it's absolutely ingenious that halfway through the film, it starts raining , and for the absolute remainder of the film's duration, the entire ordeal is accompanied by constant rain in the background, almost drowning out the actors's voices, that deliberate choice is made so that the audience self-imposes the momentum of their interest to make an extra effort to hear the dialogue through the rain! if the rest of the film was as quiet and calm as the beginning, it would pale in comparison to the marvel that is the film's tense and uproarious second half
The rain was another of many contrivances in this film. Twelve Angry Men is fun to watch, for sure, but I can't get around how contrived it was: Jurors suddenly remembering nose indentions and knife fight techniques; characters coming out with convenient personal backgrounds and personalities; rain that suddenly appears on a hot summer day. And on and on.
I showed this movie to my little 8 year old brother and now it's his favorite movie it blew his mind. He watches it every year on his birthday and he even had me take him to a play of the movie.
iamreg1965 Hell yes! Perfect casting, perfect camera work, perfect story, perfect dialogue. The dialogue is so airtight that all but about the first minute and last minute of the movie takes place in that drab, nondescript jury deliberation room and yet the intense dialogue manages to enthrall the rapt attention of the viewer.
Great job! I enjoyed this "review"/commentary immensely. I am a senior citizen, and "12 Angry Men" is my favorite movie of all time. The directing and the acting are superb, and the film really makes the viewer think.
In looking through these comments, there seems to be a big misconception about what a jury is about. It is NOT the jury's task to determine whether the defendant is innocent or not; the sole task of the jury is to determine whether the evidence supports the charge--did this person commit this crime? Nothing else. Do the dots connect? Or are there enough holes to reasonably doubt he did it? Juror 8 pokes enough holes to make everyone have doubts. To muse, "Well, I have doubts about his innocence," is utterly irrelevant. Is the case and evidence tight enough to convict without much doubt(it's not without ANY doubt, just REASONABLE ones).
Wonderfully presented. Great work. There's a little slip-up at the end (you refer to Juror 9 as Juror 7), but you set this out very well and raise some points I hadn't considered before. A strong accompaniment to a cinematic masterpiece. Thank you.
Jack Klugman was really a great actor; I thought his performance was very outstanding in this film, even in the midst of many more well-renowned actors like Fonda, Balsam, and Cobb.
I love this movie, in both reincarnations and of course the book. Something though about the black and white version, however, underscores the simplicity of set and draws you in to the human element. I guess things are not really just black and white, but nuanced shades of gray. Excellent film and well acted.
You made it seem like Spnecer Tracy was the "malicious prosecuting attorney", however, if i remember that movie correctly(the movie being "INHERIT THE WIND"), he was the defense attorney. The Prosecutor was played by Frederick March. However, this very small nit-pick is minor, i really enjoyed your summary of one of my favorite movies. Good Job!
The point of this movie is, contrary to the opinions of others around the world, twelve average Americans are able to weigh the evidence found by prosecution and defense and in the majority of cases come to a rational and unbiased conclusion as to guilt or innocence. These men do not deliberate on matters of law; that is for the judge, and for his instructions to the jurors. But "the trial by jury" is one of the most valuable pieces of American jurisprudence, and one that allows Americans to feel that the powers of their government are limited, and that state oppression over them is diminished.I know whereof I speak.---KiraSeer
I have the movie, and it's one of my favorites. I think Lee J. Cobb really makes this movie. But unfortunately, whoever is narrating this is racing through like he's got a hot date and he doesn't want to be late.
I agree this is one of the most prime examples of a movie done EXACTLY correct but leave Baltimore “Orioles” fans out of this! (I love those lines of dialogue) I don’t need any more crowbars to head than what I’m already getting by living here! (Love Charm City) But seriously, if I was a director, I don’t care what the box office says, THIS IS A LITERAL MASTERPIECE that I would be proud of for all eternity. PLEASE WATCH THIS IF YOU HAVEN’T!
Well, this was actually brought up in the movie by juror #3 (Lee J Cobb). But juror #8 (Henry Fonda) deftly responded, "I only know that her eyesight is in question now." It goes back to the "reasonable doubt" concept.
The courtroom dramas -- and there were quite a few -- made in the late Fifties and early Sixties are some of the most exciting film dramas ever made. Everyone should watch them all. And yes, they're in black and white. Get over it.
Some juries nowadays don't use the standard of reasonable doubt. They want the defendant to be proved guilty beyond all SHADOW of a doubt. This certainly applies to the Casey Anthony jury.
Just a bit of constructive criticism. Very interesting video. But, try talking a bit slower. Your words run together and lose their impact. Otherwise, excellent work.
The one potential flaw in the film I think is the false importance of the timing with the old man getting to the door down the hall. I still don't see what point was proven by showing it took 40 seconds instead of 15 for him to reach the door and see the boy. What was key to the testimony is that the old man saw the boy, who was on trial, fleeing from the crime scene. How long it took to get to the door to look at him makes no difference. The conclusion they drew that the old man merely *thought* he saw him was without warrant and could have been argued for even if their experiment with the stopwatch proved the witness correct about the 15 seconds. I thought that was an unmerited criticism by the jurors.
It's important because the old man said he saw the boy running down the stairs 15 seconds after the body hit the floor, but Fonda's re-enactment proves that was physically impossible b/c he couldn't have gotten to the door in that time. It seems like a tiny thing but as the movie says, testimony that could put someone in the electric chair should be that accurate.
I don't think Juror 10 is necessarily racist. He is classist. In comparison, Juror 7 is slightly racist when he is questioned by Juror 11. He uses the man's ethnicity and immigrant status as a comeback ad hominem fallacy.
Thank you. I see so many miss this. Funny with a film about biases. It seems in modern times we have been trained to look for racism so much that even when another old very common devider is clearly hinted at we refuse to see it and instead say rasism.
One of the angry guys is not a racist. When he says them he means poor people. The defendant is not black and neither is one of the other jurors who took offense when the guy first started his ramblings.
Great job, young man, but PLEEEEEEASE, speak more slowly. Maybe your generation can understand you, but I have to concentrate too much to get what you are saying. Dennis
was anyone else struck by the fact that juror number 8's education and profession gave him an intellectual and analytical advantage? he was an architect!!, and therefore the teacher of everyone else less qualified.
I just couldn't get past the tortured logic throughout the movie. The defendant is clearly guilty. The assumptions made throughout to presume his innocence are absurd. It made it impossible for me to appreciate the film.
Subjective evaluation requires the acceptance that an alternative exists in the face of an 'action'. No action 'exists' until it does; after which it must be considered; that which was the cause and that which is the consequence. Hindsight is both the most efficent tool at our disposal and the most worthless. We may consider how the action would not have occurred if the event was preceded by alternative conditions; but the event did occur, therefore the precursive scenario is irrelevant. Consideration has to be given to 'opposite reaction'. In the context of this film the question is, "Does the possibility exist, (reasonable doubt), of an alternative cause; equally a consequence? Does an identical weapon exist, (cause), and could it have been used in an identical manner, (consequence), however improbable it would seem? - the answer to both is, yes. Could the question of the woman's eyesight, (cause), bring a question of validity to her testimony, (consequence), the answer, likewise, is, yes. Could a man, with an unrealised, egocentric subjectivity, (cause), bring himself to bear false testimony, in an attempt to enhance his, subjective, relevance, (consequence), to his environment? Again, the answer is yes. I love this film but have always held the notion that the boy was, probably, guilty. Does this bear witness to the 'frailty' of the judiciary? Of course, it does not. If we were the men in the Dock, knowing that we were actually innocent, we could only hope that the same level of anaysis were applied for the continuation of our existence. Is it better that 10 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man should have all that he possesses taken from him? You will know the answer to that question if the day ever arrives that you stand accused in a similar scenario.
@@michaelandrews4403 This comment is a year old but I'm still taken by its eloquence. What an amazingly consise and well put way to summarize the conflict.
@@michaelandrews4403 you can add to the list of possibilities that the two eyewitnesses could both have given incorrect testimony.There might be a person whose features are similar to the defendent who actually did the murder. If our own legal system is an example, more innocent people have been convicted on faulty eyewitness testimony. Just look at the number who are freed annually due to just this sort of thing.
1 dimensional film, 1 dimensional characters. everything predictable. because of it's simplistic subject matter anything but dull dry cinematography would be out of place. and from a legal standpoint they got everything..... EVERYTHING wrong. This is the most overrated film in ALL of cinema history.
it's absolutely ingenious that halfway through the film, it starts raining , and for the absolute remainder of the film's duration, the entire ordeal is accompanied by constant rain in the background, almost drowning out the actors's voices, that deliberate choice is made so that the audience self-imposes the momentum of their interest to make an extra effort to hear the dialogue through the rain! if the rest of the film was as quiet and calm as the beginning, it would pale in comparison to the marvel that is the film's tense and uproarious second half
You know you've got to tell me these things before I make the videos, lol.
sorry XD didn't realize it myself after rewatching the film 8 times, -and your video 4 times-
The rain was another of many contrivances in this film. Twelve Angry Men is fun to watch, for sure, but I can't get around how contrived it was: Jurors suddenly remembering nose indentions and knife fight techniques; characters coming out with convenient personal backgrounds and personalities; rain that suddenly appears on a hot summer day. And on and on.
Thicc Boss 47
😮👌🏾🌟🤗💪🏽✌🏿🎆🎉❤️
Erik Smith Bitch you dumb
I showed this movie to my little 8 year old brother and now it's his favorite movie it blew his mind. He watches it every year on his birthday and he even had me take him to a play of the movie.
That is so cool.
12 Angry Men...Greatest film ever made. No Doubt.
InabilityToBeBrief Like...
iamreg1965 Hell yes! Perfect casting, perfect camera work, perfect story, perfect dialogue. The dialogue is so airtight that all but about the first minute and last minute of the movie takes place in that drab, nondescript jury deliberation room and yet the intense dialogue manages to enthrall the rapt attention of the viewer.
@@jamesanthony5681 half of those movies were inspired by elements of 12 angry men
I'm baffled that this video has so few views. Really great job and thank you!
Hear, hear! Most people aren't Juror No.8, clearly. Well, so long!
Very insightful commentary by someone who truly knows film and who loves this great film, 12 Angry Men.
Great job! I enjoyed this "review"/commentary immensely. I am a senior citizen, and "12 Angry Men" is my favorite movie of all time. The directing and the acting are superb, and the film really makes the viewer think.
This video is very enlightening! You presented your analysis absolutely proffesionally. It defenitely deserves more views, though.
Excellent analysis of a beautiful film.
In looking through these comments, there seems to be a big misconception about what a jury is about. It is NOT the jury's task to determine whether the defendant is innocent or not; the sole task of the jury is to determine whether the evidence supports the charge--did this person commit this crime? Nothing else. Do the dots connect? Or are there enough holes to reasonably doubt he did it? Juror 8 pokes enough holes to make everyone have doubts. To muse, "Well, I have doubts about his innocence," is utterly irrelevant. Is the case and evidence tight enough to convict without much doubt(it's not without ANY doubt, just REASONABLE ones).
They really should've named this film "12 Sweaty Men."
Christian Blade That's the porn version
"I don't sweat"
@Christian Blade - One of the dumbest comments I've EVER read on the Internet. And that says a lot.
Josh Sinclair right! 4th juror doesn’t sweat lol
"Whadddyya mean?"
I love this era of actors and directors
Ive watched this movie at least 50 times, and it never ceases to amaze me at its absolute brilliance. They got everything right here, beautiful film
Wonderfully presented. Great work. There's a little slip-up at the end (you refer to Juror 9 as Juror 7), but you set this out very well and raise some points I hadn't considered before. A strong accompaniment to a cinematic masterpiece. Thank you.
Jack Klugman was really a great actor; I thought his performance was very outstanding in this film, even in the midst of many more well-renowned actors like Fonda, Balsam, and Cobb.
He added a crucial piece, that is, how someone would handle a switchblade.
I love the way this was presented. Great video dude, definitely subscribing
I love this movie, in both reincarnations and of course the book. Something though about the black and white version, however, underscores the simplicity of set and draws you in to the human element. I guess things are not really just black and white, but nuanced shades of gray. Excellent film and well acted.
One of my faves. It's a film I can always watch.
Amazing video, please keep doing what you're doing
Keep it up! Great content!
Like the style of the review - clips, animation - historical facts - just slow down your monologue
You have probably learned since then that you can play TH-cam videos at slower speeds.
Beautiful video! ❤.
You made it seem like Spnecer Tracy was the "malicious prosecuting attorney", however, if i remember that movie correctly(the movie being "INHERIT THE WIND"), he was the defense attorney. The Prosecutor was played by Frederick March. However, this very small nit-pick is minor, i really enjoyed your summary of one of my favorite movies. Good Job!
BRAVO!!!!!
Turn on the comments!!! I loved Ritual!!! Keep going!! We need this. :)
Well done!
Love this movie. It is one of the best.
Very thoughtful analysis. Well done.
Great video, really insightful.
One of the remakes had 'Ensign Pulver' playing the part of 'LTjg. Roberts'.
The point of this movie is, contrary to the opinions of others around the world, twelve average Americans are able to weigh the evidence found by prosecution and defense and in the majority of cases come to a rational and unbiased conclusion as to guilt or innocence. These men do not deliberate on matters of law; that is for the judge, and for his instructions to the jurors. But "the trial by jury" is one of the most valuable pieces of American jurisprudence, and one that allows Americans to feel that the powers of their government are limited, and that state oppression over them is diminished.I know whereof I speak.---KiraSeer
65 years later! This is still a great movie
Excellent video well done
I have the movie, and it's one of my favorites. I think Lee J. Cobb really makes this movie. But unfortunately, whoever is narrating this is racing through like he's got a hot date and he doesn't want to be late.
Great movie.
Beyond a reasonable doubt...
I agree this is one of the most prime examples of a movie done EXACTLY correct but leave Baltimore “Orioles” fans out of this! (I love those lines of dialogue) I don’t need any more crowbars to head than what I’m already getting by living here! (Love Charm City) But seriously, if I was a director, I don’t care what the box office says, THIS IS A LITERAL MASTERPIECE that I would be proud of for all eternity. PLEASE WATCH THIS IF YOU HAVEN’T!
Go Orioles!
Great great movie, no country for old men is another essential film
Love this! The only hole i could find in the "not guilty" argument was the woman with glasses, she could have been long sighted
Well, this was actually brought up in the movie by juror #3 (Lee J Cobb). But juror #8 (Henry Fonda) deftly responded, "I only know that her eyesight is in question now." It goes back to the "reasonable doubt" concept.
huh don't remember will have to watch it again thanks!
The courtroom dramas -- and there were quite a few -- made in the late Fifties and early Sixties are some of the most exciting film dramas ever made. Everyone should watch them all. And yes, they're in black and white. Get over it.
They did a remake in 1997 that is excellent as well.
Some juries nowadays don't use the standard of reasonable doubt. They want the defendant to be proved guilty beyond all SHADOW of a doubt. This certainly applies to the Casey Anthony jury.
Just a bit of constructive criticism. Very interesting video. But, try talking a bit slower. Your words run together and lose their impact. Otherwise, excellent work.
WHAT ABOUT EDDIE BINNS?!?!?
12 Majestics
The one potential flaw in the film I think is the false importance of the timing with the old man getting to the door down the hall. I still don't see what point was proven by showing it took 40 seconds instead of 15 for him to reach the door and see the boy. What was key to the testimony is that the old man saw the boy, who was on trial, fleeing from the crime scene. How long it took to get to the door to look at him makes no difference. The conclusion they drew that the old man merely *thought* he saw him was without warrant and could have been argued for even if their experiment with the stopwatch proved the witness correct about the 15 seconds.
I thought that was an unmerited criticism by the jurors.
The point was he didnt have time to see anyone leave. So his testimony is unreliable.
It's important because the old man said he saw the boy running down the stairs 15 seconds after the body hit the floor, but Fonda's re-enactment proves that was physically impossible b/c he couldn't have gotten to the door in that time. It seems like a tiny thing but as the movie says, testimony that could put someone in the electric chair should be that accurate.
Dint u think that carmen should be in the list
I don't think Juror 10 is necessarily racist. He is classist. In comparison, Juror 7 is slightly racist when he is questioned by Juror 11. He uses the man's ethnicity and immigrant status as a comeback ad hominem fallacy.
Thank you. I see so many miss this. Funny with a film about biases. It seems in modern times we have been trained to look for racism so much that even when another old very common devider is clearly hinted at we refuse to see it and instead say rasism.
lum-é
not lum-ette
Prod. Hxrford no
One of the angry guys is not a racist. When he says them he means poor people. The defendant is not black and neither is one of the other jurors who took offense when the guy first started his ramblings.
What the fuck are you taking about
I bet Steven Avery wishes there was a Henry Fonda on his jury
Great job, young man, but PLEEEEEEASE, speak more slowly. Maybe your generation can understand you, but I have to concentrate too much to get what you are saying. Dennis
was anyone else struck by the fact that juror number 8's education and profession gave him an intellectual and analytical advantage? he was an architect!!, and therefore the teacher of everyone else less qualified.
i wrote this before the video got to 10:00
I just couldn't get past the tortured logic throughout the movie. The defendant is clearly guilty. The assumptions made throughout to presume his innocence are absurd. It made it impossible for me to appreciate the film.
Subjective evaluation requires the acceptance that an alternative exists in the face of an 'action'.
No action 'exists' until it does; after which it must be considered; that which was the cause and that which is the consequence.
Hindsight is both the most efficent tool at our disposal and the most worthless.
We may consider how the action would not have occurred if the event was preceded by alternative conditions; but the event did occur, therefore the precursive scenario is irrelevant.
Consideration has to be given to 'opposite reaction'.
In the context of this film the question is, "Does the possibility exist, (reasonable doubt), of an alternative cause; equally a consequence?
Does an identical weapon exist, (cause), and could it have been used in an identical manner, (consequence), however improbable it would seem? - the answer to both is, yes.
Could the question of the woman's eyesight, (cause), bring a question of validity to her testimony, (consequence), the answer, likewise, is, yes.
Could a man, with an unrealised, egocentric subjectivity, (cause), bring himself to bear false testimony, in an attempt to enhance his, subjective, relevance, (consequence), to his environment?
Again, the answer is yes.
I love this film but have always held the notion that the boy was, probably, guilty.
Does this bear witness to the 'frailty' of the judiciary?
Of course, it does not.
If we were the men in the Dock, knowing that we were actually innocent, we could only hope that the same level of anaysis were applied for the continuation of our existence.
Is it better that 10 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man should have all that he possesses taken from him?
You will know the answer to that question if the day ever arrives that you stand accused in a similar scenario.
@@michaelandrews4403 This comment is a year old but I'm still taken by its eloquence. What an amazingly consise and well put way to summarize the conflict.
@@mettlemesh Thank you for your generous comment.
@@michaelandrews4403 you can add to the list of possibilities that the two eyewitnesses could both have given incorrect testimony.There might be a person whose features are similar to the defendent who actually did the murder. If our own legal system is an example, more innocent people have been convicted on faulty eyewitness testimony. Just look at the number who are freed annually due to just this sort of thing.
1 dimensional film, 1 dimensional characters. everything predictable. because of it's simplistic subject matter anything but dull dry cinematography would be out of place. and from a legal standpoint they got everything..... EVERYTHING wrong. This is the most overrated film in ALL of cinema history.