Juror 4 is possibly one of the best antagonist characters ever in cinema, for the simple fact that he is both rational and mostly right. He should be higher than 5th on this list.
I agreed - Juror 4 is ice cold logic. Not prejudiced, not evil, just rationally convinced of a boy's guilt. You couldn't defeat him by revealing a bias or pre-existing baggage (like with jurors 10 and 3), you can only defeat him by creating reasonable doubt and making sound arguments. Luckily, our man Henry Fonda was up to the task!
@@reddherod7677 I don't entirely agree that he's pure logic; he also carries the prejudices of his class and education, which I think colors his perceptions of the accused. I think he's inclined to believe the boy is guilty from the get-go; i.e, he's conditioned to believe the evidence as presented by the prosecution because it gibes with his privileged worldview. And that's why I think he looks so disturbed when the old man points out the eyeglass marks. Not only is his smug self-belief punctured by someone who he'd consider to be his intellectual inferior--the old man--but I more generously believe that he realizes he didn't see the marks because he wasn't looking for anything that could possibly be exculpatory. He took everything the prosecution presented at face value because it matched his values. It blinded him to the truth. He suddenly recognizes his own limitations as a human being. To his credit, he's rattled by it. That at least is how I see him. He's not any kind of bigot like 10, whom he despises, but he might well be the kind who might approve of "undesirables" being excluded from his neighborhood or the country club.
@@nicholasschroeder3678 totally disagree. He's analytical, as any stock broker should be. He enjoys sifting through data to make decisions, exercising sound judgement based on facts. A good listener, he was able to recite an exact hour by hour recounting of both the public defenders and the state prosecutors cases. Adding to that, the defendants faulty alibi, the coroners report, and even the eyewitnesses testimony. He was unemotional, to the point of being nearly stoic. His only emotion exhibited seemed to be that of pride in the fact that he regularly plays bridge, a complicated card game, difficult to master, which requires strategy and a strong memory. (Im willing to bet juror 4 could beat the casinos by counting cards at blackjack.) His diatribe on slums being a breeding ground for future criminals, was just him stating facts he has read, from the FBIs criminal database made public. Also, while the other Jurors merely walked away and turned their backs on the bigoted Juror 10, it was Juror 4 who was the one who excoriated him, telling him to "sit down, shut up, and don't ever open your mouth again!"
Interesting thoughts. My biggest disagreement is re Juror 2, whom I consider to be the most dynamic juror. He is the least classically masculine character in both manner and physique, and seems to be easily pushed around because he really wants to make people happy (breath mints, etc.). But right away he shows that he takes the matter seriously. He's not impressed with Juror 7's early flippant behavior and even asks the foreman to make him stop joking about such a serious matter. Gradually as his conviction of innocence is firmed up, he becomes more forceful and in fact by the end he's more forceful an advocate than Henry Fonda's character ("You can't send a man to the chair on evidence like that!" "You said we could throw out all the other evidence!"). He is a character who seems weak because he's nice, but underneath is made of iron. I would list him in the top 4.
Agreed, and feeding into each juror contributing points out of their own life experience, he's the one to point out the difference in height between the father and the son, and to observe that a shorter person wouldn't reasonably stab the way the stabbing happened. This prompts the experiment with the knife and culminates in Jack Klugman's character pointing out the correct way to use a switchblade.
Story flaw. Juror 2 had voted guilty because "someone saw him do it" The point where Juror 2 changes his vote occurs before the eyewitness had been discredited. Sorry to ruin it, but logically juror 2 would've held out to change until later in the story, just like juror 4 did.
@@tommylitz4543 It's a good point, although EG Marshal's character is more logically focused. But for many people, if you start to shake up all the other evidence, you might be swayed before every point is addressed. Juror 2 had thrown the witness out as a reason after he went on about how he just had a feeling he couldn't articulate.
One of my favorite scene with Juror 2 that's not usually referred to is when Juror 10 went on his usual spiel to Juror 8 about how the boy is guilty, then asked 2 for the breath mints since 2 gave them out earlier. Juror 2, who's getting fed up with Juror 10, replied something along the lines of 'it's all out, my friend', with 'my friend' being the manner of speech Juror 10 likes to use and used it to ask for the mints a sentence ago, in a mocking tone too. Made me go 'Damn...' out loud. Also shows that number 2 have had enough playing nice and making people happy, other than the point you brought up.
I would rank Juror 4 (who you ranked at 5) at least up to 3. In addition to all you said I would point out that while he doesn't agree with the arguments of others (at least when it comes to their importance) he actively acknowledged them. I am referring to the IMO best quote in the movie: "He was just trying to bait me" - "He did an excellent job".
One of my favorite little exchanges in the movie. He also is the one to tell the racist, as that man's rant runs down, that yes, they hear him, and that he should stop talking.
I rewatched this movie a couple days ago, it's definitely a great film. The last time I saw it was in high school, when we also read the play in English class; I played the bigoted juror #10, which was incredibly awkward, but I really delved into the role. Most everyone else in class were kinda monotone when they read their parts. I even faked a cold when I read my lines.
Juror 5 is a favorite of mine as well Very sympathetic, you can see how conflicted he was throughout the whole thing, like sure he voted guilty at the beginning but when asked to raise his hand for guilty he was among the jurors that didn’t raise their hand immediately Plus not letting his background alone guide him to his decisions makes him a great man
The scene with 6 and 8 in the washroom was IMHO the finest scene in any film ever made. "I'm just a workin man my boss does the supposin but I'll try one. Suppose you talk us out of this and the kid really did knife his father"
The old man (Juror #9) should be #2. Not only did he allow the jury to continue to deliberate by voting not guilty after Henry Fonda let them vote by secret ballot, he was the only one to bring the woman's eyesight into question which sealed the deal in terms of bringing everyone to Not Guilty.
You claim to be a younger person which makes me very happy you're covering this movie and doing a great job at doing it. Keep on trucking, sir! Fun video and good points!
I think it's kind of interesting to look at how the lives and occupations of the jurors affect their approach to the trial. 7 and 12 are salesmen and thus deal with the surface of things and are superficial. 8 and 11 are artisans who are accustomed to analyze below the surface. 3 and 10 run their own businesses, which I suppose makes them dyed-in-the-wool cynics that accept common stereotypes. 4 is a stockbroker, which makes him highly analytical, but also prone to distrust the lower classes, which he has no contact with. The system has always worked for him, so he doesn't question at all the case the prosecution has laid out. 5 is from the lower classes, "Don't you ever sweat?" and does question the official line, while 1 and 6 are quintessentially common men who are decent, if not great thinkers. For 2 and 9, both insignificant men in their day to day, the trial is something of an adventure. 2 follows along avidly, and becomes more assertive and perceptive as the deliberations drag on, while 9 is a lonely retiree that has special insight into the two insecure witnesses.
@@canalesworks1247 Yes, correct. I just watched it again last night. Probably 10th time: amazing how it's still mesmerizing because of the characters. I think 4 is by far the most interesting in the long run because on the surface he's strictly logical and fair; in fact, he makes a point of putting both 3 and 10 firmly in their place. He despises them both. BUT, I think he has unconscious prejudices for the system and against the underclass--which is common sense to him, and probably many of the viewers--that blind him to the subtler truths of the case. People are largely numbers to him: he has no emotional insight. When he realizes this about himself, that's when he starts to sweat. He recognizes that his "inferiors" like 5 and 9 have an emotional intellegence he lacks, and it's very disturbing to him. He and 2 are the characters that actually grow during the movie. It's just wonderful stuff.
I think he unfairly dismissed the witnesses, and although its nice he wasn't a racist in the 50s (not all that surprising to me, I'm old enough to have known people from that generation and they were hardly all like that), he and Fonda essentially play judge in the jury room dismissing witnesses on the basis of theories they had about them. The old man could have seriously deteriorated between the crime and the trial and while its possible being seen as important would make him want to show up in court, its unlikely his initial testimony to the police would be for that reason. And the Cobb character is right, the woman could be farsighted, although clearly witnessing a murder through the window of a train into another window seems a bit much for me, and is a weakness in the screenplay. I feel the Fonda character and then the old man are trying to get the jurors to only convict on beyond the shadow of a doubt. There's an article that sums up how many coincidences would to have happened in short succession, and almost anyone today would be found guilty under those circumstances unless they had OJs dream team.
One of the greatest ensemble casts of all time.If we rate one over another it's mostly because of the roles they were given. A triumph for Sidney Lumet.
THE greatest ensemble of all time. You could easily believe juror 6 was a painter or juror 11 was a watchmaker. The whole cast was incredibly picked out
I would swap jurors 3 and 12 and expand that bottom level to accommodate 12, who deserves to go into the bottom tier of jurors because he has no underlying groundwork of principles. He just sways in the breeze according to how he perceives the mood in the room is going. At least 3 has principles, even if they have been corrupted by his experiences with his son.
Juror #3 isn't an executioner. He has a courier business. The movie just meant he wants to act as executioner as a way of saying the boy is so guilty he deserves death penalty, so him being so for it makes him like his executioner. They would never pick someone that biased that would execute the accused as a juror lol.
Ye. Even the inept defense attorney would have demanded that juror 33 be excused if his profession had been the guy who throws the switch for the electric chair.
This was a very interesting idea for a video. Good job. Juror #8 used to be my favorite, but these days I think it's Juror #11. I think his interaction with Juror #7 when #7 changes his vote to Not Guilty may be the best acted portion of the movie.
#4 should be in top 3. He seems a man you can calmly debate to. He talks on basis of cold facts, doesn't argue with others' pov & also acknowledges the opposition whenever a fact is made.
The old man is NOT a “boomer”! (And neither are the rest of the guys in the room) Boomers are people born in the 40s and 50s. The old guy was born in the 1880s! And most of the other guys in the room were born around 1905 - 1910!
Boomers span frfom 1945-1960. Some even span it all the way to 1963, though Barack Obama was called "Gen X" even though he was orn in 1961. I too, born in 1963 always call myself "Gen X" but even I am on the cusp.
@@Live.Laugh.Lobotomy "Boomer" doesn't merely mean "old" or even of a specific age group. The generation naming convention is meant to group people who are likely to have common social attitudes based on unique shared social experiences that shaped their perceptions. For instance, War Generation (silent generation) people will distinctly remember Franklin Roosevelt's December 7 speech and the lasting formative emotional effect it had on them. For Baby Boomers that was the assassination of John Kennedy. For X-Genners it was the Challenger explosion. Millennials will remember 9/11 and Z-genners will remember the Covid lockdown. But for all of them, there were other events and conditions unique to their generations that will keep them somewhat different from the generations before and after all of their lives.
Also the old man can have just as valid points and arguments as anyone else, in fact probably MORE valuable due to life experience. Being around 80 is not some detrimental thing and this is recognised better outside Western society.
It's apparently an idiom for out of touch older person. I've been called a boomer when I'm clearly Gen X. It was more of "okay older person that I don't agree with..."
Really good list, agree with almost all of the reasonings and rankings. Only change i would make would be juror number 4, i thought he was the strongest rational logic based casemaker for the guilty side through the whole film. He providied a good example for what the emotinally charged others who were also very vocal for guilty shoudve aspired to be. I wouldve put him at number 2 or 3.
Ranking the Jurors based on them as characters and not their morality: 12. Juror 6 (the average person) 11. Juror 12 (advertising background means he requires incredibly persuasive arguments to be convinced) 10. Juror 1 (the sole source of order, works with teenagers as a coach, may see the kid as one of his athletes) 9. Juror 2 (least masculine. strong sense of justice, but easily overwhelmed. However, very valuable as an evaluator of evidence) 8. Juror 5 (comes from the same background as the kid, but doesn't retaliate against Juror 10 for his bigotry) 7. Juror 11 (the immigrant who values the justice system more than any of the other Jurors. Contrasts Juror 7) 6. Juror 7 (represents apathy towards the system. He's also the only one who wore a hat, showing a lack of true respect. Sees his duty as casual) 5. Juror 10 (the bigot who encapsulates much of what was wrong with the 1950s) 4. Juror 8 (the beacon of moral virtue) 3. Juror 3 (the main antagonist who has the most character development) 2. Juror 4 (the opposition, but speaks objectively. Contrasts the emotion of Juror 3 with his logic. Comes from the opposite background as the kid) 1. Juror 9 (Contrasts Juror 10 as an old man who judges people based on appearence. However, he comes off as wise instead of bigoted. He projects his insecurities onto others such as his insignificance and aging. The old man who gave testimony was the exact same kind of man as him)
The man who was called the nerd. He always played mild people. In an interview he once said his favorite role was on star trek tos where he played a jack the ripper trype
I had to chuckle when you referred to the old man as a “Boomer.” This film was released in 1957 when the oldest Baby Boomer would have been 11 years old! This gentleman was of the pre-World War I generation.
I'm not sure it was ever really about race..I think it's implied but it seems more like clasism. The argument was always people from the "slums" not black or brown.
I interpreted the accused as being Italian-American or maybe from South America, of which there were a lot of immigrants into the US during the late 19th/early 20th century and also again after WW2. So, maybe not really racism by today's definition, but for that time yes
The implication is that the kid is from some sort of hated ethnic group. My guess is Puerto Rican considering that it's New York City in the late 1950s.
Don’t think Juror #7 is a scumbag most of the time despite being the worst juror and when he showed rudeness towards the elderly juror and had a less broad reason why he switched from guilty to not guilty all because he wanted to end this case immediately due to an upcoming baseball game that’s concerning him the most. He should’ve realized that a stormy weather resulted in a game cancellation. Other than that, Jack Warden and many other actors did a great job portraying jurors with their own beliefs on the young man being on a murder trial.
He changed after the knife demonstration and he brought up the kid's experience with knife fighting. It clearly was because of that. But he's a bit arrogant so he doesn't feel the need to explain himself, especially not to some immigrant from Europe.
I thought the sequel was much better. "12 Men Down," was the movie about the defendant walking into a neighborhood grocery store two weeks after he was acquitted and shooting up the place.
I would have voted full blown guilty longer than they all did because the alibi with going out to see the movies but can't remember what he saw and more importantly no one in the movie theater could confirm he even was there is highly suspicious and was never properly addressed by the jurors.
The burden of proof is not on the not guilty side. Any reasonable doubt is sufficient. Even if the boy had lied about the theatre, there would be some levels of reasonable doubt.
My own ranking: Opinions based: GOAT 1. Juror #8 - Makes excellent points for his arguments to why he voted not guilty. 2. Juror #9 - Unproblematic and doesn't cause unnecessary drama. 3. Juror #6 - He defended #9 against #3 and cares about doing the right thing. 4. Juror #11 - Same reasons with Juror #9. He also called out #7 for picking "not guilty" because he (#7) had "enough" about the arguing. 5. Juror #4 - He was unlikeable little bit when he had a fight with #8 but provides arguments on why he voted guilty. Good but eh, not a fan 6. Juror #5 - Not problematic but that's all I can say. 7. Juror #2 - Same reasons with #5 but he had no problems telling people to stop fooling around (example: telling #7 to knock it off) 8. Juror #1 - Don't know much about him. 9. Juror #12 - Same reasons with Juror #1 but is gullible and goes with the popular vote. The Worst: 10. Juror #7 - He displays some problematic traits and clearly doesn't care about the case but is less problematic than the other jurors that is coming from the rabbit hole. 11. Juror #11 - Very unlikeable, hypocritical person and just plain rude and biased. Also made unnecessary comments towards the boy. 12. Juror #3 - The worst of all. Ofc he has a troubled past with his son but he took it out on the boy and just wants him dead instead of the facts against him.
You lost me at 3:12 inserting a photo of Ben Shapiro while talking about racists. 😮 4:37 to seperte me from your statement, I actually see all of the characters as "real humans". Your ranking seems good to me. Maybe I would bump up jurror 6 onr notch. I liked his standing up for the old man. The "lay you out" line is a favorite of mine . This was fun.
Juror 4 is possibly one of the best antagonist characters ever in cinema, for the simple fact that he is both rational and mostly right. He should be higher than 5th on this list.
I agreed - Juror 4 is ice cold logic. Not prejudiced, not evil, just rationally convinced of a boy's guilt. You couldn't defeat him by revealing a bias or pre-existing baggage (like with jurors 10 and 3), you can only defeat him by creating reasonable doubt and making sound arguments. Luckily, our man Henry Fonda was up to the task!
@@reddherod7677 I don't entirely agree that he's pure logic; he also carries the prejudices of his class and education, which I think colors his perceptions of the accused. I think he's inclined to believe the boy is guilty from the get-go; i.e, he's conditioned to believe the evidence as presented by the prosecution because it gibes with his privileged worldview. And that's why I think he looks so disturbed when the old man points out the eyeglass marks. Not only is his smug self-belief punctured by someone who he'd consider to be his intellectual inferior--the old man--but I more generously believe that he realizes he didn't see the marks because he wasn't looking for anything that could possibly be exculpatory. He took everything the prosecution presented at face value because it matched his values. It blinded him to the truth. He suddenly recognizes his own limitations as a human being. To his credit, he's rattled by it. That at least is how I see him. He's not any kind of bigot like 10, whom he despises, but he might well be the kind who might approve of "undesirables" being excluded from his neighborhood or the country club.
@@nicholasschroeder3678 totally disagree. He's analytical, as any stock broker should be. He enjoys sifting through data to make decisions, exercising sound judgement based on facts.
A good listener, he was able to recite an exact hour by hour recounting of both the public defenders and the state prosecutors cases. Adding to that, the defendants faulty alibi, the coroners report, and even the eyewitnesses testimony.
He was unemotional, to the point of being nearly stoic. His only emotion exhibited seemed to be that of pride in the fact that he regularly plays bridge, a complicated card game, difficult to master, which requires strategy and a strong memory. (Im willing to bet juror 4 could beat the casinos by counting cards at blackjack.)
His diatribe on slums being a breeding ground for future criminals, was just him stating facts he has read, from the FBIs criminal database made public.
Also, while the other Jurors merely walked away and turned their backs on the bigoted Juror 10, it was Juror 4 who was the one who excoriated him, telling him to "sit down, shut up, and don't ever open your mouth again!"
I don’t flag him as an antagonist, he only drew his conclusion based on the facts and doesn’t hesitate to switch sides when he’s proven wrong
@@nicholasschroeder3678 Wow... You do realize you're judging him by the same standards you're accusing him of harboring.
Interesting thoughts. My biggest disagreement is re Juror 2, whom I consider to be the most dynamic juror. He is the least classically masculine character in both manner and physique, and seems to be easily pushed around because he really wants to make people happy (breath mints, etc.). But right away he shows that he takes the matter seriously. He's not impressed with Juror 7's early flippant behavior and even asks the foreman to make him stop joking about such a serious matter. Gradually as his conviction of innocence is firmed up, he becomes more forceful and in fact by the end he's more forceful an advocate than Henry Fonda's character ("You can't send a man to the chair on evidence like that!" "You said we could throw out all the other evidence!"). He is a character who seems weak because he's nice, but underneath is made of iron. I would list him in the top 4.
Agreed, and feeding into each juror contributing points out of their own life experience, he's the one to point out the difference in height between the father and the son, and to observe that a shorter person wouldn't reasonably stab the way the stabbing happened. This prompts the experiment with the knife and culminates in Jack Klugman's character pointing out the correct way to use a switchblade.
Excellently put
Story flaw.
Juror 2 had voted guilty because "someone saw him do it"
The point where Juror 2 changes his vote occurs before the eyewitness had been discredited.
Sorry to ruin it, but logically juror 2 would've held out to change until later in the story, just like juror 4 did.
@@tommylitz4543 It's a good point, although EG Marshal's character is more logically focused. But for many people, if you start to shake up all the other evidence, you might be swayed before every point is addressed. Juror 2 had thrown the witness out as a reason after he went on about how he just had a feeling he couldn't articulate.
One of my favorite scene with Juror 2 that's not usually referred to is when Juror 10 went on his usual spiel to Juror 8 about how the boy is guilty, then asked 2 for the breath mints since 2 gave them out earlier. Juror 2, who's getting fed up with Juror 10, replied something along the lines of 'it's all out, my friend', with 'my friend' being the manner of speech Juror 10 likes to use and used it to ask for the mints a sentence ago, in a mocking tone too. Made me go 'Damn...' out loud. Also shows that number 2 have had enough playing nice and making people happy, other than the point you brought up.
Lee J Cobb was an absolute masterclass in acting in 12 Angry men.. The disintegration of the character was amazing
"The Nerdy Guy" was the voice of Piglet in most of the classic Winnie the Pooh specials
And the embodiment of Jack the Ripper in a season 2 original series Star Trek episode
The actor is John Fiedler.
Yes, and John Fiedler also played “Mr. Peterson” in the Bob Newhart Show, from the 1970s.
I would rank Juror 4 (who you ranked at 5) at least up to 3.
In addition to all you said I would point out that while he doesn't agree with the arguments of others (at least when it comes to their importance) he actively acknowledged them. I am referring to the IMO best quote in the movie: "He was just trying to bait me" - "He did an excellent job".
One of my favorite little exchanges in the movie. He also is the one to tell the racist, as that man's rant runs down, that yes, they hear him, and that he should stop talking.
I rewatched this movie a couple days ago, it's definitely a great film. The last time I saw it was in high school, when we also read the play in English class; I played the bigoted juror #10, which was incredibly awkward, but I really delved into the role. Most everyone else in class were kinda monotone when they read their parts. I even faked a cold when I read my lines.
love juror #6 since i got to read as him in my english class
I rank him 3rd in my list. Cool character. Decent guy, respects his elders, and cares about doing the right thing.
I loved his line;"Talk to him again and I'm gonna lay you out."
got #4 to read in my english class, absolutely loved his lines
@@ThePerson-dg6bq I was assigned #10 as a High-School freshman; was the teacher trying tell me something?
Juror 5 is a favorite of mine as well
Very sympathetic, you can see how conflicted he was throughout the whole thing, like sure he voted guilty at the beginning but when asked to raise his hand for guilty he was among the jurors that didn’t raise their hand immediately
Plus not letting his background alone guide him to his decisions makes him a great man
The scene with 6 and 8 in the washroom was IMHO the finest scene in any film ever made. "I'm just a workin man my boss does the supposin but I'll try one. Suppose you talk us out of this and the kid really did knife his father"
The old man (Juror #9) should be #2. Not only did he allow the jury to continue to deliberate by voting not guilty after Henry Fonda let them vote by secret ballot, he was the only one to bring the woman's eyesight into question which sealed the deal in terms of bringing everyone to Not Guilty.
You claim to be a younger person which makes me very happy you're covering this movie and doing a great job at doing it. Keep on trucking, sir! Fun video and good points!
I think it's kind of interesting to look at how the lives and occupations of the jurors affect their approach to the trial. 7 and 12 are salesmen and thus deal with the surface of things and are superficial. 8 and 11 are artisans who are accustomed to analyze below the surface. 3 and 10 run their own businesses, which I suppose makes them dyed-in-the-wool cynics that accept common stereotypes. 4 is a stockbroker, which makes him highly analytical, but also prone to distrust the lower classes, which he has no contact with. The system has always worked for him, so he doesn't question at all the case the prosecution has laid out. 5 is from the lower classes, "Don't you ever sweat?" and does question the official line, while 1 and 6 are quintessentially common men who are decent, if not great thinkers. For 2 and 9, both insignificant men in their day to day, the trial is something of an adventure. 2 follows along avidly, and becomes more assertive and perceptive as the deliberations drag on, while 9 is a lonely retiree that has special insight into the two insecure witnesses.
I think you mean 2 and 9.
@@canalesworks1247 Yes, correct. I just watched it again last night. Probably 10th time: amazing how it's still mesmerizing because of the characters. I think 4 is by far the most interesting in the long run because on the surface he's strictly logical and fair; in fact, he makes a point of putting both 3 and 10 firmly in their place. He despises them both. BUT, I think he has unconscious prejudices for the system and against the underclass--which is common sense to him, and probably many of the viewers--that blind him to the subtler truths of the case. People are largely numbers to him: he has no emotional insight. When he realizes this about himself, that's when he starts to sweat. He recognizes that his "inferiors" like 5 and 9 have an emotional intellegence he lacks, and it's very disturbing to him. He and 2 are the characters that actually grow during the movie. It's just wonderful stuff.
@@nicholasschroeder3678 It is a wonderful movie.
I think he unfairly dismissed the witnesses, and although its nice he wasn't a racist in the 50s (not all that surprising to me, I'm old enough to have known people from that generation and they were hardly all like that), he and Fonda essentially play judge in the jury room dismissing witnesses on the basis of theories they had about them. The old man could have seriously deteriorated between the crime and the trial and while its possible being seen as important would make him want to show up in court, its unlikely his initial testimony to the police would be for that reason. And the Cobb character is right, the woman could be farsighted, although clearly witnessing a murder through the window of a train into another window seems a bit much for me, and is a weakness in the screenplay. I feel the Fonda character and then the old man are trying to get the jurors to only convict on beyond the shadow of a doubt. There's an article that sums up how many coincidences would to have happened in short succession, and almost anyone today would be found guilty under those circumstances unless they had OJs dream team.
One of the greatest ensemble casts of all time.If we rate one over another it's mostly because of the roles they were given. A triumph for Sidney Lumet.
THE greatest ensemble of all time. You could easily believe juror 6 was a painter or juror 11 was a watchmaker. The whole cast was incredibly picked out
I love that you use Nintendo music for this old movie. It’s pretty funny.
I would swap jurors 3 and 12 and expand that bottom level to accommodate 12, who deserves to go into the bottom tier of jurors because he has no underlying groundwork of principles. He just sways in the breeze according to how he perceives the mood in the room is going. At least 3 has principles, even if they have been corrupted by his experiences with his son.
Juror #3 isn't an executioner. He has a courier business. The movie just meant he wants to act as executioner as a way of saying the boy is so guilty he deserves death penalty, so him being so for it makes him like his executioner. They would never pick someone that biased that would execute the accused as a juror lol.
Ye. Even the inept defense attorney would have demanded that juror 33 be excused if his profession had been the guy who throws the switch for the electric chair.
This was a very interesting idea for a video. Good job. Juror #8 used to be my favorite, but these days I think it's Juror #11. I think his interaction with Juror #7 when #7 changes his vote to Not Guilty may be the best acted portion of the movie.
Great video man! Gotta say I was a little disappointed not to see Juror #4 higher on the list since he's my favorite; but good thoughts indeed!
#4 should be in top 3. He seems a man you can calmly debate to. He talks on basis of cold facts, doesn't argue with others' pov & also acknowledges the opposition whenever a fact is made.
The old man is NOT a “boomer”! (And neither are the rest of the guys in the room) Boomers are people born in the 40s and 50s. The old guy was born in the 1880s! And most of the other guys in the room were born around 1905 - 1910!
doesn’t mean it in its literal sense
Boomers span frfom 1945-1960. Some even span it all the way to 1963, though Barack Obama was called "Gen X" even though he was orn in 1961. I too, born in 1963 always call myself "Gen X" but even I am on the cusp.
@@Live.Laugh.Lobotomy "Boomer" doesn't merely mean "old" or even of a specific age group. The generation naming convention is meant to group people who are likely to have common social attitudes based on unique shared social experiences that shaped their perceptions. For instance, War Generation (silent generation) people will distinctly remember Franklin Roosevelt's December 7 speech and the lasting formative emotional effect it had on them. For Baby Boomers that was the assassination of John Kennedy. For X-Genners it was the Challenger explosion. Millennials will remember 9/11 and Z-genners will remember the Covid lockdown. But for all of them, there were other events and conditions unique to their generations that will keep them somewhat different from the generations before and after all of their lives.
Also the old man can have just as valid points and arguments as anyone else, in fact probably MORE valuable due to life experience. Being around 80 is not some detrimental thing and this is recognised better outside Western society.
It's apparently an idiom for out of touch older person. I've been called a boomer when I'm clearly Gen X. It was more of "okay older person that I don't agree with..."
"pretty good"- Damned with faint praise. But I think you did an excellent job ranking these jurors.
What an outstanding analysis. I mean that. I'm very impressed. 😀
what crap lol
@@prizma45oh man...🤣
Nice video man!
Really good list, agree with almost all of the reasonings and rankings. Only change i would make would be juror number 4, i thought he was the strongest rational logic based casemaker for the guilty side through the whole film. He providied a good example for what the emotinally charged others who were also very vocal for guilty shoudve aspired to be. I wouldve put him at number 2 or 3.
I put #4 in first pace. #8 is way too overrated. He's a crusader who would have voted not guilty for reasons other than evidence.
Ranking the Jurors based on them as characters and not their morality:
12. Juror 6 (the average person)
11. Juror 12 (advertising background means he requires incredibly persuasive arguments to be convinced)
10. Juror 1 (the sole source of order, works with teenagers as a coach, may see the kid as one of his athletes)
9. Juror 2 (least masculine. strong sense of justice, but easily overwhelmed. However, very valuable as an evaluator of evidence)
8. Juror 5 (comes from the same background as the kid, but doesn't retaliate against Juror 10 for his bigotry)
7. Juror 11 (the immigrant who values the justice system more than any of the other Jurors. Contrasts Juror 7)
6. Juror 7 (represents apathy towards the system. He's also the only one who wore a hat, showing a lack of true respect. Sees his duty as casual)
5. Juror 10 (the bigot who encapsulates much of what was wrong with the 1950s)
4. Juror 8 (the beacon of moral virtue)
3. Juror 3 (the main antagonist who has the most character development)
2. Juror 4 (the opposition, but speaks objectively. Contrasts the emotion of Juror 3 with his logic. Comes from the opposite background as the kid)
1. Juror 9 (Contrasts Juror 10 as an old man who judges people based on appearence. However, he comes off as wise instead of bigoted. He projects his insecurities onto others such as his insignificance and aging. The old man who gave testimony was the exact same kind of man as him)
thank you so much i needed this
One of he best cast of characters of all time. Great movie .
I recently watched the Film, very compelling
The man who was called the nerd. He always played mild people. In an interview he once said his favorite role was on star trek tos where he played a jack the ripper trype
I love his high voice. A natural tenor.
I would’ve swapped juror number seven with juror number 10
Just to let you know, your video was not garbage.
I had to chuckle when you referred to the old man as a “Boomer.” This film was released in 1957 when the oldest Baby Boomer would have been 11 years old! This gentleman was of the pre-World War I generation.
I'm not sure it was ever really about race..I think it's implied but it seems more like clasism. The argument was always people from the "slums" not black or brown.
I don’t think race or racism was ever mentioned in the movie. It was all about being biased against people from the slums
It’s a undertext that you’re supposed to infer, it’s about racism
@@solipsistinen7662 everything is about racism according to millennials like you. They show the kid in the beginning and he’s white
I interpreted the accused as being Italian-American or maybe from South America, of which there were a lot of immigrants into the US during the late 19th/early 20th century and also again after WW2. So, maybe not really racism by today's definition, but for that time yes
The implication is that the kid is from some sort of hated ethnic group. My guess is Puerto Rican considering that it's New York City in the late 1950s.
@@sAKecOkEPuerto Rican.
I hear Banjo Kazooie music Gigachad
Don’t think Juror #7 is a scumbag most of the time despite being the worst juror and when he showed rudeness towards the elderly juror and had a less broad reason why he switched from guilty to not guilty all because he wanted to end this case immediately due to an upcoming baseball game that’s concerning him the most. He should’ve realized that a stormy weather resulted in a game cancellation. Other than that, Jack Warden and many other actors did a great job portraying jurors with their own beliefs on the young man being on a murder trial.
He changed after the knife demonstration and he brought up the kid's experience with knife fighting. It clearly was because of that. But he's a bit arrogant so he doesn't feel the need to explain himself, especially not to some immigrant from Europe.
Cool 😂😂😂😂🎉🎉🎉🎉 Sasha Knysh jr
I thought the sequel was much better. "12 Men Down," was the movie about the defendant walking into a neighborhood grocery store two weeks after he was acquitted and shooting up the place.
9 isn't a boomer lol, boomers were infants at that time
Juror 3 was the greatest
Juror 12 is #1 because he is the most handsome 😍
That's a good reason..why not.... If it were 12 angry women and #12 were played by Jayne Mansfield I'd be saying the same thing.
Mine :
1. Juror 8
2. Juror 9
3. Juror 11
4. Juror 4
5. Juror 5
6. Juror 2
7. Juror 6
8. Juror 1
9. Juror 12
10. Juror 7
11. Juror 10
12. Juror 3
I would have voted full blown guilty longer than they all did because the alibi with going out to see the movies but can't remember what he saw and more importantly no one in the movie theater could confirm he even was there is highly suspicious and was never properly addressed by the jurors.
The burden of proof is not on the not guilty side. Any reasonable doubt is sufficient. Even if the boy had lied about the theatre, there would be some levels of reasonable doubt.
I.e. the boy could have full blown murder another man in the court, and lied about everything, and still you cannot vote guilty on this case.
My own ranking:
Opinions based:
GOAT
1. Juror #8 - Makes excellent points for his arguments to why he voted not guilty.
2. Juror #9 - Unproblematic and doesn't cause unnecessary drama.
3. Juror #6 - He defended #9 against #3 and cares about doing the right thing.
4. Juror #11 - Same reasons with Juror #9. He also called out #7 for picking "not guilty" because he (#7) had "enough" about the arguing.
5. Juror #4 - He was unlikeable little bit when he had a fight with #8 but provides arguments on why he voted guilty.
Good but eh, not a fan
6. Juror #5 - Not problematic but that's all I can say.
7. Juror #2 - Same reasons with #5 but he had no problems telling people to stop fooling around (example: telling #7 to knock it off)
8. Juror #1 - Don't know much about him.
9. Juror #12 - Same reasons with Juror #1 but is gullible and goes with the popular vote.
The Worst:
10. Juror #7 - He displays some problematic traits and clearly doesn't care about the case but is less problematic than the other jurors that is coming from the rabbit hole.
11. Juror #11 - Very unlikeable, hypocritical person and just plain rude and biased. Also made unnecessary comments towards the boy.
12. Juror #3 - The worst of all. Ofc he has a troubled past with his son but he took it out on the boy and just wants him dead instead of the facts against him.
1. Juror 7
2. Juror 4
3. Juror 3
4. Juror 1
5. Juror 10
6. Juror 6
7. Juror 11
8. Juror 8
9. Juror 9
10. Juror 2
11. Juror 5
12. Juror 12
Lobotomized people ranking
You lost me at 3:12 inserting a photo of Ben Shapiro while talking about racists. 😮 4:37 to seperte me from your statement, I actually see all of the characters as "real humans". Your ranking seems good to me. Maybe I would bump up jurror 6 onr notch. I liked his standing up for the old man. The "lay you out" line is a favorite of mine . This was fun.
When the autism hits
(it's me. I've got the autism)
Ehh ur just wrong
i think this is the single most overrated film in the history of film
*underrated
just stop uploading dude