the way they slowly introduce evidence as exposition throughout the conversation makes it so engaging. You forget this entire movie takes place in 1 room
Well, ALMOST the entire movie takes place in 1 room. There's the opening scene outside the courtroom, the scene in the courtroom when we hear the judge's instructions and see the seated jury, and the last scene on the exterior steps of the building. If you count the bathroom as a separate room from the jury's deliberation room, then that's one more to count.
I genuinely think this is a great example of a perfect movie. Not a single wasted moment, frame or line. So timeless, so important. I’m really glad people are still watching it and enjoying it for the first time.
@@cowboyw520 It should be mandatory to watch for juries so they learn how NOT to do it. Smuggling in illegal evidence, lingering around crimes scenes, making far fetched assumptions far beyond reasonable doubt and ignoring eyewitness testimonies...
See this all the time with people. They will double down on anger rather than risk feeling/showing other emotions. Something bad happens to you? Find someone/something to blame and be angry at to cope
"Anybody can become angry; that is easy. But to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way-that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy." - Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
I would rather a guilty man walk than an innocent man get the chair. I don’t like the idea of a guilty man walking but I can’t say it is “just as bad “
When he helps him put on his coat at the end and collect what dignity he has left. Such a powerful moment. Truly one of the greatest films of all time.
The angry dad was standing alone as well, he represented the voice of the victim, because he knew that this could have happened to him. His part in the discussion is essential, because even though the boy was eventually found innocent, the killer is still on the loose. He wants justice but he had to learn that it must be done properly. I may not like his approach but I respect his motive.
The ethnicity, race, religion, background of the accused is never explicitly stated which helps make it more timeless and applies to any prejudice or bigotry. But it is likely from the quick shot of his face, that he is Puerto Rican, as there was a lot of immigration to New York City at that time and a lot of conflict (see ‘West Side Story’ as an example.)
I hold showing the kid's face as the one failing of the movie. Not that it ruins the movie, but I love the lack of real descriptors of the people involved in the script.
They pictured him like an angel, big eyes, very young, must be innocent. However the circumstantial evidence is very hard, no matter what No8 (Fonda) said. Fonda wasn't able to say sth when 2 Jurors clearly stated that: "You mean you are asking us to believe, that someone else did the stabbing with exactly the same kind of knife? The odds are a million to one." Fonda pulling out a second knife like that doesnt prove anything. Fonda was well aware was he was looking for. A mysterious murderer would've the problem to pick the right murder weapon, not a bat, not a gun, not any knife, no for some reason he picked a knife and he picked a very similar looking knife. And ontop of that the boy lost his knife only hours before the murder happened? Come on!
It doesn't really matter and NYC had an underpriviledged neighbourhood for every ethnicity possible, so it is good to think that this would work with any face presented. The real prejudice comes out against poverty, not ethnicity.
Notice that the man (the house painter) who defended the old man had been looking after the old man from the beginning (helping him with his coat, being aware that the old man was in the restroom, et cetera). The old man was willing to extend the deliberation because it was also his opportunity to do something important, just as he said about the old man who had been a witness. Back in those days, movie theaters were air conditioned and most homes and apartments were not. People went to the movies just to get cool and often didn't even bother know what was playing when they went in. So, it wasn't terribly surprising that a "meh" movie could be quickly forgotten.
I watched this movie so many times but, thanks to your comment, this is the first time I noticed that house painter guy help the old man with his chair. How did I miss that? He was protective of him right from the start! Cheers.
lee cobbs chracter talks so much about kids being so disrespectful to their elders but he himself didn't gave a single respect to that old juror. but the painting guy proved he was a better father figure by doing it rather than just spelling words.
This. Back then a lot of theaters used to literally advertise that they’re air conditioned some even had thermometers showing the indoor temperature next to the outdoor temperature. So if you just want to cool down for three or four hours you wouldn’t give a fuck what was playing, especially if it was a double feature and one of the films was a “B” movie. All that would matter is that it’s 72 inside.
From the screenplay: FOREMAN: 35 years old. Assistant high school football coach. A small, petty man who is at first vary of, and then impressed with the authority he has. Handles himself quite formally. Not overly bright, but dogged. Juror #2: 38 years old. Bank clerk. A meek, hesitant man who finds it difficult to maintain any opinions of his own. Easily swayed and usually adopts the opinion of the last person to idiom he has spoken. Juror #3: 40 years old. Head of messenger service. A very strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man within whom can be detected a streak of sadism. A humorless man who is intolerant of opinions other than his own, and accustomed to forcing his wishes and views upon others. Juror #4: 50 years old. Stockbroker. A man of wealth and position. A practiced speaker who presents himself well at all times. Seems to feel a little bit above the rest of the Jurors. His only concern is with the facts in this case and he is appalled with the behavior of the others. Constantly preening himself, combing his hair, cleaning his nails, etc. Juror #5: 25 years old. Mechanic. A naive, very frightened young man who takes his obligations in this case very seriously but who finds it difficult to speak up when his elders have the floor. Juror #6: 33 years old. Housepainter. An honest, but dull- witted man who comes upon his decisions slowly and carefully. A man who finds it difficult to create positive opinions, but who must listen to and digest and accept these opinions offered by others which appeal to him moat. Juror #7: 42 years old. Salesman. A loud, flashy, glad-handed sales man type who has more important things to do than to sit on a Jury. He is quick to show temper, quick to form opinions on things about which he knows nothing. He is a bully, and, of course, a coward. Juror #8: 42 years old. Architect. A quiet, thoughtful, gentle man. A man who sees many sides to every question and constantly seeks the truth. A man of strength tempered with compassion. Above all, a man who wants Justice to be done, and will fight to see that it is. Juror #9: 70 years old. Retired. A mild, gentle old man, long since defeated by life, and now merely waiting to die. A man who recognizes himself for what he is, and mourns the days when it would have been possible to be courageous without shielding himself behind his many years. From the way he takes pills whenever he is excited, it is obvious that he has a heart condition. Juror #10: 46 years old. Garage owner. An angry, bitter man. A man who antagonizes almost at sight. A bigot who places no values on any human life save his own. A man who has been nowhere and is going nowhere and knows it deep within him. He has a bad cold and continually blows his nose, sniffs a benzedrine inhaler, etc. Juror #11: 48 years old. Watchmaker. A refugee from Europe who has come to this country in 1941. A man who speaks with an accent and who is ashamed, humble, almost subservient to the people around him, but a man who will honestly seek Justice because he has suffered through so much injustice. Juror #12: 30 years old. Advertising man. A slick, bright advertising man who thinks of human beings in terms of percentages, graphs and polls, and has no real understanding of people. A superficial snob, but trying to be a good fellow. Throughout the film he doodles on a scratch pad.
I don't know if you're a parent, but I am. I have 3 daughters and I'm ashamed to admit but sometimes I yell at them, and my wife too. Life gets overwhelming and frustrating sometimes and we don't always react the way we should. I pray to God my girls forgive me deep down. I love them all more than myself, but life is hard sometimes.
@@iamthem.a.n.middleagednerd1053 hey speaking as someone who grew up being hit as a punishment but has a good relationship with his parents now, as long as you approach your relationships with your kids as they grow up with humility, and you apologize and mean it when you DO make mistakes you won't have anything to worry about
Holy shit, I fuckin love this movie. Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) is a true role model. And Lee J. Cobb as Juror #3 is one of the best performances of the 20th century!
I once loved the movie too, but well I grew up. Actually No8 is a trickster. He says things like "I'm not trying to change your mind" or "I dont have anything brilliant" only to pull out minutes later a second knife out of his pocket like Copperfield. This guy knows exactly what he is doing (or the director) from the beginning. BTW that's highly illegal to bring in evidence which wasnt shown in court, it would lead to mistrial for sure and for very good reasons.
@@Bfdidc Oh the movie is well made, but the message is awful. Yes they put 3 stinkers into the movie, a racist guy, someone who beats his son and a guy who doesnt care. Yes the boy must be innocent cause we have 3 ppl with really bad attitude in the jury. Problem is, any other verdict than guilty is scandalous. Far beyond reasonable doubt he murdered his dad. The movie is full with details that he did it, but we only focus to the other details that are not so clear.
@@henrygonzalez8793 I don't think I did either! I was a fan for a long time from The Lady Eve and The Grapes of Wrath, but if I'd thought about it I would have assumed he had brown eyes. It was seeing clips from OUATITW that I saw how brilliantly blue his eyes were and knew I had to watch the movie.
There are a couple of things that threw me off - I didn’t have a color tv as a kid and secondly, I associate blue eyes with people who have blonde or light-colored hair. So watching Fonda in Once Upon a Time... when it came out in 1968 was a bit of a surprise.
McCardle may be my favorite movie character of all time. He is such an adorable little dude. I want to adopt him as my grampa and make him proud of me.
Lee J Cobb and Henry Fonda are both outstanding in this film. Lee J Cobb is also the quintessential gangster in 1957's Oscar winner On the Waterfront, starring Marlon Brando, Carl Malden, Rod Steiger and Eva Marie Saint. Great film. Practically swept the Oscars.
Great film! Henry Fonda was the Tom Hanks of the 1940s. Another historic film he starred in I would love to see a reaction to was the 1940 _The Grapes of Wrath_
Every juror was played by a well-known experienced character actor who I recognise from many movies and TV shows from the era. It was really a hugely talented cast.
My father-in-law showed me this movie once and the thing that I loved the most about it was that it never actually tells you if the kid is guilty or not guilty. Because ultimately that isn't the point it doesn't actually matter whether or not he did it what matters is whether it's been properly demonstrated that he didn't and the ways that are prejudices play into the justice system
This film was way ahead of its time in 1957, as it addressed overcoming our own biases and prejudices. My favorite part is where Fonda helps Lee J Cobb with his coat just to comfort him--he felt pity for a man who had no relationship with his own son. I am a lawyer by trade and have tried over 100 cases. Arianna is right--the system is indeed flawed. Jurors do compromise, they do act on prejudice, and they often don't care at all about the case. As for quality of defense, often the public defenders are not very good. I went to work at a big private firm because I knew I'd get paid far less working for the govt, so its a system that works much better for the wealthy than the poor. At my firm I did several pro bono criminal cases, including defending a few serious felonies--but sadly, it true--not everybody gets a quality defense.
Imagine, that when he was a child / teen he could've easily speak with so many Civil War veterans / people who remembered it. That's crazy when you think about it.
My grandmother was born in 1892, she told me when she was a little girl she was playing in the house when she was frightened by the sight of several Indians looking in the window to see what the white folks were doing. She said she remembers the little Indian boys forming ranks and marching around like the soldiers. Both my grandfathers were in The Great War.
@@servantprinceBecause that isn’t enough for acquittal or a verdict. It’s guilty vs not guilty because assuming innocence is the last thing you wanna do in any case. Innocence is complete, no room for doubt. Not guilty states that someone is most likely not the problem, but doesn’t absolve them of complete room for doubt. The moment you have doubt on someone’s innocence or someone’s guilt, you have to state your case. Guilty vs Innocent are extremes, and the movie again says that we don’t know if they were guilty or not, but there was room to doubt, and that’s what mattered. If you just say “I didn’t do it” when someone accuses you, why would they believe you? If someone else says you did it and you say you didn’t who am I to believe? That introduces a potential bias, and hence it’s why it’s not used at all.
@@browserjunior4707 guilt is a feeling. it's asked of you so that by giving a n answer you acknowledge there is a "law", actually a rule to be abided by
@@triciaswan6971 No. Court cases are about proving the suspect is, without a doubt, 100% certainly "Guilty" of the accused crime. "Not Guilty" simply means that there is not enough compelling evidence to prove with 100% certainty that the suspect committed the crime. Court cases are not trying to prove that the suspect is 100% Innocent, only that the suspect is "Not Guilty". The suspect in this movie was not proven Innocent. He could've still killed his father. But he was Not Guilty because there was still not enough certainty that he actually did kill his father. You cannot put someone in prison because they seem like the most likely person to have committed the crime. You have to PROVE they actually did the crime.
I love how your younger generation is giving these classics a chance. I loved how invested both of you ladies got during the movie, it showed you were paying attention. I loved your reaction.
Great reaction, in middle school I had a favorite teacher in American Law and American history who handed the screenplay out and the class read it out loud, then we spent the rest of that day discussing the lessons. I'll never forget that and it's been a very long time,lol.
This is an example where everything was on-point. Starting from a brilliantly written script that introduced exposition, revealed facts about the case, and allowed you to learn about each juror at different paces over the course of the film in a very natural way. It was perfectly directed - you can FEEL how hot and claustrophobic it is in that room, and so much is done with so little. The actors all perfectly embodied their characters, allowing the audience to see them as distinctive as they were written. This is absolutely one of my all-time favorites.
This was director Sidney Lumet's first feature film. He had done work for television prior to this. Some of his other movies include The Pawnbroker, Fail Safe, Serpico, Murder on the Orient Express, Dog Day Afternoon, Network, The Verdict, and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. Dog Day Afternoon is a favorite of mine. Lumet began the movie using camera angles above the jurors' heads, and slowly moved it downwards. He also used more close-ups as the movie went on. The result was an increasing feeling of being in a small space. Did you notice that none of the characters' names were revealed until the very end, when the two jurors introduced themselves to each other on the courthouse steps? One thing I like about this movie is how the different characters bring their own experience and perspectives into the jury room with them. The old man understood why another old man would testify the way he did. The guy who lived in a slum knew about how switchblades were used in actual fights. The smallest juror who brought up the question of the kid stabbing downward while being so much shorter than his father. When the bigot finished ranting, the cool-headed juror told him not to open his mouth again. From that point forward, the bigot didn't utter another word. Even when he voted not guilty, he did it by shaking his head. And the look on his face suggested that he knew how wrong he had been, and that he'd been voting to send someone to die who might very well not have done it.
I like #4 the best; the way he keeps calm and argues the facts right to the end, but then accepts the L when his information turned out to be incomplete.
He has a weakness which is that he doesn't consider how people might be flawed. That's why he doesn't accept that the boy could've just forgotten in a tense situation, or why the old man and the lady could've be in error with their testimonies. He's very good but he needs juror #9 to cover the things he doesn't observe.
@@Calintares Did you notice when Juror 3 (the angriest man) tried to small talk about his business, juror 4 pointedly ignored him and went back to his newspaper?
Convicting an innocent man is a way worse crime because: someone else did it. And a murderers choice to kill again is their own not the juries. The cops and the prosecutor should have done a better job making their case. Whereas convicting an innocent man is a sin of murder that the jury and everyone else in system are guilty of. The one flaw of this movie is that no one said these things.
This movie was filmed in 1957. Air Conditioning was still not a wide spread thing. They said it was the hottest day of the year. The places you found air conditioning was department stores which closed at set times (before 8pm) Grocery stores in the cooler section that closed at set times also and Movie Theaters. People went and bought a ticket to keep from melting . Have you ever walked into a beer cooler for the same reason
This is a great film. From Wikipedia: "At the 30th Academy Awards, it was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Screenplay. It is regarded by many as one of the greatest films ever made. In 2007, it was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant". Additionally, it was selected as the second-best courtroom drama ever (after 1962's To Kill a Mockingbird) by the American Film Institute for their AFI's 10 Top 10 list"
I was 13 when I saw this film and it totally flipped my world around. It showed me the power of writing structure and how to make an engaging narrative with just 12 men who have different perspectives, motives, prejudices, and ages that takes place in one single room.
The actor who played Juror #3, Lee J Cobb, was the one I hated the most, got angry at the most, and really did his job in everyone hate him. To me, he was the best actor in the movie, and at the end, he was the one that I really felt sorry for, as his real struggle was shown. Nearly all the cast went on to become top stars in television and movies, during the 60's-80's. I saw the 1997 remake, and within 5 minutes, I changed the channel, as the acting was bad, even though it had some superstar actors in the cast. It was not really that good.
It’s a great example of what can happen when you bring together some of the finest actors of their era and give them a whip-smart script and a top-notch camera crew.
I've watched a few reaction videos to this movie. What I love about it is how it always gets people talking, not just about the movie itself but the ideas in it.
This movie is still to this day unbelievably good. Gives me chills. Henry (I had Peter! thanks, bandit) Fonda is an amazing actor - they all are. And it all happened in one room! No CGI, no beautiful vistas or explosive car chases. No sex, no women(!)…and yet soooo good! Love that u guys enjoyed it, too🤘
The not guilty verdict doesn't necessarily mean they thought the boy was innocent. The evidence was not conclusively 100%. There was room for doubt...therefore not guilty.
"When one has been angry for a very long time, one gets used to it. And it becomes comfortable, like... like old leather. And finally...becomes so familiar that one can't ever remember feeling any other way." -Jean Luc Picard
This movie along with "inherit the wind" are two of my favorite movies ever. Back in the day where the script sold the movie! The thing is, finding someone not guilty, doesn't mean you think they're innocent. It means you haven't been persuaded that they're guilty, or there's not enough evidence to convict them.
the last juror treating the older man, reflected how his kid treated him, so that also helped that kids should respect their elders, but he didnt respect HIS elder.
The great thing about this is that it really doesn’t matter if the kid is guilty or not. It’s all about the process and the responsibilities of the jurors.
About only men...In the 1930s and 1940s, "middle-class women demanded to serve on juries as a right of equal citizenship. "At this time, the League of Women Voters and the National Woman's Party demanded the right to be considered for jury duty. Although women had gained the right to vote in 1920, they were not given the same obligation to the state as men in serving on a jury. When they were allowed to participate on juries, the women who desired to serve had to do so through voluntary submission. This narrowed the female pool to middle-class women who were strong activists in the women's movement. In 1937, woman federal jurors won official approval and in some states, including California, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania, participation on a jury was compulsory.
The great Sidney Lumet directorial debut. Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico, The Verdict, Network and Prince of the City, etc. most of his movies were filmed in NYC.
You must watch 1959s classic courtroom drama Anatomy of a Murder in which the audience becomes the juror. It's still relevant 60 years later and would make a great double bill with 12 Angry Men
This is one of my favorite movies and one of the greatest films ever made. This shows how amazing a good story and unique characters can carry a movie. It primarily took place in a single room, but everyone has such a unique personality that they manage to interact while literally providing a heap ton of exposition...and it works! This movie is a masterpiece and does such a great job with tension. I always recommend another classic after watching this: "To Kill a Mockingbird".
I think this is the greatest ensemble acting performance ever. It was originally written as a live television play, and many of the performers in the original production appear here. All the actors were either stars (established or rising) or top-notch character actors. The old guy (#9), Joseph Sweeny, was primarily a stage actor with just a few movies. However, he also gave a terrific performance as a villain in a small part in "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit."
I love how at the end of the film you don't know if the kid is guilty or not. They don't "solve the case" or "figure out the real killer". That's not the point.
The one thing that has gotten a bit lost in the mists of time: back then, movie theaters played double features, with a cartoon, a newsreel, a short of some kind.....so people would just pay their ticket and walk in and the show would already be going on. And they wouldn't kick you out, you could stay there all day long watching the movies over and over. Plus theatres would rotate the movies within days, not weeks. So not knowing what was playing would not be as far fetched back then as it would be now. My uncle tells me often how he and his friends would just "go to the movies" and watch whatever was playing, the novelty was the whole movie theatre experience, the actual films being just one element of it. Or you'd go to see the main feature, but wouldn't care about the second one, which was usually a low-budget, no-big-stars affair.
What possessed some people to do a remake of this masterpiece is beyond me. This film is all about the acting and it couldn't be done better. Shooting in black and white was less expensive, but I think that they did it primarily for artistic reasons.
I am German, 62 years old and a retired police officer. We don't have a jury in court, only professional judges. In my opinion, this has decisive advantages. A good example of this is this outstanding film, which I have seen around 70+ times and which I consider to be one of the best legal films ever. Right from the start, jurors 3 + 10 try to push the decision in a direction that suits them through excessive aggressiveness. Other opinions are put down. No. 3 is actually conducting the trial against his son, who dared to leave the family and does not want to have any contact with his father. This is an "example" of "good" parenting by a father who demands good behavior and behaves "like an ax in the forest." No. 10 is an absolute racist, and fortunately he clearly feels the rejection from the others at a certain point. No. 7 has tickets to a baseball game game even though he knows full well that he is a juror in a murder trial and that it can take a long time to reach a decision. No. 12, an opportunist who doesn't have a clear opinion but follows the "loudest" one. He also has a rather limited mind, which limits his abilities to the formulation of advertising texts. Without no. 8 and a little later also No. 9, which mentions crucial points, the boy would have been sentenced to death. The other jurors, such as No. 2, who is "swimming free" more and more, join No. 8 one by one. If it wasn't for No. 8, the young man wouldn't have had a chance. This film has, over the decades, after its appearance, none of its urgency was lost. An absolute masterpiece with absolute acting talent.
Yeah, I am also from EU and the American jury system just scares me. I would prefere to leave the decision to the proffesional judge, who sure, might be mistaken, but he or she would be far more resistant to the trial theatrics than 12 random people from the streets. Sure, we might to have an image of US trials mostly from popculture, or more popular ones of celebrities like the last one with Amber Heard, but lawyers there seems to be putting so much more show than in the different systems. All the drama in ending speak ect. Same with the jury, where as you pointed out a strong personality can dominate other jurors and sway them. I would feel better with a judge only, his/her experience, knowledge of the law, and of simillar cases.
We in the US distrust “experts” and prefer to trust the common sense of ordinary citizens. It can work very well, as depicted in the movie. Of course when the citizenry lacks virtue it doesn’t work, as with democracy.
@@avengemybreath3084 It was up to one juror, just one. Are you saying that this is justified by a distrust of experts? Even better (worse), if a dark-skinned defendant faced a group of jurors in the South, how many were NOT white? Even worse, In the time of the founding fathers, a musket could fire 2-4 shots per minute. Today in this country there are people running around with assault rifles and invoking the 2nd Amendment. I call this absolute madness. A country is overshooting itself. That was certainly not the view of the Founding Fathers.
@@2tone753 I’m glad you prefer the EU, since you live there. In my view there are many pros and cons to both systems. And yes distrust of elites and self-appointed experts is quite justified in many cases, including in judicial contexts. Btw, there is no meaningful distinction between what you are calling an “assault rifle” and any other semi-automatic rifle.
@@avengemybreath3084 You allow me to point out that, as a German, I am virtually an expert (which I am by no means proud of) in the field of “assault rifles”. My father had the “pleasure” of being “allowed” to work on the “Eastern Front”. Discussions about whether one thing is called this and another that way only distract from that they have a weapon that can take several people from life to death in a very short time. Yes, and as a now retired police officer, I was able to approach a lot of people without having to worry that there was an asshole in the car with a gun drawn. My point is that the USA seems to have decided to reduce their population by 50% in 20 years. I would very much regret it because I enjoyed being a guest in the USA several times. I like people alive better than people dead (as a result of a crime).
34:50 - one of my all time favorite movie moments. I love how even the abusive father (Juror 3) isn't having any of this racist crap. Considering the time this movie came out, and that the accused killer is a young Puerto Rican boy, this moment would have landed like a hammer blow with audiences of the day. Also, I love how Juror 4, the glasses man, seems disgusted to be on the same side as the racist and the abusive father, but can't let his own obsession with the facts go until the bitter end.
1:58 He's talking about coming down hard on misbehaving kids when they're young so they don't grow up to be a burden on the state. Not locking them up or killing them. He's a "spare the rod, spoil the child" type.
@rafaelmarkos4489 Fair point, but it's because it's not his kid, though he is placing his anger onto him. He convinced himself the defendant was guilty of murder, so in his mind, he could exact vengeance. But that's not to say he wants capital punishment for everything. That's why, when he realizes what he's doing, he changes his verdict. He lost that emotional distance as he tore up the photo and put his own son in the kid's place. To paraphrase what Davis said to him, he doesn't really mean he wants to kill him. His character really does have the greatest arc in the film.
Hey first time watcher of your videos here. Just wanna say "trial for the death of his heart" is such a poetic takeaway from this movie. And pivoting into a long-form discussion of critical thinking at the end. Definitely gonna watch more from this channel
Imagine sitting in a cinema and two wonderful smart young ladies shout "wait, wait, waaaaaiiiiit", the movie stops and the whole cinema starts to discuss the case that is shown in the movie 😀 This movie is a good example of how important it is that we as human beings talk to each other. There is no other way - we all do have to talk to each other, although its hard, embarrassing, hurting, conflicting, troubling, etc etc etc. Thanks a lot for your nice reaction - like always.
If Juror #4 looks familiar, it's because he's played by E.G. Marshall; who is best remembered by your generation as the actor who played Ellen Griswold's dad in "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation" when he was much older.
I think it's really awesome how the juror who has problems with his kids and is operating off of emotion says in the beginning, "I'm glad you're not one of those that's swayed by emotion." And the same juror who says, "I don't have to tell you why I changed my vote," later confronts the baseball fan about why he changed his vote. The old man talks about an old man never feeling important, then is the most important factor in turning the juror with the glasses, who was arguably the toughest juror to convince. I wouldn't say they convinced the last guy, he just needed to vent so he could see clearly. The bigoted, prejudiced juror was guilty of all the things "them" were "known for." So many cool character arcs in this script. Many of the characters were most critical about things of which they, themselves, were ashamed. It's so well-written.
I do like this movie, because it shows how little is needed to make an interesting movie. Just a great script and talented cast. All happens in one room. Also it is great that we never know wheter the kid did it or not.
I was born that hot summer of 1957. I've watched 12 Angry Men quite a few times, and I'm still astonished how excellent it is. And I'm delighted that it still has such dramatic impact.
The filmmaking is brilliant. When we see the jury enter the room for the first time after leaving the jury box, a single shot starts that lasts almost eight minutes. As the actors move around and interact, the camera moves with them. The first cut is when the foreman says, "Gentleman, at the window. We'd like to get started." The precision it took to pull that off makes it one of the best single-shot scenes in history.
Some interesting RL things about the time period this movie came out (1957). 1. It was only 3 years after the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education ending segregation 2. It was only 37 years, or about a generation, from the largest immigration movement in US history (1900 - 1920). And unskilled immigrants from Southern Europe made up the bulk of those coming in, and as noted lived in the slums of big cities like NYC. So there was still ALOT of prejudice not just of blacks, but of Italians, Irish, Jews, Russians, etc... who lived in the inner cities. 3. The old man - Joseph Sweeney (juror #9) was born in 1884 and was 73 years old when he did this movie.
@@TylerD288 No, but immigrants came in legally through Ellis Island and lawful ports of entry. (Which they could today, but don't have the patience to both get in line and fulfill the process)
@@kenschortgenjr7540 maybe you're unaware but back then immigration was a much quicker and easier process. Today it can take up to a decade with the help of an immigration lawyer, back then you just had to show up.
@@TylerD288 Very true, however 100 years ago we had just tamed the West and a number of empty states were needing to be settled and filled. Today however, the nation is 360 million people and both state and federal budgets are insolvent. Added to this the majority of illegals coming over want and demand welfare, which is something they DIDNT get when they came over in the 1900s - 1920s. Immigrants coming over illegally offer unskilled cheap labor at best, which if you look at last month's jobs report was nearly all the new jobs created while citizens lost jobs.
Great choice to react to, and I love this style of reaction, real friends talking about what they are watching rather than fake over the top reactions a lot of channels do.
Great movie. It was first a New York play on Broadway. No swearing fight scenes, chase scenes, and big special effects or explosions. Low budget. Who said you have to spend millions/ billions. To get a good movie.✌️❤️
If you were wondering the old man was played by Joseph Sweeney he played Ik numerous stage productions from the 50s always in grandfatherly type roles. He was born in Philadelphia, PA in 1884. And he died in 1963 sadly. I loved his role in the movie. Saw this in theater class in my 12 grade year 3 years ago.
I love this movie so much. One of my favorite things is how they never actually tell you if the kid is guilty or not, because that's not even remotely the point.
Not guilty, is not the same as innocent-Not guilty means we cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did it. Innocent means we know for sure that he didn’t do it. You don’t need to believe with sureness that the accused is innocent to let them off. Lawfully, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. And the burden is on the prosecution to show that. It’s not on the accused to prove they didn’t do it.
No, that is not correct in American jurisprudence. "Innocent until proven guilty." Innocence does not have to be proven, it is _presumed_ from the start. The judicial process does _not_ leave innocence in doubt upon acquittal. If that were the case, simply the act of prosecution itself would be a potent social weapon.
The lady was right across the way she didn't need to look down. That being said there was still a reasonable doubt long before that point. I love this movie, not because it's about whether the boy was guilty or not, but it shows how people need to question more and just not accept the truth that authority tells you. Too many people don't want to talk things out they'd rather just dismiss others. But often it's worth it to have the discussion.
Films are my and my fathers shared interest and how we spend the most time together. every year we will go to the cinemas a bunch together as our shared hobby and have similar thoughts on them having similar interests. I remember him showing me this film when i was around 12-13yrs old and absolutely loved it knowing it's originally a stage play totally shows and that opening credit role with the one take showing the audience who everyone is as a person before the jurors sit is just chefs kiss.
I saw this movie years ago. Coming home with my girl after partying. Early 90s I think. We put on the TV thinking another cute black and white movie but were literally taken aback at how truly excellent this movie really is. Thank you for your reaction ladies.
34:16 "I love this!" Same. To me (born in the decade this film was made) this was how people reacted to blatant racial slurs in a more civilized era. They refused to engage. I think today, when we are trained by social media to always engage, this guy's racist rant would have resulted in a more protracted performative argument, ultimately futile because he is an equal member of the jury and they are all stuck in a room together. There was certainly more racism in the 1950s, but debate was more productive.
No, there is much more racism today, and the culprits are black. I was born in 1946, grew up in Seattle, and never saw a single racial incident until I was threatened by some black thugs when I was driving through the CD the day after I returned home from Vietnam. You are ignorant.
The angry part is also that jury duty had a reputation of being a deeply frustrating and undesirable place to be. For anyone who hasn't served on a jury, its a major disruption of your life. The selection process, the waiting, the questioning, and if you get to a trial can disrupt your life for weeks at a time. For these men, in what clearly looks like a big city for the 50s, they will likely have already been taken up no less than a week without pay from their day jobs already, probably longer.
i love the fact the kid *did* probably kill his father, but its ALSO possible that when he went to meet his friends before going to the movies he told them his dad hit him again and one of THEM went to get some payback for their friend.... i love that we never really know...
I tend to think it was the kid's knife. He left it on a table near the door when he left, and didn't realize he didn't take it with him. So he actually believed it fell through a hole in his pocket. Then someone who had it in for the dad came in and picked up the knife, that person wasn't good with a knife and taller, they struggled, stabbed him, and then he ran out. The old man heard someone running out but didnt get out fast enough to see it, assuming it to be the boy. He also later retconned his memory to think he heard 'im gonna kill you'. but that was never said. The lady across the street saw the blur and assumed it was the boy. It was blurry enough to hide his face but she could still see the killer stabbed down, which is why it matched the autopsy. The kid came home, shocked, and after being ruffed up stuttered and misspoke some names about the films, which was unfairly characterized as 'couldn't remember them'.
Think on this. Joseph Sweeney, the oldest juror, was born in 1884. His father grew up during the Civil War. Our parents (and grandparents) grew up during Sweeney's final years. So we are just 2 or 3 generations away from the Civil War. And just 3 or 4 generations away from the Revolutionary War. Juror #2 voiced Piglet. Ed Begley Jr's father was the bigot. Sidney Lumet locked the actors in a room for hours to run lines and ramp up the tension. A timeless classic. 😋
nice post, but I think you're confusing a generation with a life span. an average life span is about 75 years while a generation is only 20 years (it's the average length of time for children to be born, grow up to become adults & then have children of their own). the civil war ended 159 years ago which is about 7.9 generations ago (or 2.12 life spans ago). the revolutionary war ended 241 years ago which is about 12 generations (or 3.21 life spans) ago.
@@billymuellerTikTok A dictionary definition defines generation to mean all people living at the same time. The definition of lifespan is the length of time a person or thing functions. And I'll go with those established definitions as they are tied together in the way I intended. Of course, you can quibble and say that in every minute there comes into existence a new set of people that didn't exist an hour ago ... people die and people are born minute to minute making a generation last less than a minute. But that would be arguing just to troll. I'll, nonetheless, stick with a dictionary definition while you can trust your gut.
@@billymuellerTikTok To back up my idea with more specific reference books, the Oxford English dictionary defines generation as all the people who were born about the same time. Merriam-Webster defines generation as a body of loving beings constituting a single step in the line of descent from an ancestor. If you think people only live about 20 years .... then your thought process is ... on point. But if people live between 60 and 80 years on average my use of generation ... fits. But again, you can rely upon blind faith to define a generation. I'll stick with the facts.
@@billymuellerTikTok In any event, my parents were teenagers when Sweeney was still alive. Sweeney was first a living baby when his father was alive and his father was likely a teenager or even a young man fighting in the Civil War. And Civil War generals like Robert E. Lee had fathers who fought in the Revolutionary War. But regardless of my use of dictionary definitions of generation ... or your insistence that a generation is only 20 years long and I mean lifespan ... I'm just 3 terms away from the Civil War and 4 terms away from the Revolutionary War (while my parents are even fewer and my grandparentseven closer)... even if it feels like I should be 7 or 8 terms away. By the way ... what dictionary are you citing for generation meaning two decades? 🙄
@@davidely7032 if your parents were teenagers when Joseph Sweeney (died in 1963) was still alive, that makes them baby boomers (born between 1946-1964) before baby boomers were the silent generation (1928-1945), before that was the greatest generation (1901-1927) and before that was the lost generation (1883-1900) which Sweeney was born into in 1884. The Civil War was the generation before tha. So that’s 5 generations from you if you are generation X, not "2 or 3"
Twelve Angry Men is an American courtroom drama written by Reginald Rose concerning the jury of a homicide trial. The production was staged in New York City and aired live on TV, September 20, 1954, as the first episode in the seventh season of the program, Studio One. The following year it was adapted for the stage. It was adapted for a film of the same name, directed by Sidney Lumet, and released in 1957. The production won three Emmy Awards: for Rose's writing, Schaffner's direction, and for Robert Cummings as Best Actor. The cast included performances by: Robert Cummings as Juror #8 Franchot Tone as Juror #3 Edward Arnold as Juror #10 Paul Hartman as Juror #7 John Beal as Juror #2 Walter Abel as Juror #4 George Voskovec as Juror #11 Joseph Sweeney as Juror #9 Bart Burns as Juror #6 Norman Fell as Foreman Lee Phillips as Juror #5 Will West as Juror # 12 Uncredited cast Vincent Gardenia as Bailiff[
What you are witnessing is a doctoral class on screen writing and acting most of the actors in that room became the leaders in their field, or as young people would say big stars
Paul Winkle, who says the boy is definitely guilty, has been saying to me for months that the knife fight in "Rebel Without a Cause" is a crusher for the defense. But it's not, at all. Anyone can watch the "Rebel Without A Cause" knife-fight scene on RUclips. The best video is titled "Rebel Without a Cause (1955) - The Knife Fight Scene (5/10) | Movieclips" and the channel is Movieclips. 1) During the knife fight scene, at least 13 stabs/jabs/thrusts are attempted with switchblades, and *all of them* are attempted with an "underhanded" motion/grip: that is, the way a switchblade knife should be used, not the way a normal knife would be. 2) From the beginning of the knife fight - from the first point where both fighters have their switchblades open (0:33) - to the end - (where the winner throws down his knife (2:02)), it lasts for 1:29 seconds, which is 89 seconds. There are 2 fighters with their knives open through nearly all of that, so I will multiply that by 2: switchblades are open for about 178 seconds. Of that time, only 1 fighter at any point holds his switchblade the wrong way - that is, the way a person would hold a normal knife - and that lasts for only about 5 seconds (1:25 to about 1:30). 5 seconds is less than 3% of the total time. To recap: 1) 100% of the 13+ stabs/jabs/thrusts are done the correct way for a switchblade. 2) For less then 3% of the time is a switchblade held the wrong way (i.e., the way a normal knife would be held), and no stab/jab/thrust is done with it when held the wrong way. THIS IS PAUL'S CRUSHING EVIDENCE, THAT OBLITERATES THE DEFENSE!! PROOF THAT THE BOY IS GUILTY!! THE CRUSHER THAT HE'S BEEN YELLING ABOUT FOR MONTHS!! LOL!!!
13:50 a nice dramatic moment, but IRL, the man just broke at least 2 laws bringing that switchblade into the courthouse. 1) the actual act of bringing a weapon into the courthouse. 2) Jurors are not allowed to do any investigation of a trial they are presiding over. Fonda's character basically just caused a mistrial immediately the moment he pulled that stunt.
Another law he broke: they said it is illegal to buy or sell a switchblade, and juror 8 even says he broke the law by buying it. JUROR 8: I went out walking for a couple of hours last night. I walked through the boy's neighborhood. I bought that at a little pawn shop just two blocks from the boy's house. It cost six dollars. JUROR 4: It's against the law to buy or sell switchblade knives. JUROR 8: That's right. I broke the law.
You take out those two elements, and you have a very pedestrian movie. You know the rules of drama, don't you. You must practice a willing suspension of disbelief. Otherwise, you have no Theater, no Shakespeare, no Agatha Christie, no Sam Spade, no film noir, no nothing, just a hum drum film.
@@AliasSchmalias Not really, both laws make sense. First, the reason why you cant bring a weapon into a federal building rather self-explanitory. But onto the bigger issue, jurors aren't allowed to produce their own evidence for two major reasons i know of. 1) It completely circumvents the procedure in which evidence is admitted into a trail, potentially prejudicing the jury with false perceptions. 2) What if the evidence they uncover has no actual relevant use to the trial at hand? what if they tamper with evidence either through imcompetence or maliciousness? Where's the chain of cutody of the evidence to assure the legitmacy? Really, it should be on the defendant's lawyer to make the defense, not the juror.
![Hunxho - Ball Forever [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nki9ZTF9Uls/mqdefault.jpg)
the way they slowly introduce evidence as exposition throughout the conversation makes it so engaging. You forget this entire movie takes place in 1 room
You mean not real evidence, more like sth No8 smuggled in cause his case is so just and pure, that he doesnt have to care about laws
Not even that, I believe they literally push the walls of the set in over time so it feels more and more claustrophobic.
Well, ALMOST the entire movie takes place in 1 room.
There's the opening scene outside the courtroom, the scene in the courtroom when we hear the judge's instructions and see the seated jury, and the last scene on the exterior steps of the building. If you count the bathroom as a separate room from the jury's deliberation room, then that's one more to count.
@@lyletuck Yep of course. Important scenes as well but you caught what I was getting at Im guessing :D
@@lyletuckI want to say the whole run time outside the “jury room” is right at five minutes of the film
I genuinely think this is a great example of a perfect movie. Not a single wasted moment, frame or line. So timeless, so important. I’m really glad people are still watching it and enjoying it for the first time.
Agreed, it's one of my favourite movies of all time: absolutely flawless in every way
Besides the boy being guilty as F you mean? :)
Three sets. No exteriors except in the last scene. This movie is a great example of how less is more.
I think this movie should be a mandatory watch for everyone. Not just movie students, EVERYONE.
@@cowboyw520 It should be mandatory to watch for juries so they learn how NOT to do it. Smuggling in illegal evidence, lingering around crimes scenes, making far fetched assumptions far beyond reasonable doubt and ignoring eyewitness testimonies...
"It's so much easier to feel angry than any other feeling." Truuuuuueeeee
See this all the time with people. They will double down on anger rather than risk feeling/showing other emotions. Something bad happens to you? Find someone/something to blame and be angry at to cope
"Anybody can become angry; that is easy. But to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way-that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy."
- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
as George Michael sang "It's hard to love, there's so much to hate"
Use your aggressive feelings, boy! Let the hate flow through you!
I would rather a guilty man walk than an innocent man get the chair. I don’t like the idea of a guilty man walking but I can’t say it is “just as bad “
When he helps him put on his coat at the end and collect what dignity he has left. Such a powerful moment. Truly one of the greatest films of all time.
"The only way to truly strike down an enemy is to lift them up as a friend."
The angry dad was standing alone as well, he represented the voice of the victim, because he knew that this could have happened to him. His part in the discussion is essential, because even though the boy was eventually found innocent, the killer is still on the loose. He wants justice but he had to learn that it must be done properly. I may not like his approach but I respect his motive.
The ethnicity, race, religion, background of the accused is never explicitly stated which helps make it more timeless and applies to any prejudice or bigotry. But it is likely from the quick shot of his face, that he is Puerto Rican, as there was a lot of immigration to New York City at that time and a lot of conflict (see ‘West Side Story’ as an example.)
I hold showing the kid's face as the one failing of the movie. Not that it ruins the movie, but I love the lack of real descriptors of the people involved in the script.
They pictured him like an angel, big eyes, very young, must be innocent. However the circumstantial evidence is very hard, no matter what No8 (Fonda) said. Fonda wasn't able to say sth when 2 Jurors clearly stated that: "You mean you are asking us to believe, that someone else did the stabbing with exactly the same kind of knife? The odds are a million to one."
Fonda pulling out a second knife like that doesnt prove anything. Fonda was well aware was he was looking for. A mysterious murderer would've the problem to pick the right murder weapon, not a bat, not a gun, not any knife, no for some reason he picked a knife and he picked a very similar looking knife. And ontop of that the boy lost his knife only hours before the murder happened? Come on!
I always tbought he was puerto rican cause of the knife also
It doesn't really matter and NYC had an underpriviledged neighbourhood for every ethnicity possible, so it is good to think that this would work with any face presented. The real prejudice comes out against poverty, not ethnicity.
The actor's name was John Savoca (or at least that's what IMDB says), so I think he was Italian.
Notice that the man (the house painter) who defended the old man had been looking after the old man from the beginning (helping him with his coat, being aware that the old man was in the restroom, et cetera). The old man was willing to extend the deliberation because it was also his opportunity to do something important, just as he said about the old man who had been a witness.
Back in those days, movie theaters were air conditioned and most homes and apartments were not. People went to the movies just to get cool and often didn't even bother know what was playing when they went in. So, it wasn't terribly surprising that a "meh" movie could be quickly forgotten.
All of our points make sense 👍
I watched this movie so many times but, thanks to your comment, this is the first time I noticed that house painter guy help the old man with his chair. How did I miss that? He was protective of him right from the start! Cheers.
lee cobbs chracter talks so much about kids being so disrespectful to their elders but he himself didn't gave a single respect to that old juror. but the painting guy proved he was a better father figure by doing it rather than just spelling words.
This. Back then a lot of theaters used to literally advertise that they’re air conditioned some even had thermometers showing the indoor temperature next to the outdoor temperature. So if you just want to cool down for three or four hours you wouldn’t give a fuck what was playing, especially if it was a double feature and one of the films was a “B” movie. All that would matter is that it’s 72 inside.
From the screenplay:
FOREMAN: 35 years old. Assistant high school football coach.
A small, petty man who is at first vary of, and then
impressed with the authority he has. Handles himself quite
formally. Not overly bright, but dogged.
Juror #2: 38 years old. Bank clerk. A meek, hesitant man who
finds it difficult to maintain any opinions of his own.
Easily swayed and usually adopts the opinion of the last
person to idiom he has spoken.
Juror #3: 40 years old. Head of messenger service. A very
strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man within whom
can be detected a streak of sadism. A humorless man who is
intolerant of opinions other than his own, and accustomed to
forcing his wishes and views upon others.
Juror #4: 50 years old. Stockbroker. A man of wealth and
position. A practiced speaker who presents himself well at
all times. Seems to feel a little bit above the rest of the
Jurors. His only concern is with the facts in this case and
he is appalled with the behavior of the others. Constantly
preening himself, combing his hair, cleaning his nails, etc.
Juror #5: 25 years old. Mechanic. A naive, very frightened
young man who takes his obligations in this case very
seriously but who finds it difficult to speak up when his
elders have the floor.
Juror #6: 33 years old. Housepainter. An honest, but dull-
witted man who comes upon his decisions slowly and carefully.
A man who finds it difficult to create positive opinions, but
who must listen to and digest and accept these opinions
offered by others which appeal to him moat.
Juror #7: 42 years old. Salesman. A loud, flashy, glad-handed
sales man type who has more important things to do than to
sit on a Jury. He is quick to show temper, quick to form
opinions on things about which he knows nothing. He is a
bully, and, of course, a coward.
Juror #8: 42 years old. Architect. A quiet, thoughtful,
gentle man. A man who sees many sides to every question and
constantly seeks the truth. A man of strength tempered with
compassion. Above all, a man who wants Justice to be done,
and will fight to see that it is.
Juror #9: 70 years old. Retired. A mild, gentle old man, long since defeated by life, and now merely waiting to die. A man who recognizes himself for what he is, and mourns the days when it would have been possible to be courageous without shielding himself behind his many years. From the way he takes pills whenever he is excited, it is obvious that he has a heart condition.
Juror #10: 46 years old. Garage owner. An angry, bitter man. A man who antagonizes almost at sight. A bigot who places no values on any human life save his own. A man who has been nowhere and is going nowhere and knows it deep within him. He has a bad cold and continually blows his nose, sniffs a benzedrine inhaler, etc.
Juror #11: 48 years old. Watchmaker. A refugee from Europe who has come to this country in 1941. A man who speaks with an accent and who is ashamed, humble, almost subservient to the people around him, but a man who will honestly seek Justice because he has suffered through so much injustice.
Juror #12: 30 years old. Advertising man. A slick, bright advertising man who thinks of human beings in terms of percentages, graphs and polls, and has no real understanding of people. A superficial snob, but trying to be a good fellow. Throughout the film he doodles on a scratch pad.
"Abuse the hell outta them and then wonder why they don't call ya for 2 yeahs!"
VERY good Juror #3 impression, Maple lol
I don't know if you're a parent, but I am. I have 3 daughters and I'm ashamed to admit but sometimes I yell at them, and my wife too. Life gets overwhelming and frustrating sometimes and we don't always react the way we should. I pray to God my girls forgive me deep down. I love them all more than myself, but life is hard sometimes.
@@iamthem.a.n.middleagednerd1053 hey speaking as someone who grew up being hit as a punishment but has a good relationship with his parents now, as long as you approach your relationships with your kids as they grow up with humility, and you apologize and mean it when you DO make mistakes you won't have anything to worry about
This is my ALL-TIME favorite Black and White movie! I've shown it to dozens of people! Great Choice!
Holy shit, I fuckin love this movie. Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) is a true role model. And Lee J. Cobb as Juror #3 is one of the best performances of the 20th century!
I once loved the movie too, but well I grew up. Actually No8 is a trickster. He says things like "I'm not trying to change your mind" or "I dont have anything brilliant" only to pull out minutes later a second knife out of his pocket like Copperfield. This guy knows exactly what he is doing (or the director) from the beginning. BTW that's highly illegal to bring in evidence which wasnt shown in court, it would lead to mistrial for sure and for very good reasons.
Good performances across the board in this movie, and some well-known actors of the time.
@@PaulWinkle
Why would you expect a good movie to be 100% accurate?
That would be the most boring movie ever lol
@@Bfdidc Oh the movie is well made, but the message is awful. Yes they put 3 stinkers into the movie, a racist guy, someone who beats his son and a guy who doesnt care. Yes the boy must be innocent cause we have 3 ppl with really bad attitude in the jury. Problem is, any other verdict than guilty is scandalous. Far beyond reasonable doubt he murdered his dad. The movie is full with details that he did it, but we only focus to the other details that are not so clear.
@@PaulWinkleabsolute garbage, my man.
You just forget that its in black and white, you forget that its a movie. The acting and cinematography is just so good.
Fonda's baby blues are so powerful not even black and white can disguise them
Since you pointed out Henry Fonda's blue eyes, you MUST watch Once Upon a Time in the West at some point. How his eyes are used will shock you.
They must be very perceptive since this movie is in b/w
I was going to make the same point but you beat me to it !! Until OUATITW I didn’t know he had blue eyes.
@@henrygonzalez8793 I don't think I did either! I was a fan for a long time from The Lady Eve and The Grapes of Wrath, but if I'd thought about it I would have assumed he had brown eyes. It was seeing clips from OUATITW that I saw how brilliantly blue his eyes were and knew I had to watch the movie.
There are a couple of things that threw me off - I didn’t have a color tv as a kid and secondly, I associate blue eyes with people who have blonde or light-colored hair. So watching Fonda in Once Upon a Time... when it came out in 1968 was a bit of a surprise.
That's a good movie
McCardle may be my favorite movie character of all time. He is such an adorable little dude. I want to adopt him as my grampa and make him proud of me.
Wholesome as hell lol
Lee J Cobb and Henry Fonda are both outstanding in this film. Lee J Cobb is also the quintessential gangster in 1957's Oscar winner On the Waterfront, starring Marlon Brando, Carl Malden, Rod Steiger and Eva Marie Saint. Great film. Practically swept the Oscars.
Great film! Henry Fonda was the Tom Hanks of the 1940s. Another historic film he starred in I would love to see a reaction to was the 1940 _The Grapes of Wrath_
Every juror was played by a well-known experienced character actor who I recognise from many movies and TV shows from the era. It was really a hugely talented cast.
On the Waterfront is an excellent movie
7 of the 12 from future TwilightZones!
“You don't understand! I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender, I could've been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am.”
My father-in-law showed me this movie once and the thing that I loved the most about it was that it never actually tells you if the kid is guilty or not guilty. Because ultimately that isn't the point it doesn't actually matter whether or not he did it what matters is whether it's been properly demonstrated that he didn't and the ways that are prejudices play into the justice system
the little guy with glasses was the voice of piglet in winie the pooh.
He was also a killer on Star Trek.
@@martensjdlmao?
@@HomoErected I was being serious. John Fiedler played a killer in Star Trek TOS 2x14, "Wolf in the Fold."
He also played the part of Vinnie in the 1968 movie version of The Odd Couple.
@@Peter-i1b3mand the lawyer J Noble Daggett in True Grit
This film was way ahead of its time in 1957, as it addressed overcoming our own biases and prejudices.
My favorite part is where Fonda helps Lee J Cobb with his coat just to comfort him--he felt pity for a man who had no relationship with his own son.
I am a lawyer by trade and have tried over 100 cases. Arianna is right--the system is indeed flawed. Jurors do compromise, they do act on prejudice, and they often don't care at all about the case. As for quality of defense, often the public defenders are not very good.
I went to work at a big private firm because I knew I'd get paid far less working for the govt, so its a system that works much better for the wealthy than the poor. At my firm I did several pro bono criminal cases, including defending a few serious felonies--but sadly, it true--not everybody gets a quality defense.
Gee, the system is “flawed”? Why isn’t it perfect like every other human endeavor?
The old man, was an old man.....hard to believe I'm watching a man that was born in 1884.
Holy shit
Imagine, that when he was a child / teen he could've easily speak with so many Civil War veterans / people who remembered it. That's crazy when you think about it.
So he was 73. Ok.
My grandmother was born in 1892, she told me when she was a little girl she was playing in the house when she was frightened by the sight of several Indians looking in the window to see what the white folks were doing. She said she remembers the little Indian boys forming ranks and marching around like the soldiers. Both my grandfathers were in The Great War.
I think the problem with court cases is everyone assumes its "Guilty" vs "Innocent". It's not. Its "Guilty" vs "Not Guilty".
Why is it guilty, not guilty ?
Why don't they just ask, did you do it or not do it ?
@@servantprinceBecause that isn’t enough for acquittal or a verdict.
It’s guilty vs not guilty because assuming innocence is the last thing you wanna do in any case. Innocence is complete, no room for doubt. Not guilty states that someone is most likely not the problem, but doesn’t absolve them of complete room for doubt.
The moment you have doubt on someone’s innocence or someone’s guilt, you have to state your case. Guilty vs Innocent are extremes, and the movie again says that we don’t know if they were guilty or not, but there was room to doubt, and that’s what mattered.
If you just say “I didn’t do it” when someone accuses you, why would they believe you? If someone else says you did it and you say you didn’t who am I to believe? That introduces a potential bias, and hence it’s why it’s not used at all.
But doesn't that mean the same thing 😅
@@browserjunior4707 guilt is a feeling. it's asked of you so that by giving a n answer you acknowledge there is a "law", actually a rule to be abided by
@@triciaswan6971 No. Court cases are about proving the suspect is, without a doubt, 100% certainly "Guilty" of the accused crime. "Not Guilty" simply means that there is not enough compelling evidence to prove with 100% certainty that the suspect committed the crime. Court cases are not trying to prove that the suspect is 100% Innocent, only that the suspect is "Not Guilty". The suspect in this movie was not proven Innocent. He could've still killed his father. But he was Not Guilty because there was still not enough certainty that he actually did kill his father. You cannot put someone in prison because they seem like the most likely person to have committed the crime. You have to PROVE they actually did the crime.
I love how your younger generation is giving these classics a chance. I loved how invested both of you ladies got during the movie, it showed you were paying attention. I loved your reaction.
Great reaction, in middle school I had a favorite teacher in American Law and American history who handed the screenplay out and the class read it out loud, then we spent the rest of that day discussing the lessons. I'll never forget that and it's been a very long time,lol.
This is an example where everything was on-point. Starting from a brilliantly written script that introduced exposition, revealed facts about the case, and allowed you to learn about each juror at different paces over the course of the film in a very natural way. It was perfectly directed - you can FEEL how hot and claustrophobic it is in that room, and so much is done with so little. The actors all perfectly embodied their characters, allowing the audience to see them as distinctive as they were written. This is absolutely one of my all-time favorites.
This was director Sidney Lumet's first feature film. He had done work for television prior to this. Some of his other movies include The Pawnbroker, Fail Safe, Serpico, Murder on the Orient Express, Dog Day Afternoon, Network, The Verdict, and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. Dog Day Afternoon is a favorite of mine.
Lumet began the movie using camera angles above the jurors' heads, and slowly moved it downwards. He also used more close-ups as the movie went on. The result was an increasing feeling of being in a small space.
Did you notice that none of the characters' names were revealed until the very end, when the two jurors introduced themselves to each other on the courthouse steps?
One thing I like about this movie is how the different characters bring their own experience and perspectives into the jury room with them. The old man understood why another old man would testify the way he did. The guy who lived in a slum knew about how switchblades were used in actual fights. The smallest juror who brought up the question of the kid stabbing downward while being so much shorter than his father.
When the bigot finished ranting, the cool-headed juror told him not to open his mouth again. From that point forward, the bigot didn't utter another word. Even when he voted not guilty, he did it by shaking his head. And the look on his face suggested that he knew how wrong he had been, and that he'd been voting to send someone to die who might very well not have done it.
I like #4 the best; the way he keeps calm and argues the facts right to the end, but then accepts the L when his information turned out to be incomplete.
i appreciate that he understands that changing your opinion when given better information isn't an L but in fact a W. that's why he's my favorite too
I've been that guy on a jury.
Story? @@kirkdarling4120
He has a weakness which is that he doesn't consider how people might be flawed. That's why he doesn't accept that the boy could've just forgotten in a tense situation, or why the old man and the lady could've be in error with their testimonies. He's very good but he needs juror #9 to cover the things he doesn't observe.
@@Calintares Did you notice when Juror 3 (the angriest man) tried to small talk about his business, juror 4 pointedly ignored him and went back to his newspaper?
One of the Best part of this movie is the conversation in the bathroom. "Suppose you talk us out of this: and the kid really did kill his father."
Take a look at Fonda’s face-there’s a hint of doubt.
Convicting an innocent man is a way worse crime because: someone else did it. And a murderers choice to kill again is their own not the juries. The cops and the prosecutor should have done a better job making their case. Whereas convicting an innocent man is a sin of murder that the jury and everyone else in system are guilty of. The one flaw of this movie is that no one said these things.
This movie was filmed in 1957. Air Conditioning was still not a wide spread thing. They said it was the hottest day of the year. The places you found air conditioning was department stores which closed at set times (before 8pm) Grocery stores in the cooler section that closed at set times also and Movie Theaters. People went and bought a ticket to keep from melting . Have you ever walked into a beer cooler for the same reason
This is a great film. From Wikipedia: "At the 30th Academy Awards, it was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Screenplay. It is regarded by many as one of the greatest films ever made. In 2007, it was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant". Additionally, it was selected as the second-best courtroom drama ever (after 1962's To Kill a Mockingbird) by the American Film Institute for their AFI's 10 Top 10 list"
I was 13 when I saw this film and it totally flipped my world around. It showed me the power of writing structure and how to make an engaging narrative with just 12 men who have different perspectives, motives, prejudices, and ages that takes place in one single room.
The actor who played Juror #3, Lee J Cobb, was the one I hated the most, got angry at the most, and really did his job in everyone hate him. To me, he was the best actor in the movie, and at the end, he was the one that I really felt sorry for, as his real struggle was shown. Nearly all the cast went on to become top stars in television and movies, during the 60's-80's.
I saw the 1997 remake, and within 5 minutes, I changed the channel, as the acting was bad, even though it had some superstar actors in the cast. It was not really that good.
Same 100 percent.
The best thing about the 1997 version is that it introduced me to James Gandolfini
This type of situation puts a high demand on a actor's basic skills. You could put good actors in such a role who wouldn't do a good job on the role.
All of the actors are accomplished actors and all have had stellar careers.this is one of the finest movies ever made.
Genius is a term used too often. In the case of this movie, it is appropriate. This is an all time great work of art.
It’s a great example of what can happen when you bring together some of the finest actors of their era and give them a whip-smart script and a top-notch camera crew.
Has there ever been a person who has watched 12 Angry Men, and not liked it.... "It's not possible"
I've watched a few reaction videos to this movie. What I love about it is how it always gets people talking, not just about the movie itself but the ideas in it.
This movie is still to this day unbelievably good. Gives me chills. Henry (I had Peter! thanks, bandit) Fonda is an amazing actor - they all are. And it all happened in one room! No CGI, no beautiful vistas or explosive car chases. No sex, no women(!)…and yet soooo good! Love that u guys enjoyed it, too🤘
Henry. Peter was his son.
@@Madbandit77 Ugh, I’m so dumb! Yep, HENRY Fonda. 🙄Peter Fonda🙄…I’m so dumb!😃
The not guilty verdict doesn't necessarily mean they thought the boy was innocent. The evidence was not conclusively 100%. There was room for doubt...therefore not guilty.
One of the best movies ever made! Lee J. Cobb was also excellent as the police lieutenant in The Excorcist (1973).
I forgot that was the same actor!
He was excellent in the Exorcist.
“he can’t hear you, he never will…” 16:35
truly a good motive to live by
My father introduced me to this film when I was 8. I am 53 now and I watch it once a year. My favourite of all time
still... the best part of this classic movie is when Henry Fonda helps Lee J Coob put on his jacket.... and pats him on the shoulder... #class
"When one has been angry for a very long time, one gets used to it. And it becomes comfortable, like... like old leather. And finally...becomes so familiar that one can't ever remember feeling any other way."
-Jean Luc Picard
This movie along with "inherit the wind" are two of my favorite movies ever. Back in the day where the script sold the movie!
The thing is, finding someone not guilty, doesn't mean you think they're innocent. It means you haven't been persuaded that they're guilty, or there's not enough evidence to convict them.
the last juror treating the older man, reflected how his kid treated him, so that also helped that kids should respect their elders, but he didnt respect HIS elder.
Certain folks are very much "do as I say" and very much *not* "do as I do."
Imagine what modern Hollywood could achieve if there were still real filmmakers who once made this kind classics.
The great thing about this is that it really doesn’t matter if the kid is guilty or not. It’s all about the process and the responsibilities of the jurors.
About only men...In the 1930s and 1940s, "middle-class women demanded to serve on juries as a right of equal citizenship. "At this time, the League of Women Voters and the National Woman's Party demanded the right to be considered for jury duty. Although women had gained the right to vote in 1920, they were not given the same obligation to the state as men in serving on a jury. When they were allowed to participate on juries, the women who desired to serve had to do so through voluntary submission. This narrowed the female pool to middle-class women who were strong activists in the women's movement. In 1937, woman federal jurors won official approval and in some states, including California, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania, participation on a jury was compulsory.
The great Sidney Lumet directorial debut. Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico, The Verdict, Network and Prince of the City, etc. most of his movies were filmed in NYC.
You must watch 1959s classic courtroom drama Anatomy of a Murder in which the audience becomes the juror. It's still relevant 60 years later and would make a great double bill with 12 Angry Men
This is one of my favorite movies and one of the greatest films ever made. This shows how amazing a good story and unique characters can carry a movie. It primarily took place in a single room, but everyone has such a unique personality that they manage to interact while literally providing a heap ton of exposition...and it works! This movie is a masterpiece and does such a great job with tension. I always recommend another classic after watching this: "To Kill a Mockingbird".
I think this is the greatest ensemble acting performance ever. It was originally written as a live television play, and many of the performers in the original production appear here. All the actors were either stars (established or rising) or top-notch character actors. The old guy (#9), Joseph Sweeny, was primarily a stage actor with just a few movies. However, he also gave a terrific performance as a villain in a small part in "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit."
I love how at the end of the film you don't know if the kid is guilty or not. They don't "solve the case" or "figure out the real killer". That's not the point.
The one thing that has gotten a bit lost in the mists of time: back then, movie theaters played double features, with a cartoon, a newsreel, a short of some kind.....so people would just pay their ticket and walk in and the show would already be going on. And they wouldn't kick you out, you could stay there all day long watching the movies over and over. Plus theatres would rotate the movies within days, not weeks. So not knowing what was playing would not be as far fetched back then as it would be now. My uncle tells me often how he and his friends would just "go to the movies" and watch whatever was playing, the novelty was the whole movie theatre experience, the actual films being just one element of it. Or you'd go to see the main feature, but wouldn't care about the second one, which was usually a low-budget, no-big-stars affair.
Thank you young women for tapping into this movie. This is an important movie...This movie is well written directed well acted.!! Life lesson.
What possessed some people to do a remake of this masterpiece is beyond me. This film is all about the acting and it couldn't be done better. Shooting in black and white was less expensive, but I think that they did it primarily for artistic reasons.
The “why I outta!” was on point!
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I am German, 62 years old and a retired police officer. We don't have a jury in court, only professional judges. In my opinion, this has decisive advantages. A good example of this is this outstanding film, which I have seen around 70+ times and which I consider to be one of the best legal films ever.
Right from the start, jurors 3 + 10 try to push the decision in a direction that suits them through excessive aggressiveness. Other opinions are put down. No. 3 is actually conducting the trial against his son, who dared to leave the family and does not want to have any contact with his father.
This is an "example" of "good" parenting by a father who demands good behavior and behaves "like an ax in the forest." No. 10 is an absolute racist, and fortunately he clearly feels the rejection from the others at a certain point. No. 7 has tickets to a baseball game
game even though he knows full well that he is a juror in a murder trial and that it can take a long time to reach a decision. No. 12, an opportunist who doesn't have a clear opinion but follows the "loudest" one. He also has a rather limited mind, which limits his abilities to the formulation of advertising texts. Without no.
8 and a little later also No. 9, which mentions crucial points, the boy would have been sentenced to death. The other jurors, such as No. 2, who is "swimming free" more and more, join No. 8 one by one. If it wasn't for No. 8, the young man wouldn't have had a chance. This film has, over the decades,
after its appearance, none of its urgency was lost. An absolute masterpiece with absolute acting talent.
Yeah, I am also from EU and the American jury system just scares me. I would prefere to leave the decision to the proffesional judge, who sure, might be mistaken, but he or she would be far more resistant to the trial theatrics than 12 random people from the streets. Sure, we might to have an image of US trials mostly from popculture, or more popular ones of celebrities like the last one with Amber Heard, but lawyers there seems to be putting so much more show than in the different systems. All the drama in ending speak ect. Same with the jury, where as you pointed out a strong personality can dominate other jurors and sway them.
I would feel better with a judge only, his/her experience, knowledge of the law, and of simillar cases.
We in the US distrust “experts” and prefer to trust the common sense of ordinary citizens. It can work very well, as depicted in the movie. Of course when the citizenry lacks virtue it doesn’t work, as with democracy.
@@avengemybreath3084 It was up to one juror, just one. Are you saying that this is justified by a distrust of experts? Even better (worse), if a dark-skinned defendant faced a group of jurors in the South, how many were NOT white? Even worse,
In the time of the founding fathers, a musket could fire 2-4 shots per minute. Today in this country there are people running around with assault rifles and invoking the 2nd Amendment. I call this absolute madness. A country is overshooting itself. That was certainly not the view of the Founding Fathers.
@@2tone753 I’m glad you prefer the EU, since you live there. In my view there are many pros and cons to both systems. And yes distrust of elites and self-appointed experts is quite justified in many cases, including in judicial contexts.
Btw, there is no meaningful distinction between what you are calling an “assault rifle” and any other semi-automatic rifle.
@@avengemybreath3084 You allow me to point out that, as a German, I am virtually an expert (which I am by no means proud of) in the field of “assault rifles”. My father had the “pleasure” of being “allowed” to work on the “Eastern Front”.
Discussions about whether one thing is called this and another that way only distract from
that they have a weapon that can take several people from life to death in a very short time.
Yes, and as a now retired police officer, I was able to approach a lot of people without having to worry that there was an asshole in the car with a gun drawn.
My point is that the USA seems to have decided
to reduce their population by 50% in 20 years. I would very much regret it because I enjoyed being a guest in the USA several times. I like people alive better than people dead (as a result of a crime).
34:50 - one of my all time favorite movie moments. I love how even the abusive father (Juror 3) isn't having any of this racist crap. Considering the time this movie came out, and that the accused killer is a young Puerto Rican boy, this moment would have landed like a hammer blow with audiences of the day.
Also, I love how Juror 4, the glasses man, seems disgusted to be on the same side as the racist and the abusive father, but can't let his own obsession with the facts go until the bitter end.
Not a problem with being obsessed with the facts, but when presented with a logical argument, he was willing to let it go.
A court case and a murder case in particular, is the appropriate time to be engaged in an "obsession with the facts"
This was indeed written as a stage piece, and was first performed as a TV play.
I knew that Juror #2 was Piglet (you can hear it), but I had no idea Juror #10 was Ed Begley Jr's dad
John Fielder (Juror #2) was a great character actor.
🐖
1:58 He's talking about coming down hard on misbehaving kids when they're young so they don't grow up to be a burden on the state. Not locking them up or killing them. He's a "spare the rod, spoil the child" type.
The opinion might not be justified when they said it, but Cobb's character does end up going there with his later speeches on the matter.
@rafaelmarkos4489 Fair point, but it's because it's not his kid, though he is placing his anger onto him. He convinced himself the defendant was guilty of murder, so in his mind, he could exact vengeance. But that's not to say he wants capital punishment for everything. That's why, when he realizes what he's doing, he changes his verdict. He lost that emotional distance as he tore up the photo and put his own son in the kid's place. To paraphrase what Davis said to him, he doesn't really mean he wants to kill him. His character really does have the greatest arc in the film.
Hey first time watcher of your videos here.
Just wanna say "trial for the death of his heart" is such a poetic takeaway from this movie.
And pivoting into a long-form discussion of critical thinking at the end. Definitely gonna watch more from this channel
"Abuse the hell outta them and wonder why they don't call for two years" 💀
Imagine sitting in a cinema and two wonderful smart young ladies shout "wait, wait, waaaaaiiiiit", the movie stops and the whole cinema starts to discuss the case that is shown in the movie 😀
This movie is a good example of how important it is that we as human beings talk to each other. There is no other way - we all do have to talk to each other, although its hard, embarrassing, hurting, conflicting, troubling, etc etc etc.
Thanks a lot for your nice reaction - like always.
If Juror #4 looks familiar, it's because he's played by E.G. Marshall; who is best remembered by your generation as the actor who played Ellen Griswold's dad in "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation" when he was much older.
Henry Fonda was one of my favorite actors growing up, especially his westerns. He made a lot of great movies in his lifetime. Thanks for the reaction.
How angry that one character makes you shows how good the writing and acting here is.
So many times the attempts to argue for guilty turned into self-contradictory arguments. It was brilliant writing.
lee j cobb in this old ass movie, still like, the most powerful acting you'll ever see. all the acting in this movie truly cooks forever.
I think it's really awesome how the juror who has problems with his kids and is operating off of emotion says in the beginning, "I'm glad you're not one of those that's swayed by emotion."
And the same juror who says, "I don't have to tell you why I changed my vote," later confronts the baseball fan about why he changed his vote.
The old man talks about an old man never feeling important, then is the most important factor in turning the juror with the glasses, who was arguably the toughest juror to convince. I wouldn't say they convinced the last guy, he just needed to vent so he could see clearly.
The bigoted, prejudiced juror was guilty of all the things "them" were "known for."
So many cool character arcs in this script. Many of the characters were most critical about things of which they, themselves, were ashamed. It's so well-written.
I do like this movie, because it shows how little is needed to make an interesting movie. Just a great script and talented cast. All happens in one room.
Also it is great that we never know wheter the kid did it or not.
I was born that hot summer of 1957. I've watched 12 Angry Men quite a few times, and I'm still astonished how excellent it is. And I'm delighted that it still has such dramatic impact.
The filmmaking is brilliant. When we see the jury enter the room for the first time after leaving the jury box, a single shot starts that lasts almost eight minutes. As the actors move around and interact, the camera moves with them. The first cut is when the foreman says, "Gentleman, at the window. We'd like to get started." The precision it took to pull that off makes it one of the best single-shot scenes in history.
Had to be near perfect direction and coordination by the actors and cameras.
The casting of this film is brilliant. All of the actors playing jurors are among the best.
It would be hard to fill a room with actors as talented today.
Some interesting RL things about the time period this movie came out (1957).
1. It was only 3 years after the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education ending segregation
2. It was only 37 years, or about a generation, from the largest immigration movement in US history (1900 - 1920). And unskilled immigrants from Southern Europe made up the bulk of those coming in, and as noted lived in the slums of big cities like NYC. So there was still ALOT of prejudice not just of blacks, but of Italians, Irish, Jews, Russians, etc... who lived in the inner cities.
3. The old man - Joseph Sweeney (juror #9) was born in 1884 and was 73 years old when he did this movie.
Did Trump build a wall across the Atlantic Ocean to keep them out?
@@TylerD288 No, but immigrants came in legally through Ellis Island and lawful ports of entry.
(Which they could today, but don't have the patience to both get in line and fulfill the process)
@@kenschortgenjr7540 maybe you're unaware but back then immigration was a much quicker and easier process. Today it can take up to a decade with the help of an immigration lawyer, back then you just had to show up.
@@TylerD288 Very true, however 100 years ago we had just tamed the West and a number of empty states were needing to be settled and filled.
Today however, the nation is 360 million people and both state and federal budgets are insolvent. Added to this the majority of illegals coming over want and demand welfare, which is something they DIDNT get when they came over in the 1900s - 1920s.
Immigrants coming over illegally offer unskilled cheap labor at best, which if you look at last month's jobs report was nearly all the new jobs created while citizens lost jobs.
Great choice to react to, and I love this style of reaction, real friends talking about what they are watching rather than fake over the top reactions a lot of channels do.
Great movie. It was first a New York play on Broadway. No swearing fight scenes, chase scenes, and big special effects or explosions. Low budget. Who said you have to spend millions/ billions. To get a good movie.✌️❤️
If you were wondering the old man was played by Joseph Sweeney he played Ik numerous stage productions from the 50s always in grandfatherly type roles. He was born in Philadelphia, PA in 1884. And he died in 1963 sadly. I loved his role in the movie. Saw this in theater class in my 12 grade year 3 years ago.
Milestone film, stands the test and remade a ton of times. And still moves audiences like clockwork
I love this movie so much. One of my favorite things is how they never actually tell you if the kid is guilty or not, because that's not even remotely the point.
Finally! A movie. And a great one at that.
Crazy how this went up JUST when I was looking for new reactions to this movie.
Utter classic.
Not guilty, is not the same as innocent-Not guilty means we cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did it.
Innocent means we know for sure that he didn’t do it.
You don’t need to believe with sureness that the accused is innocent to let them off.
Lawfully, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. And the burden is on the prosecution to show that. It’s not on the accused to prove they didn’t do it.
No, that is not correct in American jurisprudence. "Innocent until proven guilty." Innocence does not have to be proven, it is _presumed_ from the start. The judicial process does _not_ leave innocence in doubt upon acquittal. If that were the case, simply the act of prosecution itself would be a potent social weapon.
The lady was right across the way she didn't need to look down. That being said there was still a reasonable doubt long before that point. I love this movie, not because it's about whether the boy was guilty or not, but it shows how people need to question more and just not accept the truth that authority tells you. Too many people don't want to talk things out they'd rather just dismiss others. But often it's worth it to have the discussion.
Henry Fonda did more detective work in that room than the cops or defense attorney have probably done in an entire year.
Films are my and my fathers shared interest and how we spend the most time together. every year we will go to the cinemas a bunch together as our shared hobby and have similar thoughts on them having similar interests. I remember him showing me this film when i was around 12-13yrs old and absolutely loved it knowing it's originally a stage play totally shows and that opening credit role with the one take showing the audience who everyone is as a person before the jurors sit is just chefs kiss.
I saw this movie years ago. Coming home with my girl after partying. Early 90s I think. We put on the TV thinking another cute black and white movie but were literally taken aback at how truly excellent this movie really is. Thank you for your reaction ladies.
34:16 "I love this!" Same. To me (born in the decade this film was made) this was how people reacted to blatant racial slurs in a more civilized era. They refused to engage. I think today, when we are trained by social media to always engage, this guy's racist rant would have resulted in a more protracted performative argument, ultimately futile because he is an equal member of the jury and they are all stuck in a room together. There was certainly more racism in the 1950s, but debate was more productive.
No, there is much more racism today, and the culprits are black. I was born in 1946, grew up in Seattle, and never saw a single racial incident until I was threatened by some black thugs when I was driving through the CD the day after I returned home from Vietnam. You are ignorant.
The angry part is also that jury duty had a reputation of being a deeply frustrating and undesirable place to be. For anyone who hasn't served on a jury, its a major disruption of your life. The selection process, the waiting, the questioning, and if you get to a trial can disrupt your life for weeks at a time.
For these men, in what clearly looks like a big city for the 50s, they will likely have already been taken up no less than a week without pay from their day jobs already, probably longer.
i love the fact the kid *did* probably kill his father, but its ALSO possible that when he went to meet his friends before going to the movies he told them his dad hit him again and one of THEM went to get some payback for their friend.... i love that we never really know...
I tend to think it was the kid's knife. He left it on a table near the door when he left, and didn't realize he didn't take it with him. So he actually believed it fell through a hole in his pocket. Then someone who had it in for the dad came in and picked up the knife, that person wasn't good with a knife and taller, they struggled, stabbed him, and then he ran out. The old man heard someone running out but didnt get out fast enough to see it, assuming it to be the boy. He also later retconned his memory to think he heard 'im gonna kill you'. but that was never said. The lady across the street saw the blur and assumed it was the boy. It was blurry enough to hide his face but she could still see the killer stabbed down, which is why it matched the autopsy. The kid came home, shocked, and after being ruffed up stuttered and misspoke some names about the films, which was unfairly characterized as 'couldn't remember them'.
This was an instant click, seeing Arianna and Maple dig into this story and these characters is a real treat.
0:45 - "That's like twelve people there. Are those the 12 Angry Men?"
Ummmmmm.... Wow.
One of the tightest scripts I’ve ever come across. The blocking and framing alone is enough to make this film legendary.
Think on this. Joseph Sweeney, the oldest juror, was born in 1884. His father grew up during the Civil War. Our parents (and grandparents) grew up during Sweeney's final years. So we are just 2 or 3 generations away from the Civil War. And just 3 or 4 generations away from the Revolutionary War. Juror #2 voiced Piglet. Ed Begley Jr's father was the bigot. Sidney Lumet locked the actors in a room for hours to run lines and ramp up the tension. A timeless classic. 😋
nice post, but I think you're confusing a generation with a life span. an average life span is about 75 years while a generation is only 20 years (it's the average length of time for children to be born, grow up to become adults & then have children of their own). the civil war ended 159 years ago which is about 7.9 generations ago (or 2.12 life spans ago). the revolutionary war ended 241 years ago which is about 12 generations (or 3.21 life spans) ago.
@@billymuellerTikTok A dictionary definition defines generation to mean all people living at the same time. The definition of lifespan is the length of time a person or thing functions. And I'll go with those established definitions as they are tied together in the way I intended. Of course, you can quibble and say that in every minute there comes into existence a new set of people that didn't exist an hour ago ... people die and people are born minute to minute making a generation last less than a minute. But that would be arguing just to troll. I'll, nonetheless, stick with a dictionary definition while you can trust your gut.
@@billymuellerTikTok To back up my idea with more specific reference books, the Oxford English dictionary defines generation as all the people who were born about the same time. Merriam-Webster defines generation as a body of loving beings constituting a single step in the line of descent from an ancestor. If you think people only live about 20 years .... then your thought process is ... on point. But if people live between 60 and 80 years on average my use of generation ... fits. But again, you can rely upon blind faith to define a generation. I'll stick with the facts.
@@billymuellerTikTok In any event, my parents were teenagers when Sweeney was still alive. Sweeney was first a living baby when his father was alive and his father was likely a teenager or even a young man fighting in the Civil War. And Civil War generals like Robert E. Lee had fathers who fought in the Revolutionary War. But regardless of my use of dictionary definitions of generation ... or your insistence that a generation is only 20 years long and I mean lifespan ... I'm just 3 terms away from the Civil War and 4 terms away from the Revolutionary War (while my parents are even fewer and my grandparentseven closer)... even if it feels like I should be 7 or 8 terms away. By the way ... what dictionary are you citing for generation meaning two decades? 🙄
@@davidely7032 if your parents were teenagers when Joseph Sweeney (died in 1963) was still alive, that makes them baby boomers (born between 1946-1964) before baby boomers were the silent generation (1928-1945), before that was the greatest generation (1901-1927) and before that was the lost generation (1883-1900) which Sweeney was born into in 1884. The Civil War was the generation before tha. So that’s 5 generations from you if you are generation X, not "2 or 3"
Twelve Angry Men is an American courtroom drama written by Reginald Rose concerning the jury of a homicide trial. The production was staged in New York City and aired live on TV, September 20, 1954, as the first episode in the seventh season of the program, Studio One. The following year it was adapted for the stage. It was adapted for a film of the same name, directed by Sidney Lumet, and released in 1957. The production won three Emmy Awards: for Rose's writing, Schaffner's direction, and for Robert Cummings as Best Actor. The cast included performances by:
Robert Cummings as Juror #8
Franchot Tone as Juror #3
Edward Arnold as Juror #10
Paul Hartman as Juror #7
John Beal as Juror #2
Walter Abel as Juror #4
George Voskovec as Juror #11
Joseph Sweeney as Juror #9
Bart Burns as Juror #6
Norman Fell as Foreman
Lee Phillips as Juror #5
Will West as Juror # 12
Uncredited cast
Vincent Gardenia as Bailiff[
No CGI, no big or any special effects. Just a script, acting and good film making.
What you are witnessing is a doctoral class on screen writing and acting most of the actors in that room became the leaders in their field, or as young people would say big stars
Phenomenal film, one of the all time greats.
@36:06 The irritation in Juror #4’s eyes because he was being interrupted by Juror #3 is so slight, it often gets overlooked.
This is very much unexpected but it's a fantastic movie! Nice choice my man.
Paul Winkle, who says the boy is definitely guilty, has been saying to me for months that the knife fight in "Rebel Without a Cause" is a crusher for the defense. But it's not, at all.
Anyone can watch the "Rebel Without A Cause" knife-fight scene on RUclips. The best video is titled "Rebel Without a Cause (1955) - The Knife Fight Scene (5/10) | Movieclips" and the channel is Movieclips.
1) During the knife fight scene, at least 13 stabs/jabs/thrusts are attempted with switchblades, and *all of them* are attempted with an "underhanded" motion/grip: that is, the way a switchblade knife should be used, not the way a normal knife would be.
2) From the beginning of the knife fight - from the first point where both fighters have their switchblades open (0:33) - to the end - (where the winner throws down his knife (2:02)), it lasts for 1:29 seconds, which is 89 seconds. There are 2 fighters with their knives open through nearly all of that, so I will multiply that by 2: switchblades are open for about 178 seconds. Of that time, only 1 fighter at any point holds his switchblade the wrong way - that is, the way a person would hold a normal knife - and that lasts for only about 5 seconds (1:25 to about 1:30). 5 seconds is less than 3% of the total time.
To recap:
1) 100% of the 13+ stabs/jabs/thrusts are done the correct way for a switchblade.
2) For less then 3% of the time is a switchblade held the wrong way (i.e., the way a normal knife would be held), and no stab/jab/thrust is done with it when held the wrong way.
THIS IS PAUL'S CRUSHING EVIDENCE, THAT OBLITERATES THE DEFENSE!! PROOF THAT THE BOY IS GUILTY!! THE CRUSHER THAT HE'S BEEN YELLING ABOUT FOR MONTHS!! LOL!!!
13:50 a nice dramatic moment, but IRL, the man just broke at least 2 laws bringing that switchblade into the courthouse. 1) the actual act of bringing a weapon into the courthouse. 2) Jurors are not allowed to do any investigation of a trial they are presiding over. Fonda's character basically just caused a mistrial immediately the moment he pulled that stunt.
Another law he broke: they said it is illegal to buy or sell a switchblade, and juror 8 even says he broke the law by buying it.
JUROR 8: I went out walking for a couple of hours last night. I walked through the boy's neighborhood. I bought that at a little pawn shop just two blocks from the boy's house. It cost six dollars.
JUROR 4: It's against the law to buy or sell switchblade knives.
JUROR 8: That's right. I broke the law.
You take out those two elements, and you have a very pedestrian movie. You know the rules of drama, don't you. You must practice a willing suspension of disbelief. Otherwise, you have no Theater, no Shakespeare, no Agatha Christie, no Sam Spade, no film noir, no nothing, just a hum drum film.
Makes you question the law, right?
@@AliasSchmalias Not really, both laws make sense. First, the reason why you cant bring a weapon into a federal building rather self-explanitory. But onto the bigger issue, jurors aren't allowed to produce their own evidence for two major reasons i know of. 1) It completely circumvents the procedure in which evidence is admitted into a trail, potentially prejudicing the jury with false perceptions. 2) What if the evidence they uncover has no actual relevant use to the trial at hand? what if they tamper with evidence either through imcompetence or maliciousness? Where's the chain of cutody of the evidence to assure the legitmacy? Really, it should be on the defendant's lawyer to make the defense, not the juror.
Yeah the whole thing would be a mistrial