A Timeless Classic! First Time Watching *12 Angry Men* 

This movie goes to prove how much tension can be built with simple pieces of paper. No CGI regquired, just a legal pad.

This movie is the shining example to movie makers , that you don't need big budgets, large sets or special effects. It demonstrates that you only need a good script and great actors to engage and captivate an audience. This movie NEVER gets old. There are remakes, and they are great. But the Original is awesome as it is timeless.

The phrase “he’s one of ~them~” is meant to highlight that prejudice exists. The film deliberately never states the ethnic or racial background of the boy (or the woman who saw the killing.) But since it takes place in New York during the 1950’s, it is likely that the boy was Puerto Rican, as there was a lot of anti-Puerto Rican bigotry at the time. (See “West Side Story” for more on that.) And yes, there is also anti-immigrant prejudice; because of the situation in Europe in the 1930’s and 1940’s, many people, especially those in Eastern Europe, were eager to to get to the US and it’s promise of democracy and freedom. But there was still prejudice against those who had accents or appeared to look like they came from certain countries. This film isn’t that long after WW2 so there was still mixed feelings about these immigrants. The issue of how prejudice, bigotry, or racism affects people’s judgment is interwoven throughout the script. But yes, the Dad was transferring his anger and grief about the situation with his son onto the accused, so psychological traumas can also affect a person’s judgment.

A brilliantly written script, a dozen of THE best character actors in Hollywood, a director who understands blocking and OMG the cinematography.

"What do you know about it?" What does the elderly juror know about being elderly?

They don't specify the kid's ethnicity, or who 'they' are; at various times, so many newer immigrant groups have been looked at as dirt. This kid (the actor) is Italian. I thought he looked Jewish when I first saw this, he could also look Puerto Rican, Moroccan, Greek, Lebanese, Turkish - - and people from all of these groups have gone through at least a generation of being seen as the rags class, especially in NYC and other urban areas where many new immigrants lived in tenement housing for a couple of generations. I think the fact that it's left up to the audience to decide makes it interpretable to almost any decade's mass immigrants and refugees.

Rear Window is another good movie shot in one room. And for a recent movie, I believe 'Buried ' starring Ryan Reynolds was shot almost entirely in the coffin

This is my favorite movie to watch first time reactions to! It's always like seeing it for the first time... again!

Wow, great reaction to this wonderful film. There are good reasons why these classic films are still watched and discussed decades later. In this case, no action, special effects and mostly one set -- just excellent acting, screenplay and camera work with a timeless story. For me, I think this film is brilliant because we only know details about the case that the jurors themselves tell us. We, the audience, are one step removed from reality just as the jurors were one step removed from reality based off of the testimonies from the court case. As a result, we the audience, become the jury for the jurors.

There is very little "screening" of jurors in our system, even today. If anything, most of the people that you would think that you would want on a jury do all they can to get out of serving, especially with regard to State court jury service. As for films taking place primarily or exclusively in one place, check out Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope;" it not only takes place in one locale, but it's also shot as one entire take (it's not; Hitchcock used shadows, etc., in rather ingenious ways to end takes while at the same time creating the illusion of continuity). It gets almost claustrophobic by the end - by design, of course.

Alfred Hitchcock's The Rope also takes place in one room.

Good job. This is one of my favorite flicks to watch reactions to. One thing I always find fascinating is how younger people - of a generation that, to my addled GenX brain, always seems absolutely obsessed with racism - can never quite figure out what’s meant by “them,” or “those people.” But viewers of the time (1957) would’ve got right away that the kid was Puerto Rican. See also: West Side Story. If you feel up to it, here’s a handful of other black & white movies you might enjoy reacting to: 1. HIS GIRL FRIDAY (1940), 2. THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE (1962), 3. DUCK SOUP (1933), 4. DEAD END (1937), 5. ARSNIC AND OLD LACE (1944), 6. HARVEY (1950), 7. STAGECOACH (1939) And, so far as color goes, I always try and hook new people to what was, despite only lasting 14 episodes, the greatest tv show of all time: FIREFLY (2002).

Thank you for your reaction video! It's really so cool that you watched this old classic! I think it's remarkable that you grasped the deep meaning, relevance and value of this masterpiece. The film has never been more importand than now, when you look at the USA, right? Thank you from Germany!

This is a great movie. Innocent until proven guilty is how jurors are supposed to go into the deliberation room. There are things this jury did that you are not supposed to do. For example, Henry Fonda's character bought the knife knowing it was close to the boy's apartment. You can't do your own investigation. Today it would be more like using the internet to research. Other than that this was a wonderful drama with superb acting.

What a great movie. Very well written and acted by some amazing actors. It's also very accurate about what can happen in a jury room. I've served in a couple juries in my lifetime now. The first time it seemed like half the jurors treated it like a game, as if they were watching an episode of "Murder She Wrote". People making wild speculation that had nothing to do with the case. It was a drug sting case where they set up a drug dealer who bought police marked drugs from an undercover cop with a wire and it was all recorded. I remember voicing my concerns about serving because I'd had a DUI years before and thought I could possibly be prejudiced against the cops. In the juror room, someone had voted innocent and when we discussed someone asked me if I was the one. I said no, I voted guilty because the facts against the guy were solid, with the recorded conversation and the other evidence. We found out after we had delivered our guilty verdict that this kid was also going to be hit with a "three strikes" law and go away to prison for a very long time because he was a habitual offender. In the elevator ride down, the kid's lawyer asked me if I voted innocent, and I told him that no, I felt he was indeed guilty. During the time in the jury room, we had conversations very similar to the ones in the film ( though not nearly as dramatic).

This was originally a live one-hour television play. It's available on RU-vid

Everything about it is brilliant, and Lee J. Cobb was phenomenal as usual.

Juror 2 voiced Piglet in Winnie the Pooh.

This is probably one of the top five movies ever made. Easily top 10. A lot of conflict and great dialogue. Amazing visuals. It needs to pointed out though, that in a real jury situation in the 1950s, the young man would’ve been found guilty. Eyewitness testimony was very important at that time. They didn’t have DNA evidence. They didn’t have cameras everywhere to provide any visual evidence. We couldn’t trace cell phones and that kind of stuff. Eyewitnesses testimony was the most reliable thing they had then. It wasn’t completely understood how unreliable it was until these other sources came into being and started to prove how inaccurate it could be. Another issue: it is the duty of a jury to take the evidence presented and come to a conclusion. They don’t retry the case in the back room like this, without lawyers and judge present. That’s the whole point of having the trial. I did like your reaction though. A lot of good black-and-white movies out there. They didn’t have the special effects and CGI or even color to distract you so they had to have great plots, great scripts and great acting.

@18:22 _Underhanded_ This means *the alleged murder weapon is brought into doubt.* It is shown now that the murder weapon is highly improbable to be *a switchblade* because of the stab *downward angle.* Remember also that the switchblade was *found clean of fingerprints.* The police just found it in the staircase & assumed it to be the murder weapon.

Jurors are technically not "screended". I was summoned for jury duty. The judge asked the group I was in if we could objectively and fairly serve as jurors. Then the attorneys for the prosecution and the defendant decide the jury panel. I was picked to sit on the panel. The case my panel heard was a murder case. We decided the defendant was guilty.

The foreshadowing in this film is interesting. The guy who says he has no personal feelings about the case, is judging it on the basis of his broken relationship with his own son. The guy who says he never sweats, starts to sweat as he begins having doubts. The guy who says his mind couldn't be changed in a million years, changes his mind just to speed things along.

All of these actors are famous

As for films taking place primarily or exclusively in one place, check out Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope;" it not only takes place in one locale, but it's also shot as one entire take (it's not; Hitchcock used shadows, etc., in rather ingenious ways to end takes while at the same time creating the illusion of continuity). It gets almost claustrophobic by the end - by design, of course.

New to your channel.........Lee J. Cobb (Juror No. 3) was first among equals in an all-star cast.....enjoyed your reaction. thanks for posting............

This is a brilliant film. The block shots are explementary. Very well edited, if I may say so.

The accused is Puerto Rican, "one of them" according to some of the jurors.

Another “one room” movie was Hitchcock’s “Rope” with some ingenious cuts to make the viewer think it was all done in one take.

These types of juries were more common than you might believe. At least until the laws were more publicly discussed in the sixties. The earl. Warren Supreme court made the application of Constitutional law important.

The weakest point is the movie theatre story. But the kid could have been somewhere else, stealing cars or whatever, that he didn't want to talk about to the cops. Not to have been at the theatre, doesn't mean he did it.

The picture of you in the thumbnail pretty much fits with the personality that you show during the reaction

The same director made, many decades later, the great film "The Verdict," with Paul Newman.

7:45 this would likely result in a mistrial.

The hold out juror definitely was blinded by his anger & hurt in his relationship with his son. Likely wouldn't show itself even to himself before the trial & seeing the accused, a kid his son's age

It always bothers me that on one thought to find out if the boy's pants pocket had a hole in it. Or if the witnesses glasses were for distance or reading. Or for that the marks on her noes and how fast the old man could walk were discussed at all.

This was a stage Play, hence the reason why it takes place mostly in 1 room. This has been re-made with actors from the 80s. Both are great to watch. Another great 1 room Story is the Fox and the Hound. Other great court drama is Presumed Innocent. Other great B&W movie to review is Night at the Opera.

This is in my top 5 favorite movies.

For a masterful suspense thriller that takes place in one room see REAR WINDOW (1954).

It would have been funny if juror # 8 Henry Fonda was actually the boy on trials uncle. Lol Thanks Uncle. Great movie my favorite one.

11:05 "I'm gonna lay you out"

I mean this as a compliment: Andy Samberg vibes

All white males, yet diversity of thought and experience. Just sayin.

Stage play on film. Still very good.

You should have a bottle of booze or a pint jar and sip whenever you get pissed.

Whoa whoa whoa...are you saying you have never seen To Kill A Mockingbird? What about Inherit the Wind? Or Fail Safe or Dr Strangelove or It's A Wonderful Life? Judgment at Nuremberg or Seven Samurai or Raging Bull or Paths of Glory? My god...many of the greatest films ever made are not in color...you are fully missing out of you are not looking at black and white movies.

Your voice is so soothing and your insights into the film intelligently spot on! New subscriber!

Having great scenery and pretentious filmmaking can sometimes hide a bad movie. But you've got to have your story and characters together to do a movie like this. It's why Silence of the Lambs is a great film and Hannibal (the movie, not the TV show) is not. If you know how to shoot a scene, you can made the settings as simple as you want. You never get a sense in Silence of the Lambs how big Hannibal Lecter actually is. In Hannibal, he's just a dumpy guy in his 60s. Not very intimidating. Here, it's one room, mostly focused on the faces and the camera zooms in closer and closer as the movie goes along, so you almost feel like you're getting inside the characters. And for its time, the late 50s, this was a brave movie to tackle issues of prejudice. The defendant is clearly of Latino descent and "slum backgrounds" is a clear euphemism for race and class. There's in a moment where one juror says he's from a "slum" and another juror says "he didn't mean you." Right. Because that juror from the poor background is white. It was the 50s, so being blunt about these kinds of issues wouldn't have flown. They had to be subtle. Sidney Lumet, the director, was the guy behind Dog Day Afternoon and The Network, both films that tackled serious social and political issues. Lumet was no stranger to this kind of material.

The one scene that always confused me was the bit with the knife. If a switchblade is always used underhand, but the stab wounds were overhand... what does that prove? I don't see how that's evidence either for or against the kid's guilt.

You should react the the c,assoc It’s A Wonderful Life

Crank he heat up, it’s an old cop trick, it’s stressful.

You'll get an idea of 'them, they'. Not the ones you have now.

the kids latino

The jury members kinda had to be insensitive and uninterested at the beginning, to give room for growth, but yeah not a fan of dismissive people in important roles

"Them" and "They" in NYC at that time were Puerto Ricans! Think 'West Side Story'!

Fun fact: No one know what ever happened to the actor that played the "kid." He never appeared in another movie. But I'm sure his character killed again having got away with it. The funny thing about this movie is that there really isn't any reasonable doubt based on the available evidence. He should have been given the chair. And more importantly, that juror speculating and even bringing "evidence" (the knife he bought) into the jury room would immediately result in a mistrial and admonishment from the judge. It is normal to side with the (murdering) kid. It's what the producers want you to do. But the only people violating the law are the accused and this runaway juror.

No8's illegal trick to drag unauthorised "evidence" into the deliberation room could lead to a mistrial or the judge would replace No8. It would be the foreman's job to show this illegal piece to the judge or usher. It is a heavy breach of trial protocol adding unauthorised "evidence" into the process. The jury is only allowed to evaluate what happend during the trial, for sure No8 didn't do his knife trick infront ot the judge for a reason! Bringing in the knife is also pointless, only "impressive" if not analysed. No8 knew exactly what to look for already, the murderer did not! He only proved the knife is not unique but still rare. In all kinds of murder weapons someone could chose, it is still a very unlikely choice for the murderer to fit the boys knife. Plus the boy "lost" the knife only hours before the crime happend. Those 2 "coincidences" combined (!) the chances the boy is innocent, drop down to astronomical levels, far lower than reasonable doubt. By far the best circumstantial evidence I have seen, many people go to prison for much less! No8's maxim "it is possible" has its limits, reasonable limits. In dubio pro reo is for sure not unconditional.

4:52 them/they pronouns is what he's talking about.

🥸👍 Whenever a film largely takes place in only one room like this, it usually means that it was originally a stage play. Another example of this would be "Glengarry Glenn Ross" (1992), which was also originally a live theater production. That one also has a stacked cast, but it's extremely depressing. 😑