Two Modern Men React to 12 Angry Men (1957) First Time Watching Reaction/Review
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 01. 2023
- Another movie reaction! This won the Patreon poll a long time ago and we are finally getting to it. Who knew jury deliberation could be this exciting??
Lots more movies this year, we're doing one between every season of TV that we finish. So more movie polls on Patreon! Check those out! Full-length, advance versions of every one of our videos also get posted there.
/ catchuppackets
Music: www.purple-planet.com - Zábava
![12 Angry Men (1957) Movie Reaction [First Time Watching]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zM1Y1nC5fC0/mqdefault.jpg)
![12 Angry Men (1957) Movie Reaction [First Time Watching]](/img/tr.png)
The kid didn’t go to the movies to WATCH a movie, he went just to sit in a safe place away from his father.
and it was 3am and accused of murder - it's quite sad watching some modern people watching this and they are brought up believing they are always right
@@papalaz4444244 they watched the movie for the first time. how are they supposed to pick up on all of these things the first time around?
Movie tickets were inexpensive back then, & people could hang out in the theatre all day on one ticket. People sometimes went, just because the theatre had air conditioning. Few houses or apartments had air conditioning back then. They were hot in the Summer & drafty in the Winter. Sometimes, theatres were merely a refuge from the weather & prople barely paid any mind to the film. Kind of like people hanging out in the mall even if they weren't shopping, in later decades. Also, if the kid spoke English poorly, it may have been his second language which would make it less likely, that he would be able to make a mental note of a film's title or the names of it's actors.
@@revengance4149 Well maybe if they didn't spend the whole movie talking, they'd pick up on more stuff -- the bane of all reactors.
@@Argumemnon why are you watching reaction videos then? that doesn't make any sense.
It always seemed to me that the last scene was there to jar the viewers into realising that they just watched an entire movie without knowing any of the characters' names.
So true! The acting in this movie, and the wonderful story, truly draw you in and doesn't let go until the end. One of my favorites, too.
The one workman type told the foreman his name is August something (couldn't catch his last name).
@@julien.4617Juror 6?
That last little scene is one of the few flaws in the film. I would have rather seen what really happend to the father.
My guess is that the boy actually did kill his father but it was self defense.
@@canalesworks1247
The last scene is not a flaw, and seeing what really happened like that would go against the point of the film.
The thing about the kid not being able to name any movies is that there's a *lot* of gray area in that description.
For example, the man in the spectacles couldn't get the name of the second feature correct. He got it *partly* correct--and a cop interrogating him could easily report that as "he couldn't name the movie".
And that juror wasn't under "severe emotional distress".
I also imagine that the kid probably didn't go there just to watch a movie - he'd just had an upsetting argument with his father and needed a safe place to go that wasn't "home". It's likely he didn't have most (if any) of his attention focused on the film itself. That, combined with the fact that he was being questioned by hostile detectives in a room adjoining his father's mutilated body, and it's easy to understand why his answers might have been so scrambled.
@@practicaldreamyr A very good point also.
@@practicaldreamyr I never thought about his emotional state after the argument with his father when he went to the movies. That's a good point. He was probably sitting through the entire movie replaying the argument he just had (and being slapped by his father) over and over in his head.
You also have to consider that back then you didn’t just get a movie. You got the news, you got mini movies almost like cartoon strips. Going to the movies back then was an event.
I think at the end, the old guy just admired Davis and was curious to know his name. Old guy was the first to switch his vote and go out on a limb.
I also love the moment that Davis helped the angry guy with his coat. That was a classy gesture.
I don't think so. He's lonely and insignificant, just like the old man he "knows better than anyone of you." This was a great moment for him that he really wants to hold on to. But it also shows that juries are convened for one purpose only--the relationships end with the verdict and everyone goes back to their lives.
The significance is that those 2 men were initially the only jurors who said not guilty, thus changing the course of direction and ultimately saving the boy's life. Without the old man's support, Davis would have lost out.
@@nicholasschroeder3678 Just because he's happy to meet him doesn't mean he's lonely, those are two completely different things. And the fact that he knows the old man so well could be because he has had some of the same experiences, but that doesn't mean that it's still the case. These are just assumptions on your part.
This is THE movie for being all in one room, and it is THE movie for having a huge cast of characters - 12 - and each one is distinct and well-developed.
tbf theres only like 10 of them that are well-developed
Another movie that nailed the one room for the entire movie is "Rope", a great Hitchcock film.
One of the interesting things that most people don't notice on first viewing is that even though we don't get any of the names of the jurors (except the two at the end), but we do gradually get their occupations, and that gives a clue as to how they look at the case. The architect deconstructs the evidence piece by piece, and thinks to look at a floorplan of the apartment and the length of the el-train. The watchmaker is keeping detailed notes on what time everything happened. The high school football coach is keeping everyone else in line and organized.
Right! And the broker analyzes people like stock quotes--he misses the human element. The old man relies on his long experience and emotional intelligence. The two salesmen are shallow and don't like to think. It's interesting to me that the two hard-assed cynics both run their own businesses. It's one element of the film I don't like It seems an unfair bias that small businessmen are stupid and heartless.
@@nicholasschroeder3678 All their professions affect them. It's not about small businesses, but the fact they run any kind of businesses/operate at managerial capacity at all in a tough city like new york. They've likely had to fight all their lives to get ahead and its hardened them. Also #3 has that bad relationship with his son he's projecting. #5 we never learn his profession in the film (they left it out) but in the original stage play it is mentioned that not only is he a former slum kid, he is also a nurse/orderly at a local hospital in same slummy area he grew up in, so naturally he's biased against anyone bigoted towards slum kids. And #6 is a house painter; in that line of work, you have to take pride in your work and respect not only the surface you work on but the client's wishes as well to do as good a job as possible, and that probably is why he's irritated when people don't give things or other people dignity/respect they deserve. #12 draws ads for clients, spending all his time trying to please bosses/clients/people and charm them into buying other people's products based off prompts the product's company gives him. He's likely never been confronted with a really serious situation where he has to make decisions on his own unaided by prompts, so naturally he'd go with the crowd, it would be the easiest way out. #2 is a Banker, which in the 50s would mean working in a very careful, controlled environment where people speak softly, much like a library. He's a smart and analytical man but he's not used to speaking up, so it takes him a little time to get good and going and show his stuff. Where he works, raising one's voice would likely elicit stares and shushes. #7 Doesn't need to tell us he's a salesman with the jokester technique of selling because his whole personality screams it. So all their professions matter to the script, and idk why they left #5's out of the film version.
@@emilyelizabethbuchanan998 Think you nailed 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 12. Really excellent analysis. I'll add a couple more speculations. 1 is an ASSISTANT head coach, and I think he's insecure about his projection of authority. He has a bit of a meltdown when he feels his authority has been flouted, he spends a lot of the remainder of the film pouting about it. 11 has probably been through quite a bit, coming from a no doubt totalitarian country, so he takes the proceeding particularly seriously and is particularly incensed at those who don't. He also brings his precise habits as a warchmaker to his note-taking and deconstructing the timing of events. 4 to me is the most interesting and ambiguous character, and I believe he's a bit of a stand-in for the intelligent, bougie viewer who probably identifies with him. He comes across as imminently objective and fair, and shows contempt for 4 and 10, but he's also insufferably smug and devoid of empathy. He carries unconscious biases that he's not aware of: he doesn't question police procedure, the evidence presented by the prosecution, or the motivations of witnesses because in his world these have always been objective sources of truth--his privilege has insulated him from the harsher realities that the indigent and minorities face routinely. His prima facie acceptance of all the "facts," which he evaluates like so many numbers, is a result of both naivete and a bit of willful blindness to the world around him (it's a theme Lumet addresses more explicitly in The Pawnbroker). His orderly world of stocks and bridge games suits him just fine, and with his high income and high intelligence he pretty much despises the world of slums and all their problems. In his worldview, it's natural that this wild boy did it: he never questions any of the evidence or the motivations behind them because they fit into his idea of how things are. He isn't as ugly or hysterical about it as 10--he openly repudiates him--but I think unconsciously he shares similar views, ones he would deny, probably even to himself. He would never be openly hostile or unjust to a poor or minority person, that would be declasse, but I think he wouldn't object if "undesirables" were excluded from his neighborhood or country club. Basically, he's part of the power structure that serves him well; he believes it is objective and fair--because it has been for him--and his self-satisfaction and lack of human empathy prevent him seeing any other alternatives. So when HIS own blindness is exposed by the old man, he's mortified, not just because he missed such a crucial fact, but because he sees there is a deficiency in himself. I think he sees that he was set against the boy by more than just the facts.
Re: the kid going to the movies, back then almost all movies were double features. You didn't necessarily go to the movies to see a _specific_ movie, you just went to the movies for something to do, or to get out of the heat, or out of the cold. There was usually an A-list movie with stars, and a second movie with B-list actors. Most theaters had one screen and those two movies were all you were going to get. So you didn't go to the theater and decide what you wanted to see, you just went to the movies, and whatever they were showing, that's what you got. It might not even be a new release. Movies would travel around the country and show in different towns at different times. A popular movie might stay in theaters for a good year and a half as it traveled around. A _really_ popular movie might stay in one town for a very long time, and the second feature would fluctuate.
12 Angry Men was remade for television in 1997. That is the version featuring Jack Lemmon
I wished so much I could get a message through during the viewing because it was mentioned several times that it wasn't remade and I knew it was. I love Jack Lemmon so I had to see it. I didn't love it as much as the Fonda version, but it's still fantastic.
And a pre-Sopranos James Gandolfini!
Was pretty good
@richardpearce4Tony Danza 988
During the 1950s and into the 1060s, there were two movies, a cartoon, and newsreels. And we were allowed to sit through them a second time for free.
In my top ten movies of all time. Also, amazingly, I was foreman of a jury that was somewhat like this case in that we started with a split jury and probably surprisingly to the defendant, found a young man not guilty. One of the most important experiences in my life.
I've never served on a jury myself, but I know someone who did . He said the defendant was a young guy and the jury knew that if they found him guilty his life would be over and they were very reluctant to do that without careful deliberations. He left the experience impressed with the process and how seriously the jury and everyone involved took their responsibilities.
@@ericjette2435 The sad part about US juries is that statistically, such careful deliberation is significantly more likely to happen if the defendant is white and/or affluent than if not. So the Central Park Five were convicted by juries on the basis of extremely flimsy evidence while Elon Musk got acquitted for defrauding investors in spite of ample public evidence.
"I wasn't aware we were in enlightened time space" every contemporary time thinks they are the enlightened space time. The remake with Jack Lemmon is actually pretty good too.
Good, but mis-casted. Lemon and Scott are incredible actors but too old themselves at the time to be talking about another old man as if they weren't his peers.
@@dionysiacosmos that’s what I thought great actor just a bit too old
I played Juror 4 (eye glasses) in a stage production last year. The play ends with the jurors leaving the jury room. The audience response was fantastic. It's a timeless character study in the USA.
The actors in this film are top notch, it helps having the best actors reading the best script. Great movie.
The actors in this movie are great. In the 60-90, they were famous. I don't think you can get a room full of 12 great actors into one movie. Henry Fonda, and Lee J Cobb, who was the last man to change his vote, were award winning actors. Lee, I hated him from the beginning, which was his role, and felt very sorry for him, when he finally changed his vote. Yes, this movie is a Classic and studied for how it was made.
Great review by you guys, by the way.
Ok so the thing never brought up is why the kid didn't remember the movie. Here is why: he got punched in the head twice before going, went home only to get thrown down the stairs by detectives, and then gets interrogated by said detectives while his fathers body is in the next room. Id wager that the kid had a concussion and combine that with the emotional trauma as well and I don't think I'd remember either
One of the best films ever made, a tour de force of actors all on game. The story is great and the direction is great.
In summary: great writing, great acting, great directing.
I wouldn't call it great writing. More like a masterclass in juror misconduct. Juror #8 visits the crime scene, introduces new evidence, and provides unsworn testimony.
@@misterkite That's because you're an idiot and you wouldn't know what great writing is, even if it was pissing on you. The script holds the audience's attention, unflagging, in one room for the entire production. That's called good writing, thumbsucker, and it's why the script continues to be performed, it's why every reactor who does the movie loves it. Obviously you're one of those couch potatoes who confuses movies and reality and don't know the definition of dramatic license. But what do you expect from someone who picks one of the weakest Beatle compositions writing-wise for your screen-name? Great production, but I don' t know who has the bigger burn on it, Lou Reed who called it the worst song he'd ever heard or John Lennon himself who called it garbage, lol.
@@misterkite In other words, a day like any other in US juries.
@@misterkite Damn it's almost like it's a movie where you can suspend your disbelief and enjoy the well-written drama
@@legendaccount3247 It's almost like movies still need to make logical sense and exist in the world they create.
Deliberating a guilty person to be not guilty isn't a "flaw in the system". The system was built on the premise that it is better to let 100 guilty people go free than convict an innocent person. Also, this was not an example of jury nullification. It is the job of the jury to consider the veracity of the witnesses, and give their testimony the appropriate weight. In this case they discounted the accuracy of both witnesses testimony. I would agree this all made it sound like actually ineffective council. The thing to remember is juries are strange beasts which can be totally unpredictable.
Absolutely classic. The tv remake didn't have the same impact even though the dialogue was the same.
A script and acting at its best. One of the greatest movies ever. Everyone should see this movie. There are many great movies from that era in black and white. You should watch "Casablanca" with Humphrey Bogart. Also a great movie.
If we're going black and white, then Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep, Naked City, and Touch of Evil are also a must.
@@jakubfabisiak9810 I would also add Psycho, To Kill A Mockingbird, Citizen Kane, and Night of the Living Dead to that list
There is a 90s version of this movie (there is also an earlier 50s television version). It's also an excellent production, with a bit more racial diversity (which put a twist on some of the racial nuances of this story, but neither the stereotype nor the anti-stereotype you'd expect). I believe George C. Scott actually delivered a stronger performance as the last juror than Lee J. Cobb does in this version. But I think the camerawork is superior in this version. All three versions are available on CZcams.
The old man could speak authoritatively about how that old man might feel...because he was an old man like that.
Back in those days, people often just went to see movies, not a particular movie. "It's Thursday night, let's go to the movies." So, it's not that unusual to have forgotten a movie that was forgettable that night.
To me, the meaning of the name exchange was that the names were not significant. They were just ordinary people, nobody notable, no celebrities...ordinary people with a man's life in their hands.
Back in the 80s, I served on a federal jury that was very much like this one: Only one person thought the defendant thought was not guilty at the beginning (wasn't me). It was a half-day trial, but we deliberated for four full days before everyone was willing to vote not-guilty. I was the foreman, and I had tried to get the trial declared 'hung," but the judge said, "No, you go back in there and deliver a verdict." The prosecutor was absolutely floored to hear our verdict. She thought she had it in the bag. And, yes, the final question was not that we were certain he was innocent, but finally we could not be certain he was guilty.
I've also sat on a military court-martial jury, and in that case, we thought the kid was guilty, but we also believed his leadership had railroaded him. That offended us, being part of the military leadership ourselves: "It didn't need to come to this. His supervisor and first sergeant were bastards." Military court-martial panels are able to select lesser charges, so we found him guilty on the least possible charge.
Appeals don't usually re-examine the evidence of the earlier trial "just because." Appeals are based on judicial error...something was wrong about how the trial was conducted, and evidence would be re-examined if it can be claimed that the original trail mishandled the evidence.
A 2022 movie, The Outfit, is a very good tense gangster movie that takes place largely in one room (only two rooms total), with only five main speaking roles.
I respectfully disagree on George c Scott with all due respect to him even though I think he’s the only actor that can do juror 3 justice aside from lee j cobb he was way too old for the role so his performance kinda came across as but over the top for me. There’s no beating lee j cobb in this role
@kirkdarling I saw the version you mean...... with Jack Lemon, Tony Danza, James Gandolfini, Edward James Olmos, Ossie Davis and others. I have to be honest, the racial 'diversity' you mention was totally irrelevant and useless to me. It didn't add anything to the writing at all. And unfortunately it did cause exactly what these two reviewers warned about....... there was specifically an "anti stereotype" for the Mykelti Williamson character who played the bigot role. They had to finnagle a way for him to act out all the expectations from a Nation of Islam black racist conspiracy nut.......but then threw out a line of the lowly union worker asking if he was a Nation of Islam member and him saying "no....we don't exactly see eye to eye". It would make anybody watching roll their eyes and see exactly what the replacement writers were trying to hide. Whereas in the original 1950s version the role of the bigot has absolutely nothing to do with the race of the bigot character...that was very likely similar or indistinguishable from the rest of the jurors; namely.....which makes it so the bigotry doesn't come from his race at all.
@@laertesindeed I didn't characterize the diversity as being good or bad in its effect on the story. Being a 90s production, the diversity had to be there, but also very clearly it would have dramatically changed the story unless handled deftly. You said that it was rendered totally irrelevant...and _that is my point."
Being a 90s production, it _had_ to be diverse, but they also had to handle it so that diversity became irrelevant to the story, or else it would have changed the story.
@@kirkdarling4120 I totally and absolutely and objectively reject your claim that anything filmed in the 90s "had to be diverse" ....that is flat out not true.
@@laertesindeed For the sake of the story, the defendant had to be a minority. In the nineties, any defense lawyer (even a poor one) would have insisted on and gotten a diverse jury...that had already been ruled by the Supreme Court. It would not have been believable for there to have been a jury only of white men for a minority defendant in the 90s. They were already stretching credibility limiting it to men.
"I'm sick and tired of facts..." - Nothing has changed since 1957.
"Them" in NYC at that time were Puerto Ricans ( Think West Side Story ).
I was born during that hot summer of 1957. What's amazing to me is how this brilliant film has held up so well ove time. "They" for NYC in 1957 would have been Puerto Ricans.
I'm an old dude and I don't watch much TV, certainly not shows with multiple seasons. But I love movies and seeing smart people comment on them. So I've subbed in anticipation of future reactions.
I can throw loads of ideas at you if you want themes, genres, directors and so on. I think that would be cool rather than randomly
watching the odd film.
Good stuff guys. Rare to find intelligent discussion so much appreciated
Thank you so much! Very glad you enjoyed it
Years ago when I was 20, I sat on a jury. It wasn't murder; it was reckless endangerment. The responsibility the court puts on you dealing with 11 other random total strangers wasn't that dramatic, but it taught me a great deal.
Some older black & white films (made in the US) which are stunning examples of exquisite cinematography and will provide powerful experiences for viewers are: The Third Man (1949); The Letter (1940); Sunset Boulevard (1950); The Night of The Hunter (1955). Other impressive cinematography in black & white films include: The Big Combo (1955); Psycho (1960); Nightmare Alley (1947); Double Indemnity (1944); The Asphalt Jungle (1950); Casablanca (1942); Sunrise-A Song of 2 Humans (a silent film!! with a few bits of sound effects and music). There are dozens more of exceptional black & white films, but these help showcase that b/w films can look as spectacular as color ones.
@27:13 _Underhanded._
This means the Switchblade the police found (with no finger prints) & assumed to be the murder weapon, *is very unlikely to be the murder weapon because of the clear downward angle of the actual wound on the victim.*
Back then eyeglasses would have been glass, not plastic. And thus almost certainly considerably heavier than what we're used to. So do people today get those marks or rob the tops of their noses because of the weight of their glasses? Sure, but not like when glasses were glass.
All my prescription eyeglasses these days are plastic framed that have a continuous bar across the nose. But some of my first glasses had these pointed supports onto the nose. And as the soft pads wear away they annoyingly dug into my nose. So someone could still have nose marks depending on construction today
Jack Lemon is in the 1997 made-for-television remake of "12 Angry Men." Great cast as well. Also, the script was adapted from the original by Reginald Rose the author of the original teleplay.
You have to be over 60 to remember 'Double Feature' movies. They came to an end around the mid 1970s. The first movie was usually a "B" movie.
4:40 there was a remake sean. toni danzi was in it. you didn't miss anything. 🙂
They tried to modernize it with some diversity, also having African American as the bigot. Kind of shot im the foot having the one Latin actor playing a Central European immigrant.
There actually is a remake of this from 1997, and that‘s the one starring Jack Lemon (among other big names such as Edward James Olmos, Armin Müller-Stahl and James Gandolfini).
This began as a TV play and the very old man; the first to support Henry Fonda, took on the same role in the TV version.
Back then, theaters had only one screen but they would show two movies.That's why Henry Fonda asked E G Marshal what was the second feature. There was always a second feature.
Not to mention... a newsreel, a cartoon, & an advertisement for the snacks available in the lobby... also, people would dress to go out; suits & dresses, often going to the theater b/c it might be one of the few commercial places in town that would be air-conditioned, often a rarity for residences in those times! I was born in 1948, & didn't live in an air-conditioned home until 1977!
This story was first presented as a made-for-television drama. When Henry Fonda wanted to make a motion picture version of the story, he ran into opposition from Hollywood, their argument being, who would pay to see something that was already presented free on TV? Fortunately, it proved to be a smart move. It remains a classic drama. It has also been fashioned into a stage play. (I was once in a community theater production of 12 Angry Men as Juror No. 8, the foreigner.) One thing that makes this story so successful is the fact that there is an acknowledgement that the young defendant's innocence isn't a given, that he could actually be guilty.
Isn't Juror #11 the foreigner? Juror #8 is Henry Fonda.
@@Madbandit77 You're right. Senior moment. Never was good with numbers.
You were in the play but you still miss the point of work...it's not about the kid COULD be guilty, it's about driving home the point that he's *innocent* until PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The two are vastly different statements and the latter is the basis of the American justice system. THAT is why the film is successful.
You'll never see a remake because you'll never have that much acting talent all in the same room again. These guys almost all ended up being household names in the following decades, most having had their own successful tv series as well.
The two men exchanging names is a statement on the unique situation in juries. People from vastly different backgrounds and personalities must come together and reveal themselves through the discussions. It's intimate analysis of the case but also of each other, revealing. It's profound. And it's among people who would likely not have much of a reason in their real life to go beyond exchanging names if they come to meet each other in another setting. But, without knowing each others' names, they are discussing their beliefs, prejudices, opinions about peoples, opinions about this political process, revealing how they think, etc. And, they are having to learn how to work together without having any bond with each other to help.
And the exchanging names at the end puts into stark contrast how odd this situation is, that's it's so personal, by showing that we (and they) came to know so much about each other, yet they didn't even know each others' names. Of course, usually, names, at least first names, today, are exchanged in the jury room. But it's still odd to have such intimacy and revealing of oneself when you just meet people. And me, I would forget all the names right after I was told.
Sweet...this is a terrific movie, by a director that probably does not get enough credit or attention for how good he was. I am sure you guys are gonna love this. I actually think that the remake of this done in 1997 is also worth watching at some point...the cast in that one is almost as good as the cast in this one...arguably better depending on how you look at it. But it is good that you are watching this version first. If you appreciate Sidney Lumet's direction of this film, I highly recommend one of his other very famous movies, Fail Safe from 1964...which is the serious counterpart to Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove black comedy of accidental nuclear war.✌💯
"Rope" Alfred Hitchcock movie with James Stewart. Not only one room but one continues nonstop take. [ to go to new real of film the camera would briefly be blocked by a guys back or so then the scene continued.] ,,I disagree. I believe they almost proved he was not guilty. [probably a robbery gone bad] I believe the audience is supposed to be relieved that by one man's initial effort an innocent man who was almost found guilty had his life saved by that good man.
You failed to remember that this young man’s father spent time in prison. The father wasn’t the most upstanding sort of guy. I’m sure he had his enemies, and maybe he crossed someone that his son didn’t even know about.
It was remade in 1997 with Jack Lemmon, Courtney B. Vance, Mykelti Williamson, James Gandolfini and William Peterson amongst others.
The remake is pretty good as well but of course the Fonda version is a Masterpiece so it was difficult for people to give the remake its due.
It has been "done again," in 1997. using the same title, and with famous actors.
It always fascinated me that we never got their names through the entire movie! This was done so well, very psychological and compelling all the way through. And I loved how you really talked about this after watching this -- terrific reaction. You get into WHY you were so interested in it. I was so impressed that immediately subscribed! Thank you!
Yep, it has. It was remade, maybe some time in the 1980s or so. The remake is actually very well done, but the original is - - the original, and the best. But, I respect the remake. It was very good as well, and also featured a stellar cast. All the best.
p.s. They spent most of the movie deliberating the evidence presented in court. It's definitely not a movie to sleep through.
32:15 I think the point is a person who only needs glasses for reading wouldn't wear them long enough to make permanent dents.
-It was remade in 1997 as a tv movie (and that cast does include Jack Lemmon.)
-The kid’s ethnicity is deliberately left vague which makes it more timeless, but as the setting is New York, and we get one quick shot of his face, he might be Puerto Rican, which would fit with a prejudice of the time.
-The script was originally done as a tv teleplay 5 years earlier and the same writer did the screenplay.
-Henry Fonda (tall guy in the white suit) was the producer and deferred his salary in order to be sure the film could get made.
-This film is often used as a teaching tool for directorial purposes.
There was a newer version of this movie. If I remember correctly it was a “showtime” remake in the 1990’s. I actually saw that version first when i was a kid.
there actually was an updated version, HBO produced 1997 starring Jack Lemon, George C Scott, Tony Danza Hume Cronyn, Edward James Olmos, and Ossie Davis.
I served on a jury (criminal case) a few years ago and this movie is so accurate in depicting how everyone has their own prejudices, opinions, shortcoming and perspectives.
The case I was in was for a young man accused of selling drugs. The sentencing was for 10 years if the defendant was found guilty. Ten years is a long time, but I was surprised how easily the other jurors quickly and nonchalantly sent him down with a guilty verdict. For a long time, I was the lone person to vote "non-guilty" and felt the weight of the world on my shoulders.
in the beginning you said that you wondered why there wasn't a mondern version... there is, in the 90's, with Jack Lemon and Tony Danza.
It was remade in 1997, starring (to name only four of the twelve (Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, Edward James Olmos, and Hume Cronyn.)
Paddy Chayefsky said Drama is heightened realism. You must accept that to gain the full experience.
There wasn't enough evidence, for a motive, for someone OTHER than victim's son. At least not as the movie presented. Murder by knife is very intimate. And a switch blade is usually carried by young males in sketchy areas for self-defense. The question shouldn't be did he or didn't he, but who else could it be. Self defense could easily have gotten the teen off (for manslaughter) with the history of abuse and an argument trigger. What did they fight about? Did the Father insult the teen's Mother? That kind of thing.
The teen doesn't seem that sophisticated to think about fingerprints. Could the perp have worn gloves?
But, beside that, the movie is a true American gem. A tour de force of acting, blocking, camera work, editing and directing. ❤
Jack Lemmon was in the stage play, I believe.
Color including Technicolor has been around since the 1930’s ( see ‘The Wizard Of Oz’ ) but Black and White Films continued to be made until the 1960’s mostly because of budgetary constraints and I am very glad because the lack of color made lighting and mood more prominent and this has an impact on the film.
We watched this in school maybe early 90's. Great film.
To Kill a mockingbird was another. Many more😊
Excellent outro discussion! Another excellent legal film cited by lawyers is My Cousin Vinny from the 90s.
Remember that if the kid WAS not guilty, he came home to find his father murdered, himself thrown down the stairs, then arrested. His brain could have absolutely shut down and not recalled anything.
Also, he didn’t go to the movies for fun. He went to get away from his father and to be in a cool place if it was that hot. So he could have been sitting there not paying a bit of attention.
He could have also lied about being at the movies because he murdered his father.
But I can support not being able to communicate in stress levels like that and remembering nothing.
watching you guys' reaction for some reason makes me feel like I'm watching the movie/tv show for the first time again, can't wait for more videos
What a magic trick Sidney Lumet performed here on his very first film! Masterfully directed! Sidney Lumet made lots of great movies, especially (but not limited to) the 70s. He made two of the best EVER back to back: Dog Day Afternoon (1975 - one of Pacino's best) and Network (1976 - indescribably great). But he did other great movies, all different from each other: The Pawnbroker (1962), Serpico (1973), Deathtrap (1982), The Verdict (1982). And it's always great to see reactors hit classics; there were fantastic movies made every single year, going back to the early 1900s, movies that transcend time and communicate fresh, just like any other art form. Does every movie hold up? No! That goes for new movies! But when you see something like "12 Angry Men" and it holds up impeccably, there's something life affirming about. Something HUMAN about it. Something eternal. GREAT REACTION!
I second both Dog Day Afternoon and Network and the Verdict. Liked Serpico but was not crazy about it.
@@Ceractucus Serpico is sunk by two major factors: a.) a ridiculously horrible love story subplot that makes you really appreciate what Diane Keaton brought to The Godfather! and b.) an atrocious music score. Interestingly there is no score for "Dog Day Afternoon" OR "Network" (or "The Verdict" for that matter, if memory serves me right!). I think if you lose the horrible score and edit out the dopey love subplot, "Serpico" would be a much better movie. But I agree, it's not the greatest (although definitely an essential Pacino performance somewhere down the road.)
There is at least 1 more version of this movie, made for TV, Jack Lemon (1997).
Piglet, actor John Fiedler, was a commonly seen character actor in numerous of very good movies and television shows, both before my time and during my youth. He even plays an interesting villain in one, but no spoilers! A very short list includes, in no particular order: The Bob Newheart Show, Harper Valley PTA, A Raisen in the Sun, The original True Grit, Star Trek TOS (Wolf In The Fold), He's also done a number of other voice acting beside Piglet. Since you discussed it, another good movie all set in one room (basically) is My Dinner With Andre.
Which character is he in True Grit, I’ve only seen the modern one
@@catch-uppackets2664 He has a minor role in True Grit. Throughout the movie, the girl keeps threatening everyone with her scary lawyer. Fiedler is that lawyer and shows up at the end.
Villain in a Star Trek
If you liked this, i would recommend Conspiracy with Kenneth Branagh. It's a conversation of senior Nazi party and military members discussing what to do about the "Jewish question." The casualness of it makes it one of the most frightening movies I've ever seen.
Good on you guys for watching this, a legitimate masterpiece
This was originally a live TV broadcast in 1954. The film version was released a couple of years later and was director Sidney Lumet’s (Network, Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, The Verdict, Murder on the Orient Express) first film. Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott starred in a TV remake in the late 90’s. A Russian remake, “12”, was made in 2009. Incidentally, “12 Angry Men” has been presented on stage many times.
We want to hear your comments but not when you talk over all the key dialogue. Try pausing and then make your reaction so the commenters can actually hear what the jurors are saying. Otherwise this movie has no reference points it’s just you guys talking over some pretty fantastic dialogue from some pretty fantastic actors. It’s just advice but I think it would improve your reactions straight away. I think you got some great reactions. You guys are thinkers. One last thing. Be very aware of the date the film was made. In 1957 the civil rights legislation wasn’t even a thing. This is before the advent of school desegregation and the riots that every major city had in the 60s. Times were different back then. The Puerto Ricans were treated the same as the black population in the New York area. The Puerto Rican population in New York is the largest outside Puerto Rico itself. Keep going I do like your reaction . I’d just like it more if you let them speak uninterrupted and then do your comments. I think that could improve things even more.
Whether or not the kid is guilty doesn't matter, what matters is that we all agree that we're innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Because when that trust in the system is lost, it is very hard to get back.
In reality if a juror "investigated" and brought in other "evidence" the result would be a mistrial.
It wasn't illegal for juror 8 to buy a switchblade knife, it was illegal for him to conduct his own investigation and bring a knife into a jury room. Switchblades are still legal in most of the US today some states and municipalities have laws on them. There is also laws on importation of them as well.
Sidney Lumet's first movie as director. He later made Dog Day Afternoon, The Verdict, Fail Safe, The Pawnbroker, Network and many more excellent films.
Glad you reacted to one of my two favorite single room set movies! The other one is The Man from Earth, which I think is right up your alley.
Aaand you talked about it at the very end. Lol
Great reaction you two! I really enjoyed your analysis and discussion throughout the film.
For me, two things really stand out about this particular film: first, aside from a brief look at the defendant at the beginning, we know absolutely nothing about the case from first-hand sources. All we know about the case is what the jurors themselves recall so that we, the audience, become the jury for the jurors.
Secondly, one message I get out of this is that justice is a very inexact science. The quality of the justice one gets from a jury trial is only equal to the effort that people put into it.
The movie is definitely meant for each viewer to decide if the defendant is guilty or not guilty. It definitely is not meant that he *is* guilty, but he should be found not guilty because the evidence is not there.
I'm glad you guys let us know what you actually thought regarding if the kid was guilty vs innocent. I know that's not really the point, but it's interesting nonetheless!
I think he's probably guilty too, but I do think they did a good job of leaving some reasonable doubt about whether the old man could have seen the boy running down the stairs or whether the woman could actually have seen him through the window. I love they left some things in that can definitely make you think he did it though, like losing his knife and have absolutely 0 alibi/not remembering anything about the movies even if he was under emotional distress.
We had to watch this in our government class in 9th grade. And you'd *think* a bunch of 13-14 year olds sitting around watching a black and white movie from the 50's would make everyone sleep but it kept us awake and engaged. And regardless of the inaccuracies here vs people in a real jury now, it taught me A LOT about reasonable doubt and what that actually means. I think it has affected how I viewed trials my entire life - especially when the media and the country, and now social media, decide someone's guilt or innocence before a trial even starts. I've definitely learned to hold my judgment on things like that and wait for actual evidence.
Especially in the light of what we know now about the work of the police, I don't think having no alibi and having been _recorded_ as not remembering anything about the movies are strong arguments. On the alibi: if the guy didn't meet any friends, then he was just a face in the crowd, and that at night with the weak lighting they had back then, for every potential witness. On not remembering anything about the movies, version 1: if you're distraught and are asked irrelevant questions, your mind will be elsewhere, but police can record your lack of answering as not remembering, especially if they don't like you. Version 2: back then, people watched movies much more often and much more casually, like people watch TV now. They could go in without bothering about the title and ignore it if it wasn't interesting or their mind was elsewhere.
you definitely could say that the first guy to vote "not guilty" was a bit stubborn in not wanting to kill him. In that some might call him a leftist snowflake nowadays. I don't mean his first inquiry to talk about it but rather later on. With the information that we are presented everyone can form their own opinion and based on what they think happened/what's true and what is not they come to different conclusions. For example we don't know how the police did their job. Did they actually even investigate different possibilities or were they locked on the boy from the moment that he ran into them and they knew about the knife? Afterall he was a slum kid so why invest much time? Now, for the question of who else could have done it and why use that knife? We know little about the father. He lives in the slums, was once caught for forgery and he beats his kid. Could it be that he made some enemies, has debt with the wrong people or was involved in illegal activities again? Depending on how he lived he definitely could have made enemies for himself and someone like that could definitely try to frame the boy or coincidentally have a similar knife because maybe they were not so rare as the salesman suggested (the juror could easily buy one too afterall). We know nowadays that eye witnesses are a very much double-edged sword because people easily make mistakes in these cases. Also if the boy was guilty and they let him run free it might not be as bad as letting a serial killer on the loose. In that case he killed his father because of how he treated him for years and most likely he won't just go on a murder spree because of that when he is free. Not excusing the act itself but you better make that mistake with him than with a robber who killed while robbing a place for example.
@@6666Imperator The last one to hold out as "guilty" definitely called the first one to vote "not guilty" (and anyone who joined him) the contemporary equivalent of the modern US right-wing slur "leftist snowflake". Ever since the 1850s, the US right-wing is remarkable for the level of projection in all their slurs against real and imagined opponents.
@@Daneelro the funny thing for me about it is always that these people usually are the ones who get agitated quickly and make a big fuss out of everything so basically exactly what they accuse the other side of. Not saying everyone on the "other side" is always correct or good but it does feel like the right wing really likes to accuse others of whatever they do but louder :D
@@Daneelro Agreed. Juror 3 calling everyone who disagreed with him "bleeding hearts" is pretty much the 50s equivalent of "snowflake", and the way it's used to deflect from any real discussion because he knows his own arguments don't stand up to scrutiny is also quite reminiscent of how that word is used today.
14:58 they do read the rest of the slips. You can hear it in the background
www.youtube.com/@catch-uppackets2664 There is a remake of this movie, also called 12 Angry men with Jack Lemon, Tony Danza, James Gandolfini, Ossie Davis, the actor who played Gil Grissom and many others.
You are totally correct! The reason 12 Angry Men hasn't been remade is because it really is a product of its time. In the best way! It hasn't aged a day......and yet at the same time, it is TOTALLY a movie of the 1950s! Amazing. What a magic trick! It's just one of those special films. Hey guys: CITIZEN KANE. PLEEEEEASE! Such a good movie, you guys would KILL on that! You'll be blown away, it's so good!
It's been remade, though. However, I completely agree with your Citizen Kane suggestion. F*ucking fantastic film.
What? It's been remade repeatedly since it first started as a play. There are dozens of different versions for both theatre and film.
@@zammmerjammer I haven't seen any remakes since the 80s, early 90s tops. I know sometimes it's still done in schools and summer stock. But it's NEVER going to be as potent as the 50s version unless you rewrite it, or unless you set it in the 50s. The writing is SO 50s, dude. You could rewrite it for a modern audience, but why would you want to? The original has held up fine, there's no NEED to remake it.
@Tic Toc Melody there's a remake from 1997 with Jack Lemmon, George C Scott, Ossie Davis, James Gandolfini etc. It's still good, but not in the same class as the original.
@@MissTeeFy A lot of people are really down on the remake. Personally I still see it as an A-minus version of the story that's not quite on par with the original but still very good. Some of the performances are worse, but some are better. And bringing the setting forward a few decades and introducing the element of racial diversity more explicitly into it adds some interesting wrinkles.
The boy's guilt is a MacGuffin, it would've ruined the story to find out. The story is about the psychodrama of the 12 jurors. Brilliant, brilliant film.
You mentioned that why their isn’t a modern remake of this movie.
A remake was made in the 90s directed by the man who made The Exorcist.
I just think the two finding out names at the end was the older guy being impressed by the smarts and conviction of Davis. I think he wanted a more human memory of the deliberations.
40 years after this movie in 1997 they did make a remake (with Jack lemon playing Henry Fonda's part) and yes this movie was also a book and play.
This was a stage production adapted to film. Fun fact. The director played with the walls by slowly moving them in to convey the pressure on the jurors.
35:36 Huh?! What do you think they were doing in the jury room, if they were not evaluating the evidence presented in court? 🤔
They made a TV movie version of this in 1997 but I've never seen it to compare it with the original classic. The men were white, black, and Hispanic in the updated one so, yeah, diversity was addressed.
The name thing is for protection. It probably is the single most important aspect of the movie.
Jack lemon is in the 1997 version
I recall the play was discussed in my High School, years ago. I believe the Teacher said the writer of the play got the idea, while serving on a jury.
I think Lumet was going much deeper than people think. He wanted to show how peoples surroundings affected their every day outlook on life. No one on that jury was a true racist or they never would have voted not guilty, but their surroundings naturally cloud their outlook on things in many cases, especially before neighborhoods. As per the juries, you were supposed to be tried by a jury of your peers, so I can see only white or only back juries, because neighborhoods were not integrated. And yes, women served on juries, but they also in many cases would refuse to come in citing kids at home. So, 12 men on a jury back in the day was not uncommon.
But Lumet showed how people can overcome their prejudices. That is what the whole movie is about, the human spirit can climb higher than we suppose is his message. Great movie.
This movie was up for the Best Picture Oscar, but didn't win. I think it should have won. This is an excellent movie!
Hard call. IMHO the film that won against it, The Bridge on the River Kwai, fully deserved it, too.
@@Daneelro two absolute classics
@@Daneelro Bloody hell! Imagine if we had films of that quality competing for Best Picture today!
The movie alibi - It's more realistic from the time, because people went to the movies all the time and there were many more, not just "blockbusters" - think of it as being asked what TV shows are now, with hundreds of channels to watch, or what CZcams reaction you would be able to remember at a certain time. Also, reading glasses are small and you only wear them occasionally. For those who wear glasses all the time, the marks are there, but occasional wearing does not leave marks.
A film set in one room and in real time, watch "Rope" by Alfred Hitchcock. Another Hitchcock film that takes place in one setting ( A dingy not a room) is "Lifeboat".
This movie does have a modern version. Came out in the 90’s I think. Or early 2000’s.
I like your take on what a modern version might look like. The challenges it would have. That starts really good conversations among us all.
1yr late to this viewing. You asked if there was another movie that took place in one room. Kind of if a restaurant counts. My Dinner With Andre is about two friends who have dinner together and have a long, very interesting, conversation covering a wide variety of topics.
These were some of the finest actors at that time.
This movie was shot in sequence. They go by numbers. There was a remake of this movie in 1997 and remakes are never as good as the original.
I find it funny how everyone misses the last guilty ballot being called after the not guilty
Piglet. That's where i have heard that voice. Good
"Capote," with Philip Seymour Hoffman in a one man performance in one room.
No it isn't.
@@tbone35453 You haven't seen it.