12 Angry Men - The Value of Human Life 

Ask it to the 12th person before you and you'll have your answer.

Not a perfect movie, but a perfectly written script, and a perfectly executed movie based on that script

@@MarkFilipAnthony How is it not perfect?

@@MarkFilipAnthony Well then i suppose that depends on what your definition of perfect is...for both you and Anurag Ate as well if they're implying it to be a perfect film

I didn't like the ending. It was too clean. I don't mind the father changing his mind, but I think the bigot should have held his vote guilty and end with a hung jury. It would have been more grey and complicated instead of the good ending we got.

+Like Stories of Old - absolutely! The cherry on top is that it's the non native English speaking immigrant (watchmaker) who corrects him.

Definitely, I know that Chinatown is often called the best screenplay of all time-but this can give it a run for its money!

That reminds me: the complete original 1954 live television version (thought to be lost for a long time, but now preserved) is uploaded here on RU-vid. Very interesting to see how it had been refined and completed into this 90+ minute masterpiece, but the original already had almost everything in place, including this part. The ending differs quite a bit, but I will not spoil it. Very happy to know that Reginald Rose improved his own original teleplay without any "help" or interference.

Why is Chinatown called the best screenplay of all time? I've watched it once and it's probably the best movie of the " cinéma noir " genre but i wasn't blown away by the story.

The average American can't even speak English.

Most people talk about " you aren't really going to kill me are you" scene but I find it little predictable but this scene is my favorite i never expected to hear him say that.

I love it when he pulls the same exact knife out and they're all like wooaaaahh where'd you get that!?!

"He don't even speak good English!" "He *doesn't even speak good English..."

Then why do you celebrate a movie in which evil triumphs? Nicholas Stix, Uncensored

@@nstix2009xitsn I don't understand your question.

@@jeffblack2458 The defendant is guilty as hell. Don't you want justice to prevail?

@@nstix2009xitsn 12 jurors examined the evidence against him and found it lacking. The defendant MIGHT be guilty, but the prosecutor did not meet his burden of proof, which resulted in a not guilty verdict. So, justice DID prevail.

@@jeffblack2458 If your logic holds, then justice DID prevail in the 1955 trial of Emmett Till’s killers.

+Ronin Socrates - good point. It definitely is one of the pivotal moments in the movie (IMHO there are several), the one that sets everything in motion. Fonda's character makes the decision to vote guilty with the other 11 jurors after another vote - if it remains the same, to avoid a hung jury. In that case it would be passed on to another jury, after another trial (probably with the D.A. even better prepared - some of the evidence is definitely rather shaky as we find out during the movie) which very likely will vote unanimously guilty anyway. I also like the reason why the old man supports Fonda's character: not only because Fonda is alone, but also to "hear more" - what the others have to say (as you already stated). The script is fantastic with attention to the smallest detail (to say nothing about the performance of the top notch ensemble cast).

Champion comment. You raise a really interesting point!

He is also the one convincing Juror 4 with the glasses, which is the most important moment according to this video.

He’s also the one of the only two jurors we learn the name of

True

Welcome to new horizons.

On the Waterfront. Watch it.

Not to sound condescending, but there are a lot of B&W films that are called "classic" for a reason. I urge you to watch many more as in a world full of remakes & reboots & reimaginings, we still have the classics to look back on. I hope you dive into the deep end & enjoy.

@@TNO73 2019 film The Lighthouse, black and white, an incredible film.

@@kidmack1121 Couldn't find it at IMDB.

Well said.

Good comment.

I like to think we’ll be there some day.

@@OlliOtter It is our duty to try.

@@OlliOtter Nah you won't be there. I'm gonna say only one name......George Floyd

Just dont quit acting maam. Maybe you'll surpass Meryll Streep one day ☺

Unthinkable

@@pistachioinlove2862 Well, upload some videos on RU-vid and take in whatever constructive feedback you have to refine your skills to a knife edge. That's what I intend to do.

Lee J. Cobb was phenomenal in this role. He seems so reasonable early on, and the heightened pressure brings him to a boiling point. The subtlety in his performance is a Master Class in acting.

Same watched it in a English class in Middle school. Stuck with me ever since

My government teacher did the same.

"[M]y law teacher had my class watch it in high school and I'm so happy he did[.]" So long as your law teacher pointed out the overwhelming juror misconduct in the film: (Talking about one's experience in gang knife fights; pacing the room at the supposed walking speed of a witness; buying a knife and bringing it into the jury room to show murder weapon availability.) Those are all examples of a jury considering evidence outside the record, which would be solid grounds for a mistrial. The viewer can overlook it. But a teacher would be remiss not to point the misconduct out.

You should watch Rashomon!

That would spoil the movie. Movies like these are timeless.

You can tell just by the way the actors look and are dressed that it didn't take place today. Also, the amount of casual smoking 🚬 portrayed on screen is from another bygone era

Could not have said it better myself......

That's one of Reginald Rose's tricks. The easiest evidence to impeach is eyewitness testimony. But the case wasn't made on eyewitness testimony; it was made on circumstantial evidence. nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2020/05/stacking-deck-analysis-of-first-tv.html

I agree. What a brilliant character. He starts out as a loud, abrasive, "public avenger" and by the end is revealed to be a caring, heartbroken parent seeking to do the right thing.

Why dont we let a jury decide whether or not a person is human.

Whaddya mean I’m not human?

I'm trying to have a good blend of contemporary and classic. I definitely swing towards more modern movies, but it's always important to look back!

Yeah im younger and am trying to watch as many classic movies as I can, classic being modern too.

+Nuttybartony - please allow me to add my 2C. Fully agreed. Many older movies show their age, often badly, because just about everything has changed meanwhile. It is an incredible achievement when a 60+ year old movie holds up' this well and doesn't even require the work to get into an older style of story, pacing, cinematography, overall feel and (of course) acting.

One thing I heard about Lumet's style was he moved the walls in closer as the movie progressed. Not by much, but by the movie's climax they had been moved inwards many times. Added to the almost claustrophobic atmosphere.

​​@@markh3271 He also moved the camera angle gradually up throughout to increase the claustrophobia

Swarm509, I truly liked your comment! Yes, I see myself in some jurors, especially jurors number 2 (because of his timidity) and juror number 5 and juror number 11. It's nice to notice how some of them caught what juror nº 8 was trying to say and changed their minds. It was not about decide If the boy was guilty or not, but If there were enough facts to prove his guilty or not. Jurors nº4 and 10 exposed their prejudice about the ones who lives on slams, although only juror nº 4 didn't let it affect his reasons. Juror nº 3 wasn't showing his prejudice about it, but he let his bad relationship with his kid affects his rationallity. He saw the kid as If he was his own son and wanted to punish him. I like the part when juror nº 8 points that the witness are ONLY people and says to juror nº 12 "...supposing they're wrong". Then juror nº 12 replies "what the point to have witnesses at all". It shows that juror nº 12 had believed in every word the witnesses said without even considering they could have made any kind of mistake. It's like juror nº8 was just trying to led them all to check everything detailed. After all, they were deciding about someone else's life. Everyone of them had his contribution, but I really loved jurors number 3, 4, 8 and 9! Juror number 8 sums it up when he says: "It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth." They all had their background, past experiences and beliefs, but some of them were not able to check the facts themselves and see If everything really fits! The system itself is failure by the human nature itself. We are only humans, making mistakes is part of our nature so, having said that, everything we do should be seen very carefully. Swarm509, like you said perfectly, we can see ourselves in a few of them.

Exactly. I think even higher than morality and the value of human life, is the lesson about the breaking of ego and arrogance is what this movie is about. Masterfully portrayed by the turning opinions of eventually all the characters. Also note how when the vote is 6-6, it starts to rain, while still hot. The heat at the beginning of the movie symbolizes the arrogance, and its weakening throughout the movie. And at the beginning of the movie, when all jurors reached objectivity and moved past their ego, the weather is cool, not raining.

If the victim is female I will alway svote to acquit.

I'm one of the good guys. Objective and seeking good all the time.

People are no different now than they were then. We're just as susceptible to prejudice and bias. It's the society around us that has changed.

Actually, it's gotten much worse now.

I disagree, and I'm a minority. Also it's good to note that most of the men just looked back in disgust meaning that in supposedly super racist times like 50s most people weren't racist.

@@RSidd No it fkn hasn't. Cut the crap.

I'd say I have. Most people don't say it to their faces, but online? I've seen disgusting things like that. And not just towards "minorities"; everyone gets to be a victim of it in some ways.

Indeed, I'm surprised I haven't read that observation more .

Kerorofan What "hole in his logic"? He knew everything about the pictures he'd seen the previous night, while the killer knew nothing about the pictures he claimed to have seen (at the time the police interrogated him), not even their names or plots, because he hadn't seen them.

CJ Fun fact: if you ever played the game The Darkness, you actually can watch all of To Kill A Mockingbird on a tiny in-game TV screen.

When did they change it to be about Hispanics? I have re-posted the original version, and the defendant (i.e., murderer) is Puerto Rican.

@@nstix2009xitsn A very late response here, but however. Some spanish people decided to remake the movie on their own, you can watch it here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jO3kJ8w_1L8.html

lol no it wouldn't. If it was made today, it would end up in the oscar season, get a high turn out, and likely win a bunch of awards. Actually, during this time period I got a feeling someone probably said "with all these dang westerns and cowboys, a good old movie like this won't make any money today." But it did, and like now we would praise it. You're kind basically saying the exact type of shit the antagonist of the film would say, that all this today now sucks. When it really doesn't.

A film by Lumet starring Henry Fuckin' Fonda together with a damn strong cast would *not* be "relegated to some arthouse theaters" dude

Shane Benjamson well to be honest the movie didn't get any commercial succes when it was released. The main protagonist/producer didn't even get a paycheck. The movie got through to audiences when it was allready about 30 years old.

@@MrBeastknows No it wouldn't because they all are white men To get an Oscar these days, someone has to be a black transgender playing a crippled lesbian

Jagan Joseph You're easily one of the worst trolls I've seen so far. The stupidity is way too easy to see in the bait. Better luck next time.

+Matthew Butters - yes, that's correct, his blind prejudice in the context of this story is much more against the lower classes than ethnic groups, but I think the word racist is more than appropriate to sum it up in one word. It is highly likely that he is also a literal racist.

What about the "can't speak proper english" comment?

Kyle Pongos Well this could be bigotry around the way lower classes talked: calling it not proper English. Overall i think theres more evidence it is class discrimination rather than simple racism.

I always thought the defendant was Hispanic. I thought it was actual racism rather than just based on class

Thank you and thank you!

truefilm thank you, you just earned my subscription.

Thanks for watching!

Szasz Werner Great suggestion. I've noticed my interpretation deviates from many others as well

Courthouses obviously did not have metal detectors back then.

It was also illegal, and would have required the judge to declare a mistrial.

@@nstix2009xitsn And your law degree is from what school?

@@rickbruner5525 "And your law degree is from what school?" What a stupid, irrelevant comment. You don't ask the other idiots who think such maneuvers are brilliant where they got their law degrees.

I was asking you to support your statement that the duplicate knife was illegal. Instead you are whining. Jurors are not only allowed to question testimony/evidence, they are required to do so.

A.T. Wrong actor.

Great comment, but that's not Mineo...

Thanks Theo!

Of course! I'm glad you enjoyed!

Thank you!

Enjoy! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qJc01-qWzU8.html

Derynator Straw Dogs is one of my favourite character driven films

Thanks Dan! More Lumet is inevitable at some point!