Sadly even with all the critical acclaim it bombed at the box office (although it did much better internationally.) Being shot in black and white seemed to hurt it at the time (color films was all the rage at the time, as was widescreen) - since then that is one of it's strengths. It wasn't until it started being shown on television that the film grew in popularity. Twelve Angry Men was nominated for Best Picture but lost out to another classic, Bridge on the River Kwai.
He also witnessed a lynching as a young man and this made him become somewhat of an activist in his life. It also drove many of his film choices - often choosing projects with a strong social commentary 🤔🇬🇧
Yes, any doubt is impossible in most cases. Reasonable means the jury taking real responsibility. Convicting an innocent man is monstrous, letting a killer go free to kill again is also monstrous. Serious responsibility
Yes, a rare flaw in the movie. Fonda's character keeps stressing that "It's possible" he didn't do it, but that's not supposed to be the standard at all. Proving that "it's impossible he didn't do it" is itself impossible. Is the jury foreman supposed to intervene in such cases and remind everyone what the actual standard is?
And 'reasonable doubt' itself is an inherently subjective term that will differ from person to person: the only parameters are that it is more than a 'preponderance of evidence', and less than 'beyond any doubt'. This is not meant as a criticism of the concept, no functioning legal system could be more precise than that standard, its just something that's worth noting and remembering, especially for jurors who begin to lose their temper against other jurors.
In the 1950s it wasn't really considered unusual in many places to not remember the names of movies being shown at the local theater or the actors therein. Air conditioning and fans weren't very common then, especially in "slum" neighborhoods. Since it was supposedly very hot that night in question (based on the testimony of the woman and the old man who said they saw "it" through open windows), it is very likely that the kid went to the movies to "cool off" as back then, movie theaters were often air-conditioned versus many homes. They had to be to preserve the film stock that was often used multiple times per day for weeks. Thus one would go to the theater, buy a ticket, and be in an air conditioned cool space for several hours until they walked home. Back then, it cost maybe 10 cents or 25 cents to go to the theater, and depending on the place, that would get you sometimes 2 or even 3 movies. 4+ hours. People wouldn't really pay attention to the movie or actors on the screen. They would simply nap or whatever for several hours.
Yes. And even if the intent was actually to "see a movie," people commonly went to theater without even knowing what was playing. If it turned out to be a mediocre movie, they may well not remember it.
Interesting point by you guys about death penalty. It pretty much is giving the state the right to kill but no takebacksies. I've sat on jury duty before and I love how accurate this movie captures the types of people you'd meet. There's always two to three people who go with whatever is popular because they don't dare to go against the grain. But this movie reminds us a crucial point that you can believe he's guilty but also that there's not enough evidence to convict.
I once was on a hung jury (10 guilty to 2 not guilty.) We deliberated for five days. The peer pressure was tremendous and I was thankful not to be the only holdout. After declaring a mistrial, the Judge took us back into the jury room, told us about some of the evidence he couldn't allow us to hear, and said, if it were a bench trial, he would have dismissed the charges.
my favorite character is the man who doesn't sweat, e. g. marshall. cool headed and analytical. he reminds me of... me. it would take a lot to get me to change my mind but i would hope i wouldn't be so stubborn to refuse to admit i was wrong under such an avalache of reasonable doubt. the year before fonda starred in his only hitchcock film "the wrong man" (1956) which is the same theme here from a different perspective. the year before that he starred in a classic comedy/drama "mr. roberts" (1955) which co-stars jimmy cagney, william powell and features jack lemon's film debut. fonda also starred as tom joad in john fords fantastic 'the grapes of wrath" (1940). i highly recommend all these films. thanks for the video.
Yesss I loved that dude. Prob my second favorite, after Juror #8 ofc. He had no real bias, he was very fact-driven, and just wanted to analyse the situation from many angles. And he was open to being wrong.
Did you notice that Juror #6 (the house painter) had been caring for the old man from the beginning (such as helping him into a chair, noting that he was in the restroom). So, he was already established as the old man's casual protector even before he threatened Juror #3. I think the old man, Juror #9, was willing to extend the deliberation because it was the most significant thing he had ever been part of...as he said about the old witness. I've served on a couple of juries. One, in which I was the foreman, was a federal felony case. The trial had lasted only four hours, but we deliberated for four days. The very first vote, as in this case, was 11:1 for guilty. I was very much like Juror #4 in this movie, considering myself very logical. I was also one of the very last people to change to "not guilty," and I recall the specific moment, just as with Juror #4, when I realized the last piece of evidence I was leaning on...wasn't actually very solid.
I think that the whole thing wasn't solid. I probibly would have gone for a retrial, just so both the defendant's lawyer and the prosecution might just do a better job.
Lee J. Cobb was the last guy to come around. Great stage actor..He also played the lead as Willie Loman in the film adaptation of the stage play, "Death of a Salesman." Great play/film. I guess around the same time as this film came out...Dustin Hoffman also played it in a TV adaptation..Also fantastic job!..You may also know Cobb as the Detective in the film "The Exorcist." All these guys were great actors...The little guy (John Fiedler) did the voice of Piglet in the Winnie the Poo cartoons..Can't mistake that voice!
Women could serve on juries even from the 1920’s, but it was always a choice of the lawyers involved and it still was a much lower percentage, until the 1970’s when there began to be a more noticeable change.
well they used to allow for a person to be tried by a jury of their peers, which meant women would be on the jury for a woman, and men for a man... naturally more men were on trial than women.. but that, and of course if a juror was found to be unfit, could a lawyer do anything about who was on a jury.. but yeah, you can see tons of old movies and shows with mixed juries.. women have been on juries since the 1800s
One of many great films from back in the day. I like it when reactors respect such a movie by not rabbiting on all the way through it. More like this please.
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. Also...women could serve on juries in the 1950s, the filmmakers just used only men for this version. Keep in mind 12 Angry Men did start as a stage play, and was then a televised drama, and this film is the 3rd iteration...and the finest, I think. The 1990s remake is a worthy 2nd in quality, and it also went with a literal interpretation of the title by having all men on the jury...though it was much more multiracial.
@@jnagarya519 He also directed Serpico and Dog Day Afternoon, both featuring Al Pacino, Other good ones from Sid include The Pawnbroker with Rod Steiger; The Hill with Sean Connery and Ossie Davis; Q and A with Nick Nolte; Night Falls In Manhattan with Andy Garcia; Find Me Guilty with Vin Diesel and Before The Devil Knows You're Dead with Ethan Hawke & Phillip Seymour Hoffman. What a craftsman who's missed nowadays. His daughter Jenny is a TV writer/producer on Star Trek: Strange New Worlds
I wonder if the fact that this was an all-star cast was the reason for the final scene on the courthouse steps. Since audiences of the time knew all the _actors_ by name, they might not have realized until the end that they didn't know any of the _characters'_ names. It's a little startling to watch such a mesmerizing film and only realize at the end that you never heard any character called by name; not even the kid, the father, or the witnesses.
Thanks for taking the time to watch an older film, you picked a good one. Another you might consider at some point is "Anatomy of a Murder" from 1959, directed by Otto Preminger and starring Jimmy Stewart as a defense attorney. Different sort of story line.
This film deals only with Jury deliberation. You have to check out a courtroom. Drama where they deal with the evidence. While not related to 12 Angry Men, the movie Wtness for the Prosecution is the other bookend.
Juries at this time *could* be all male. But women could be so empaneled. You’ll notice the jury room does have a “Ladies” room toward the back, next to the “Men’s” room.
They did do a remake in 1997. It had Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, Tony Danza, et cetera. Regarding diversity, three of the jurors were black, and the judge was a woman.
The movie 12 Angry Men takes place in a jury room at the New York County Courthouse in New York City. It's a state court case and New York (state) legalized the right for women to serve on juries there starting in 1937.
@@gravitypronepart2201 He never stated it was "evidence" , and he used words such as "might", possibility is the key word here. Everyone can only talk from his/her own perspective, feelings, and conception of the world. nobody is 100% objective, and that's the point.
@@gravitypronepart2201 The jury isn't to _provide_ evidence -- in real life the introduction of the second knife would have been grounds for a mistrial. (I have yet to see a courtroom drama that didn't include one or more ethical violations in order to produce the drama.) Only the judge can approve admission of evidence. What the elderly juror did was to critically examine the existing evidence, which included the witness testimony.
@jnagarya519 I agree for the most part, but beyond critically examining the eyewitness testimony of the old man, he in effect questioned his his credibility, based , not on factual evidence of any kind, but rather transposing his own personal life experience onto the man. No jury should imagine things into existence. To say the old man's testimony can't be trusted based on a limp, and a torn jacket is ridiculous, just as to dismiss the woman's testimony, based on nothing but marks on her nose. Any juror might mistrust a witness without any reason, but that doesn't constitute reasonable doubt. But you are right. The Case should have been declared a mistrial after the second knife was displayed.
@@gravitypronepart2201 The old man witnesses testimony was not questioned on the limp alone -- watch the film again. It was also based on the claim that he went from his bed through a chain-locked door down a corridor and to a second door in 15 second. That turned out not to be objectively credible. There was also the fact that it was a hot night, his window was open, and a noisy train was passing by, so it was DOUBTFUL he heard a yell and a body hitting the floor. The marks on the woman's nose were made by EYEGLASSES. The FACT is that no one wears eyeglasses to bed. The woman testified that she was in bed at the time she "witnessed" the murder. Those OBJECTIVE facts render her testimony unreliable. The jury's JOB is to examine the PROSECUTION'S case CRITICALLY -- the jury is a check AGAINST state power -- which means critically examining the prosecution's evidence. But tell us: why do you attack the jury because you want to find the PUERTO RICAN boy GUILTY?
Great reaction. Good job. I loved how you both were so engaged with the narrative. I have been on a jury. I wish mine had been this dramatic. They do pay jurors. In my state, I think it's $10 per day. One day isn't bad but a long trial can hurt your wallet, so most people try to get out of jury duty. As for the all-male jury, women were absolutely allowed to sit on juries but a man brow-beating a woman with the kind of emotional drama in this script would have been distasteful in the 1950s.
Did you know that the Iconic MGM lion roar is actually a tiger's roar? The person who chose to use a tiger's roar said the lion's roar just didn't sound ferocious enough, and the tiger's sounded more majestic.
That's interesting, I didn't know that. I do know that movies that feature a bald eagle, it's call is substituted with the call of a Red Tailed Hawk because it sounds so much more intimidating than the squeak sound the eagle makes.
Loved how invested you two were in this movie! It’s definitely compelling and draws you in the whole time. It’s great to see more reactors checking it out. 😀
This movie came out the year the year I was born. As a kid it was hard for me to imagine that there was ever color before I was born. All of the family photographs and movies on our black and white T.V. were...well, black and white. I think my generation invented color.
Well, it's tempting to think so, but there were colour films made in the 30s and 40s like The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind, Meet Me in St Louis, Fantasia, Heaven Can Wait etc and plenty in the 50s too. At the time, of course colour was more expensive, but a film like this and many of the detective films were well suited to black and white. Steven Spielberg, David Lynch, the Coen Brothers and other modern directors have actually chosen black and white as they felt it served the subject matter.
There was a remake. I think in the 90’s. I have not seen it. The mousey juror who timed the walk, John Fiedler was the voice of Piglet in Winnie the Pooh.
I have been on a jury in the UK. It is illegal for me to discuss what happened in the jury room. In court I as foreman gave our verdict, not guilty of grievous bodily harm, guilty of actual bodily harm. There was drama in the court as the defendant jump out of the dock when his victim/ex-girlfriend was giving evidence. It took three policemen to hold him back. Reasonable doubt came from the British system. We no longer have the death penalty. We do have lesser courts where three magistrates (part time judges) hear minor cases with no jury.
Great film and smart reaction. I enjoyed my first trip to your channel. I live in the US. I was called a few times for jury duty. The last time 2 years ago, jury pay was $14 a day. We had the option to receive it or donate it to selected charities. Twenty years ago, I worked for an insurance company and they allowed us the option of giving the pay to the company and we received our normal pay. We had the option to receive it or donate it to selected charities. Many of the trials are quite short. Two of my three were less than one day. The third was a murder trial and lasted 4 days. Most cases in the US are settled before trial and many are settled before they go to jury.
Some, but not all, of the jurors, who thought that the defendant was guilty solely based on the boys economic level. In other words, he was poor and lived in a slum, therefore he’s automatically guilty. They never mentioned race but since it was New York, most likely he was Puerto Rican and that could be another reason why some of them automatically thought he was guilty. They kept saying “they”
Great acting by juror #4. The way juror 4 looks at juror 3 and says "because I have a reasonable doubt now" as if he's disgusted that juror 3 is still not considering a reasonable doubt now that the eye witness's eyesight is in question.
lots of Good flicks in the 'old days'. in 5 years around 1940 - gone with wind, Wizard of Oz , Casablanca , Citien Kaine... ALL in lots of ' top ten flicks' lists.
HENRY FONDA... A great character study movie starring Fonda as the US President (and Larry Hagman, from "I Dream of Genie" fame) in this drama/thriller from the Cold War era, called --- "Fail Safe" (1964). A great movie that gives us a glimpse on what could go wrong in the nuclear age between superpowers.
Im a fan of the show; "Blue Bloods," and every time they show the courthouse, I think of this movie. Every time I see a reaction, I want to see the movie again.
I'm sure someone once told me that as the film progresses the director Sidney Lumet moves the camera lower - from above eye level to below. Walls and ceiling appear more visible which makes the room seem a little smaller. Also he uses more closeups of actors. These choices help increase the claustrophobic atmosphere as the inter-personal tensions ramp up,
There have been several lions that have mimed the roar over the years . And they quite literally just got the lion up on a platform and, because it was a trained lion, its handler had it roar. But by 1985 they decided that a tiger's roar had a better sound than a lion's roar, so they dubbed the lion over with a tiger. Leo, the lion at the start of this movie, is arguably the most famous of the lions. He took over the very year this movie came out from George, his successor, who was the 7th lion to do the roar. Leo is considerably younger than the previous lions were, so he has a much smaller main than you might see on even older movies. The very first Lion (Slats) didn't roar at all. He just looked around, because sound couldn't be added to movies at that time. His immediate successor was dubbed over with a real lion's roar, just not his own roar. As of 2021, the lion has been replaced with a CGI model, modeled after the 1957 lion Leo. Having been portrayed in the MGM logo since 1957 (either as himself or in CGI form), Leo is the one most people recognize. In 1957, they were still using a lion's roar. I'm unsure if the sound is from Leo himself though, or from another lion dubbed over him. Anyway: This is my favorite movie. It's a masterclass in screenwriting, pacing, lighting, blocking, and acting. And how to get so much out of a very tight script. It's just fantastic.
Although most of us try to avoid jury duty, I think everyone should serve at least once. Trials are a real instruction into human nature. This one was a play for quite a while before the movie was produced. The cast was excellent and the production was a flawless example of what a jury should consider. Your mention of "Once upon a time in the west" resulted in my subbing you. I will look back through your reactions for it. Another play to movie film was the Jimmy Stewart film, "Harvey". It is just as good but not as intense. Excellent reaction.
There is a modern remake from 1997. This time the 12 jurors include Black and Latino jurors as well. It's worth a watch as a comparison to the original.
34:27 Juror #11, the watchmaker, talked about the fingerprints being wiped off the knife. Was there some other point about the fingerprints that wasn't mentioned?
While women could serve on juries, the lawyers who choose the jurors may have excluded them for various reasons in trying to get the best jury for their case.
One was not the usual form of movie making in the 50s, but you mentioned it was like a stage play. This movie is based on a tv play. Live stage performances on television were not unusual back then. th-cam.com/video/7DkI2I0W5i8/w-d-xo.htmlsi=oyxsJMIuBvxhknXZ
Great Reaction...... In 1997 they did a "Made for U.S. TV Movie" using the same script..... using known actor of that time....... It was a Pretty Good Movie.... I saw this a couple times in High School (Early 1980's) presented/performed as a stage play.......
The film is based on a teleplay - a live television film - and so was performed on one set much like a Broadway play, and it was decided to film the movie on basically one set to keep the same sense of interaction/feel... and the writer of the story had served on a New York City Jury in a Felony Case, and New York's Judicial System didn't allow Juror's Names to be used for security reasons, so he kept that fact in place...
A video of the original 1954 teleplay is available on TH-cam. Two of the same actors appear: th-cam.com/video/7DkI2I0W5i8/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Uqn85ytLnChTA2PR
When it was released 12 Angry Men actually bombed at the box office. Back in 1957 color film was all the rage, as was being shot in widescreen. Even with all the critical accolades, it really didn't find an audience till it started being shown on television. It was nominated for Best Picture but lost to another classic, Bridge on the River Kwai.
I enjoyed your reaction to one of my favorite movies. You might find The Oxbow Incident of interest. It's been described as 'Western Noir', with Henry Fonda heading a stellar cast. It's not yet been discovered by the reception crowd, it seems.
I did Jury duty several times in the UK in the 1970s and 1980's, and they paid my wages, but it was all tax free, plus some other food and travel allowances. One of my cases went on for 7 weeks, so i made quite a lot more money than i would normally do. I don't know if they did it that way in the USA though. Thank you for your reaction.
In the US, the stipend for jury duty is very slight. When I served on a couple of federal juries in the 80s, one was in Washington DC...I got $25 _a day_ for five days of jury duty (I made more than that an hour). And no meals or other allowances.
I must correct you. The standard is not “without any doubt,” it is “without any reasonable doubt.” Also, the reason why there were no women, is that the jury pool usually came from tax records, and since far fewer women held jobs in those days, they had a low chance of being called for duty. The lack of Blacks or diverse ethnicities is not unrealistic for the time. The jury will reflect the demographics of the jurisdiction, which in those days was much less commonly mixed. However, the realistic reason is that this was originally a TV drama, and discrimination at the time prevented Blacks from playing important roles in TV. I have served on a jury, and this is a true representation, although the level of anger is much worse in this case. This is a classic because the script is tremendous, the direction is brilliant, and the performances are, in my opinion, the greatest ensemble-acting display ever.
Also, in NY there was a "housewive's clause" that allowed women with children to be easily waived for jury duty. Blacks would have been just as discriminated against serving jury duty in 1957 as they were discriminated against as television actors in 1954. The major part of that discrimination was a matter of what residency records were used for the jury pool...remember that housing was very strictly segregated, even in NYC.
In 1957, jurors were paid $40-$50 a day to serve on a jury (granted, this is based on a quick AI query). Thrown into an inflation calculator, that would equate to $450-$560. Today, jurors are still only paid 50-60 a day. That would be $4 in 1957.
The history of women on juries, after the right to vote was official, is interesting. Some localities had women on juries right away (there are 1930s movies about that), others didn't. Or more accurately, didn't make it a priority. It tended to be easy for women to get excused for various reasons. In general, the idea that a jury should be diverse enough to reflect the local community was yet to come.
All A list actors at the time. Henry Fonda was a great actor but according to his family he had a hard time showing emotion, empathy, opposite his character here. His final film, On Golden Pond, played on his strained family relationship with his real life daughter Jane also in the movie. Kind of a reconciliation drama well worth watching.
Women have served on juries since the late 1800's. Every state was different but I think every state has had women jury members since the 1950's. Also, just FYI. Most people including men didn't have voting rights throughout history. And when men were allowed to vote in the U.S it also obligated them to be eligible for military conscription (the draft). The idea being "if the government can force a person to go to war they should be allowed to vote for leaders that would or wouldn't decide IF they go to war.
One more. Ed Begley (Juror 10. old crabby/racist guy) was the father of Ed Begley jr. (if you saw him you most likely would recognize him, because, like his father is one of those 'face's without a name' character actors, who was in over 200 films, himself..Very interesting guy in real life..He has a million great stories about Hollywood, and many other things..Way back in the early 70's he was one of the first guys to own an electric car...Btw, you wouldn't know it by looking at them, but they look nothing alike! Jr. is like 6' 4', and thin.
Another point about the glasses. In those days, the lens was made out of glass, not plastic as they are today. Plastic is a lot lighter weight than glass, and will not leave as deep of an impression as does glass. Personally, I am nearsighted. Meaning, I can see well enough to read a book, mess around the house, or watch TV. But to look across the street with any clarity, I must put them on. Now in this case, it is not known if the woman was nearsighted, or farsighted. And unfortunately, Jurors are not allowed to review any evidence that was not presented in court. Meaning, there was reasonable doubt to both her nearsightedness, and farsightedness. And since the Jurors were unable to question the witness, they had no choice but to rule on the side of nearsightedness, which would have prevented the woman from seeing clearly enough for a positive identification, much less, a conviction. And BTW. It was Public Hangings (not injections) that tamed the Wild West. But once bleeding heart liberal women were allowed to vote, many States no longer have a death penalty. And in deed, since women are now allowed on jurys, crime goes unpunished, and murderers go free. Or in other words, The Wild West Has Returned!
among many things, I think what the movie exposes quite well is that the system is flawed against the poor. The young boy had a "public defender" rather than a lawyer. Which is why the case looked so cut and dry. Public defenders aren't tasked beyond trying to keep the sentence low in the united states today, but a lawyer is beyond most peoples income. If it hadn't been for the one jury member thinking outside the box, the young boy was for sure going to be sentenced to death.
@@gravitypronepart2201 Public defenders seems to be their only option for sure.. unless they can get themselves beyond their available means to education and are able to defend themselves- like a hollywood movie lol. The only time I seen someone who wasn't a lawyer do this- and still failed, was serial killer ted bundy, who actually could afford a lawyer easily. He was being primed to be a senator.
Women have been allowed on juries in New York since 1937, a couple of decades before this movie was made. In this case the jury happened to be all men. It's interesting to think how the movie would have been different if there were even one woman juror. There was a remake of "12 Angry Men" in 1997. It had a lot of big stars in it: Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, James Gandolfini, Edward James Olmos, Hume Cronyn, Ossie Davis. . . There was more diversity, but it was still all women. There was also a Russia remake in 2007 called "12."
Lay you out with your toes sticking up in the air, used to be a saying back then. It used to be more popular during the 20s. If you are knocked out unconscious your muscles are limp and your feet would lay to the sides. If you are dead and rigor mortis has set in then your muscles would be stiff and your toes would stick straight up.
I've seen this movie many times and would probably have voted not guilty, partly because of the points raised by the Fonda character but mostly from a point that was never made in the case. Several jurors scoffed at the boy's alibi that the knife fell through a hole in his pocket. But was his alibi thoroughly checked out? Was there really a hole in his pocket? If not, then his whole story falls apart, but there was a hole, then that part of his alibi must be true. So we can also conclude that the rest of his story could be true as well. But since we don't know if there was a hole or not, that's enough reasonable doubt for me. Just my two cents' worth.
Slightly flawed logic. If there was an hole in the boy's pocket, then that part of the story COULD be true. There is still no guarantee that it WAS. A better part of the investigation would have been to check out the shop-keeper. He said he had only seen the knife as one of a kind, but for all we know, he could have had a box full of about five hundred of the things in the back.
With regard to Henry Fonda (father) & Jane Fonda (daughter), while nepotism is often a culprit, not in this case. Anyone familiar with Jane Fonda's films would argue she was a far superior actor than her father ...as do I. 📽Klute '71 or 📽On Golden Pond '81 (She stars with her father in his last role before death). Both she and her father were truly some of best (actors) Hollywood had to offer! 🥰
The Jury system comes from English Common Law, which evolved since the reign of Alfred the Great, King of Wessex, in the 8th century AD. Most other countries in Europe inherited the Roman Law system from the Roman Empire, which has judges deciding instead, like your system. The idea for juries was to avoid the abuse of power by aristocrats over peasants, by picking twelve random men from the same social class - "a jury of his peers" - who should have a better understanding of the defendant's situation and the ability to put themselves in his shoes when deciding if he was justified in doing what he did or not. So an aristocrat can't just pin an accusation on someone and have them killed by the say-so of a fellow aristocrat with the same prejudices who is the judge. Juries are supposed to be able to sympathise, in other words, and it's wrong for prosecutors to be able to kick out jurors who do. It also allows for the application of common sense, which lawyers and judges often enough have had educated out of them.
👏🏻👍🏻👍🏻…May I suggest the comedy “The Birdcage”, with Robin Williams, and the heartwarming “Fried Green Tomatoes “, with Kathy Bates and Mary Stuart Masterson. Promise you’ll enjoy them both🔥
Anatomy of a Murder and Inherit the Wind are two more great court room films from that time period. Tbh, I think they're both better than this one, as good as it is.
Check out "STREETCAR NAMED DAVID SIRE" HENRY FONDA IS EXCELLENT IN "GRAPES OF WRATH" BY JOHN STEINBECK...A TRUE WRITER OF THE UNDERCLASS!!!❤❤❤❤👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
![โอ้เธอช่าง... - บี้เดอะสกา ft. ต๋อง เทวัญ (Prod. by ป๋าเพชร) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zbWhiLFmVL0/mqdefault.jpg)
Comforting to see young people enjoying a quality film. Excellent job, thank you.
Ome of the most immaculately shot American films ever made. The shot composition and blocking ALONE should be studied.
It literally is studied in film schools
Sadly even with all the critical acclaim it bombed at the box office (although it did much better internationally.) Being shot in black and white seemed to hurt it at the time (color films was all the rage at the time, as was widescreen) - since then that is one of it's strengths. It wasn't until it started being shown on television that the film grew in popularity. Twelve Angry Men was nominated for Best Picture but lost out to another classic, Bridge on the River Kwai.
Bridge on the River Kwai is also an another excellent film. David Lean is a legend.
You are two of the most observant reactors I have come across.
Thank you, it's been a pleasure watching.
Agreed.
Yes, Henry Fonda is Jane's father. Also the father of Peter Fonda.
And grandfather of Bridget Fonda, Peter's daughter.
He also witnessed a lynching as a young man and this made him become somewhat of an activist in his life.
It also drove many of his film choices - often choosing projects with a strong social commentary 🤔🇬🇧
@@NigelShepherd-z7k Wow! Never heard that!
Hanoi Jane
Actually, you don't have to be "beyond any doubt." You have to be beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yes, any doubt is impossible in most cases. Reasonable means the jury taking real responsibility. Convicting an innocent man is monstrous, letting a killer go free to kill again is also monstrous. Serious responsibility
Yes, a rare flaw in the movie.
Fonda's character keeps stressing that "It's possible" he didn't do it, but that's not supposed to be the standard at all. Proving that "it's impossible he didn't do it" is itself impossible.
Is the jury foreman supposed to intervene in such cases and remind everyone what the actual standard is?
@@GK-yi4xv I don't know if he's supposed to, but he probably should.
@@GK-yi4xv Nah
And 'reasonable doubt' itself is an inherently subjective term that will differ from person to person: the only parameters are that it is more than a 'preponderance of evidence', and less than 'beyond any doubt'. This is not meant as a criticism of the concept, no functioning legal system could be more precise than that standard, its just something that's worth noting and remembering, especially for jurors who begin to lose their temper against other jurors.
In the 1950s it wasn't really considered unusual in many places to not remember the names of movies being shown at the local theater or the actors therein. Air conditioning and fans weren't very common then, especially in "slum" neighborhoods. Since it was supposedly very hot that night in question (based on the testimony of the woman and the old man who said they saw "it" through open windows), it is very likely that the kid went to the movies to "cool off" as back then, movie theaters were often air-conditioned versus many homes. They had to be to preserve the film stock that was often used multiple times per day for weeks. Thus one would go to the theater, buy a ticket, and be in an air conditioned cool space for several hours until they walked home. Back then, it cost maybe 10 cents or 25 cents to go to the theater, and depending on the place, that would get you sometimes 2 or even 3 movies. 4+ hours. People wouldn't really pay attention to the movie or actors on the screen. They would simply nap or whatever for several hours.
Yes. And even if the intent was actually to "see a movie," people commonly went to theater without even knowing what was playing. If it turned out to be a mediocre movie, they may well not remember it.
Interesting point by you guys about death penalty. It pretty much is giving the state the right to kill but no takebacksies.
I've sat on jury duty before and I love how accurate this movie captures the types of people you'd meet. There's always two to three people who go with whatever is popular because they don't dare to go against the grain. But this movie reminds us a crucial point that you can believe he's guilty but also that there's not enough evidence to convict.
I once was on a hung jury (10 guilty to 2 not guilty.) We deliberated for five days. The peer pressure was tremendous and I was thankful not to be the only holdout. After declaring a mistrial, the Judge took us back into the jury room, told us about some of the evidence he couldn't allow us to hear, and said, if it were a bench trial, he would have dismissed the charges.
I didn't know that happened after a trial is over. Thanks for sharing
my favorite character is the man who doesn't sweat, e. g. marshall. cool headed and analytical. he reminds me of... me. it would take a lot to get me to change my mind but i would hope i wouldn't be so stubborn to refuse to admit i was wrong under such an avalache of reasonable doubt.
the year before fonda starred in his only hitchcock film "the wrong man" (1956) which is the same theme here from a different perspective. the year before that he starred in a classic comedy/drama "mr. roberts" (1955) which co-stars jimmy cagney, william powell and features jack lemon's film debut. fonda also starred as tom joad in john fords fantastic 'the grapes of wrath" (1940). i highly recommend all these films. thanks for the video.
Marshall later starred as a regular on the CBS legal drama, "The Defenders", which "12 Angry Men" writer Reginald Rose created.
Yesss I loved that dude. Prob my second favorite, after Juror #8 ofc. He had no real bias, he was very fact-driven, and just wanted to analyse the situation from many angles. And he was open to being wrong.
Did you notice that Juror #6 (the house painter) had been caring for the old man from the beginning (such as helping him into a chair, noting that he was in the restroom). So, he was already established as the old man's casual protector even before he threatened Juror #3.
I think the old man, Juror #9, was willing to extend the deliberation because it was the most significant thing he had ever been part of...as he said about the old witness.
I've served on a couple of juries. One, in which I was the foreman, was a federal felony case. The trial had lasted only four hours, but we deliberated for four days. The very first vote, as in this case, was 11:1 for guilty. I was very much like Juror #4 in this movie, considering myself very logical. I was also one of the very last people to change to "not guilty," and I recall the specific moment, just as with Juror #4, when I realized the last piece of evidence I was leaning on...wasn't actually very solid.
I think that the whole thing wasn't solid. I probibly would have gone for a retrial, just so both the defendant's lawyer and the prosecution might just do a better job.
Lee J. Cobb was the last guy to come around. Great stage actor..He also played the lead as Willie Loman in the film adaptation of the stage play, "Death of a Salesman." Great play/film. I guess around the same time as this film came out...Dustin Hoffman also played it in a TV adaptation..Also fantastic job!..You may also know Cobb as the Detective in the film "The Exorcist." All these guys were great actors...The little guy (John Fiedler) did the voice of Piglet in the Winnie the Poo cartoons..Can't mistake that voice!
was gonna say, the more old movies they see the more lee cobb will stand out lol
John Fielder's voice was driving me crazy the whole time. I knew I remembered the voice but couldn't place it. Piglet. Of course.
@@njebei He was in a lot of shows and movies. He even shows up in an original Star Trek episode, Wolf in the Fold.
Lee J Cobb also starred in the long running tv western, The Virginian, as Judge Garth.
@@jameswiglesworth5004 is it good? I am intrigued
Women could serve on juries even from the 1920’s, but it was always a choice of the lawyers involved and it still was a much lower percentage, until the 1970’s when there began to be a more noticeable change.
well they used to allow for a person to be tried by a jury of their peers, which meant women would be on the jury for a woman, and men for a man... naturally more men were on trial than women.. but that, and of course if a juror was found to be unfit, could a lawyer do anything about who was on a jury.. but yeah, you can see tons of old movies and shows with mixed juries.. women have been on juries since the 1800s
One of many great films from back in the day. I like it when reactors respect such a movie by not rabbiting on all the way through it. More like this please.
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.
Also...women could serve on juries in the 1950s, the filmmakers just used only men for this version. Keep in mind 12 Angry Men did start as a stage play, and was then a televised drama, and this film is the 3rd iteration...and the finest, I think. The 1990s remake is a worthy 2nd in quality, and it also went with a literal interpretation of the title by having all men on the jury...though it was much more multiracial.
And NETWORK and Murder on the Orient Express.
Sidney Lumet also made the great courtroom drama "The Verdict," with Paul Newman in one of his very best performances.
@@jnagarya519 He also directed Serpico and Dog Day Afternoon, both featuring Al Pacino, Other good ones from Sid include The Pawnbroker with Rod Steiger; The Hill with Sean Connery and Ossie Davis; Q and A with Nick Nolte; Night Falls In Manhattan with Andy Garcia; Find Me Guilty with Vin Diesel and Before The Devil Knows You're Dead with Ethan Hawke & Phillip Seymour Hoffman. What a craftsman who's missed nowadays. His daughter Jenny is a TV writer/producer on Star Trek: Strange New Worlds
Yes! Henry Fonda is Jane and Peter Fonda's father. This was mostly an all star cast for this time period.👍👏👏
I wonder if the fact that this was an all-star cast was the reason for the final scene on the courthouse steps. Since audiences of the time knew all the _actors_ by name, they might not have realized until the end that they didn't know any of the _characters'_ names. It's a little startling to watch such a mesmerizing film and only realize at the end that you never heard any character called by name; not even the kid, the father, or the witnesses.
Thanks for taking the time to watch an older film, you picked a good one. Another you might consider at some point is "Anatomy of a Murder" from 1959, directed by Otto Preminger and starring Jimmy Stewart as a defense attorney. Different sort of story line.
This film deals only with Jury deliberation.
You have to check out a courtroom. Drama where they deal with the evidence.
While not related to 12 Angry Men, the movie Wtness for the Prosecution is the other bookend.
Juries at this time *could* be all male. But women could be so empaneled. You’ll notice the jury room does have a “Ladies” room toward the back, next to the “Men’s” room.
One of the amazing cultural points is the men's behavior with each other. Not afraid to confront and threaten when right.
Two other courtroom movies I recommend are: My Cousin Vinnie (1992) and A Few Good Men (1992).
Great reaction, guys. Another outstanding courtroom-based drama is TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD from 1962.
There are very few movies that can engage so many different people on such different levels throughout time. Such a great flick
They did do a remake in 1997. It had Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, Tony Danza, et cetera. Regarding diversity, three of the jurors were black, and the judge was a woman.
The movie 12 Angry Men takes place in a jury room at the New York County Courthouse in New York City. It's a state court case and New York (state) legalized the right for women to serve on juries there starting in 1937.
Key question: What does the elderly juror know about what it's like to be elderly?
Elderly or not, he projected his own life experience onto a stranger. That isn't evidence.
@@gravitypronepart2201
He never stated it was "evidence" , and he used words such as "might", possibility is the key word here. Everyone can only talk from his/her own perspective, feelings, and conception of the world. nobody is 100% objective, and that's the point.
@@gravitypronepart2201 The jury isn't to _provide_ evidence -- in real life the introduction of the second knife would have been grounds for a mistrial. (I have yet to see a courtroom drama that didn't include one or more ethical violations in order to produce the drama.) Only the judge can approve admission of evidence.
What the elderly juror did was to critically examine the existing evidence, which included the witness testimony.
@jnagarya519 I agree for the most part, but beyond critically examining the eyewitness testimony of the old man, he in effect questioned his his credibility, based , not on factual evidence of any kind, but rather transposing his own personal life experience onto the man. No jury should imagine things into existence. To say the old man's testimony can't be trusted based on a limp, and a torn jacket is ridiculous, just as to dismiss the woman's testimony, based on nothing but marks on her nose. Any juror might mistrust a witness without any reason, but that doesn't constitute reasonable doubt. But you are right. The Case should have been declared a mistrial after the second knife was displayed.
@@gravitypronepart2201 The old man witnesses testimony was not questioned on the limp alone -- watch the film again. It was also based on the claim that he went from his bed through a chain-locked door down a corridor and to a second door in 15 second. That turned out not to be objectively credible.
There was also the fact that it was a hot night, his window was open, and a noisy train was passing by, so it was DOUBTFUL he heard a yell and a body hitting the floor.
The marks on the woman's nose were made by EYEGLASSES. The FACT is that no one wears eyeglasses to bed. The woman testified that she was in bed at the time she "witnessed" the murder. Those OBJECTIVE facts render her testimony unreliable.
The jury's JOB is to examine the PROSECUTION'S case CRITICALLY -- the jury is a check AGAINST state power -- which means critically examining the prosecution's evidence.
But tell us: why do you attack the jury because you want to find the PUERTO RICAN boy GUILTY?
About the lion at the beginning, the first film MGM produced had a lion in it that attacked the "bad guy." The film was "He Who Gets Slapped" (1924).
Yes, they take away cell phones. You can get into big trouble if you’re caught having a cell phone or especially communicating with someone outside.
Great reaction. Good job. I loved how you both were so engaged with the narrative. I have been on a jury. I wish mine had been this dramatic. They do pay jurors. In my state, I think it's $10 per day. One day isn't bad but a long trial can hurt your wallet, so most people try to get out of jury duty. As for the all-male jury, women were absolutely allowed to sit on juries but a man brow-beating a woman with the kind of emotional drama in this script would have been distasteful in the 1950s.
In New York State, it's $40. I was the jury foreman for a burglary case.
Did you know that the Iconic MGM lion roar is actually a tiger's roar? The person who chose to use a tiger's roar said the lion's roar just didn't sound ferocious enough, and the tiger's sounded more majestic.
That's interesting, I didn't know that. I do know that movies that feature a bald eagle, it's call is substituted with the call of a Red Tailed Hawk because it sounds so much more intimidating than the squeak sound the eagle makes.
Over strenuous objection from the Lion's Union.
@@redpine8665 Yes! I remember reading that, too.
You nailed it, the movie is engaging: involves you, it brings it out of you. That's the definition of a good movie, a piece of art, a classic.
Loved how invested you two were in this movie! It’s definitely compelling and draws you in the whole time. It’s great to see more reactors checking it out. 😀
This movie came out the year the year I was born. As a kid it was hard for me to imagine that there was ever color before I was born. All of the family photographs and movies on our black and white T.V. were...well, black and white. I think my generation invented color.
Well, it's tempting to think so, but there were colour films made in the 30s and 40s like The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind, Meet Me in St Louis, Fantasia, Heaven Can Wait etc and plenty in the 50s too. At the time, of course colour was more expensive, but a film like this and many of the detective films were well suited to black and white. Steven Spielberg, David Lynch, the Coen Brothers and other modern directors have actually chosen black and white as they felt it served the subject matter.
There was a remake. I think in the 90’s. I have not seen it.
The mousey juror who timed the walk, John Fiedler was the voice of Piglet in Winnie the Pooh.
True, the remake was filmed in 1997.
I have been on a jury in the UK. It is illegal for me to discuss what happened in the jury room. In court I as foreman gave our verdict, not guilty of grievous bodily harm, guilty of actual bodily harm. There was drama in the court as the defendant jump out of the dock when his victim/ex-girlfriend was giving evidence. It took three policemen to hold him back.
Reasonable doubt came from the British system. We no longer have the death penalty.
We do have lesser courts where three magistrates (part time judges) hear minor cases with no jury.
Great film and smart reaction. I enjoyed my first trip to your channel. I live in the US. I was called a few times for jury duty. The last time 2 years ago, jury pay was $14 a day. We had the option to receive it or donate it to selected charities. Twenty years ago, I worked for an insurance company and they allowed us the option of giving the pay to the company and we received our normal pay. We had the option to receive it or donate it to selected charities. Many of the trials are quite short. Two of my three were less than one day. The third was a murder trial and lasted 4 days. Most cases in the US are settled before trial and many are settled before they go to jury.
Martin Balsam, who played the foreman, was also in the movie psycho. He played a detective by the name of Arborgast.
I think he really stands out in the movie The Bedford Incident.
A piece of triva about the MGM Lion roar! It's not a lion ! They actually dubbed in a tigers roar instead.
It's a lot more fun if you dub in an alligator roar.
Some, but not all, of the jurors, who thought that the defendant was guilty solely based on the boys economic level. In other words, he was poor and lived in a slum, therefore he’s automatically guilty. They never mentioned race but since it was New York, most likely he was Puerto Rican and that could be another reason why some of them automatically thought he was guilty. They kept saying “they”
"REASONABLE DOUBT". THANK GOD🙏🙏🙏🙏
Great acting by juror #4. The way juror 4 looks at juror 3 and says "because I have a reasonable doubt now" as if he's disgusted that juror 3 is still not considering a reasonable doubt now that the eye witness's eyesight is in question.
lots of Good flicks in the 'old days'. in 5 years around 1940 - gone with wind, Wizard of Oz , Casablanca , Citien Kaine... ALL in lots of ' top ten flicks' lists.
HENRY FONDA... A great character study movie starring Fonda as the US President (and Larry Hagman, from "I Dream of Genie" fame) in this drama/thriller from the Cold War era, called --- "Fail Safe" (1964). A great movie that gives us a glimpse on what could go wrong in the nuclear age between superpowers.
Im a fan of the show; "Blue Bloods," and every time they show the courthouse, I think of this movie. Every time I see a reaction, I want to see the movie again.
Great reaction - thanks! I've seen this movie several times over the years (decades) plus numerous reactions. This movie never gets old.
I'm sure someone once told me that as the film progresses the director Sidney Lumet moves the camera lower - from above eye level to below. Walls and ceiling appear more visible which makes the room seem a little smaller. Also he uses more closeups of actors. These choices help increase the claustrophobic atmosphere as the inter-personal tensions ramp up,
A brilliant film, with brilliant actors ( that you may not know about).
It’s a GREAT character film.
Thx for respecting the classics.
There have been several lions that have mimed the roar over the years . And they quite literally just got the lion up on a platform and, because it was a trained lion, its handler had it roar. But by 1985 they decided that a tiger's roar had a better sound than a lion's roar, so they dubbed the lion over with a tiger. Leo, the lion at the start of this movie, is arguably the most famous of the lions. He took over the very year this movie came out from George, his successor, who was the 7th lion to do the roar. Leo is considerably younger than the previous lions were, so he has a much smaller main than you might see on even older movies.
The very first Lion (Slats) didn't roar at all. He just looked around, because sound couldn't be added to movies at that time. His immediate successor was dubbed over with a real lion's roar, just not his own roar.
As of 2021, the lion has been replaced with a CGI model, modeled after the 1957 lion Leo. Having been portrayed in the MGM logo since 1957 (either as himself or in CGI form), Leo is the one most people recognize. In 1957, they were still using a lion's roar. I'm unsure if the sound is from Leo himself though, or from another lion dubbed over him.
Anyway: This is my favorite movie. It's a masterclass in screenwriting, pacing, lighting, blocking, and acting. And how to get so much out of a very tight script. It's just fantastic.
They showed us this movie in high school, and I fell asleep. I must've watched at least 20 reactions. I love this movie now.
Another great movie with Henry Fonda is "The Ox-Bow Incident," where much of the story is done in one spot, campsite.
Great job you two, to a great old classic
Absolutely no need whatsoever to update or remake this film. They nailed it perfectly and anything they'd make today would be a very poor imitation!
The remake was filmed in 1997.
See "Casablanca".
Jury has a lead juror (announces verdict) .
This was a play!!!👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
Although most of us try to avoid jury duty, I think everyone should serve at least once. Trials are a real instruction into human nature. This one was a play for quite a while before the movie was produced. The cast was excellent and the production was a flawless example of what a jury should consider. Your mention of "Once upon a time in the west" resulted in my subbing you. I will look back through your reactions for it. Another play to movie film was the Jimmy Stewart film, "Harvey". It is just as good but not as intense. Excellent reaction.
The lion roar at the start is really a tiger roar, as are most lion sounds in movies
There is a modern remake from 1997. This time the 12 jurors include Black and Latino jurors as well. It's worth a watch as a comparison to the original.
34:27 Juror #11, the watchmaker, talked about the fingerprints being wiped off the knife. Was there some other point about the fingerprints that wasn't mentioned?
They must have somehow missed it or skipped over it.
While women could serve on juries, the lawyers who choose the jurors may have excluded them for various reasons in trying to get the best jury for their case.
One was not the usual form of movie making in the 50s, but you mentioned it was like a stage play. This movie is based on a tv play. Live stage performances on television were not unusual back then.
th-cam.com/video/7DkI2I0W5i8/w-d-xo.htmlsi=oyxsJMIuBvxhknXZ
Great Reaction......
In 1997 they did a "Made for U.S. TV Movie" using the same script..... using known actor of that time....... It was a Pretty Good Movie....
I saw this a couple times in High School (Early 1980's) presented/performed as a stage play.......
The original MGM lion’s roar was actually a tiger’s roar. Lions do not roar like that. Their roar is wimpy in comparison to a tiger’s
The film is based on a teleplay - a live television film - and so was performed on one set much like a Broadway play, and it was decided to film the movie on basically one set to keep the same sense of interaction/feel... and the writer of the story had served on a New York City Jury in a Felony Case, and New York's Judicial System didn't allow Juror's Names to be used for security reasons, so he kept that fact in place...
A video of the original 1954 teleplay is available on TH-cam. Two of the same actors appear: th-cam.com/video/7DkI2I0W5i8/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Uqn85ytLnChTA2PR
I was in a jury a few years back and it wasn't on anything nearly as important as murder. It played out quite a lot like that.
A juror is not 'paid' but is reimbursed expenses.
glad that 'younger' folks are finding it.. always a classic and should be a must see for anyone
and EVERYONE
When it was released 12 Angry Men actually bombed at the box office. Back in 1957 color film was all the rage, as was being shot in widescreen. Even with all the critical accolades, it really didn't find an audience till it started being shown on television. It was nominated for Best Picture but lost to another classic, Bridge on the River Kwai.
Not many buildings had air conditioning at the time of the movie, particularly older court buildings.
I love this movie cuz we never actually find out if he killed his father or not
I enjoyed your reaction to one of my favorite movies. You might find The Oxbow Incident of interest. It's been described as 'Western Noir', with Henry Fonda heading a stellar cast. It's not yet been discovered by the reception crowd, it seems.
I did Jury duty several times in the UK in the 1970s and 1980's, and they paid my wages, but it was all tax free, plus some other food and travel allowances. One of my cases went on for 7 weeks, so i made quite a lot more money than i would normally do. I don't know if they did it that way in the USA though.
Thank you for your reaction.
In the US, the stipend for jury duty is very slight. When I served on a couple of federal juries in the 80s, one was in Washington DC...I got $25 _a day_ for five days of jury duty (I made more than that an hour). And no meals or other allowances.
I must correct you. The standard is not “without any doubt,” it is “without any reasonable doubt.”
Also, the reason why there were no women, is that the jury pool usually came from tax records, and since far fewer women held jobs in those days, they had a low chance of being called for duty. The lack of Blacks or diverse ethnicities is not unrealistic for the time. The jury will reflect the demographics of the jurisdiction, which in those days was much less commonly mixed. However, the realistic reason is that this was originally a TV drama, and discrimination at the time prevented Blacks from playing important roles in TV. I have served on a jury, and this is a true representation, although the level of anger is much worse in this case.
This is a classic because the script is tremendous, the direction is brilliant, and the performances are, in my opinion, the greatest ensemble-acting display ever.
Also, in NY there was a "housewive's clause" that allowed women with children to be easily waived for jury duty. Blacks would have been just as discriminated against serving jury duty in 1957 as they were discriminated against as television actors in 1954. The major part of that discrimination was a matter of what residency records were used for the jury pool...remember that housing was very strictly segregated, even in NYC.
Reasonable doubt, not “no doubt”.
In 1957, jurors were paid $40-$50 a day to serve on a jury (granted, this is based on a quick AI query). Thrown into an inflation calculator, that would equate to $450-$560.
Today, jurors are still only paid 50-60 a day. That would be $4 in 1957.
It ain't right, I tell ya!
The history of women on juries, after the right to vote was official, is interesting. Some localities had women on juries right away (there are 1930s movies about that), others didn't. Or more accurately, didn't make it a priority. It tended to be easy for women to get excused for various reasons. In general, the idea that a jury should be diverse enough to reflect the local community was yet to come.
All A list actors at the time. Henry Fonda was a great actor but according to his family he had a hard time showing emotion, empathy, opposite his character here. His final film, On Golden Pond, played on his strained family relationship with his real life daughter Jane also in the movie. Kind of a reconciliation drama well worth watching.
Women have served on juries since the late 1800's. Every state was different but I think every state has had women jury members since the 1950's. Also, just FYI. Most people including men didn't have voting rights throughout history. And when men were allowed to vote in the U.S it also obligated them to be eligible for military conscription (the draft). The idea being "if the government can force a person to go to war they should be allowed to vote for leaders that would or wouldn't decide IF they go to war.
One more. Ed Begley (Juror 10. old crabby/racist guy) was the father of Ed Begley jr. (if you saw him you most likely would recognize him, because, like his father is one of those 'face's without a name' character actors, who was in over 200 films, himself..Very interesting guy in real life..He has a million great stories about Hollywood, and many other things..Way back in the early 70's he was one of the first guys to own an electric car...Btw, you wouldn't know it by looking at them, but they look nothing alike! Jr. is like 6' 4', and thin.
Another point about the glasses. In those days, the lens was made out of glass, not plastic as they are today. Plastic is a lot lighter weight than glass, and will not leave as deep of an impression as does glass.
Personally, I am nearsighted. Meaning, I can see well enough to read a book, mess around the house, or watch TV. But to look across the street with any clarity, I must put them on.
Now in this case, it is not known if the woman was nearsighted, or farsighted. And unfortunately, Jurors are not allowed to review any evidence that was not presented in court. Meaning, there was reasonable doubt to both her nearsightedness, and farsightedness. And since the Jurors were unable to question the witness, they had no choice but to rule on the side of nearsightedness, which would have prevented the woman from seeing clearly enough for a positive identification, much less, a conviction.
And BTW. It was Public Hangings (not injections) that tamed the Wild West. But once bleeding heart liberal women were allowed to vote, many States no longer have a death penalty. And in deed, since women are now allowed on jurys, crime goes unpunished, and murderers go free. Or in other words, The Wild West Has Returned!
among many things, I think what the movie exposes quite well is that the system is flawed against the poor.
The young boy had a "public defender" rather than a lawyer. Which is why the case looked so cut and dry. Public defenders aren't tasked beyond trying to keep the sentence low in the united states today, but a lawyer is beyond most peoples income.
If it hadn't been for the one jury member thinking outside the box, the young boy was for sure going to be sentenced to death.
More than just the poor. The best lawyers tend to be acceptable only to the rich. Most Americans have to rely on public defenders. Well, I believe so.
@@gravitypronepart2201 Public defenders seems to be their only option for sure.. unless they can get themselves beyond their available means to education and are able to defend themselves- like a hollywood movie lol.
The only time I seen someone who wasn't a lawyer do this- and still failed, was serial killer ted bundy, who actually could afford a lawyer easily. He was being primed to be a senator.
Uh hg= you want a PERFECT SYSTEM with No Flaws?
Name any country that has such a system? And which country does it better ,
Ms Gas Lighter???
A great film, it’s in my all time top 10. A great reaction too, great post film chat👏🏻👏🏻👍👍😍🇬🇧
Women have been allowed on juries in New York since 1937, a couple of decades before this movie was made. In this case the jury happened to be all men. It's interesting to think how the movie would have been different if there were even one woman juror.
There was a remake of "12 Angry Men" in 1997. It had a lot of big stars in it: Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, James Gandolfini, Edward James Olmos, Hume Cronyn, Ossie Davis. . . There was more diversity, but it was still all women. There was also a Russia remake in 2007 called "12."
I'm sure women were just clamoring to have to sit in a courtroom all day, just like they were clamoring for forced military service.
By the time this movie was made, most states did allow women to be on juries, but not all of them.
OMG.. is that a VFI fighter on your wall? My Robotech heart is thrilled
Henry Fonda had two children, Peter and Jane, both actors.
Peter’s daughter Bridget is also an actor
I sat on jury. I voted "not guilty" along with 8 others!!!👍🏼😎
Henry Fonda in the grapes of wrath..
Pete Fonda "EASY RIDER" HENRY'S SON.
Jane Fonda "BARBARELLA" "THE CHASE" "BAREFOOT IN THE PARK" Still acting!!!👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼❤❤❤
Lay you out with your toes sticking up in the air, used to be a saying back then. It used to be more popular during the 20s. If you are knocked out unconscious your muscles are limp and your feet would lay to the sides. If you are dead and rigor mortis has set in then your muscles would be stiff and your toes would stick straight up.
My personal favorite variant has the foe "laid out colder than the paint on an icehouse floor...and twice as flat." 🤭
(Credit author Donald J. Sobol.)
I've seen this movie many times and would probably have voted not guilty, partly because of the points raised by the Fonda character but mostly from a point that was never made in the case. Several jurors scoffed at the boy's alibi that the knife fell through a hole in his pocket. But was his alibi thoroughly checked out? Was there really a hole in his pocket? If not, then his whole story falls apart, but there was a hole, then that part of his alibi must be true. So we can also conclude that the rest of his story could be true as well. But since we don't know if there was a hole or not, that's enough reasonable doubt for me. Just my two cents' worth.
Slightly flawed logic. If there was an hole in the boy's pocket, then that part of the story COULD be true. There is still no guarantee that it WAS. A better part of the investigation would have been to check out the shop-keeper. He said he had only seen the knife as one of a kind, but for all we know, he could have had a box full of about five hundred of the things in the back.
Such a great reaction to one of the best classics of all time!👍👏🎉
37:26 Thai version: _3 Bored Men._
Great reaction! Very thoughtful.
With regard to Henry Fonda (father) & Jane Fonda (daughter), while nepotism is often a culprit, not in this case. Anyone familiar with Jane Fonda's films would argue she was a far superior actor than her father ...as do I. 📽Klute '71 or 📽On Golden Pond '81 (She stars with her father in his last role before death).
Both she and her father were truly some of best (actors) Hollywood had to offer! 🥰
They don't make em like that any more.
The Jury system comes from English Common Law, which evolved since the reign of Alfred the Great, King of Wessex, in the 8th century AD. Most other countries in Europe inherited the Roman Law system from the Roman Empire, which has judges deciding instead, like your system. The idea for juries was to avoid the abuse of power by aristocrats over peasants, by picking twelve random men from the same social class - "a jury of his peers" - who should have a better understanding of the defendant's situation and the ability to put themselves in his shoes when deciding if he was justified in doing what he did or not. So an aristocrat can't just pin an accusation on someone and have them killed by the say-so of a fellow aristocrat with the same prejudices who is the judge. Juries are supposed to be able to sympathise, in other words, and it's wrong for prosecutors to be able to kick out jurors who do. It also allows for the application of common sense, which lawyers and judges often enough have had educated out of them.
👏🏻👍🏻👍🏻…May I suggest the comedy “The Birdcage”, with Robin Williams, and the heartwarming “Fried Green Tomatoes “, with Kathy Bates and Mary Stuart Masterson. Promise you’ll enjoy them both🔥
The Birdcage is incredible! We watched that movie a lot growing up. Have not seen your other recommendation.
Anatomy of a Murder and Inherit the Wind are two more great court room films from that time period. Tbh, I think they're both better than this one, as good as it is.
There's a 1997 remake. But this is a film that doesn't need to be remade.
There's actually a Russian version that came out in 2009.
@@Madbandit77 A Russian version with a jury at a fixed show trial?
Check out "STREETCAR NAMED DAVID SIRE"
HENRY FONDA IS EXCELLENT IN "GRAPES OF WRATH" BY JOHN STEINBECK...A TRUE WRITER OF THE UNDERCLASS!!!❤❤❤❤👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
Great reactions
There is a remake from the 90s, in color, with Jack Lemon. There's even a Russian version.