Absolutely agreed. I love it when a reactor comes to the right conclusion. The jury never proved the kid’s guilt or innocence simply recognized the room for reasonable doubt.
It wasn't even that, it was very pure and clear demonstration of how peoples connection with the reality can be blured by their own reason. It can be ignorance, can be prejudgment, can be pain of the past that you don't even realize. We all live in this world without realizing how spoiled our connection with the reality by some small details. We educated human being with several degrees can't remove our own pride, prejudice, fears to see things how they really are, and to be trully smart and not only in paper work. For me this movie is perfect lesson for those who has a question: "what is it to be smart?". It exactly what we saw with first juror in doubt, even though he didn't know if the boy was guilty or not, he didn't let anything to cloud his clear mind, not other opinion, not bad relation with son, not poor childhood, not baseball ticket and not the need for attention like an old jurror
@@garri5108 The elderly juror was one of the most clear-minded and perceptive. It was his recognition of the "small" details that caused many other jurors to pause and begin critically examining their own views of the case. Ask yourself, in his evaluations of the two witnesses, especially the elderly witness: how did the elderly juror know what it's like to be elderly? And note how some of the younger jurors "knew better" so entirely missed that question and its answer: the elderly juror understood the elderly witness precisely because he too was elderly. And his experience was reinforced and validated by the younger jurors who mocked and dismissed his views _ONLY_ BECAUSE HE WAS ELDERLY. He was one of the smartest of the jurors.
I remember I saw this film when I was 14 years old. I saw it was in the IMDB Top 10 and didnt know why... until I watched it. Dear God, what a great movie. Definitely one of the best I've ever seen.
The way this film creates deep characters without any backstory and navigates moral complexity so skillfully in 90mins is amazing. Even the portrayal of the racist characters feels very true to life: not coming out and saying it but making thinly-veiled allusions to "them" the whole time.
Agreed. I think one of the key messages that I get from the film is that this process of trial by jury depends on 12 fallible people that all bring their own perspectives in life experiences. Some jurors are patient and some are just lazy and want to get on with their lives ASAP. The quality of justice a society creates is equal to the collective effort that people put into it.
It is a brilliant script. Another film equally compelling is 1966's "A Man for All Seasons," based on the history of Henry the 8th and Sir Thoms More. Superb film in all particulars. And another great court drama film by the same director of "12 Angry Men": "The Verdict," with Paul Newman and James Mason.
Switchblade knives were illegal. The store owner who sold it -- it was illegal for him both to have it and sell it -- claimed that it was the only one he'd ever seen. Sure. he's believable.
I hadn't thought about it until I read your comment...but saying he'd never seen another like it may also be the shopkeeper's way of saying, "It was just that one time I sold a knife..." I don't believe they said in the movie if Juror 8 went to the same shop that the accused did or not, but if there are many knives like that (there were of course, at least two) it may be that he was also not wanting to expose a black market vendor. As it currently stood, he was admitting to selling only a single switch-blade by saying he'd never seen another like it.
@@travisanderson77 The store owner was obviously a witness at trial, though he didn't "witness" the killing. Even the juror who bought the knife admitted that he'd broken the law by buying it. The store owner had to know he possessed and sold it illegally.
@@987654321wormy It was illegal by 1956-57 when the murder took place in the film. New York made it illegal to sell or possess a switch blade knife in 1954. Google The tool that would not be killed
To wormy: It was illegal to own a switchblade knife by 1956-57 when the murder took place in the film. New York made it illegal to sell or possess a switch blade knife in 1954. Google The tool that would not be killed
@@arrow1414 Even Texas, in its constitution, banned possession of a whole range of "personal" weapons, including stilettos and brass knuckles. The person claiming that switchblades were not illegal is full of it. Those and hand-made "zip guns" were well known to be illegal. A technicality which was omitted for the sake of drama: if a juror were to introduce evidence not admitted at trial -- which is admitted, or excluded, according to existing rules of evidence -- it would result in a mistrial.
Most of the other jurors turning their backs on the bigot is so impactful. Then Lee J. Cobb (the last hold out) realizing he was letting his problems with *his* son affect his decisions even when it was illogical.
And look at the exchange/s between the baseball fan and the juror with the moustache: the latter is an immigrant who truly understands and respects the system; the baseball fan is anti-immigrant (even though HIS ancestors were immigrants) and irresponsible as concerns his civic DUTIES.
He's a know-it-all bully who is used to shouting others down. He not only has contempt for those younger than he, but also for those older than he. He's a jerk. And the baseball fan is spineless, no conviction about anything except being entertained.
@@michaeledwardhunter It has been used in law schools. Its "intent" is to teach civics -- how jury deliberations are done. It was a bust at thw box office because most citizens are like the baseball fan -- all about "freedom" and never about responsibility; about civic duty in a democracy. The juror with the moustache is an immigrant, apparently having escaped a less-than-democratic system, and he understands due process better than many of the US-born citizens.
A bust at the box office and now look how it's doing! Like many other things, it might've been subject to a hasty trial and wrongly judged. @@jnagarya519
It is nice to see younger generations finding these classics. They get to appreciate GREAT writing and acting without all the bells and whistles that modern film lean to heavily on. The comment about remembering 12 names had me chuckle. One of the subtle brilliance of this film is you don't know anyone's name until the very last scene on the steps outside.
Yeah, you go from disliking him as a loud bully, to feeling sorry for him. That bit where everything hits him after rips his son's photo apart, going from angrily certain, to instantly regretful, to sad and defeated in seconds. His facial expressions are very emotive in that scene. Powerful acting.
Ed Begly's character Juror #10, is actually worse than you think. I don't know how many times I watched this before I realized what he began his diatribe with," I've lived among them all my life!" So he lives in the same "bad" neighborhood as the people he's vilifying. He has three garages, so they are his customers as well as his neighbors. How narcissistic is that? He tries to make himself seem superior by smearing everyone around him. To go off openly that way means he's been getting reinforcement from others, and is shocked to find the rest of the jury shutting him down. He really does sit down without opening his mouth again!
"12 Angry Men" was originally a teleplay, a play written for TV in the 50's, before the convenience of videotape, TV often just did straight up plays with one camera pointing toward the stage. The playwright drew from his own experiance as a juror, but it wasn't directly based on a particular trial. The only actor from the original TV play broadcast reprising his role for this movie version, is Joseph Sweeny who played the elderly juror.
Yeah that's my take on it. But I like that they keep it open ended because depending on place and time period, this sort of prejudice could happen to any race. Even among white people the Irish or the Polish would be 2nd-class citizens once upon a time. Someone across the world could watch this movie and see how it applies to the minorities in their own hometown
@@samwallaceart288 yea but Latino is the only option cause some of the jurors look Italian/irish , so they can’t be saying them with Italians/irish on the jury
They're a good reasons why these classic films are still enduring to this day. Great job on your reaction and review. For me, the thing I love the most about this film is that, aside from a brief look at the defendant at the beginning, we know nothing else about the trial. So, we the audience, become the jury of the jurors. If you enjoyed "It's a Wonderful Life", I'd highly recommend "The Best Years of our Lives"which also came out in 1946. It's about three very ordinary servicemen who are trying to figure out how to reintegrate into society after serving in World War II. A society that has largely moved on without them. In that film, the director, screenwriter and several actors are all actual World War I or World War II veterans.
Great recommendation of The Best Years of Our Lives. That movie definitely deserves to be better known. I’ve seen it several times, I cry every time. Most people today don’t think about how disrupted both veterans and their families were by the war. People didn’t talk about their feelings as much back then.
@@Historian212 I have been into films for a long time and hadn't heard of "The Best Years of Our Lives" until very recently. Being a post - World War II film I was expecting a very patriotic film with a lot of John Wayne style swagger to it. It was very much not like what I had expected. Both "The Best Years of Our Lives" and "It's a Wonderful Life" came out in 1946, however, the former seems to have been pretty much forgotten and the latter... it seems everybody has seen at least once. Both are great films but rather different kinds of films.
For me this is one of the most important films ever. It shows that without Juror No. 8 there would certainly have been a guilty verdict. Juror No. 7 has tickets to a baseball game even though he knows full well that he is also a juror in a murder trial on this, the most important day. Things can't go fast enough for him. No. 10 is obviously a racist as he says "they are all born liars". No. 12 is in good hands in the advertising industry. Thinking about it visibly overwhelms him. No. 3 is actually conducting a trial against his son who dares to go his own way. With that kind of upbringing, I would have left at the first opportunity. No. 3 constantly talks about respect and behaves impudently like an ax in the woods. No. 9, who was already very hesitant during the first vote, fortunately saves the situation, asks first-class questions and provides the decisive objection. There is much more, and it shows how fragile the structure of the 12 is and what catastrophic influence numbers 3 and 10 have. As I said, this is an absolutely top-class film and invites you to see it several times
On re-watch, we can see that all the actors were in character all the time, and some of their early actions in the background became significant later on. For instance, the juror who defended the old man had been helping and looking after the old man in the background from the beginning. I think the reason the old man voted not guilty at the beginning was to have more time in an important role...to which he alluded when talking about why the old witness might embellish his testimony for attention. I've done jury duty a couple of times. One case was similar to this one, with us voting 11-1 for conviction on the first vote. This wasn't a murder case, but it would have put the man in prison for 20 years. The trial took only four hours, but we spent four full days in deliberation. The judge refused to allow us to "hang." I was like juror #4...the logical guy who didn't sweat. I was also a hold-out for guilty to nearly the end, hanging on to what I thought was solid evidence...until I realized it actually wasn't so solid. I had that same kind of "nobody sleeps in their glasses" moment. But it took four days of discussion to get me to that moment. We have to remember that in American jurisprudence, the concept is "Innocent until proven guilty." That means the jury is _not_ supposed to be "even handed." When you walk into the courtroom, your attitude is supposed to be "that person looks innocent." You're supposed to be biased for innocence; it's the responsibility of the prosecution to prove otherwise. That's the value of someone like juror #8, and a reason why any conscientious person should be willing to serve on a jury. This was originally a 1954 television production aired _live._ A video of that production, starring a couple of the same actors, is available on TH-cam. There was an updated television version produced in the 1990s with a racially diverse cast. Because the cast was diverse, the racism angle was spun much differently. But this 1957 version stands out as the best. Two other black-and-white classics I'd urge you to watch (and with this movie, my black-and-white "urge" list only has three movies) would be To Kill a Mockingbird and Casablanca. Many people think To Kill a Mockingbird just a courtroom drama, but it's much more than that. It's a truthful portrait of the society of the American south of the 1930s. It's a real heavy-weight that will stay with you for the rest of your life. Casablanca is a war-romance with luscious cinematography, an intriguing plot, a lot of clever humor, and sparkling dialog. Casablanca is probably the most quoted movie of all time. Interestingly, they were still writing the script while they were filming...the actors themselves didn't know how the movie would end until the last day.
12 Angry Men is ripe for another remake. Just a straight remake without too much updating. If Tarantino directed, we don’t want the jurors to murder each other.
@@MarcosElMalo2 The 1957 version can't be bettered. No need for a remake because everything that goes on in this is still the reality today, including the blatant racism.
7:51 - They purposely kept the "them" vague, because there's always a "them" and who the "them" is, is relative. At the time this movie was made, there was a large wave of immigration from Puerto Rico, not the first one either, and it led to certain sentiments and tension. The boy on trial is meant to be Puerto Rican. The old guy definitely has opinions about people in slums too though.
Interestingly, the actor who played him was Italian, but a lot of people believe and believed he was Hispanic. It's amazing how often Italians play Hispanics and vice-versa in films (Andy Garcia, a Cuban, practically made a career out of playing Italians. Heh). Anti-Italian sentiment was ripe in the country in the earlier parts of the century in particular.
Hey, Shadowcat! This was originally a teleplay for a "Playhouse 90"-type show in the '50's which were basically filmed theatrical productions broadcast during the early days of American TV. Before formulaic sitcoms and dramas became TV staples, actual playwrights were tapped to provide original or adapted content of high quality. The story really works as a theatrical piece with 12 players in one setting. A few years later, the great Sidney Lumet (pronounced Loom-ET) directed it for film. Lumet is considered one of the quintessential New York directors like Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese and Spike Lee. The film is considered one of the greatest courtroom dramas ever made. It is my 11th favorite film of all time! I like how Fonda's chief antagonists are fire and ice: the bombastic Lee J. Cobb and the coolly logical E.G. Marshall. The cast was stacked with some of the best character actors of the day some of which had amazing careers like Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Jack Warden, Ed Begley and Robert Webber. However, it's live-wire Lee J. Cobb who steals the spotlight with his histrionics and rage! When he has his breakthrough and realizes why he's rushed to judgment, his collapse is shattering and brings me to tears every time. Henry Fonda's magnanimity as he helps him to his feet and gives him his coat is equally moving. Foreigner George Voskovec and the elderly Joseph Sweeney were holdovers from the TV production. A remake was made for cable TV with a black Mykelti Williamson portraying a reverse racist. Jack Lemmon had the Fonda role and George C. Scott had the Cobb role. Edward James Olmos played the foreigner, Tony Danza was the sports guy, Armin Mueller-Stahl was the logical stockbroker and James Gandolfini was the blue collar guy. Another remake was considered by adding women to the mix. The project was abandoned because the inclusion of female energy would change the dynamic of the story and the energy of the room.
That at the end is the moment he realized not only that he projected his resentments for his kid on the case but far more hurtful, that he wanted all that time to condemn his son to death. That would make any parent burst into tears. PS: Prejudice, prejudgement or impression are pretty much synonyms.🙂
Better to set a guilty person free than kill an innocent person while letting the guilty one get away knowing no one is even looking for him anymore at the same time.
The ethnicity or background of the accused is never spelled out, which makes the story apply to prejudice towards any group or race. When there is a quick shot of the young man at the beginning, he has unspecified features but has dark eyes and a slightly darker skin tone so he may be of Hispanic descent, mixed race, Middle Eastern, or from Southern or Eastern Europe, or Jewish, or part of what used to be called “gypsies.” However, at the time this was written, there was a large immigration from Puerto Rico to New York which caused a lot of conflict (see “West Side Story…”) so it could be that he was Puerto Rican. By leaving it vague, it helps make the story more timeless and shows that racism, prejudice or bigotry can exist anyplace, towards anyone.
@@ammaleslie509 Juror #10 says he's "lived among them my whole life" -- that undercuts the implication that the defendant is Puerto Rican. He could be anything, because bigotry against any group is wrong. The writers were careful never to give the defendant a name, because he's everyman, all of us. I think it was a mistake to show his face at all, we should have been able to imagine a Hispanic kid, or black, or Jewish, or poor... any ethnic, religious, or class distinction that makes someone a target.
@@ammaleslie509 but in the 1950s the Puerto Ricans were new to the neighborhood in the 1950s, so he wouldn't have lived among Puerto Ricans his whole life. Tension between new groups of immigrants and established communities has been a central theme of New York's history since it was still Niew Amsterdam and the Dutch burghers were complaining about the English moving in and not properly assimilating.
Definitely see To Kill a Mockingbird, one of the greatest movies of last century. I'm going on Saturday to see it on stage with Richard Thomas (John boy from the Walton's)
Your statement about jury duty at 33:00 is excellent. I have a lot of respect for people who don’t automatically put themselves in the role of “good guy” or “hero/heroine” in a hypothetical situation, but phrase it instead as “I hope I would do X,” or “I’d like to think I would X.” Realistic, honest, and humble.
A friend served on a jury some time ago. She didn't disclose details of the case (for obvious reasons), but she did say that the most difficult thing those present had to contend with were several jury members who did not know how to *think*. A trial is (or should be) the very definition of a process based on facts, reason and evidence, but very few people know how to think like this, the required skills and basic knowledge are not taught in schools anymore (logic, philosophy, ethics, argument, etc.) Both sides, the prosecution and defense, will use every verbal trick they can (short of actually lying) to convince the jury one way or the other, because it's their job. The prosecution may, for example, discard evidence which doesn't support their case, so it's never presented at trial. If people do not know what sophistry, gas lighting, strawman arguments, etc., are, or how to recognise them when listening to others, then they have little hope of being able to properly consider what they have heard during a trial. If you watch an old TV series like Boston Legal, almost every "successful" outcome of a case for the firm is not due to their arguments actually being objectively correct; rather, they win because their lawyers know how to present the most convincing summary via verbal skill, ie. they often win by exploiting sophistry or other methods. The viewer frequently knows whether their win is justified in terms of genuine guilt or innocence, but really a jury shouldn't be persuaded one way or the other just because either lawyer is simply the better speaker. The series though never shows jury delberations, instead it always makes it look like the case is decided based on the orrative skill of the closing arguments, which is kinda absurd. The basics of logic & suchlike are absent from modern teaching, concepts such as proof by negation, implication vs. inference, etc. A great deal of modern narrative discourse is instead based on emotion, facts are regarded as irrelevant; this is the dominant cultural norm in current movies, TV and mainstream media. If one's thought processes are defined by emotional responses then it's impossible to consider evidence rationally and objectively, to separate one's biases from the matter at hand. Many people see the world though a particular lense (often political) and are thus incapable of being rationale when contemplating facts and evidence (look up the video on YT called, "Snow Flags cause Feminist SJW Outrage at the mall" for a classic example of how bad this can be). Juries though are typically selected from the general populace at random. Well, as Heinlein put it, it's a sad fact of nature that half the population have got to be below average. Put bluntly, below a certain level of IQ, it simply isn't possible for a person to perform the required role of a jury member, they are mentally unfit to do so, but no nation with a jury system has a mechanism for ensuring that all jurors at the very least have a sensible baseline of intelligence. I was notified of potential jury service last autumn; for one week (though perhaps as long as two), one must be available if required to serve. All I knew was that the case category would be of the more serious kind. In the event I was not called, after three days the recorded message on the court phoneline said attendance would no longer be needed (probably because the trials ended sooner than expected). As I understood the process, each week some 200 people selected at random from the electoral roll are chosen as the potential jury pool for that week, with a further week of potential rollover . Even though I didn't serve, I did spend a lot of time beforehand researching what the task would entail, reading court documents, refreshing my knowledge of the art of the argument and other matters. After reading so much, I realised my greatest worry was that I might be among one or more people in the jury who, as portrayed in the film, either didn't care about the matter at hand or had already decided one way or the other based on personal prejudice or some other factor. I thought I would probably find it very hard to be patient with such people when the entire future of someone's life may be at stake. The film portrays this issue very well. Of course it can also go the other way, a jury may end up consisting almost entirely of good, upstanding, thoughtful people who do a fine job of considering the evidence, seeing past any sophistry in the proceedings and coming to a relevant conclusion (this must happen sometimes just by chance), but the possibility that one might find oneself immersed within the opposite scenario worried me greatly. Thus, I well understand your desire never to be called for jury service, in the end I'm mostly glad I was not, but then... consider this: - If you're the kind of person who is better able to think about these issues (and from your reaction it sure looks that way) then, if you were the accused on trial, wouldn't you surely wish that everyone on the jury consisted of people like you? People with the smarts to do a proper job and take the matter seriously? In other words, if everyone who was by definition the right kind of person to serve had the ability to choose not to, then every person accused of anything would always be at the mercy of juries consisting of clueless idiots and would thus stand no chance of the evidence being given proper deliberation or attaining a just outcome. What a terrible world that would be. This btw is why the ancient Greek system of electing officials to serve was based on choosing those deemed best qualified by all, whether they wanted their assigned role or not. Hence why jury service *must* be compulsory in the way it is, it's the only way the system can ensure that, despite the potential for idiots to be included due to random selection, there's a decent chance that any jury will have at least a few good people who can help direct proceedings in a sensible manner. (tbc..)
(continued...) Further, something which is unfortunately often very relevant to modern trials: the nature of "evidence". These days evidence will often include forensic or other materials, the nature and relevance of which will be conveyed to the jury in terms of probabilities. Alas, we humans are extremely bad at judging probabilities, or indeed of even understanding what they mean, especially how statistical quantities combine under different circumstances. Juries are expected to make decisions based on evidence concerning DNA and other materials, yet few of them realise that the way such evidence is presented can often be twisted to appear far more reliable and relevant than it really is (eg. expressions such as "the odds of" a thing are X-to-1, selectively defining the context, etc.) For example, the idea that DNA testing produces a unique match for a person is a typical example (it doesn't, that's not how the process works), and multiple trials have proven this notion wrong, yet still either side will make absolute statements about the nature of statistical evidence which are often unjustified. Some years ago there was a significant shift in the dependability of ballistic evidence when it was discovered that existing techniques long considered reliable were not infact as good as had been assumed. I remember New Scientist reporting on the matter. Fingerprint analysis is another can of worms in such matters, the odds of a false +ve are higher than most would assume. TV series such as CSI have also distorted how the public regards forensic evidence. A simple example: imagine you attend a friend's birthday party at which there are 20 people in total; what is the probability that at least one other person present has the same birthday? Few can answer this correctly or even think about how to approach working out the answer. When long ago I did my comp sci degree, statistical analysis was the module I had in advance assumed would be very boring, but in reality quickly decided was fascinating and indeed have found to be the most useful in my work ever since. Likewise the elective module of Production Management was intriguing because much of it depended on statistical modelling (the chances of a factory production line failing, the projected cost to production, necessary insurance, etc.) I remember a great line from the recommended book I bought, "People use statistics as a drunk uses a lamp post: for support rather than illumination." I shall end with a final example. If dear reader you can answer this correctly and justify your answer, then I think you would be a good candidate for jury service: - Given a fair coin, if one rolls twenty heads in a row, what is the probability that the next roll will be a tail? At uni in 1989 I actually ended up in an argument in the theatre with the lecturer about the answer, because I initially did not agree. After a great deal of back & forth during which he seemed to be trying to avoid saying something, he finally interjected and said, look, what you're referring to here is a class of statistics we've not yet covered called Bayesian Theory, which we'll get to later, but for the moment what matters is the critical framing of the question, which you've completely missed (and he was right, I had; three guesses what he was referring to). Then at last I understood. It's this sort of issue which most people don't understand and is why expecting random members of the public to make decisions based on presented probabilities, the very nature of which may be framed in a deliberately distorted light, is such a huge problem for jury trials; correct judgement can depend upon the presence or absence of a single critical word. Indeed, look up, "Bayes Theorem in Law" to see how relevant it is (ie. conditional probabilities; in trials, jurors may confuse the stated odds associated with a piece of evidence with the odds of guilt). For an excellent example reference on this, look up the Oct/2011 news article on The Guardian web site called, "A formula for justice", it explains the many complexities involved, citing multiple example cases.
I once heard a great radio dramatization of 12 Angry Men. You'd think it'd be hard to keep track of everyone, especially since they don't have names. But the characters are so well drawn, and the performances so uniformly top-notch, that it was just as riveting! (Granted, it helped that several Star Trek actors, whose voices I know very well, were in the cast).
At the end with the old man introducing himself, that seems like such an old fashioned thing seeing two men introducing themselves with their last names only. No one would do that now.
I've been on two juries, a DUI and the other one was a murder case. In BOTH juries there were people who made it clear that they were in a hurry to leave. It was not due to things like a baseball game, but they said things like "I have a life. I need to get back to..." and then they'd say what important thing they needed to being doing. This movie portrays that kind of juror perfectly. Those kind of people annoy me instantly. They are implying that those of use who take being a juror seriously don't have lives.
Proves two important points: being judged by 12 ordinary people, clueless, prejudiced and in a hurry to return to their daily routine makes no sense. And more important the death penalty is barbaric and no longer acceptable. Soon it will be applied only in absolute dictatorships and backward Countries.
Interesting that you felt it implied you and the other more conscientious jurors didn’t have lives. My first thought reading your comment was that those jurors (that just wanted to finish quickly) didn’t take their responsibilities seriously, and/or didn’t care whether or not a guilty person was set free, or an innocent one punished.
@@sfkeepay How else can you interpret it when the reason they want to leave quickly also applies to everyone else? If they say "I don't have the time to sit here. I have things I need to do." well, yeah so does EVERYONE else on the jury. So for them to say that, they saying they don't think that applies to us, it just applies to them. They think the rest of us have nothing better to do than sit here on the jury. There IS a difference between saying "I have better things to do" and saying "We have better things to do". Saying it the first way makes them sound like they think they're special.
@@flibber123 , I think you’re almost certainly correct. And the way you describe it really makes it sound like a kind of narcissism. Your insight seems important - like the kind of thing that’s very useful to know if you’re in a situation where you have to deal with someone, and you recognize something about them that may suggest what that individual will respond to. Like in your example, people with narcissistic tendencies respond well to compliments and flattery, but quickly become angry if they or their ideas are questioned or opposed.
I channeled this film when watching DUNE. When the Fremen are said to be “dangerous and unreliable,” I sarcastically said, “Oh, there’re some GOOD things about ’em too. I’ve known a COUPLE who were okay.”
I think she glossed right over the scene at the end where the holdout juror rips up the photo of him and his son and u kinda realize all his anamosity towards the defendant is mostly about him and his son. The defendant is a son who stabbed his father.
Yeah, the power of that moment was completely lost. Tearing up the picture is the climax of the whole film and it was left out. Sometimes it takes a while for folks to learn how to be attentive to old movies on a first watch. Modern movies are basically not subtle with words or visuals, and attention can wander when you know you can pause and rewind if you miss something. That's not how people watched movies back in the day. If you missed something you missed it, so that was an incentive to pay close attention. To follow a movie with this kind of dialogue means watching every shot and listening to every word that is said. For example she asked why Juror #7 was anxious to leave, when his baseball tickets are mentioned multiple times. Still I give anyone credit for being willing to watch the classics!
Thanks, Shy! ⚖ This classic tale underlines the importance of not jumping to conclusions... of following evidence... of using logic to deduce. Far too many have forgotten this simple-yet-vital message.
Normally I would say it's likely to do with the whole copyright issue. However in the car of this film I've seen multiple reactions to the film that have the most pivotal moments of the film without them being cut. Many reactors will also temporarily pause the film instead of speaking over the film content. That said she may have been doing this as a precautionary thing to prevent the possibility of a copyright strike. Which is understandable. But it is still frustrating, especially when basically every other reactor has those scenes included. Obviously if she has Patreon those followers of her will see the full reaction.
Using color in film had been available since the late 1930s, but up until the '60s b&w was still common because it was much cheaper. It was rarely used as a "creative choice", but a matter of expense. It wasn't until the '70s that we really start to see b&w used as a creative choice, such as "Young Frankenstein". Although I do feel that some movies, like this one and "It's a Wonderful Life" are just better in b&w.
This was just one of those films that I missed...for decades. In finally saw it for the first time a few months ago. NOW I get the hype. Brilliant. Beautiful acting. Oh, and I figured it was about time to subscribe; I love your smart, thoughtful reactions. :)
OF COURSE you should watch Casablanca. Some time back the American Film Institute (I believe) released its list of the hundred best movies of all time: Casablanca was #2, and Citizen Kane, from two years earlier and also in black and white, was #1 - and I completely agree. By all means you should watch both of these, and there are so many more other great ones too. Just to barely scratch the surface: Bringing Up Baby and His Girl Friday, two incredibly great comedies both starring Cary Grant, and the much darker 1964 comedy Dr. Strangelove. Several Alfred Hitchcock thrillers, notably Psycho, Strangers on a Train, Notorious, and Spellbound. And two wonderful films dealing with the underside of American politics: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and All the King's Men (the 1949 version). All the King's Men was much later remade in color, but the color version, while more faithful to the original novel, really does not work well as a movie; the earlier version, however, is great.
I don't think this is based on a true story, but it is based on a theater play, which I think you kind of see with how the characters act and behave. They have a certain theatric quality to them. Also, I really liked how each juror had their own distinct personality and that you could always see where they stood and why they voted guilty or not guilty in any given moment. I think this is what makes or breaks this type of story, and here it was wonderfully executed. Them shutting out the racist juror instead of listening to his ranting was also very satisfying and a great way to deal with that sort of character because it became clear that discussing the case with him was a waste of time.
"12 Angry Men" was originally a teleplay, a play written for TV in the 50's, before the convenience of videotape, TV often just did straight up plays with one camera pointing toward the stage. The playwright drew from his own experiance as a juror, but it wasn't directly based on a particular trial. The only actor from the original TV play broadcast reprising his role for this movie version, is Joseph Sweeny who played the elderly juror.
Really appreciate your thoughtful post-film commentaries. And yes, “To kill a Mockingbird” would be an excellent choice. Another would be “Paper Moon” (1973) in which Tatum O’Neal became the youngest person ever to win an Academy Award for her performance.
Paul Winkle, who says the boy is definitely guilty, has been saying to me for months that the knife fight in "Rebel Without a Cause" is a crusher for the defense. But it's not, at all. Anyone can watch the "Rebel Without A Cause" knife-fight scene on TH-cam. The best video is titled "Rebel Without a Cause (1955) - The Knife Fight Scene (5/10) | Movieclips" and the channel is Movieclips. 1) During the knife fight scene, at least 13 stabs/jabs/thrusts are attempted with switchblades, and *all of them* are attempted with an "underhanded" motion/grip: that is, the way a switchblade knife should be used, not the way a normal knife would be. 2) From the beginning of the knife fight - from the first point where both fighters have their switchblades open (0:33) - to the end - (where the winner throws down his knife (2:02)), it lasts for 1:29 seconds, which is 89 seconds. There are 2 fighters with their knives open through nearly all of that, so I will multiply that by 2: switchblades are open for about 178 seconds. Of that time, only 1 fighter at any point holds his switchblade the wrong way - that is, the way a person would hold a normal knife - and that lasts for only about 5 seconds (1:25 to about 1:30). 5 seconds is less than 3% of the total time. To recap: 1) 100% of the 13+ stabs/jabs/thrusts are done the correct way for a switchblade. 2) For less then 3% of the time is a switchblade held the wrong way, and no stab/jab/thrust is done with it when held the wrong way. THIS IS PAUL'S CRUSHING EVIDENCE, THAT OBLITERATES THE DEFENSE!! PROOF THAT THE BOY IS GUILTY!! THE CRUSHER THAT HE'S BEEN YELLING ABOUT FOR MONTHS!! LOL!!!
So many movie Icons. Movies from back in the day are so good. The writing/acting was so much better quality. It all keeps the viewer engaged. The whole movie in basically 1 room. No nudity or language.
Regarding witness reliability, there’s so much we’ve learned about memory and cognition since this film was made. Most people today accept that witness recall is often at least somewhat inaccurate. And though most still feel their own memory is very reliable, research has demonstrated just how problematic it really is. We assemble our memories at will, haphazardly, and subject to an array of unconscious influences most of us aren’t even aware exist. A year after a group of college students were asked to describe their experiences of the attacks on the World Trade Center, which had occurred the day before they wrote the journal, the students were handed their own essay for review. Over half had forgotten key elements of their own stories, and several expressed surprise at some of the details. One student even denied she had written her own entry. Another study demonstrated over 50% of participants were successfully convinced they had once been accidentally left alone in a mall when they were children, a scenario entirely invented by the researchers. As well, there are a plethora of so-called cognitive biases that subconsciously influence our memories. Eyewitness testimony is a poor substitute for hard evidence.
When you talk about black and white being a stylistic choice, the classic example of that is Schindler's List. It is completely in 1940s-ish black and white with three brief exceptions. Had the film been in color, it would not have had the same impact.
Did you notice that none of the jurors names were revealed until the very end, when jurors 8 and 9 introduced themselves to each other on the courthouse steps? At the start of the movie, the shots were all from above eye level. As the movie progressed, the camera angles got lower and lower, increasing the sense of being in a small space. Juror 10 (the bigot) didn't speak a word after juror 4 (the one who said he never sweated) told him not to open his mouth again. Even when casting his final vote, he did it by shaking his head. 12 Angry Men was director Sidney Lumet's first movie for the theater (though he had already done a fair amount of TV work). He made some other really fine films, including All the King's Men, The Pawnbroker, Fail Safe, The Anderson Tapes, Serpico, Murder on the Orient Express, Dog Day Afternoon, Network, The Wiz, The Verdict, Gloria, and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. Dog Day Afternoon is one of my favorites. I'd love to see you react to it. To Kill a Mockingbird has fallen out of favor with a lot of people in recent years, because they see it as a white savior story. I'd be interested to see what you think of it. Since you're open to watching black and white movies, how about: - Casablanca (1942) - The Third Man (1949) - The Apartment (1960) - Some Like It Hot (1959) - Roman Holiday (1953) - Gaslight (1944) - Not the 1940 version. - All About Eve (1950) The Lion in Winter (1968) is another movie with lots of great dialogue. It stars Peter O'Toole, Katharine Hepburn, Anthony Hopkins, Timothy Dalton, Nigel Terry, and Jane Merrow. It won three Academy Awards and was nominated for four more. I'd like to see you react to it.
So many wonderful performances in this. Sadly, we lost the last of the twelve angry men back in 2012 when the excellent Jack Klugman (Juror Number 5) passed. My favorite performance in the film is that of EG Marshall, Juror Number 4. I love the two very different approaches between him and Juror Number 3, sitting right next to him, despite their both believing in the same conclusion. Plus, his response to Juror Number 10 is too perfect for words: "I have. Now sit down and don't open your mouth again." Sure enough, Juror Number 10 doesn't say another word for the rest of the film. Marshall has a small but memorable supporting role in the marvelous Humphrey Bogart-starring film, The Caine Mutiny. You might also recognize him from a role much later in life, as Beverly D'Angelo's father in Christmas Vacation.
The boy went to the movies to be SAFE. He may have even slept through. But at any rate he arrived home to be accosted by police and told his father was murdered.That is stressful to the max. It’s entirely possible to have no memory of the movie, etc.
28:08 I remember watching this movie, just after I'd just started getting use to wearing spectacles, (Eye Glasses) at 15 years old. That part was so prevalent to me, at that time.
This was actually performed live on television first and then made into a movie. You should see 2007 Russian version of this movie entitled "12" directed by Nikita Mikhalkov. It is about 12 jurors who must decide the fate of a Chechen boy accused of killing his stepfather. Transform the setting from 1950s America to modern-day Russia, change the Latino teenager on trial to a Chechen Muslim, and turn it all over to Nikita Mikhalkov, who directed the Oscar-winning "Burnt by the Sun."
Very cool to see you give this another shot 🙂 Perhaps you'd be willing to give another Henry Fonda (Juror #8) movie a shot... The Oxbow Incident has a slightly similar theme as this movie... Grapes Of Wrath is another good one.
It's so interesting that their individual experiences created biases, but those differences were also assets at times. For example, the guy who came from the slums knew about switch blades. Also, the old man knew what it was like to be the old man witness. Shows the power and strength of diversity (even though at that time, there wasn't as much diversity of race and gender).
America is and always has been the most diverse and least racist country in the world. This shows the power of logical thinking and objective reality, all these men were white.
12 Angry Men was released in 1957. It, is filmed, as most movies were at that time, in B&W. Few movies from the late 1930s until the late 1960s filmed in color due to budget restraints, especially after television was introduced to the USA post WW II. You should see 'Raging Bull' a 1980 film shot in B&W. to accurately depict the historical timeline and to preserve the impact of certain scenes. The decision to film in black and white also made the movie stand out from other boxing films like Rocky, presenting a darker and less likable protagonist.
The Actor that fights for the Kid to get justice from the Jury is Henry Fonda. You should see him opposite Lucille Ball in "Your, Mine, and Our's" you would really like it I am sure.
The shot of the accused near the beginning of the movie gives the impression that he's non-Anglo. Given the time - and knowing what were considered hot button issues in 1957 -- it's reasonable to assume that the accused is (or is perceived as) Puerto Rican: hence the bigot's diatribe. Sickening! Great reaction! Thank you!
@@kh884488 I think maybe the point they are trying to make is that although the defendant is a U.S. citizen(just like the others) he is not being treated like one.
@@tomloft2000 How is he not being treated like any other citizen? The point being made is the guy's personal prejudice could send a young man to his death on shaky evidence. At the surface, the evidence and testimony is pretty good, so yes, he should be on trial. It's why we have innocent people in jail today. Thankfully, juror 8 didn't have those same prejudices. Most of us like to think we'd be jury 8 in this scenario. But the truth is, most of us would probably be just like the other 11 jurors, in some way.
There are dozens of phenomenal B/W films, made great by every aspect of story telling, from cinematography, to script, to acting, to music. Here are three recommendations that hit at least 3 of these. 'Double Indemnity" , "Witness For the Prosecution" , "Gaslight".
Jury duty has been, for me, more interesting than you might think. I am convinced that the adversarial system we have (in the U.S.) is just a bad design....debate is not a good way to get to truth, but I was impressed by people on the jury, all of whom took it appropriately seriously.
I don't know if it's a movie - I saw it as a play - but The Pillowman is a story that makes you think about how we act in extreme situations. What is a movie and also is a heavy trial movie is Judgement at Nuremberg. Has a young William Shatner and also Spencer Tracey in one of his last roles. Sadly a film that's rather relevant to today - wish that wasn't true. Thanks for this reaction/review. Oh, search for "Danusia Trevino Guilty The Moth". It's... it's the story of a juror. It's like 12 Angry Men but told by the guy who wanted to go to the baseball game - but she evolves a bit further than him (low bar).
Another reactor described this film a certain way and it stuck with me: "this wasn't a tale of heroism, this was a tale of humanity ... this was a very human thing that happened". So if there's a positive message 12 Angry Men can give us, it's that we can all be human beings if we want to. Even in spite of how far from perfect our world is. Every juror contributed something during the course of the argument. Many times they did it unintentionally, and their personal turning point when siding with Juror #8 sheds subtle bits of light on how they feel not just about the case but about the other people they're arguing with. Fun facts about the cast (which I'm sure can be found from others in the comments): Juror #1 was the detective who got bumped off in Hitchcock's Psycho. Juror #2 voiced Piglet for the Winnie the Pooh shorts. Juror #3 was the detective who contacted Father Damian in The Exorcist. Juror #4 was one of Griswold's cranky in-laws in National Lampoon's Xmas Vacation. Juror #5 spent 5 years as Oscar in the TV version of The Odd Couple. Juror #6 was a detective in Hitchcock's North by Northwest. Juror #7 was the U.S. President who gets hoodwinked by Peter Sellers in Being There. Juror #8 was the producer of this film, and his company folded when the box office for 12 Angry Men fell short. Juror #9 played the same character when 12 Angry Men was performed as a play 3 years earlier. Juror #10 won an Oscar for playing a similar hypocrite-scum character in Sweet Bird of Youth. Juror #11 wrote plenty of non-fiction in his native Czech language. Juror #12 ended up appearing in almost every spy series on TV during the 60s and 70s.
I only served on a jury once. It was child molestation case. By the time the trial ended, most of were convinced the defendant was guilty. Nevertheless, we went through each charge individually and discussed them extensively. We deliberated for 1 1/2 days. He was found guilty on all counts.
If you're summoned for jury duty and encounter personal beliefs or ethical concerns, such as an overbearing fear of potentially convicting an innocent person, express these feelings during jury selection. *It is your duty!* If you discover these feelings after jury selection, still notify the judge. It is never too late; however, the longer you wait, the more of problematic it becomes. The same goes if you notice another jury member with such feelings. Don't worry about inconveniencing anyone. You have a responsibility to disclose anything that may hinder a fair verdict. You or the other jury member may be dismissed from the trial, depending on the judge and the severity of the concern. It is the judge's responsibly to make that call and records the issue. Later, since the issue was recorded, the defense or prosecutors may appeal the decision. All you need to do is be honest and expressive of your concerns. The court system determines fairness. This takes the burden off you and better ensures the integrity of the trial.
At 31:08; we see what looks like the angry juror (last Not Guilty), walking slowly down the steps... defeated. My theory; is a fellow gang member was jealous of the kid, found the knife and killed the kids father, believing the kid would go to prison, but didn't realize the kid could be executed? When the kid returns to the neighborhood, he meets up with the other members of the gang, tells them what happened and after some "questioning" the jealous boy confesses and is kicked out of the gang to be alone on the dangerous streets versus trying to convince the cops and/or a prosecutor?
You absolutely have to watch One Upon a Time in the West (1968), which was Henry Fonda's ONLY villain role in his 50 year career. But man, what a villain he was!
The who played the rather mild little man who some kind of ignored or tried to push around and got tried of it was John fielder (1925-2005) the one that call the other man a jerk was also the voice of piglet in the original cartoon Winnie The Pooh that you probably enjoyed watching as a child as did I when I was a child many years ago. All the actors in that movie were all considered top rated actors of their day all have passed away the last being Jack Klugman(1922-2012) who portrayed the Juror who came from the slum in the movie. That and the one who first voted not guilty was Henry Fonda(1905-1982) probably the biggest name actor in the movie who had a daughter who also was in movies Jane Fonda the actress who is still with us as of now.
In some countries they have 3 choices: guilty, not guilty, and not proven. So you don’t have to think someone is innocent, just that the prosecutor didn’t prove him guilty.
I, too, saw a classic film in school and paid little attention. Mine was Casablanca. I saw it again 25 years later with my youngest son at a showing at an old theater downtown. I fell in love with it and it’s now my favorite movie.
Growing up I saw "Casablanca" dozens of times on TeeVee. Not impressed. Recently I revisited it -- and the Making-of documentary -- and was absolutely blown away (the 4K is GORGEOUS!). Film begins with writing, and the screenplay is beyond superlatives, and the characters in context amazingly complex. Great, great film.
Where did you find this version of the movie? I've never seen that title card over the stairs to the courthouse before. The title card is usually shown when we first enter the deliberation room. (or did you edit it yourself?)
I was on a jury for a guy accused of hitting his wife and two teenage sons over a TV !! Felony. Most of the people on the jury just wanted to go home. The woman who wanted to be the 'foreperson' started with, "I don't mind telling you that I think he's guilty as hell." I led the 'not guilty' group. Eventually acquitted of all charges. Mostly because the cops did such a bad investigation.
A GREAT “TRUE STORY” MOVIE is Erin Brockovich. Great movie! Apollo 13 w/Tom Hanks is a great one. Hidden Figures is an excellent “true story” film! 😊❤❤❤ LOVED, LOVED YOUR REACTION TO THIS CLASSIC!
Reasonable doubt does not mean not impossible. The kid had the unusual, if not unique, murder weapon. The kid had motive, no one else is suggested as a possible suspect. The victim was poor, so robbery was not a motive. In that brief period the kid is out someone else runs up the stairs and kills him is far fetched. The juror answered multiple questions about the movies he saw before he missed a detail. He remembered quite a bit. The kid remembered absolutely nothing, not if it was a western, comedy, no one in the movie. No one saw him at the movies. Can you imagine not being able to remember anything in the hours after watching a movie? Regardless of how a switchblade is typically used, whoever used it used it overhand. Try changing a pencil from an underhand grip to and overhand grip onehanded. It's easy, and if you use that type of knife frequently it would be instant. Say there's a 1% chance that someone else wanted to kill the victim and did it in the short time the son was away. Say there is a 1% chance of the killer having the same knife. Say there is a 10% chance the kid can't remember anything. That brings it to a 1 in 100,000 chance. That is beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind.
So many times, sadly, the jurors bring personal experiences and prejudices to the proverbial table and mistakes can be made. It takes some time for these guys to realize that a young man’s life is on the line. It is indeed SCARY, Shy. Very scary. 😢
I'm so glad the adult you realize the value of this movie experience! anyone who votes might be called to jury duty. I hope you give yourself the chance to serve on a jury some day
Black & white isn't always necessarily a stylistic choice; I'm pretty sure it was also more expensive to film in color. That actually may still be the case for all I know, but it's probably true that more people nowadays have a prejudice against black and white films.
Hey, Shadowcat! I'm glad that you appreciated the dialogue which is extremely economical and almost always revelatory. However, you talked over many crucial moments and famous lines with your commentary rather than registering what was being said! Perhaps it was just the way that it was edited but your reactions indicated you hadn't heard the points being made such as the first defection, the "I'll kill him" reversal, the set-up for the bead of sweat or Cobb's back story and shattering epiphany. Your deconstruction afterwards was quite cogent but I recommend you leave your lengthier statements for the outro. By the way, "them" referred to Puerto Ricans specifically or Hispanics in general. Juror # 8 is a racist. I've seen several millennials get confused by the term "them" which surprises me since so many young people get triggered so easily by "those people" even when used in an innocuous, non-ethnic context. The modern remake features an African-American reverse racist.
Another great movie with Henry Fonda in a similar vein is "The Oxbow Incident", a famous short story I read in high school but didn't see the movie until my twenties and deals with frontier judgement. It's another great movie with another great cast and helped cement Fonda as a great actor. Highly recommend it or just read the short story!
This must be a record. Your video is the 6th movie reaction in a row where the reactor has already seen the movie. I guess the search continues for an authentic reaction. lol.
More people need to get over the aversion to b&w films. It's absolutely shameful that so many people think that some of the greatest films of all time are inferior to the CGI fests of today that have no heart or soul. Glad you're making an effort.
![[TH] VALORANT Champions Seoul - Lower Bracket Final - LEV vs TH](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fyYkI80GG4o/mqdefault.jpg)
The question isn't actually about the defendant's guilt. It's about whether guilt was PROVEN.
Absolutely agreed. I love it when a reactor comes to the right conclusion. The jury never proved the kid’s guilt or innocence simply recognized the room for reasonable doubt.
It's also about the vigorous discussion of the evidence rather than accepting it on face value.
It wasn't even that, it was very pure and clear demonstration of how peoples connection with the reality can be blured by their own reason. It can be ignorance, can be prejudgment, can be pain of the past that you don't even realize. We all live in this world without realizing how spoiled our connection with the reality by some small details. We educated human being with several degrees can't remove our own pride, prejudice, fears to see things how they really are, and to be trully smart and not only in paper work. For me this movie is perfect lesson for those who has a question: "what is it to be smart?". It exactly what we saw with first juror in doubt, even though he didn't know if the boy was guilty or not, he didn't let anything to cloud his clear mind, not other opinion, not bad relation with son, not poor childhood, not baseball ticket and not the need for attention like an old jurror
@@garri5108 It's all of the above.
@@garri5108 The elderly juror was one of the most clear-minded and perceptive. It was his recognition of the "small" details that caused many other jurors to pause and begin critically examining their own views of the case.
Ask yourself, in his evaluations of the two witnesses, especially the elderly witness: how did the elderly juror know what it's like to be elderly?
And note how some of the younger jurors "knew better" so entirely missed that question and its answer: the elderly juror understood the elderly witness precisely because he too was elderly. And his experience was reinforced and validated by the younger jurors who mocked and dismissed his views _ONLY_ BECAUSE HE WAS ELDERLY.
He was one of the smartest of the jurors.
I remember I saw this film when I was 14 years old. I saw it was in the IMDB Top 10 and didnt know why... until I watched it. Dear God, what a great movie. Definitely one of the best I've ever seen.
Wow very cool you could appreciate it at 14! I, evidently, could not lol 😅
@@shadowcatreactswe all come to things at different times. Nothing wrong with that!
The way this film creates deep characters without any backstory and navigates moral complexity so skillfully in 90mins is amazing. Even the portrayal of the racist characters feels very true to life: not coming out and saying it but making thinly-veiled allusions to "them" the whole time.
Agreed. I think one of the key messages that I get from the film is that this process of trial by jury depends on 12 fallible people that all bring their own perspectives in life experiences. Some jurors are patient and some are just lazy and want to get on with their lives ASAP. The quality of justice a society creates is equal to the collective effort that people put into it.
And with an ambigous "them" it becomes identifiable with many groups so includes anyone who shares those kind of experiences.
It is a brilliant script.
Another film equally compelling is 1966's "A Man for All Seasons," based on the history of Henry the 8th and Sir Thoms More. Superb film in all particulars.
And another great court drama film by the same director of "12 Angry Men": "The Verdict," with Paul Newman and James Mason.
@@kh884488 Exactly: justice and the jury process are to be a pursuit of truth, not a confirmation of biases.
Making references to "them" *IS* coming out and saying it.
Switchblade knives were illegal. The store owner who sold it -- it was illegal for him both to have it and sell it -- claimed that it was the only one he'd ever seen. Sure. he's believable.
I hadn't thought about it until I read your comment...but saying he'd never seen another like it may also be the shopkeeper's way of saying, "It was just that one time I sold a knife..." I don't believe they said in the movie if Juror 8 went to the same shop that the accused did or not, but if there are many knives like that (there were of course, at least two) it may be that he was also not wanting to expose a black market vendor. As it currently stood, he was admitting to selling only a single switch-blade by saying he'd never seen another like it.
@@travisanderson77 The store owner was obviously a witness at trial, though he didn't "witness" the killing. Even the juror who bought the knife admitted that he'd broken the law by buying it. The store owner had to know he possessed and sold it illegally.
@@987654321wormy
It was illegal by 1956-57 when the murder took place in the film. New York made it illegal to sell or possess a switch blade knife in 1954.
Google The tool that would not be killed
To wormy:
It was illegal to own a switchblade knife by 1956-57 when the murder took place in the film. New York made it illegal to sell or possess a switch blade knife in 1954.
Google The tool that would not be killed
@@arrow1414 Even Texas, in its constitution, banned possession of a whole range of "personal" weapons, including stilettos and brass knuckles.
The person claiming that switchblades were not illegal is full of it. Those and hand-made "zip guns" were well known to be illegal.
A technicality which was omitted for the sake of drama: if a juror were to introduce evidence not admitted at trial -- which is admitted, or excluded, according to existing rules of evidence -- it would result in a mistrial.
Most of the other jurors turning their backs on the bigot is so impactful. Then Lee J. Cobb (the last hold out) realizing he was letting his problems with *his* son affect his decisions even when it was illogical.
And look at the exchange/s between the baseball fan and the juror with the moustache: the latter is an immigrant who truly understands and respects the system; the baseball fan is anti-immigrant (even though HIS ancestors were immigrants) and irresponsible as concerns his civic DUTIES.
He's a know-it-all bully who is used to shouting others down. He not only has contempt for those younger than he, but also for those older than he. He's a jerk.
And the baseball fan is spineless, no conviction about anything except being entertained.
@@jnagarya519 If anything, this film is about not being so quick to judge.
@@michaeledwardhunter It has been used in law schools. Its "intent" is to teach civics -- how jury deliberations are done. It was a bust at thw box office because most citizens are like the baseball fan -- all about "freedom" and never about responsibility; about civic duty in a democracy.
The juror with the moustache is an immigrant, apparently having escaped a less-than-democratic system, and he understands due process better than many of the US-born citizens.
A bust at the box office and now look how it's doing! Like many other things, it might've been subject to a hasty trial and wrongly judged. @@jnagarya519
It is nice to see younger generations finding these classics. They get to appreciate GREAT writing and acting without all the bells and whistles that modern film lean to heavily on.
The comment about remembering 12 names had me chuckle. One of the subtle brilliance of this film is you don't know anyone's name until the very last scene on the steps outside.
Lee J. Cobb was such a force of nature in this movie. He also had the best character arc.
Yeah, you go from disliking him as a loud bully, to feeling sorry for him. That bit where everything hits him after rips his son's photo apart, going from angrily certain, to instantly regretful, to sad and defeated in seconds. His facial expressions are very emotive in that scene. Powerful acting.
@@bfdidc6604 I didn't feel sorry for him. It is doubtful he experienced any lasting change in his demeanor.
Ed Begly's character Juror #10, is actually worse than you think. I don't know how many times I watched this before I realized what he began his diatribe with," I've lived among them all my life!" So he lives in the same "bad" neighborhood as the people he's vilifying. He has three garages, so they are his customers as well as his neighbors. How narcissistic is that? He tries to make himself seem superior by smearing everyone around him. To go off openly that way means he's been getting reinforcement from others, and is shocked to find the rest of the jury shutting him down. He really does sit down without opening his mouth again!
The rest of the jurors do a thing called shunning, turning your back on a member of your group as a sign that you are being rejected by the group.
He's a RACIST. The defendant, a boy really, appears to have been Hispanic -- Puerto Rican.
"12 Angry Men" was originally a teleplay, a play written for TV in the 50's, before the convenience of videotape, TV often just did straight up plays with one camera pointing toward the stage. The playwright drew from his own experiance as a juror, but it wasn't directly based on a particular trial.
The only actor from the original TV play broadcast reprising his role for this movie version, is Joseph Sweeny who played the elderly juror.
The video of the TV broadcast is available. I believe it can be found right here on youtube.
@jnagarya519 Great to hear. It likely was filmed using a kinescope.
George Voskoveck was another player from the original program . Fun Fact: Sweeney’s character wore glasses in 1954. 21:36
The kid looks Puerto Rican/latino I think , that’s why one of “them” is mentioned
Yeah that's my take on it. But I like that they keep it open ended because depending on place and time period, this sort of prejudice could happen to any race. Even among white people the Irish or the Polish would be 2nd-class citizens once upon a time. Someone across the world could watch this movie and see how it applies to the minorities in their own hometown
@@samwallaceart288 yea but Latino is the only option cause some of the jurors look Italian/irish , so they can’t be saying them with Italians/irish on the jury
@@pepsicolazero yeah in this case
Back then ‚them‘ would have been Puerto Ricans. That is also addressed in West Side Story
Personally, I think anyone who is going to be on a a jury should have to watch this movie.
It's been a staple in law schools.
They're a good reasons why these classic films are still enduring to this day. Great job on your reaction and review.
For me, the thing I love the most about this film is that, aside from a brief look at the defendant at the beginning, we know nothing else about the trial. So, we the audience, become the jury of the jurors.
If you enjoyed "It's a Wonderful Life", I'd highly recommend "The Best Years of our Lives"which also came out in 1946. It's about three very ordinary servicemen who are trying to figure out how to reintegrate into society after serving in World War II. A society that has largely moved on without them. In that film, the director, screenwriter and several actors are all actual World War I or World War II veterans.
Great recommendation of The Best Years of Our Lives. That movie definitely deserves to be better known. I’ve seen it several times, I cry every time. Most people today don’t think about how disrupted both veterans and their families were by the war. People didn’t talk about their feelings as much back then.
@@Historian212 I have been into films for a long time and hadn't heard of "The Best Years of Our Lives" until very recently. Being a post - World War II film I was expecting a very patriotic film with a lot of John Wayne style swagger to it. It was very much not like what I had expected. Both "The Best Years of Our Lives" and "It's a Wonderful Life" came out in 1946, however, the former seems to have been pretty much forgotten and the latter... it seems everybody has seen at least once.
Both are great films but rather different kinds of films.
For me this is one of the most important films ever. It shows that without Juror No. 8 there would certainly have been a guilty verdict. Juror No. 7 has tickets to a baseball game even though he knows full well that he is also a juror in a murder trial on this, the most important day.
Things can't go fast enough for him. No. 10 is obviously a racist as he says "they are all born liars". No. 12 is in good hands in the advertising industry. Thinking about it visibly overwhelms him. No. 3 is actually conducting a trial against his son who dares to go his own way.
With that kind of upbringing, I would have left at the first opportunity. No. 3 constantly talks about respect and behaves impudently like an ax in the woods. No. 9, who was already very hesitant during the first vote, fortunately saves the situation,
asks first-class questions and provides the decisive objection.
There is much more, and it shows how fragile the structure of the 12 is and what catastrophic influence numbers 3 and 10 have.
As I said, this is an absolutely top-class film and invites you to see it several times
On re-watch, we can see that all the actors were in character all the time, and some of their early actions in the background became significant later on. For instance, the juror who defended the old man had been helping and looking after the old man in the background from the beginning. I think the reason the old man voted not guilty at the beginning was to have more time in an important role...to which he alluded when talking about why the old witness might embellish his testimony for attention.
I've done jury duty a couple of times. One case was similar to this one, with us voting 11-1 for conviction on the first vote. This wasn't a murder case, but it would have put the man in prison for 20 years. The trial took only four hours, but we spent four full days in deliberation. The judge refused to allow us to "hang." I was like juror #4...the logical guy who didn't sweat. I was also a hold-out for guilty to nearly the end, hanging on to what I thought was solid evidence...until I realized it actually wasn't so solid. I had that same kind of "nobody sleeps in their glasses" moment. But it took four days of discussion to get me to that moment.
We have to remember that in American jurisprudence, the concept is "Innocent until proven guilty." That means the jury is _not_ supposed to be "even handed." When you walk into the courtroom, your attitude is supposed to be "that person looks innocent." You're supposed to be biased for innocence; it's the responsibility of the prosecution to prove otherwise. That's the value of someone like juror #8, and a reason why any conscientious person should be willing to serve on a jury.
This was originally a 1954 television production aired _live._ A video of that production, starring a couple of the same actors, is available on TH-cam. There was an updated television version produced in the 1990s with a racially diverse cast. Because the cast was diverse, the racism angle was spun much differently. But this 1957 version stands out as the best.
Two other black-and-white classics I'd urge you to watch (and with this movie, my black-and-white "urge" list only has three movies) would be To Kill a Mockingbird and Casablanca. Many people think To Kill a Mockingbird just a courtroom drama, but it's much more than that. It's a truthful portrait of the society of the American south of the 1930s. It's a real heavy-weight that will stay with you for the rest of your life. Casablanca is a war-romance with luscious cinematography, an intriguing plot, a lot of clever humor, and sparkling dialog. Casablanca is probably the most quoted movie of all time. Interestingly, they were still writing the script while they were filming...the actors themselves didn't know how the movie would end until the last day.
12 Angry Men is ripe for another remake. Just a straight remake without too much updating. If Tarantino directed, we don’t want the jurors to murder each other.
@@MarcosElMalo2 The 1957 version can't be bettered. No need for a remake because everything that goes on in this is still the reality today, including the blatant racism.
7:51 - They purposely kept the "them" vague, because there's always a "them" and who the "them" is, is relative. At the time this movie was made, there was a large wave of immigration from Puerto Rico, not the first one either, and it led to certain sentiments and tension. The boy on trial is meant to be Puerto Rican. The old guy definitely has opinions about people in slums too though.
Interestingly, the actor who played him was Italian, but a lot of people believe and believed he was Hispanic. It's amazing how often Italians play Hispanics and vice-versa in films (Andy Garcia, a Cuban, practically made a career out of playing Italians. Heh). Anti-Italian sentiment was ripe in the country in the earlier parts of the century in particular.
This is the very rare film that needs no remake because it is impossible to better.
True but you could update it with the times.
@@gradybridges They did. There is a remake.
@@dupersuper1938And it sucks
@@Progger11 I'd say "sucks" is overly harsh; it's just that nothing was ever going to live up to the amazing original.
@@gradybridges Nothing has changed: we still have the disengaged, the racists, the irresponsible.
Come on Cat you should expect a classic to be good. You should watch more classics. They don’t make movies like this anymore.
Hey, Shadowcat! This was originally a teleplay for a "Playhouse 90"-type show in the '50's which were basically filmed theatrical productions broadcast during the early days of American TV. Before formulaic sitcoms and dramas became TV staples, actual playwrights were tapped to provide original or adapted content of high quality. The story really works as a theatrical piece with 12 players in one setting. A few years later, the great Sidney Lumet (pronounced Loom-ET) directed it for film. Lumet is considered one of the quintessential New York directors like Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese and Spike Lee. The film is considered one of the greatest courtroom dramas ever made.
It is my 11th favorite film of all time!
I like how Fonda's chief antagonists are fire and ice: the bombastic Lee J. Cobb and the coolly logical E.G. Marshall.
The cast was stacked with some of the best character actors of the day some of which had amazing careers like Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Jack Warden, Ed Begley and Robert Webber. However, it's live-wire Lee J. Cobb who steals the spotlight with his histrionics and rage!
When he has his breakthrough and realizes why he's rushed to judgment, his collapse is shattering and brings me to tears every time.
Henry Fonda's magnanimity as he helps him to his feet and gives him his coat is equally moving.
Foreigner George Voskovec and the elderly Joseph Sweeney were holdovers from the TV production.
A remake was made for cable TV with a black Mykelti Williamson portraying a reverse racist. Jack Lemmon had the Fonda role and George C. Scott had the Cobb role. Edward James Olmos played the foreigner, Tony Danza was the sports guy, Armin Mueller-Stahl was the logical stockbroker and James Gandolfini was the blue collar guy.
Another remake was considered by adding women to the mix. The project was abandoned because the inclusion of female energy would change the dynamic of the story and the energy of the room.
That at the end is the moment he realized not only that he projected his resentments for his kid on the case but far more hurtful, that he wanted all that time to condemn his son to death. That would make any parent burst into tears.
PS: Prejudice, prejudgement or impression are pretty much synonyms.🙂
Better to set a guilty person free than kill an innocent person while letting the guilty one get away knowing no one is even looking for him anymore at the same time.
Execution or no, it takes a cold person to let someone else serve a sentence for one's crimes.
The ethnicity or background of the accused is never spelled out, which makes the story apply to prejudice towards any group or race. When there is a quick shot of the young man at the beginning, he has unspecified features but has dark eyes and a slightly darker skin tone so he may be of Hispanic descent, mixed race, Middle Eastern, or from Southern or Eastern Europe, or Jewish, or part of what used to be called “gypsies.” However, at the time this was written, there was a large immigration from Puerto Rico to New York which caused a lot of conflict (see “West Side Story…”) so it could be that he was Puerto Rican. By leaving it vague, it helps make the story more timeless and shows that racism, prejudice or bigotry can exist anyplace, towards anyone.
I think there is little doubt that the defendant was Puerto Rican
In 1957, the clear implication is that he is Puerto Rican.
@@ammaleslie509 Juror #10 says he's "lived among them my whole life" -- that undercuts the implication that the defendant is Puerto Rican. He could be anything, because bigotry against any group is wrong. The writers were careful never to give the defendant a name, because he's everyman, all of us. I think it was a mistake to show his face at all, we should have been able to imagine a Hispanic kid, or black, or Jewish, or poor... any ethnic, religious, or class distinction that makes someone a target.
@@gregoryeatroff8608 He could live among them his whole life because his family owns a business in their neighborhood. That was common then.
@@ammaleslie509 but in the 1950s the Puerto Ricans were new to the neighborhood in the 1950s, so he wouldn't have lived among Puerto Ricans his whole life. Tension between new groups of immigrants and established communities has been a central theme of New York's history since it was still Niew Amsterdam and the Dutch burghers were complaining about the English moving in and not properly assimilating.
Definitely see To Kill a Mockingbird, one of the greatest movies of last century. I'm going on Saturday to see it on stage with Richard Thomas (John boy from the Walton's)
The hold-out juror is the great Henry Fonda (and also the producer of the film).
A legendary actor/producer. 😊
Why is Fonda great? Seems like an ordinary actor to me.
The ending is very profound. The jurors walk down the courthouse steps after the rainstorm. The last was Juror 3,walking alo e and lonely
Your statement about jury duty at 33:00 is excellent. I have a lot of respect for people who don’t automatically put themselves in the role of “good guy” or “hero/heroine” in a hypothetical situation, but phrase it instead as “I hope I would do X,” or “I’d like to think I would X.” Realistic, honest, and humble.
A friend served on a jury some time ago. She didn't disclose details of the case (for obvious reasons), but she did say that the most difficult thing those present had to contend with were several jury members who did not know how to *think*. A trial is (or should be) the very definition of a process based on facts, reason and evidence, but very few people know how to think like this, the required skills and basic knowledge are not taught in schools anymore (logic, philosophy, ethics, argument, etc.) Both sides, the prosecution and defense, will use every verbal trick they can (short of actually lying) to convince the jury one way or the other, because it's their job. The prosecution may, for example, discard evidence which doesn't support their case, so it's never presented at trial. If people do not know what sophistry, gas lighting, strawman arguments, etc., are, or how to recognise them when listening to others, then they have little hope of being able to properly consider what they have heard during a trial.
If you watch an old TV series like Boston Legal, almost every "successful" outcome of a case for the firm is not due to their arguments actually being objectively correct; rather, they win because their lawyers know how to present the most convincing summary via verbal skill, ie. they often win by exploiting sophistry or other methods. The viewer frequently knows whether their win is justified in terms of genuine guilt or innocence, but really a jury shouldn't be persuaded one way or the other just because either lawyer is simply the better speaker. The series though never shows jury delberations, instead it always makes it look like the case is decided based on the orrative skill of the closing arguments, which is kinda absurd.
The basics of logic & suchlike are absent from modern teaching, concepts such as proof by negation, implication vs. inference, etc. A great deal of modern narrative discourse is instead based on emotion, facts are regarded as irrelevant; this is the dominant cultural norm in current movies, TV and mainstream media. If one's thought processes are defined by emotional responses then it's impossible to consider evidence rationally and objectively, to separate one's biases from the matter at hand. Many people see the world though a particular lense (often political) and are thus incapable of being rationale when contemplating facts and evidence (look up the video on YT called, "Snow Flags cause Feminist SJW Outrage at the mall" for a classic example of how bad this can be).
Juries though are typically selected from the general populace at random. Well, as Heinlein put it, it's a sad fact of nature that half the population have got to be below average. Put bluntly, below a certain level of IQ, it simply isn't possible for a person to perform the required role of a jury member, they are mentally unfit to do so, but no nation with a jury system has a mechanism for ensuring that all jurors at the very least have a sensible baseline of intelligence.
I was notified of potential jury service last autumn; for one week (though perhaps as long as two), one must be available if required to serve. All I knew was that the case category would be of the more serious kind. In the event I was not called, after three days the recorded message on the court phoneline said attendance would no longer be needed (probably because the trials ended sooner than expected). As I understood the process, each week some 200 people selected at random from the electoral roll are chosen as the potential jury pool for that week, with a further week of potential rollover . Even though I didn't serve, I did spend a lot of time beforehand researching what the task would entail, reading court documents, refreshing my knowledge of the art of the argument and other matters. After reading so much, I realised my greatest worry was that I might be among one or more people in the jury who, as portrayed in the film, either didn't care about the matter at hand or had already decided one way or the other based on personal prejudice or some other factor. I thought I would probably find it very hard to be patient with such people when the entire future of someone's life may be at stake. The film portrays this issue very well.
Of course it can also go the other way, a jury may end up consisting almost entirely of good, upstanding, thoughtful people who do a fine job of considering the evidence, seeing past any sophistry in the proceedings and coming to a relevant conclusion (this must happen sometimes just by chance), but the possibility that one might find oneself immersed within the opposite scenario worried me greatly. Thus, I well understand your desire never to be called for jury service, in the end I'm mostly glad I was not, but then... consider this:
- If you're the kind of person who is better able to think about these issues (and from your reaction it sure looks that way) then, if you were the accused on trial, wouldn't you surely wish that everyone on the jury consisted of people like you? People with the smarts to do a proper job and take the matter seriously? In other words, if everyone who was by definition the right kind of person to serve had the ability to choose not to, then every person accused of anything would always be at the mercy of juries consisting of clueless idiots and would thus stand no chance of the evidence being given proper deliberation or attaining a just outcome. What a terrible world that would be. This btw is why the ancient Greek system of electing officials to serve was based on choosing those deemed best qualified by all, whether they wanted their assigned role or not.
Hence why jury service *must* be compulsory in the way it is, it's the only way the system can ensure that, despite the potential for idiots to be included due to random selection, there's a decent chance that any jury will have at least a few good people who can help direct proceedings in a sensible manner.
(tbc..)
(continued...) Further, something which is unfortunately often very relevant to modern trials: the nature of "evidence". These days evidence will often include forensic or other materials, the nature and relevance of which will be conveyed to the jury in terms of probabilities. Alas, we humans are extremely bad at judging probabilities, or indeed of even understanding what they mean, especially how statistical quantities combine under different circumstances. Juries are expected to make decisions based on evidence concerning DNA and other materials, yet few of them realise that the way such evidence is presented can often be twisted to appear far more reliable and relevant than it really is (eg. expressions such as "the odds of" a thing are X-to-1, selectively defining the context, etc.)
For example, the idea that DNA testing produces a unique match for a person is a typical example (it doesn't, that's not how the process works), and multiple trials have proven this notion wrong, yet still either side will make absolute statements about the nature of statistical evidence which are often unjustified. Some years ago there was a significant shift in the dependability of ballistic evidence when it was discovered that existing techniques long considered reliable were not infact as good as had been assumed. I remember New Scientist reporting on the matter. Fingerprint analysis is another can of worms in such matters, the odds of a false +ve are higher than most would assume. TV series such as CSI have also distorted how the public regards forensic evidence.
A simple example: imagine you attend a friend's birthday party at which there are 20 people in total; what is the probability that at least one other person present has the same birthday? Few can answer this correctly or even think about how to approach working out the answer.
When long ago I did my comp sci degree, statistical analysis was the module I had in advance assumed would be very boring, but in reality quickly decided was fascinating and indeed have found to be the most useful in my work ever since. Likewise the elective module of Production Management was intriguing because much of it depended on statistical modelling (the chances of a factory production line failing, the projected cost to production, necessary insurance, etc.) I remember a great line from the recommended book I bought, "People use statistics as a drunk uses a lamp post: for support rather than illumination."
I shall end with a final example. If dear reader you can answer this correctly and justify your answer, then I think you would be a good candidate for jury service:
- Given a fair coin, if one rolls twenty heads in a row, what is the probability that the next roll will be a tail?
At uni in 1989 I actually ended up in an argument in the theatre with the lecturer about the answer, because I initially did not agree. After a great deal of back & forth during which he seemed to be trying to avoid saying something, he finally interjected and said, look, what you're referring to here is a class of statistics we've not yet covered called Bayesian Theory, which we'll get to later, but for the moment what matters is the critical framing of the question, which you've completely missed (and he was right, I had; three guesses what he was referring to). Then at last I understood. It's this sort of issue which most people don't understand and is why expecting random members of the public to make decisions based on presented probabilities, the very nature of which may be framed in a deliberately distorted light, is such a huge problem for jury trials; correct judgement can depend upon the presence or absence of a single critical word. Indeed, look up, "Bayes Theorem in Law" to see how relevant it is (ie. conditional probabilities; in trials, jurors may confuse the stated odds associated with a piece of evidence with the odds of guilt). For an excellent example reference on this, look up the Oct/2011 news article on The Guardian web site called, "A formula for justice", it explains the many complexities involved, citing multiple example cases.
It's an absolute classic. One of my favorite flicks ever.
I once heard a great radio dramatization of 12 Angry Men. You'd think it'd be hard to keep track of everyone, especially since they don't have names. But the characters are so well drawn, and the performances so uniformly top-notch, that it was just as riveting! (Granted, it helped that several Star Trek actors, whose voices I know very well, were in the cast).
At the end with the old man introducing himself, that seems like such an old fashioned thing seeing two men introducing themselves with their last names only. No one would do that now.
I've been on two juries, a DUI and the other one was a murder case. In BOTH juries there were people who made it clear that they were in a hurry to leave. It was not due to things like a baseball game, but they said things like "I have a life. I need to get back to..." and then they'd say what important thing they needed to being doing. This movie portrays that kind of juror perfectly. Those kind of people annoy me instantly. They are implying that those of use who take being a juror seriously don't have lives.
They are all about "freedom" and no responsibility, no sense of civic duty.
Until THEY are a defendant.
Proves two important points:
being judged by 12 ordinary
people, clueless, prejudiced
and in a hurry to return to their
daily routine makes no sense.
And more important the death
penalty is barbaric and no
longer acceptable. Soon it
will be applied only in absolute
dictatorships and backward
Countries.
Interesting that you felt it implied you and the other more conscientious jurors didn’t have lives. My first thought reading your comment was that those jurors (that just wanted to finish quickly) didn’t take their responsibilities seriously, and/or didn’t care whether or not a guilty person was set free, or an innocent one punished.
@@sfkeepay How else can you interpret it when the reason they want to leave quickly also applies to everyone else? If they say "I don't have the time to sit here. I have things I need to do." well, yeah so does EVERYONE else on the jury. So for them to say that, they saying they don't think that applies to us, it just applies to them. They think the rest of us have nothing better to do than sit here on the jury. There IS a difference between saying "I have better things to do" and saying "We have better things to do". Saying it the first way makes them sound like they think they're special.
@@flibber123 ,
I think you’re almost certainly correct. And the way you describe it really makes it sound like a kind of narcissism. Your insight seems important - like the kind of thing that’s very useful to know if you’re in a situation where you have to deal with someone, and you recognize something about them that may suggest what that individual will respond to. Like in your example, people with narcissistic tendencies respond well to compliments and flattery, but quickly become angry if they or their ideas are questioned or opposed.
its a perfect movie, it is a character study, we all know people like the jury.
Heck, I bet we can all see ourselves in at least 1 of the Jurors, if not a combination of them.
I'm probably a mix of 1, 2, and 8.
I channeled this film when watching DUNE. When the Fremen are said to be “dangerous and unreliable,” I sarcastically said, “Oh, there’re some GOOD things about ’em too. I’ve known a COUPLE who were okay.”
I think she glossed right over the scene at the end where the holdout juror rips up the photo of him and his son and u kinda realize all his anamosity towards the defendant is mostly about him and his son. The defendant is a son who stabbed his father.
Yeah, the power of that moment was completely lost. Tearing up the picture is the climax of the whole film and it was left out.
Sometimes it takes a while for folks to learn how to be attentive to old movies on a first watch. Modern movies are basically not subtle with words or visuals, and attention can wander when you know you can pause and rewind if you miss something. That's not how people watched movies back in the day. If you missed something you missed it, so that was an incentive to pay close attention.
To follow a movie with this kind of dialogue means watching every shot and listening to every word that is said. For example she asked why Juror #7 was anxious to leave, when his baseball tickets are mentioned multiple times.
Still I give anyone credit for being willing to watch the classics!
Very disappointed by her edits and how the most important scenes and dialogue were left out.
Thanks, Shy! ⚖ This classic tale underlines the importance of not jumping to conclusions... of following evidence... of using logic to deduce. Far too many have forgotten this simple-yet-vital message.
Justice is to be about the pursuit of truth -- not settling for the short cut of belief.
You narrated over some of the most pivotal moments in the film.
Normally I would say it's likely to do with the whole copyright issue. However in the car of this film I've seen multiple reactions to the film that have the most pivotal moments of the film without them being cut. Many reactors will also temporarily pause the film instead of speaking over the film content.
That said she may have been doing this as a precautionary thing to prevent the possibility of a copyright strike. Which is understandable. But it is still frustrating, especially when basically every other reactor has those scenes included. Obviously if she has Patreon those followers of her will see the full reaction.
Hmm. Shadowcat enjoyed a black-and-white courtroom drama. A-ha! You are ready for "Inherit the Wind" (1960). Great script, great acting.
Using color in film had been available since the late 1930s, but up until the '60s b&w was still common because it was much cheaper. It was rarely used as a "creative choice", but a matter of expense. It wasn't until the '70s that we really start to see b&w used as a creative choice, such as "Young Frankenstein".
Although I do feel that some movies, like this one and "It's a Wonderful Life" are just better in b&w.
"Casablanca" is SUPERB in black and white -- see the 4K!
This was just one of those films that I missed...for decades. In finally saw it for the first time a few months ago. NOW I get the hype. Brilliant. Beautiful acting. Oh, and I figured it was about time to subscribe; I love your smart, thoughtful reactions. :)
OF COURSE you should watch Casablanca. Some time back the American Film Institute (I believe) released its list of the hundred best movies of all time: Casablanca was #2, and Citizen Kane, from two years earlier and also in black and white, was #1 - and I completely agree. By all means you should watch both of these, and there are so many more other great ones too. Just to barely scratch the surface: Bringing Up Baby and His Girl Friday, two incredibly great comedies both starring Cary Grant, and the much darker 1964 comedy Dr. Strangelove. Several Alfred Hitchcock thrillers, notably Psycho, Strangers on a Train, Notorious, and Spellbound. And two wonderful films dealing with the underside of American politics: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and All the King's Men (the 1949 version). All the King's Men was much later remade in color, but the color version, while more faithful to the original novel, really does not work well as a movie; the earlier version, however, is great.
Yes yes yes please watch Casablanca!!!
I don't think this is based on a true story, but it is based on a theater play, which I think you kind of see with how the characters act and behave. They have a certain theatric quality to them.
Also, I really liked how each juror had their own distinct personality and that you could always see where they stood and why they voted guilty or not guilty in any given moment. I think this is what makes or breaks this type of story, and here it was wonderfully executed. Them shutting out the racist juror instead of listening to his ranting was also very satisfying and a great way to deal with that sort of character because it became clear that discussing the case with him was a waste of time.
"12 Angry Men" was originally a teleplay, a play written for TV in the 50's, before the convenience of videotape, TV often just did straight up plays with one camera pointing toward the stage. The playwright drew from his own experiance as a juror, but it wasn't directly based on a particular trial.
The only actor from the original TV play broadcast reprising his role for this movie version, is Joseph Sweeny who played the elderly juror.
The father did time for forgery. He may have picked up some enemies along the way, even in prison.
Really appreciate your thoughtful post-film commentaries. And yes, “To kill a Mockingbird” would be an excellent choice. Another would be “Paper Moon” (1973) in which Tatum O’Neal became the youngest person ever to win an Academy Award for her performance.
The man playing the racist juror (Number 10) is Ed Begley Sr., father of Ed Begley Jr. (Dr. Linkletter in Young Sheldon).
5 B&W films I would recommend off the top of my head:
Psycho
Battleground
Stalag 17
To Kill a Mockingbird
The Day The Earth Stood Still
Wow, VERY rarely do I see or hear Battleground get any kind of mention anywhere..
Great film, great reaction. Glad you gave it the chance and enjoyed and appreciated it
These actors were giants of the stage and screen from the 1920’ through the 1980’s.
Paul Winkle, who says the boy is definitely guilty, has been saying to me for months that the knife fight in "Rebel Without a Cause" is a crusher for the defense. But it's not, at all.
Anyone can watch the "Rebel Without A Cause" knife-fight scene on TH-cam. The best video is titled "Rebel Without a Cause (1955) - The Knife Fight Scene (5/10) | Movieclips" and the channel is Movieclips.
1) During the knife fight scene, at least 13 stabs/jabs/thrusts are attempted with switchblades, and *all of them* are attempted with an "underhanded" motion/grip: that is, the way a switchblade knife should be used, not the way a normal knife would be.
2) From the beginning of the knife fight - from the first point where both fighters have their switchblades open (0:33) - to the end - (where the winner throws down his knife (2:02)), it lasts for 1:29 seconds, which is 89 seconds. There are 2 fighters with their knives open through nearly all of that, so I will multiply that by 2: switchblades are open for about 178 seconds. Of that time, only 1 fighter at any point holds his switchblade the wrong way - that is, the way a person would hold a normal knife - and that lasts for only about 5 seconds (1:25 to about 1:30). 5 seconds is less than 3% of the total time.
To recap:
1) 100% of the 13+ stabs/jabs/thrusts are done the correct way for a switchblade.
2) For less then 3% of the time is a switchblade held the wrong way, and no stab/jab/thrust is done with it when held the wrong way.
THIS IS PAUL'S CRUSHING EVIDENCE, THAT OBLITERATES THE DEFENSE!! PROOF THAT THE BOY IS GUILTY!! THE CRUSHER THAT HE'S BEEN YELLING ABOUT FOR MONTHS!! LOL!!!
So many movie Icons. Movies from back in the day are so good. The writing/acting was so much better quality. It all keeps the viewer engaged. The whole movie in basically 1 room. No nudity or language.
This was a play before being made into a movie.
The defendant was Puerto Rican, one of "them."
Regarding witness reliability, there’s so much we’ve learned about memory and cognition since this film was made. Most people today accept that witness recall is often at least somewhat inaccurate. And though most still feel their own memory is very reliable, research has demonstrated just how problematic it really is. We assemble our memories at will, haphazardly, and subject to an array of unconscious influences most of us aren’t even aware exist. A year after a group of college students were asked to describe their experiences of the attacks on the World Trade Center, which had occurred the day before they wrote the journal, the students were handed their own essay for review. Over half had forgotten key elements of their own stories, and several expressed surprise at some of the details. One student even denied she had written her own entry. Another study demonstrated over 50% of participants were successfully convinced they had once been accidentally left alone in a mall when they were children, a scenario entirely invented by the researchers. As well, there are a plethora of so-called cognitive biases that subconsciously influence our memories. Eyewitness testimony is a poor substitute for hard evidence.
When you talk about black and white being a stylistic choice, the classic example of that is Schindler's List. It is completely in 1940s-ish black and white with three brief exceptions. Had the film been in color, it would not have had the same impact.
I still need to check out Schindler's List; I've been putting it off bc I'm sure it'll be emotionally devastating
That movie is a hard watch, but a great watch.
Did you notice that none of the jurors names were revealed until the very end, when jurors 8 and 9 introduced themselves to each other on the courthouse steps?
At the start of the movie, the shots were all from above eye level. As the movie progressed, the camera angles got lower and lower, increasing the sense of being in a small space.
Juror 10 (the bigot) didn't speak a word after juror 4 (the one who said he never sweated) told him not to open his mouth again. Even when casting his final vote, he did it by shaking his head.
12 Angry Men was director Sidney Lumet's first movie for the theater (though he had already done a fair amount of TV work). He made some other really fine films, including All the King's Men, The Pawnbroker, Fail Safe, The Anderson Tapes, Serpico, Murder on the Orient Express, Dog Day Afternoon, Network, The Wiz, The Verdict, Gloria, and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. Dog Day Afternoon is one of my favorites. I'd love to see you react to it.
To Kill a Mockingbird has fallen out of favor with a lot of people in recent years, because they see it as a white savior story. I'd be interested to see what you think of it.
Since you're open to watching black and white movies, how about:
- Casablanca (1942)
- The Third Man (1949)
- The Apartment (1960)
- Some Like It Hot (1959)
- Roman Holiday (1953)
- Gaslight (1944) - Not the 1940 version.
- All About Eve (1950)
The Lion in Winter (1968) is another movie with lots of great dialogue. It stars Peter O'Toole, Katharine Hepburn, Anthony Hopkins, Timothy Dalton, Nigel Terry, and Jane Merrow. It won three Academy Awards and was nominated for four more. I'd like to see you react to it.
You did a wonderful, thoughtful, intelligent analysis of this film.
I just wish you didn’t edit out the part when Lee J. Cobb broke down in despair!
Sad that she doesn’t recognize the most important scenes and dialogue
Fonda's character was smart enough to be an architect and that training gave him the thought patterns needed for clarity.
While keeping his empathy. The guy with the glasses was very smart and cool minded but had not much empathy/ sympathy.
So many wonderful performances in this. Sadly, we lost the last of the twelve angry men back in 2012 when the excellent Jack Klugman (Juror Number 5) passed. My favorite performance in the film is that of EG Marshall, Juror Number 4. I love the two very different approaches between him and Juror Number 3, sitting right next to him, despite their both believing in the same conclusion. Plus, his response to Juror Number 10 is too perfect for words: "I have. Now sit down and don't open your mouth again." Sure enough, Juror Number 10 doesn't say another word for the rest of the film. Marshall has a small but memorable supporting role in the marvelous Humphrey Bogart-starring film, The Caine Mutiny. You might also recognize him from a role much later in life, as Beverly D'Angelo's father in Christmas Vacation.
The Director made some great great movies, The Pawnbroker, Dog Day Afternoon, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. all worth a watch.
The boy went to the movies to be SAFE. He may have even slept through. But at any rate he arrived home to be accosted by police and told his father was murdered.That is stressful to the max. It’s entirely possible to have no memory of the movie, etc.
See 1959s Anatomy of a Murder one of the best courtroom dramas ever, where the audience becomes the jury.
28:08 I remember watching this movie, just after I'd just started getting use to wearing spectacles, (Eye Glasses) at 15 years old.
That part was so prevalent to me, at that time.
Shy, thanks for your reaction, I very much enjoyed it. I would want you on my jury.😊
This was actually performed live on television first and then made into a movie. You should see 2007 Russian version of this movie entitled "12" directed by Nikita Mikhalkov. It is about 12 jurors who must decide the fate of a Chechen boy accused of killing his stepfather. Transform the setting from 1950s America to modern-day Russia, change the Latino teenager on trial to a Chechen Muslim, and turn it all over to Nikita Mikhalkov, who directed the Oscar-winning "Burnt by the Sun."
Very cool to see you give this another shot 🙂
Perhaps you'd be willing to give another Henry Fonda (Juror #8) movie a shot...
The Oxbow Incident has a slightly similar theme as this movie...
Grapes Of Wrath is another good one.
It's so interesting that their individual experiences created biases, but those differences were also assets at times. For example, the guy who came from the slums knew about switch blades. Also, the old man knew what it was like to be the old man witness. Shows the power and strength of diversity (even though at that time, there wasn't as much diversity of race and gender).
America is and always has been the most diverse and least racist country in the world. This shows the power of logical thinking and objective reality, all these men were white.
Juror number 2, John Fiedler, the small guy with the glasses voiced Piglet from Disney's Winnie the Pooh from the late 1960's until his death in 2005.
One of my all time favorite movies, that i think everyone should watch at least once..
Oh man….”You don’t REALLY mean you’ll kill me do you?” You missed that part!!! Thats one of the best moments of the film!
The other day, I just saw On the Waterfront, which had Lee J. Cobb in a major part, and Martin Balsam in a small part.
12 Angry Men was released in 1957. It, is filmed, as most movies were at that time, in B&W. Few movies from the late 1930s until the late 1960s filmed in color due to budget restraints, especially after television was introduced to the USA post WW II.
You should see 'Raging Bull' a 1980 film shot in B&W. to accurately depict the historical timeline and to preserve the impact of certain scenes. The decision to film in black and white also made the movie stand out from other boxing films like Rocky, presenting a darker and less likable protagonist.
Yes great film! I first watched this in junior high for a social studies class. It’s based on a stage play.
The Actor that fights for the Kid to get justice from the Jury is Henry Fonda. You should see him opposite Lucille Ball in "Your, Mine, and Our's" you would really like it I am sure.
The shot of the accused near the beginning of the movie gives the impression that he's non-Anglo. Given the time - and knowing what were considered hot button issues in 1957 -- it's reasonable to assume that the accused is (or is perceived as) Puerto Rican: hence the bigot's diatribe. Sickening!
Great reaction! Thank you!
Yeah, given that it's New York in the 1950s, I assume that he's Puerto Rican.
@@kh884488 I think maybe the point they are trying to make is that although the defendant is a U.S. citizen(just like the others) he is not being treated like one.
@@tomloft2000 How is he not being treated like any other citizen? The point being made is the guy's personal prejudice could send a young man to his death on shaky evidence. At the surface, the evidence and testimony is pretty good, so yes, he should be on trial. It's why we have innocent people in jail today. Thankfully, juror 8 didn't have those same prejudices. Most of us like to think we'd be jury 8 in this scenario. But the truth is, most of us would probably be just like the other 11 jurors, in some way.
@@tomloft2000 Only one juror show bias towards him, correct?
There are dozens of phenomenal B/W films, made great by every aspect of story telling, from cinematography, to script, to acting, to music. Here are three recommendations that hit at least 3 of these. 'Double Indemnity" , "Witness For the Prosecution" , "Gaslight".
Oh, gad! -- the ACTING of Charles Laughton and Elsa Lanchester in "Witness for the Prosecution" is to DIE for!
Jury duty has been, for me, more interesting than you might think. I am convinced that the adversarial system we have (in the U.S.) is just a bad design....debate is not a good way to get to truth, but I was impressed by people on the jury, all of whom took it appropriately seriously.
One great movie that breaks the racial barriers is
"Guess whos coming to diner".
All star cast
Cathrine hepburn spencer tracey sydney portier
Definitely To Kill A Mockingbird and Casablanca. Both excellent films.
I don't know if it's a movie - I saw it as a play - but The Pillowman is a story that makes you think about how we act in extreme situations.
What is a movie and also is a heavy trial movie is Judgement at Nuremberg. Has a young William Shatner and also Spencer Tracey in one of his last roles. Sadly a film that's rather relevant to today - wish that wasn't true.
Thanks for this reaction/review.
Oh, search for "Danusia Trevino Guilty The Moth". It's... it's the story of a juror. It's like 12 Angry Men but told by the guy who wanted to go to the baseball game - but she evolves a bit further than him (low bar).
Another reactor described this film a certain way and it stuck with me: "this wasn't a tale of heroism, this was a tale of humanity ... this was a very human thing that happened". So if there's a positive message 12 Angry Men can give us, it's that we can all be human beings if we want to. Even in spite of how far from perfect our world is.
Every juror contributed something during the course of the argument. Many times they did it unintentionally, and their personal turning point when siding with Juror #8 sheds subtle bits of light on how they feel not just about the case but about the other people they're arguing with.
Fun facts about the cast (which I'm sure can be found from others in the comments): Juror #1 was the detective who got bumped off in Hitchcock's Psycho. Juror #2 voiced Piglet for the Winnie the Pooh shorts. Juror #3 was the detective who contacted Father Damian in The Exorcist. Juror #4 was one of Griswold's cranky in-laws in National Lampoon's Xmas Vacation. Juror #5 spent 5 years as Oscar in the TV version of The Odd Couple. Juror #6 was a detective in Hitchcock's North by Northwest. Juror #7 was the U.S. President who gets hoodwinked by Peter Sellers in Being There. Juror #8 was the producer of this film, and his company folded when the box office for 12 Angry Men fell short. Juror #9 played the same character when 12 Angry Men was performed as a play 3 years earlier. Juror #10 won an Oscar for playing a similar hypocrite-scum character in Sweet Bird of Youth. Juror #11 wrote plenty of non-fiction in his native Czech language. Juror #12 ended up appearing in almost every spy series on TV during the 60s and 70s.
I only served on a jury once. It was child molestation case. By the time the trial ended, most of were convinced the defendant was guilty. Nevertheless, we went through each charge individually and discussed them extensively. We deliberated for 1 1/2 days. He was found guilty on all counts.
If you're summoned for jury duty and encounter personal beliefs or ethical concerns, such as an overbearing fear of potentially convicting an innocent person, express these feelings during jury selection. *It is your duty!* If you discover these feelings after jury selection, still notify the judge. It is never too late; however, the longer you wait, the more of problematic it becomes. The same goes if you notice another jury member with such feelings. Don't worry about inconveniencing anyone. You have a responsibility to disclose anything that may hinder a fair verdict.
You or the other jury member may be dismissed from the trial, depending on the judge and the severity of the concern. It is the judge's responsibly to make that call and records the issue. Later, since the issue was recorded, the defense or prosecutors may appeal the decision. All you need to do is be honest and expressive of your concerns. The court system determines fairness. This takes the burden off you and better ensures the integrity of the trial.
At 31:08; we see what looks like the angry juror (last Not Guilty), walking slowly down the steps... defeated.
My theory; is a fellow gang member was jealous of the kid, found the knife and killed the kids father, believing the kid would go to prison, but didn't realize the kid could be executed?
When the kid returns to the neighborhood, he meets up with the other members of the gang, tells them what happened and after some "questioning" the jealous boy confesses and is kicked out of the gang to be alone on the dangerous streets versus trying to convince the cops and/or a prosecutor?
You absolutely have to watch One Upon a Time in the West (1968), which was Henry Fonda's ONLY villain role in his 50 year career. But man, what a villain he was!
"Those People" as referred in this time piece were Puerto Ricans.
The who played the rather mild little man who some kind of ignored or tried to push around and got tried of it was John fielder (1925-2005) the one that call the other man a jerk was also the voice of piglet in the original cartoon Winnie The Pooh that you probably enjoyed watching as a child as did I when I was a child many years ago. All the actors in that movie were all considered top rated actors of their day all have passed away the last being Jack Klugman(1922-2012) who portrayed the Juror who came from the slum in the movie. That and the one who first voted not guilty was Henry Fonda(1905-1982) probably the biggest name actor in the movie who had a daughter who also was in movies Jane Fonda the actress who is still with us as of now.
In some countries they have 3 choices: guilty, not guilty, and not proven. So you don’t have to think someone is innocent, just that the prosecutor didn’t prove him guilty.
7:50 "them" is Puerto Ricans, for the record.
I, too, saw a classic film in school and paid little attention. Mine was Casablanca. I saw it again 25 years later with my youngest son at a showing at an old theater downtown. I fell in love with it and it’s now my favorite movie.
Growing up I saw "Casablanca" dozens of times on TeeVee. Not impressed.
Recently I revisited it -- and the Making-of documentary -- and was absolutely blown away (the 4K is GORGEOUS!).
Film begins with writing, and the screenplay is beyond superlatives, and the characters in context amazingly complex.
Great, great film.
I think the "them" being talked about is Puerto Ricans, who were the targets of a lot or racism.
Where did you find this version of the movie? I've never seen that title card over the stairs to the courthouse before. The title card is usually shown when we first enter the deliberation room.
(or did you edit it yourself?)
I was on a jury for a guy accused of hitting his wife and two teenage sons over a TV !! Felony. Most of the people on the jury just wanted to go home.
The woman who wanted to be the 'foreperson' started with, "I don't mind telling you that I think he's guilty as hell." I led the 'not guilty' group.
Eventually acquitted of all charges. Mostly because the cops did such a bad investigation.
A GREAT “TRUE STORY” MOVIE is Erin Brockovich. Great movie!
Apollo 13 w/Tom Hanks is a great one.
Hidden Figures is an excellent “true story” film! 😊❤❤❤
LOVED, LOVED YOUR REACTION TO THIS CLASSIC!
Reasonable doubt does not mean not impossible. The kid had the unusual, if not unique, murder weapon. The kid had motive, no one else is suggested as a possible suspect. The victim was poor, so robbery was not a motive. In that brief period the kid is out someone else runs up the stairs and kills him is far fetched. The juror answered multiple questions about the movies he saw before he missed a detail. He remembered quite a bit. The kid remembered absolutely nothing, not if it was a western, comedy, no one in the movie. No one saw him at the movies. Can you imagine not being able to remember anything in the hours after watching a movie? Regardless of how a switchblade is typically used, whoever used it used it overhand. Try changing a pencil from an underhand grip to and overhand grip onehanded. It's easy, and if you use that type of knife frequently it would be instant.
Say there's a 1% chance that someone else wanted to kill the victim and did it in the short time the son was away. Say there is a 1% chance of the killer having the same knife. Say there is a 10% chance the kid can't remember anything. That brings it to a 1 in 100,000 chance. That is beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind.
So many times, sadly, the jurors bring personal experiences and prejudices to the proverbial table and mistakes can be made. It takes some time for these guys to realize that a young man’s life is on the line. It is indeed SCARY, Shy. Very scary. 😢
What does the elderly juror know about what it's like to be elderly?
I'm so glad the adult you realize the value of this movie experience! anyone who votes might be called to jury duty. I hope you give yourself the chance to serve on a jury some day
Black & white isn't always necessarily a stylistic choice; I'm pretty sure it was also more expensive to film in color. That actually may still be the case for all I know, but it's probably true that more people nowadays have a prejudice against black and white films.
Hey, Shadowcat! I'm glad that you appreciated the dialogue which is extremely economical and almost always revelatory. However, you talked over many crucial moments and famous lines with your commentary rather than registering what was being said! Perhaps it was just the way that it was edited but your reactions indicated you hadn't heard the points being made such as the first defection, the "I'll kill him" reversal, the set-up for the bead of sweat or Cobb's back story and shattering epiphany. Your deconstruction afterwards was quite cogent but I recommend you leave your lengthier statements for the outro.
By the way, "them" referred to Puerto Ricans specifically or Hispanics in general. Juror # 8 is a racist. I've seen several millennials get confused by the term "them" which surprises me since so many young people get triggered so easily by "those people" even when used in an innocuous, non-ethnic context. The modern remake features an African-American reverse racist.
I was called four times for jury duty and served twice (civil, criminal), luckily not a murder trial.
Another great movie with Henry Fonda in a similar vein is "The Oxbow Incident", a famous short story I read in high school but didn't see the movie until my twenties and deals with frontier judgement. It's another great movie with another great cast and helped cement Fonda as a great actor. Highly recommend it or just read the short story!
This must be a record. Your video is the 6th movie reaction in a row where the reactor has already seen the movie. I guess the search continues for an authentic reaction. lol.
More people need to get over the aversion to b&w films. It's absolutely shameful that so many people think that some of the greatest films of all time are inferior to the CGI fests of today that have no heart or soul. Glad you're making an effort.