*12 ANGRY MEN* was way better than i thought it'd be! | First Time Watching REACTION 

The question isn't actually about the defendant's guilt. It's about whether guilt was PROVEN.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Lee J. Cobb was such a force of nature in this movie. He also had the best character arc.

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.

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 RU-vid. 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.

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.

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.🙂

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

It's an absolute classic. One of my favorite flicks ever.

This is the very rare film that needs no remake because it is impossible to better.

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.

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.

The kid looks Puerto Rican/latino I think , that’s why one of “them” is mentioned

its a perfect movie, it is a character study, we all know people like the jury.

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.

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.

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.

Personally, I think anyone who is going to be on a a jury should have to watch this movie.

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 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).

Come on Cat you should expect a classic to be good. You should watch more classics. They don’t make movies like this anymore.

The hold-out juror is the great Henry Fonda (and also the producer of the film).

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 RU-vid. 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!!!

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

The father did time for forgery. He may have picked up some enemies along the way, even in prison.

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.

The man playing the racist juror (Number 10) is Ed Begley Sr., father of Ed Begley Jr. (Dr. Linkletter in Young Sheldon).

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.

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.

Great film, great reaction. Glad you gave it the chance and enjoyed and appreciated it

This was a play before being made into a movie. The defendant was Puerto Rican, one of "them."

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.

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.

You narrated over some of the most pivotal moments in the film.

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. :)

Fonda's character was smart enough to be an architect and that training gave him the thought patterns needed for clarity.

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.

Hmm. Shadowcat enjoyed a black-and-white courtroom drama. A-ha! You are ready for "Inherit the Wind" (1960). Great script, great acting.

See 1959s Anatomy of a Murder one of the best courtroom dramas ever, where the audience becomes the jury.

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.

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.

The Director made some great great movies, The Pawnbroker, Dog Day Afternoon, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. all worth a watch.

I think the "them" being talked about is Puerto Ricans, who were the targets of a lot or racism.

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

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."

Definitely To Kill A Mockingbird and Casablanca. Both excellent films.

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.

Public defenders are worth what you pay for them. They will do the paperwork. But whatever charge you go in with is what you come out with. This comes from a lady who owns a bail bond company. 'Justice'

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!

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..)

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.

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.

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).

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.

One great movie that breaks the racial barriers is "Guess whos coming to diner". All star cast Cathrine hepburn spencer tracey sydney portier

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.

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.

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.

One of my all time favorite movies, that i think everyone should watch at least once..

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.

I always thought the kid did kill his father, but I would have had to say not guilty still as I could never say beyond a doubt given the evidences. Occam's razor: The explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is usually correct. First assumption: Kid killed his father. Second: he bought the exact same knife as the murder weapon the same day after a fight with his dad to lose it just after and he just so happen to not have any alibi. tl;dr From an Occam's razor's perspective I think he did it, but there aren't enough strong evidence, so not guilty

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!

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.

Unfortunately the system is set that if a mistake is made it is supposed to be letting the guilty go over wrongly punishing an innocent. That's why it's beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that too is one of the reasons the death penalty has been fading, once that sentence is carried out you can't ever take it back. Another suggestions from English class in the early 70's Great Expectations .

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!

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.

Shy, thanks for your reaction, I very much enjoyed it. I would want you on my jury.😊

Excellent reaction. Really enjoyed it!

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.

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. 😢

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.

What does the elderly juror know about what it's like to be elderly?

Gotta compliment your awareness of that whole “these kids today” nonsense coming in every generation. I’m Gen X and people my age embarrass me all the time by talking about kids today not appreciating this or that, things being so much worse, how bad things are now and how great the 80s were. Dude, I was there. It sucked. Every generation has problems. And I was called in for jury duty a couple of years ago and I was THRILLED that I didn’t make it past jury selection. A few days in, they let me go. The case was a man accused by three women of molesting them as children. I got to hear the general charges… various acts with a minor, multiple offenses, all three victims had this long list of things he had allegedly done to them. I was horrified but when asked I said I would try to be impartial. But I admit, I did throw in one caveat… my best friend as a child was molested by her father. It was really no surprise when the prosecution listed jurors she wanted to dismiss and I wasn’t on it, but I was the first the defense sent home! Well, I was juror #1 by then so yeah… but also, the victims were all roughly the age of my oldest daughter and that information had also been given to the attorneys. I have a feeling that also saved me from having to hear those charges described in court. I think they were right… I doubt I could have remained objective enough. So hey, if you get called in maybe you’ll be too close to the crime! ;)

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.

You mentioned you hope you never get called to jury duty. It's part of the gift of citizenship in this country. Even England they have to prove innocent we are presumed innocent in the US. Yes it's a sacrifice but that's why we should be willing. Most people take it seriously. Thank you for the beautiful reaction.

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.

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.

"Those People" as referred in this time piece were Puerto Ricans.

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".

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.

I really enjoyed this reaction to a classic old film. I am subscribed and looking forward to all your videos past and present...very impressive job, ma'am!

Well, at least until the last 10 seconds, you didn’t have to worry about any character names. Even the people involved in the case are just referred to as “the kid”, “the father”, “the woman” and “the old man”.

Would love to see this country get rid of jury trials.

Haha I was one of those people telling you about B&W film being a more common creative choice back then on the It's A Wonderful Life video. I hope I wasn't coming across as aggressive or as a know-it-all! I didn't know all this stuff at first, either. But I had the advantage of being raised by my parents to watch cinema from all eras from a very early age. So, I started my classic cinema journey much sooner

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?)

This is a GREAT movie. I haven't seen it in a while. If you want more suggestions for classic movies, let us know.

One way to look at it, from the defense point of view, is that the state has the power to take everything from you, in some cases, including your life. That is why the burden if proof is on the prosecutor. And the standard in criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt." I am certain a lot of defense attorneys can feel they could defend a guilty client because they are there to hold the prosecutor to very high standards of proof.

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!

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!

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).