatest actors of their day. Basically taking place in one room. Both actors and filmmakers study this movie. It's basically a master class in filmmaking.
That's the point of the cone shaped cups, cant put them down, no clutter. Use and throw away. Did you see the reusable cotton drying towel in the loo. These folks were smart.
At least in Los Angeles in recent years, Fonda's little stunt of buying an identical knife would result in a mistrial. Jurors are specifically instructed not to attempt private research on the case. Jurors hear all their names when they are interviewed during the selection process-each juror gives their name. All the prospective jurors are present. Again, this may very considerably with time and jurisdiction.
It may have been the kid, or it may have been someone else(it was implied the dad had some criminal background).It seems to me that what was really on trial was the justice system itself.
Yeah, I think it was left open a little for us to think about it. I liked that. We interpret it how we wish. Oh yes, I like that way of looking at it. Thanks for watching Kalle!
Just to say .... "They" and "Them" in NYC in those days are Puerto Ricans, think 'Wesy Side Story"!
Thank you James! Yeah, I'd thought maybe it was an ethnicity or area based thing, so handy to know! Fun fact, I've only seen the new West Side Story, which is incredible! The cinematography is gorgeous. Yet to see the original. Have you seen the newer one? I didn't know if I'd like it, but it's shot on the same kind of film cameras as back in the old days of cinema, so looks just like it's been ripped straight from that era. You'll love it!
Two things. For one, this film was deliberately filmed in black and white (most films were color in 57). It was an artistic decision, fitting for the subject matter, which deals with the deconstruction of character and their representarion of the facts, which are never actually seen--we only see them as they are seen by the characters. It's about the nuances that lie between black and white thinking. The second thing is that the movie is very funny. That's what makes it so enduringly entertaining.
John Garfield in They made me a criminal is a pretty good movie that has the great Claude Rains. Worth the watch.
The Ox-bow Incident is OUTSTANDING. It's a western made during WW2 with a commentary on mob rule. Stars Fonda, a young Anthony Quinn, and Harry "Colonel Potter from MASH" Morgan.
Worth noting back then fans had metal blades and thus had a lot more powerful motors.
Both the Grapes of Wrath and the Oxbow Incident are worth a watch.
Great suggestions! Thank you Ralph. Adding them to my list! Have a wonderful day and thank you for watching
Brilliant script. Powerful acting. Outstanding lighting, camera and technical work. Masterpiece.
I think a lot of people's attitudes are warped by the tradition of mystery shows like "Perry Mason" where the lawyer gets his client acquitted by finding the REAL criminal, when that's not how the process works. Life isn't about being handed a definitive answer on a silver platter like that. I was EXTREMELY grateful to this film for leaving the actual guilt or innocence of the defendant ambiguous, and focusing on how it's wrong to take his life on a "maybe."
Anyway, I'd vote not guilty, and it feels weird to say "not angry" in a comments section, where tempers run notoriously high but I do want to assure you that I watched to the end and I liked the discussion about lighting and camera angles after the credits rolled. Good reaction.
This movie really isn't a who dunnit, or even an if he done it. It's actually about integrity the the ability to think for oneself. It is also about the bravery to stand up for what's right and to be the sole voice. It's hard and it's rare. This is a movie about thinking and that too is very rare.
Yes, a brilliant film, a film every jury needs to be forced to watch first before deciding on a case. I recommend a good follow up film to watch is the 1950s version of An Inspector Calls. It stars Alastair Sim, it's an adaptation of a brilliant play by JB Priestly. It is also basically based in one room except they do go outside it to visit character's past. An excellent study of characters and consequences. Edit:- Don't bother with the more recent version, not as good in my opinion.