One of the things I love about this film is that there are valid points made on all sides. It isn't all one-sided and it isn't just one big point that changes everyone's mind. Such a well-crafted script, such a fantastic cast of actors, all put in the hands of a superb director. **chefs kiss**
@@tinypurplefishesrunlaughin8052sure, but the truth is unknown. We don’t known if he killed is father or not, just that there’s a reasonable doubt about it
This film is pretty much perfect. Every shot has relevance and in a way it really has a fly on the wall quality although the fly is not just on the wall; it's flying around the room, it's on the table, it's by a window and occasionally flies up to the ceiling in a way that is not judgemental of each character, but very observing. Also I love how the story written by Reginald Rose, how wonderful are underlying details that give each character real individuality that gives their POVs such detail, like Henry Fonda's character is an architect so he's interested in the building blocks of the case or how Jack Warden's character is constantly looking at his watch who gets into an argument with a watchmaker who is concerned about the timing of the accused going back to his and his father's apartment and what was really going on within that time. It's just brilliant. And of course alk the actors were absolutely top-notch.
Indeed. A master work. Pity about the verdict. I would have held out for G. Fonda was not convincing and it seems he let the m off, free to do it again.
Two important items: 12:00 The storekeeper's testimony that he only ever had one such knifein his store and basically sold it as soon as he got it in. 12:57 The detail that it is illegal to buy or sell switch knives. So: If the storekeeper had admitted to regularly selling such knives it might put him in criminal jeoprdy.
Exactly!! And also… how many times has a salesperson said something is “one of a kind,” regardless of truth? It easily could have been the go-to knife in the neighborhood. It really shows how ignorant the broker was about every aspect of the case, but how certain he still was that the boy was guilty. Don’t get me wrong, he at least could be reasoned with and attempted to use logic. But his assumptions were almost always wrong. At one point he commented, “I’ve never seen a knife like this.” Which he thought made it extremely rare. He had no idea how limited his experience and myopic his view. If a crime took place in Arizona with a tool sold all over the place there, and you never saw it but lived in New York, that wouldn’t mean the item was extremely rare IN Arizona!
Switchblades were illegal to possess, sell, and buy. The storekeeper who sold it said it was the only one he'd seen. Was the storekeeper lying to protect himself from prosecution for a criminal offense? The father did time for forgery. Did he have criminal associates/enemies? Key question: what does the elderly juror know about what it's like to be elderly?
An important distinction that really emphasizes this movies point and elevates its significance: noone argues on the side of the kids innocence, just that they cant be sure of his guilt. THAT is the shadow of a doubt, something not given near enough consideration, especially not before someone makes a point of it
Let's not fool ourselves. In practice this must be tempered with releasing a possible k**r free to do it again. The "reasonable doubt" will vary from person to person. A similar idea runs in statistics: reasonable doubt is the null hypothesis or something random or NG. The alternative hypothesis is intention or G. Neither hypothesis is certain. Does that mean we should always vote NG? Of course not.
@@JosephB-tv7gf of course, and that points brought up in their discussion too: "suppose the boy didnt kill his father", "but suppose he did". Its why a few of the last jurors took so long to back down The point here though is that most of them came to a guilty verdict through bias, disinterest, and peer pressure, but none of the evidence could stand when they actually talked about it. Its the emphasis on REASONABLE in "reasonable doubt", which honestly Ill say I probably shouldve used instead of "shadow of a doubt". Reasonable doesnt mean that there is ANY doubt, but that theres enough to reasonably suspect he might not have done it and that you might not be able to reasonably convict.
Sidney Lumet's first venture as a film director. Of course, he later gave us Dog Day Afternoon, Network, Fail Safe, The Verdict, Serpico and more. A dream cast of New York's finest actors and a brilliant screenplay by Reginald Rose. As close to perfection as a movie can be.
Great Reaction to this Classic...... I saw this Presented Muliple Times as a play in High School (Early 1980's)....... Shout out to the Legends in this Movie...... Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Jack Klugman, Martin Balsam, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, Ed Begley Director Lumet wrote in an article: "I shot the first third of the movie above eye level, shot the second third at eye level, and the last third from below eye level. In that way, toward the end, the ceiling began to appear. Not only were the walls closing in, the ceiling was as well. The sense of increasing claustrophobia did a lot to raise the tension of the last part of the movie." The kid not remembering the films is a believable statement. Movie houses weren't multi-screen when this movie was made. A cinema showed one or two movies so in the evening you could buy a double feature ticket without ever asking the name of the films. An angry kid wanting to get out of the summer heat buys a double feature ticket and spends the time stewing in anger paying no attention to the films is quite believable. Another Classic Movie that (mostly) takes place in one room, is "Arsenic and Old Lace"(1944), It had a long run on Broadway, and the movie was shot using most of the actors from the Broadway Production.....
Hey, Livingston! This was originally a teleplay for a "Playhouse 90"-type show in the '50's which were basically filmed theatrical productions broadcast during the early days of American TV. Before formulaic sitcoms and dramas became TV staples, actual playwrights were tapped to provide original or adapted content of high quality. The story really works as a theatrical piece with 12 players in one setting. A few years later, the great Sidney Lumet (pronounced Loom-ET) directed it for film. Lumet is considered one of the quintessential New York directors like Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese and Spike Lee. The film is considered one of the greatest courtroom dramas ever made. It is my 11th favorite film of all time! I like how Fonda's chief antagonists are fire and ice: the bombastic Lee J. Cobb and the coolly logical E.G. Marshall. The cast was stacked with some of the best character actors of the day some of which had amazing careers like Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Jack Warden, Ed Begley and Robert Webber. However, it's live-wire Lee J. Cobb who steals the spotlight with his histrionics and rage! When he has his breakthrough and realizes why he's rushed to judgment, his collapse is shattering and brings me to tears every time. Henry Fonda's magnanimity as he helps him to his feet and gives him his coat is equally moving. Foreigner George Voskovec and the elderly Joseph Sweeney were holdovers from the TV production. A remake was made for cable TV with a black Mykelti Williamson portraying a reverse racist. Jack Lemmon had the Fonda role and George C. Scott had the Cobb role. Courtney B. Vance was the foreman, venerable Ossie Davis was the milquetoast, Armin Mueller-Stahl was the logical stockbroker, Dorian Harewood of "Hill Street Blues" was the slum escapee, James Gandolfini of "The Sopranos" was the blue collar guy, Tony Danza of "Who's the Boss?" was the sports guy, the legendary Hume Cronyn was the elderly gent, Edward James Olmos of "Battlestar Galactica" played the foreigner and William Petersen of "CSI" played the ad exec. Despite the heavy-hitters in the cast, it doesn't have the same power as the original. I feel some of the players would have been better served by being assigned different parts. The reverse racist angle was a clever one, though. Another remake was considered by adding women to the mix. The project was abandoned because the inclusion of female energy would change the dynamic of the story and the energy of the room.
It's not true that the film version was virtually the same script as the play. Rose made some substantial improvements to the script after the original TV showing. It's interesting that only two of the jurors from the TV version appeared in the film: George Voskovec and Joseph Sweeney. This is one of my favorite movies---tremendous script, superb direction, and probably the greatest ensemble acting achievement ever. All of the actors were major stars, rising stars, or well-known character actors. Sweeney, the old man, is the least known, because he was primarily a stage actor. He also gave a terrific performance in a small part as a villain in "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit."
When you said (regarding the deliberation) “Some of these things can go on all night”……I was on Jury service 4 weeks ago. Our jury deliberated for a whole week.
I love it when people react to this movie, it’s one of my favorites! Really enjoyed the commentary as well. Not many movies pull the audience in at this level. And lol at the comment about juror #4 needing to see a doctor about not sweating. 🤣
Just came across your channel due to this magnificent film. A masterpiece in filmmaking; excellent script with an A list cast & the choice of black & white really nails the tone of the setting. Fantastic performances all around, especially by Ed Beagley who played the bigot & Lee J. Cobb as the last juror to concede the innocent verdict. If you're inclined to do more classic film, I'm sticking around.
Sidney Lumet is one of the great directors of all time, and this is his first movie and also one of his best. Another movie by Lumet that I always recommend is Fail Safe from 1964...it also stars Henry Fonda. Other older movies that I suggest that were not made by Lumet are...To Kill a Mockingbird(1962), Inherit the Wind(1960), and Judgement at Nuremberg(1961)...all three are highly renowned courtroom dramas filmed in black and white.
My favorite Henry Fonda movie is the often overlooked Sergio Leone western/comedy from 1973 My Name Is Nobody Original title: Il mio nome è Nessuno with Fonda and Terence Hill… Hilarious
I was called for jury duty three times in four years. I was in a Chicago suburb at the time. The first time was at the courthouse downtown Chicago at the Daley Center (where the Picasso is). My panel was in the courtroom by 10, but they seated a full jury before getting to me. They finished jury selection right before lunch and gave those of us not impaneled the option of either going back to the waiting room to maybe be put on another panel that afternoon, or take a lunch break and return to the courtroom before being released for the day. We took the latter option. The second was in the small suburban courthouse five minutes from my apartment. At 9 am, they told us that three of the four cases had chosen judge hearing and didn’t need a jury. Fifteen minutes later, the fourth and last case was settled, so they sent us all home. The third time would have been at the big criminal courthouse at 26th and California. Luckily for me, when I called in the day before , they told me they didn’t need me. It would have been a major pain to get to that address, so I was relieved!
Building a story & characters thats two of the great things with these Hollywood classic films.... I have another great classic with the same lead actor.... Henry Fonda he plays Tom Jode in..... The Grapes of Wrath (1940) It's an amazing story about Midwest farmers (share croppers) during the dust bowl right after the great depression with 100's of families forced to pick up and go literally overnight and head towards California and hopefully some work. Thank you for the reaction and good luck with the channel 🙂👍
I think not. He did not seem willing to change his own mind to G. In answer to the plumber's question in the bathroom - what if? what if? what if he really did do it and you let him off? Fonda says nothing. He strikes me as a dogmatic liberal who ignores, himself, Confusius - "Confusius say - human mind like parachute - work best when open.
I've been on a couple of juries. In one, the initial vote went this same way, 11 to 1 for guilty. We deliberated four days and eventually acquitted the defendant. I was one of the last holdouts for conviction, very much like this Juror #4 depending logically on what I thought was a hard piece of evidence. As the camera in this movie focused on his face while the wheels in his head turned slowly to the acknowledgement that his final piece of evidence wasn't as inarguable as he thought...I found myself in that same place. I do have to object to that introduction of a second knife. I don't know the NY laws in 1957, but in that trial I just mentioned, when we the jury were leaving for the first night, the judge gave us a stern warning not to discuss the case with anyone and not to do our own "investigation" of any points raised in the case because such "testimony" and "evidence" would not have been available for cross-examination by both attorneys.
"12 Angry Men" is absolutely in the top five of my favorite films of all time. Just a gentle correction to your introduction. The movie was nominated for three Academy Awards (Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Writing--Screenplay based on material from another medium). Unfortunately, it did not take home any. I love your knowledge of the actors you mentioned. Many reactors don't recognize any of them. 😊 UPDATE: Hahaha! I guess I should have waited to make my comment until I watched the video all the way to the end. You found out what I said when you were going through the trivia on the film.
Recommendations for Henry Fonda films (in no particular order) The Ox-Bow Incident My Darling Clementine Fort Apache Young Mr. Lincoln Mister Roberts On Golden Pond The Wrong Man Fail-Safe Once Upon a Time in the West The Lady Eve The Grapes of Wrath
Check out "Fail Safe" and "Seven Days in May"? In a imagined sequel; After the kid is released, he arranges a meeting of the gang members. All but one show up at the meeting where the kid told his story about the trial, when he finished, he asked each where were they that night? Realizing they all had alibies except for the missing boy they started a search. Hours later they found the boy in a dark alley, dying from knife wounds, after questioning him, he admitted at being jealous of the kid, finding the knife and killing the kids father so the kid would go to prison, but was shocked that the kid could be executed for murder, then was scared when he heard the kid was found not guilty so he escaped into another gangs territory, but was attacked and thrown into the alley.
9:45 _The Clouds_ by Aristophanes from about 400BC(E?), is about a dad who wants his son to go to college to learn to be a good businessman but his son just grows his hair long and wastes his dad's money on horses and wagon parts for chariot racing, so the dad goes to college to learn to outsmart his son and get him to quit wasting his life and his father's money.
The best part about this story is that the boy's guilt or innocence is irrelevant. The story is the 12 jurors, their distinct personalities (and issues), how they interacted with each other and how they came to a consensus. Group-think and peer pressure versus freedom of thought. Prejudice and bias versus objectivity.
i read a story that the director had the room made smaller for every scene and did not tell the actors. he wanted to increase the tension and anxiety in the room. don't know if it's true...
The thing this movie points out is that here are 12 people being exposed to the same evidence - physical and oral - but some see with different eyes. Only 1 person brought up how the switchblade is used out in the street - only 1 person noticed the notches around the old lady's nose. We could experience the same thing - but see it with different eyes
Such a well-made movie on every front, including the choice of having a very limited score. IIRC, the only music was at the beginning, end, and when juror 8 (Fonda) brought his proposal to the group.
Sydney Lumet made some incredible movies, some that are definetly worth watching (and maybe reacting to Mind Maze Entertainment): "Serpico" "Prince of the City" "The Verdict" and definey: "Fail Safe" Mind Maze Entertainment - I hope you give some or all of the above movies a view (I don't think you'll be sorry).
Boy is guilty, not only did the jury completly ignore the eyewitness testimony, they also ignored the heavy circumstantial evidence. Nobody called the bailiff to get her testimony, to go through the things she saw and then recheck if someone with bad eyes really could see these details and if these details were really there...no? maybe? anyone? I mean at the beginning it was mentioned, that her testimony is very detailed. After the elder juror mentioned the indentations the testimony itself was forgotten! Let's speculate our way through, no rechecks needed, yeah! And then the point that the boy lost his knife only hours before his dad got stabbed by Mysterio, someone who didnt buy a gun, bat or anything else, no allegedly Mysterio bought a knife, a matching one. Juror No8 knew what he was looking, he saw the knife during the trial, but how did Mysterio know??? A one in a million chance like it was mentioned in the movie, someone who picks a perfect match, a knife of course, not a gun or a brick or anything else you can harm people.
Do I really need to counter your arguments again in another reaction video? It doesn't matter how "detailed" the woman's testimony is because even if she could see from afar without her glasses, which is not certain, she could easily imagine some details because of the shock. Witness testimonies are extremely unreliable; you can't use that as decisive evidence to convict someone. As for the weapon being another knife identical to the boy's, as long as the possibility exists, you can't refute it. It's not that farfetched: the murder happened in a slum where people can easily get their hands on knifes because they're easy to find and carry, so it's the most likely weapon to be used for a crime in an environment like this. There is no evidence that undeniably proves the boy is guilty therefore, he is innocent. The point is the risk of letting a guilty person go free is more acceptable than the risk of sending an innocent person to death.
@@joshuabertrand937 i dont see any counters. You just saying things. Fact is they speculated a lot and never went through her testimony. Sloppy at least!
@@joshuabertrand937 oh of course she imagines things cause of a shock. Why was she in shock with bad eyes in the first place? And can she imagine details which could be rechecked, well if they would ve gone through the testimony, which they didnt
@@PaulWinkle When she witnessed the murder, she screamed at the top of her lungs. It's obvious she was not in a stable state of mind at the time. Do you really think she could not make a mistake in that situation? Especially when the murder was happening 60 feet away, at night, through the windows of an el train?
@@joshuabertrand937 The circumstance in and around the Ltrain was topic in court, one juror said they proved that it is possible to see everything, distance, darkness, lighting in the train which was off, lead to the conclusion that it wasnt an issue. you should at least stop mentioning this detail, not even No8 was able to oppose. And in the end well, this terrible jury prefered to speculate instead of going into the details of her testimony. No8 the king of rechecking and comparing different informations refused, well he even distracted the otherd from this little testimony. Another juror had only the oppurtinty to mention that the testimony is very detailed. I am pretty sure a big brain like No8 would be able to pull out some clear analysis out of it, but he prefered to go the other way, his way of speculations and saying "it is possible" if it suits him of course
Extraordinary film. For the prosecution, the plumber makes a point to Fonda - what if, what if? What if he really did do it and you let him off? To which Fonda says nothing. Apparently everyone can change their mind to NG but not to G. Is Fonda ignoring the wisdom of Confucius below? Confucius say - human mind like parachute - work best when open. Virtue signallers have been around for a very long time.
This film actually did NOT win best picture of 1957. That honor went to Bridge On the River Kwai. While that is a great film in its own right, I think this film is superior by far. One of my top 3 favorites of all time. Very good reaction sir, thank you.
He did it and they let him slip through their fingers ! Dont make the same mistake by letting these movies slip through your fingers........ Blue Collar - Richard Pryor The Brave - Johnny Depp Nightcrawler - Jake Gyllenhaal The Game - Michael Douglas American Psycho - Christian Bale Cult classics
Great reaction! It’s unfortunate that juries are usually very stacked, at least in recent years (and obviously in the past in terms of demographics). Lawyers supposedly aren’t / weren’t even allowed on juries in some places. -_- To me, that’s deliberately banning someone with knowledge about the law, which is disturbing to me, though this is allegedly to prevent lawyets from being too “influential.” I don’t know why someone with information SHOULDN’T be influential, or why those are the only people who could be that way. Anyway, you’re right that this movie has a lot of great messages and interesting themes. Everyone is biased and has something to bring to the table. When people put their heads together, we see that diversity is a *strength.* Ironic considering it’s all white dudes of a certain stripe, but still relevant considering the relentless campaigns against all kinds of diversity (preposterous propaganda about fearing the “woke agenda” is ubiquitous). To me, it’s also about how there aren’t any easy answers, and how you have to create a culture of respect and reason. And I don’t mean surface politeness, but respect for human life. It’s not about how group mentality is always wrong, because they kind of have to berate some of these jurors into letting go of their vindictive fury. Though it also shows how alarming group think can be, considering how quick these people were to sentence a child to d**th!
We can't watch the movie for the first time ever again, but we can watch others watching it for the first time And it's always interesting to see which things people miss, or if they catch things that the viewer's never noticed.
I think that reaction channels grew a lot over lockdown. They'd been around quite ax while before then too, but grew in popularity then. A lot because people couldn't watch films with their wider family or friends, so reaction channels helped with that feeling of shared experience. Plus it's interesting to see how someone else reasons. It's one of the reasons people continue to watch movies in the cinema, for the shared experience.
There's only two characters in the movie I don't respect: the older racist man, and the younger guy that wants to go to ball game. Everyone else is reasonable and willing to concede good points on both sides.
You respect that everyone was about to off an innocent child if they hadn’t been stopped? You respect the guy who abused his son and wanted someone who was probably innocent to pay? He only conceded when everyone turned against him. He didn’t give his reasons. At least the racist and baseball guy conceded far earlier. Even if through shame and laziness. That’s less damaging at least than someone who would have fought until the end except very good luck, that he happened to see the image of his child and break down after ripping it up.
I disagree. The real dogmatist for me was liberal Fonda. After the plumber asked him in the bathroom - what if? what if? what if you do get him off and he really did it? - Fonda says nothing. Fonda is a liberal bigot or in today's words "a virtue signaller." And does not consider the guilty side or changing his own mind. He is quite prepared to let a k**r loose on society.
I’m sorry man, I love reaction videos, but it was difficult watching with you commenting after every sentence on random things. Guy says a ha, you say a ha. Stopped watching after 7 min.
Well, you got that wrong. Some reactors do seem to feel a need to talk too much, and some are certainly more entertaining than others, but it's really about the reaction. We can watch the movie on our own.
@@kirkdarling4120 To each there own. I don't understand why people comment negatively. If they don't like it move on and watch something else like most people.
One of the things I love about this film is that there are valid points made on all sides. It isn't all one-sided and it isn't just one big point that changes everyone's mind. Such a well-crafted script, such a fantastic cast of actors, all put in the hands of a superb director. **chefs kiss**
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
There is only one valid point the truth. At first only one opinion was valid
@@tinypurplefishesrunlaughin8052sure, but the truth is unknown. We don’t known if he killed is father or not, just that there’s a reasonable doubt about it
@@merchillio fair enough
@@MindMazeEntertainmentif you wanted to know it’s based on a play
This film is pretty much perfect. Every shot has relevance and in a way it really has a fly on the wall quality although the fly is not just on the wall; it's flying around the room, it's on the table, it's by a window and occasionally flies up to the ceiling in a way that is not judgemental of each character, but very observing. Also I love how the story written by Reginald Rose, how wonderful are underlying details that give each character real individuality that gives their POVs such detail, like Henry Fonda's character is an architect so he's interested in the building blocks of the case or how Jack Warden's character is constantly looking at his watch who gets into an argument with a watchmaker who is concerned about the timing of the accused going back to his and his father's apartment and what was really going on within that time. It's just brilliant. And of course alk the actors were absolutely top-notch.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
Indeed. A master work. Pity about the verdict. I would have held out for G. Fonda was not convincing and it seems he let the m off, free to do it again.
Two important items:
12:00 The storekeeper's testimony that he only ever had one such knifein his store and basically sold it as soon as he got it in.
12:57 The detail that it is illegal to buy or sell switch knives.
So:
If the storekeeper had admitted to regularly selling such knives it might put him in criminal jeoprdy.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
Exactly!! And also… how many times has a salesperson said something is “one of a kind,” regardless of truth? It easily could have been the go-to knife in the neighborhood.
It really shows how ignorant the broker was about every aspect of the case, but how certain he still was that the boy was guilty. Don’t get me wrong, he at least could be reasoned with and attempted to use logic. But his assumptions were almost always wrong.
At one point he commented, “I’ve never seen a knife like this.” Which he thought made it extremely rare. He had no idea how limited his experience and myopic his view. If a crime took place in Arizona with a tool sold all over the place there, and you never saw it but lived in New York, that wouldn’t mean the item was extremely rare IN Arizona!
There was a male teenager problem in Massachusetts-Bay colony during at latest the 1770s.
Switchblades were illegal to possess, sell, and buy. The storekeeper who sold it said it was the only one he'd seen. Was the storekeeper lying to protect himself from prosecution for a criminal offense?
The father did time for forgery. Did he have criminal associates/enemies?
Key question: what does the elderly juror know about what it's like to be elderly?
You’re one of the few people who recognize both Jack Klugman andJack Warner. Most people don’t know anyone in this movie not even Henry Fonda.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
(( When these actors are not recognized )), WE WILL BE ALSO,, 9/8/24..
An important distinction that really emphasizes this movies point and elevates its significance: noone argues on the side of the kids innocence, just that they cant be sure of his guilt. THAT is the shadow of a doubt, something not given near enough consideration, especially not before someone makes a point of it
Let's not fool ourselves. In practice this must be tempered with releasing a possible k**r free to do it again.
The "reasonable doubt" will vary from person to person. A similar idea runs in statistics: reasonable doubt is the null hypothesis or something random or NG. The alternative hypothesis is intention or G. Neither hypothesis is certain. Does that mean we should always vote NG? Of course not.
@@JosephB-tv7gf of course, and that points brought up in their discussion too: "suppose the boy didnt kill his father", "but suppose he did". Its why a few of the last jurors took so long to back down
The point here though is that most of them came to a guilty verdict through bias, disinterest, and peer pressure, but none of the evidence could stand when they actually talked about it. Its the emphasis on REASONABLE in "reasonable doubt", which honestly Ill say I probably shouldve used instead of "shadow of a doubt". Reasonable doesnt mean that there is ANY doubt, but that theres enough to reasonably suspect he might not have done it and that you might not be able to reasonably convict.
Sidney Lumet's first venture as a film director. Of course, he later gave us Dog Day Afternoon, Network, Fail Safe, The Verdict, Serpico and more. A dream cast of New York's finest actors and a brilliant screenplay by Reginald Rose. As close to perfection as a movie can be.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
Serpico is a classic, and deserves more attention.
One of my favorite movies. I think this is one of the top 5 best movies 🎥 ever made.
Great Reaction to this Classic......
I saw this Presented Muliple Times as a play in High School (Early 1980's).......
Shout out to the Legends in this Movie...... Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Jack Klugman, Martin Balsam, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, Ed Begley
Director Lumet wrote in an article: "I shot the first third of the movie above eye level, shot the second third at eye level, and the last third from below eye level. In that way, toward the end, the ceiling began to appear. Not only were the walls closing in, the ceiling was as well. The sense of increasing claustrophobia did a lot to raise the tension of the last part of the movie."
The kid not remembering the films is a believable statement. Movie houses weren't multi-screen when this movie was made. A cinema showed one or two movies so in the evening you could buy a double feature ticket without ever asking the name of the films. An angry kid wanting to get out of the summer heat buys a double feature ticket and spends the time stewing in anger paying no attention to the films is quite believable.
Another Classic Movie that (mostly) takes place in one room, is "Arsenic and Old Lace"(1944), It had a long run on Broadway, and the movie was shot using most of the actors from the Broadway Production.....
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
Hey, Livingston! This was originally a teleplay for a "Playhouse 90"-type show in the '50's which were basically filmed theatrical productions broadcast during the early days of American TV. Before formulaic sitcoms and dramas became TV staples, actual playwrights were tapped to provide original or adapted content of high quality. The story really works as a theatrical piece with 12 players in one setting. A few years later, the great Sidney Lumet (pronounced Loom-ET) directed it for film. Lumet is considered one of the quintessential New York directors like Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese and Spike Lee. The film is considered one of the greatest courtroom dramas ever made.
It is my 11th favorite film of all time!
I like how Fonda's chief antagonists are fire and ice: the bombastic Lee J. Cobb and the coolly logical E.G. Marshall.
The cast was stacked with some of the best character actors of the day some of which had amazing careers like Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Jack Warden, Ed Begley and Robert Webber. However, it's live-wire Lee J. Cobb who steals the spotlight with his histrionics and rage!
When he has his breakthrough and realizes why he's rushed to judgment, his collapse is shattering and brings me to tears every time.
Henry Fonda's magnanimity as he helps him to his feet and gives him his coat is equally moving.
Foreigner George Voskovec and the elderly Joseph Sweeney were holdovers from the TV production.
A remake was made for cable TV with a black Mykelti Williamson portraying a reverse racist. Jack Lemmon had the Fonda role and George C. Scott had the Cobb role. Courtney B. Vance was the foreman, venerable Ossie Davis was the milquetoast, Armin Mueller-Stahl was the logical stockbroker, Dorian Harewood of "Hill Street Blues" was the slum escapee, James Gandolfini of "The Sopranos" was the blue collar guy, Tony Danza of "Who's the Boss?" was the sports guy, the legendary Hume Cronyn was the elderly gent, Edward James Olmos of "Battlestar Galactica" played the foreigner and William Petersen of "CSI" played the ad exec. Despite the heavy-hitters in the cast, it doesn't have the same power as the original. I feel some of the players would have been better served by being assigned different parts. The reverse racist angle was a clever one, though.
Another remake was considered by adding women to the mix. The project was abandoned because the inclusion of female energy would change the dynamic of the story and the energy of the room.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
It's not true that the film version was virtually the same script as the play. Rose made some substantial improvements to the script after the original TV showing. It's interesting that only two of the jurors from the TV version appeared in the film: George Voskovec and Joseph Sweeney.
This is one of my favorite movies---tremendous script, superb direction, and probably the greatest ensemble acting achievement ever. All of the actors were major stars, rising stars, or well-known character actors. Sweeney, the old man, is the least known, because he was primarily a stage actor. He also gave a terrific performance in a small part as a villain in "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit."
When you said (regarding the deliberation) “Some of these things can go on all night”……I was on Jury service 4 weeks ago. Our jury deliberated for a whole week.
I was on a jury years ago for which the trial lasted only four hours, but we deliberated for four days.
I love it when people react to this movie, it’s one of my favorites! Really enjoyed the commentary as well. Not many movies pull the audience in at this level.
And lol at the comment about juror #4 needing to see a doctor about not sweating. 🤣
Thanks for the comment. Glad you enjoyed the commentary. lol Well when you don't sweat something is wrong.
Sidney Lumet also directed the excellent 1980's film "The Verdict," with Paul Newman in one of his greatest performances.
Just came across your channel due to this magnificent film. A masterpiece in filmmaking; excellent script with an A list cast & the choice of black & white really nails the tone of the setting. Fantastic performances all around, especially by Ed Beagley who played the bigot & Lee J. Cobb as the last juror to concede the innocent verdict. If you're inclined to do more classic film, I'm sticking around.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
Sidney Lumet is one of the great directors of all time, and this is his first movie and also one of his best. Another movie by Lumet that I always recommend is Fail Safe from 1964...it also stars Henry Fonda.
Other older movies that I suggest that were not made by Lumet are...To Kill a Mockingbird(1962), Inherit the Wind(1960), and Judgement at Nuremberg(1961)...all three are highly renowned courtroom dramas filmed in black and white.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
The movie is based on an original 1054 live television play by Reginald Rose.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
My favorite Henry Fonda movie is the often overlooked Sergio Leone western/comedy from 1973 My Name Is Nobody
Original title: Il mio nome è Nessuno with Fonda and Terence Hill… Hilarious
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
The cast spent two weeks before filming in rehearsals - not frequently done today - which allowed them to deeply inhabit their characters.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
Go in with an open mind.
This film had the best stage actors in New York many of whom became Hollywood stars.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
I was called for jury duty three times in four years. I was in a Chicago suburb at the time. The first time was at the courthouse downtown Chicago at the Daley Center (where the Picasso is). My panel was in the courtroom by 10, but they seated a full jury before getting to me. They finished jury selection right before lunch and gave those of us not impaneled the option of either going back to the waiting room to maybe be put on another panel that afternoon, or take a lunch break and return to the courtroom before being released for the day. We took the latter option.
The second was in the small suburban courthouse five minutes from my apartment. At 9 am, they told us that three of the four cases had chosen judge hearing and didn’t need a jury. Fifteen minutes later, the fourth and last case was settled, so they sent us all home.
The third time would have been at the big criminal courthouse at 26th and California. Luckily for me, when I called in the day before , they told me they didn’t need me. It would have been a major pain to get to that address, so I was relieved!
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
@@MindMazeEntertainment I would love to see it? Do you have a link?
@@kathyastrom1315 it'll be on the channel at 22pm est today.
The sets were movable so in some scenes walls were pushed in closer to the cast to intensify the feeling of pressure.😊
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
Building a story & characters thats two of the great things with these Hollywood classic films....
I have another great classic with the same lead actor....
Henry Fonda he plays Tom Jode in.....
The Grapes of Wrath (1940)
It's an amazing story about Midwest farmers (share croppers) during the dust bowl right after the great depression with 100's of families forced to pick up and go literally overnight and head towards California and hopefully some work.
Thank you for the reaction and good luck with the channel 🙂👍
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
It feels like a tv movie but if it was, it was the greatest one ever.
Henry Fonda’s Juror 8 is the solid hero throughout. A flawless man.
I think not. He did not seem willing to change his own mind to G.
In answer to the plumber's question in the bathroom
- what if? what if? what if he really did do it and you let him off?
Fonda says nothing.
He strikes me as a dogmatic liberal who ignores, himself, Confusius -
"Confusius say - human mind like parachute - work best when open.
I've been on a couple of juries. In one, the initial vote went this same way, 11 to 1 for guilty. We deliberated four days and eventually acquitted the defendant. I was one of the last holdouts for conviction, very much like this Juror #4 depending logically on what I thought was a hard piece of evidence. As the camera in this movie focused on his face while the wheels in his head turned slowly to the acknowledgement that his final piece of evidence wasn't as inarguable as he thought...I found myself in that same place.
I do have to object to that introduction of a second knife. I don't know the NY laws in 1957, but in that trial I just mentioned, when we the jury were leaving for the first night, the judge gave us a stern warning not to discuss the case with anyone and not to do our own "investigation" of any points raised in the case because such "testimony" and "evidence" would not have been available for cross-examination by both attorneys.
15:35 the guy on the right, Ed Binns, played a bad guy in the movie vice squad.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
"12 Angry Men" is absolutely in the top five of my favorite films of all time. Just a gentle correction to your introduction. The movie was nominated for three Academy Awards (Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Writing--Screenplay based on material from another medium). Unfortunately, it did not take home any.
I love your knowledge of the actors you mentioned. Many reactors don't recognize any of them. 😊
UPDATE: Hahaha! I guess I should have waited to make my comment until I watched the video all the way to the end. You found out what I said when you were going through the trivia on the film.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
Recommendations for Henry Fonda films (in no particular order)
The Ox-Bow Incident
My Darling Clementine
Fort Apache
Young Mr. Lincoln
Mister Roberts
On Golden Pond
The Wrong Man
Fail-Safe
Once Upon a Time in the West
The Lady Eve
The Grapes of Wrath
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
Check out "Fail Safe" and "Seven Days in May"?
In a imagined sequel; After the kid is released, he arranges a meeting of the gang members.
All but one show up at the meeting where the kid told his story about the trial, when he finished, he asked each where were they that night?
Realizing they all had alibies except for the missing boy they started a search.
Hours later they found the boy in a dark alley, dying from knife wounds, after questioning him, he admitted at being jealous of the kid, finding the knife and killing the kids father so the kid would go to prison, but was shocked that the kid could be executed for murder, then was scared when he heard the kid was found not guilty so he escaped into another gangs territory, but was attacked and thrown into the alley.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
Juror # 2 is actually the voice of "Piglet" in the Winnie The Poo animation films
Another classic film that takes place in a court room is "Who has seen the wind". It is worthy of a review
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
9:45 _The Clouds_ by Aristophanes from about 400BC(E?), is about a dad who wants his son to go to college to learn to be a good businessman but his son just grows his hair long and wastes his dad's money on horses and wagon parts for chariot racing, so the dad goes to college to learn to outsmart his son and get him to quit wasting his life and his father's money.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
The best part about this story is that the boy's guilt or innocence is irrelevant.
The story is the 12 jurors, their distinct personalities (and issues), how they interacted with each other and how they came to a consensus. Group-think and peer pressure versus freedom of thought. Prejudice and bias versus objectivity.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
i read a story that the director had the room made smaller for every scene and did not tell the actors. he wanted to increase the tension and anxiety in the room. don't know if it's true...
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
The thing this movie points out is that here are 12 people being exposed to the same evidence - physical and oral - but some see with different eyes. Only 1 person brought up how the switchblade is used out in the street - only 1 person noticed the notches around the old lady's nose. We could experience the same thing - but see it with different eyes
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
Such a well-made movie on every front, including the choice of having a very limited score. IIRC, the only music was at the beginning, end, and when juror 8 (Fonda) brought his proposal to the group.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
We do see the kid in the very beginning.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
Sydney Lumet made some incredible movies, some that are definetly worth watching (and maybe reacting to Mind Maze Entertainment):
"Serpico"
"Prince of the City"
"The Verdict"
and definey: "Fail Safe"
Mind Maze Entertainment - I hope you give some or all of the above movies a view (I don't think you'll be sorry).
Boy is guilty, not only did the jury completly ignore the eyewitness testimony, they also ignored the heavy circumstantial evidence. Nobody called the bailiff to get her testimony, to go through the things she saw and then recheck if someone with bad eyes really could see these details and if these details were really there...no? maybe? anyone? I mean at the beginning it was mentioned, that her testimony is very detailed. After the elder juror mentioned the indentations the testimony itself was forgotten! Let's speculate our way through, no rechecks needed, yeah!
And then the point that the boy lost his knife only hours before his dad got stabbed by Mysterio, someone who didnt buy a gun, bat or anything else, no allegedly Mysterio bought a knife, a matching one. Juror No8 knew what he was looking, he saw the knife during the trial, but how did Mysterio know??? A one in a million chance like it was mentioned in the movie, someone who picks a perfect match, a knife of course, not a gun or a brick or anything else you can harm people.
Do I really need to counter your arguments again in another reaction video? It doesn't matter how "detailed" the woman's testimony is because even if she could see from afar without her glasses, which is not certain, she could easily imagine some details because of the shock. Witness testimonies are extremely unreliable; you can't use that as decisive evidence to convict someone. As for the weapon being another knife identical to the boy's, as long as the possibility exists, you can't refute it. It's not that farfetched: the murder happened in a slum where people can easily get their hands on knifes because they're easy to find and carry, so it's the most likely weapon to be used for a crime in an environment like this. There is no evidence that undeniably proves the boy is guilty therefore, he is innocent. The point is the risk of letting a guilty person go free is more acceptable than the risk of sending an innocent person to death.
@@joshuabertrand937 i dont see any counters. You just saying things. Fact is they speculated a lot and never went through her testimony. Sloppy at least!
@@joshuabertrand937 oh of course she imagines things cause of a shock. Why was she in shock with bad eyes in the first place? And can she imagine details which could be rechecked, well if they would ve gone through the testimony, which they didnt
@@PaulWinkle When she witnessed the murder, she screamed at the top of her lungs. It's obvious she was not in a stable state of mind at the time. Do you really think she could not make a mistake in that situation? Especially when the murder was happening 60 feet away, at night, through the windows of an el train?
@@joshuabertrand937 The circumstance in and around the Ltrain was topic in court, one juror said they proved that it is possible to see everything, distance, darkness, lighting in the train which was off, lead to the conclusion that it wasnt an issue. you should at least stop mentioning this detail, not even No8 was able to oppose. And in the end well, this terrible jury prefered to speculate instead of going into the details of her testimony. No8 the king of rechecking and comparing different informations refused, well he even distracted the otherd from this little testimony. Another juror had only the oppurtinty to mention that the testimony is very detailed. I am pretty sure a big brain like No8 would be able to pull out some clear analysis out of it, but he prefered to go the other way, his way of speculations and saying "it is possible" if it suits him of course
Never was selected for a jury….but it might be a blessing….all but one was settled out of court, one had a jury but I was struck from it near the end.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
Extraordinary film. For the prosecution, the plumber makes a point to Fonda - what if, what if? What if he really did do it and you let him off?
To which Fonda says nothing.
Apparently everyone can change their mind to NG but not to G. Is Fonda ignoring the wisdom of Confucius below?
Confucius say - human mind like parachute - work best when open.
Virtue signallers have been around for a very long time.
This film actually did NOT win best picture of 1957. That honor went to Bridge On the River Kwai. While that is a great film in its own right, I think this film is superior by far. One of my top 3 favorites of all time. Very good reaction sir, thank you.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
He did it and they let him slip through their fingers !
Dont make the same mistake by letting these movies slip through your fingers........
Blue Collar - Richard Pryor
The Brave - Johnny Depp
Nightcrawler - Jake Gyllenhaal
The Game - Michael Douglas
American Psycho - Christian Bale
Cult classics
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
Hyped up drama
Hancocks satire much better
The question of taking unqualified people to pass judgement!
Tony Hancock made a satire? Should be worth a chuckle!
Great reaction! It’s unfortunate that juries are usually very stacked, at least in recent years (and obviously in the past in terms of demographics). Lawyers supposedly aren’t / weren’t even allowed on juries in some places. -_- To me, that’s deliberately banning someone with knowledge about the law, which is disturbing to me, though this is allegedly to prevent lawyets from being too “influential.” I don’t know why someone with information SHOULDN’T be influential, or why those are the only people who could be that way.
Anyway, you’re right that this movie has a lot of great messages and interesting themes. Everyone is biased and has something to bring to the table. When people put their heads together, we see that diversity is a *strength.* Ironic considering it’s all white dudes of a certain stripe, but still relevant considering the relentless campaigns against all kinds of diversity (preposterous propaganda about fearing the “woke agenda” is ubiquitous).
To me, it’s also about how there aren’t any easy answers, and how you have to create a culture of respect and reason. And I don’t mean surface politeness, but respect for human life. It’s not about how group mentality is always wrong, because they kind of have to berate some of these jurors into letting go of their vindictive fury. Though it also shows how alarming group think can be, considering how quick these people were to sentence a child to d**th!
I've been a juror 3 times. Car accident, drug deal, medical malpractice. I hated every one of them. (But, go Orioles!)
Watching other people watching movies is a thing now, eh?
To each their own.
@@MindMazeEntertainment I agree.
Different perspectives.
We can't watch the movie for the first time ever again, but we can watch others watching it for the first time
And it's always interesting to see which things people miss, or if they catch things that the viewer's never noticed.
I think that reaction channels grew a lot over lockdown. They'd been around quite ax while before then too, but grew in popularity then. A lot because people couldn't watch films with their wider family or friends, so reaction channels helped with that feeling of shared experience. Plus it's interesting to see how someone else reasons. It's one of the reasons people continue to watch movies in the cinema, for the shared experience.
Another Henry Fonda movie you might enjoy is called the wrong man
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
Fonda was fond of the wrongly accused. He would enjoy today with crimes - shoplifting, illegal immigration, ... being ignored I think.
Cameron Poe's lawyer is the worst lawyer in the history of cinema
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
My brother in law was an police internal affairs inspector so I was always excused
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
Nominated for Best Picture, it appears. Didn't win.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
Shot all in one room... That's why, we Europeans call it a "chamber play",,,
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
First time, last time watching your videos!
Sounds great!
It was thought he was guilty but it was never proven
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
This also makes an excellent staged play.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
I think the Davis-McCardle scene on the steps and the opening in the courtroom were unnecessary, but everything in between was damned near flawless.
It was originally a TV play
ruclips.net/video/7DkI2I0W5i8/видео.htmlsi=jhF0ACl5klNxXxQh
There's only two characters in the movie I don't respect: the older racist man, and the younger guy that wants to go to ball game. Everyone else is reasonable and willing to concede good points on both sides.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
You respect that everyone was about to off an innocent child if they hadn’t been stopped? You respect the guy who abused his son and wanted someone who was probably innocent to pay? He only conceded when everyone turned against him. He didn’t give his reasons. At least the racist and baseball guy conceded far earlier. Even if through shame and laziness. That’s less damaging at least than someone who would have fought until the end except very good luck, that he happened to see the image of his child and break down after ripping it up.
I disagree. The real dogmatist for me was liberal Fonda. After the plumber asked him in the bathroom - what if? what if? what if you do get him off and he really did it? - Fonda says nothing. Fonda is a liberal bigot or in today's words "a virtue signaller." And does not consider the guilty side or changing his own mind. He is quite prepared to let a k**r loose on society.
12:38 possible but is it reasonable ? Anything is possible…you might meet Putin tomorrow….it is possible.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
You talk way, way too much. Really annoying.
I’m sorry man, I love reaction videos, but it was difficult watching with you commenting after every sentence on random things. Guy says a ha, you say a ha. Stopped watching after 7 min.
Check out a reply to your comment in a view comments video!
blah blah blah...I thought reactors watched the movie...
You're welcome not to watch along.
Well, you got that wrong. Some reactors do seem to feel a need to talk too much, and some are certainly more entertaining than others, but it's really about the reaction. We can watch the movie on our own.
@@kirkdarling4120 To each there own. I don't understand why people comment negatively. If they don't like it move on and watch something else like most people.