12 Angry Men (1957) | *First Time Watching* | Movie Reaction
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 07. 2024
- Hey guys! I hope you enjoy my reaction to 12 Angry Men (1957).
Don't forget to like, comment, subscribe, and hit the notification bell so you are alerted whenever I upload a new video. Thank you for your support!
0:00 Intro
0:30 Reaction
33:17 Review
Patreon: patreon.com/CourtReacts
Instagram: court_reacts?ig...
*Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is permitted by copyright statutes that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use. No copyright infringement intended. - Zábava
It’s better a guilty man walk free than an innocent man hang. If you ever get false accusations you better pray one of the jury members have seen this movie.
Life in prison is better than the death sentence. If you are found innocent 30 years later, you can be released from a life sentence.
@@Balstrome1 That is my only objection to the death sentence- once it's carried out it is irreversible.
"I think that it's much more dramatic that two men could be working out their feelings of anger -- much more dramatic than showing something of gunfire." --Mr. Rogers
I was 17 years old in 1987 when we watched this in high school law class. We all knew it was a brilliant film back then. Now watching it as a man in my 50s, it is amazing how self aware this film is, calling out the issues facing society.
This is one of those rare films in which all the performances are riveting. And to think nearly the entire film takes place in one room, with a minimal soundtrack.
Loved your reaction!
I like how the movie shows 12 people being witnesses to the same evidence, but seeing things that nobody else noticed...the knife - the eyeglasses notches - the old man's walk
I also loved the scene of the jurors getting up and standing silently with their backs to the guy spewing hate. I think this is the way people dealt with blatant bias in a more civilized age. I can't imagine that happening today, when we are all trained by social media to attack each other. I think today the room would have degenerated into people yelling insults.
Mid fifties in the North. One racist guy out of twelve white men? Eight percent? Sounds about right
I wouldn't call that time or these men more civilized. Virtually every measure of human well being was worse back then, unless you were a privileged white male. The average liberal was more conservative back then than the average conservative is today. This movie was very progressive for the times. I think that's why it still holds up. And because there was more prejudice back then I think social media would have also been much worse.
@@Vlasko60 you have no idea what you're talking about... absolutely zero
The same director, Sideny Lumet, made the excellent 1982 film "The Verdict," one of Paul Newman's absolute best performances.
E. G. Marshall puts on a masterclass, but Henry Fonda and the rest are awesome. The cinematography is unparalleled here.
It starts out as an above shot... the heat and the rain are also characters. Then it goes into a mid-shot and then below.
At the end the shot extends, as we all feel relief at being free from the claustrophobia of the jury room.
Hey, Courtney! 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. Courtney B. Vance was the foreman, venerable Ossie Davis was the milquetoast, Armin Mueller-Stahl was the logical stockbroker, Dorian Harewood of "Hill Street Blues" was the slum escapee, James Gandolfini of "The Sopranos" was the blue collar guy, Tony Danza of "Who's the Boss?" was the sports guy, the legendary Hume Cronyn was the elderly gent, Edward James Olmos of "Battlestar Galactica" played the foreigner and William Petersen of "CSI" played the ad exec. Despite the heavy-hitters in the cast, it doesn't have the same power as the original. I feel some of the players would have been better served by being assigned different parts. The reverse racist angle was a clever one, though.
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.
John Fiedler, who you recognized from Star Trek, was also the voice of Piglet in the Disney Winnie the Pooh cartoons.
Fiedler was a mainstay on TV in the 50s and 60s. He was one of those faces you didn't realize you knew well until you saw him over and over. He got lots of work because he was GOOD.
Piglet? Who is Piglet? I also don't think a bear names himself Winnie
Key question: What does the elderly juror know about what it's like to be elderly?
And: the boy -- he is only a boy, regardless his chronological age -- appears to be Puerto Rican. Puerto Ricans are US citizens, not "immigrants".
The juror with the moustache is an immigrant -- and better understands democracy and due process than does such as the "all-American" baseball fan.
The actor portraying the boy (John Savoca) was in fact Puerto Rican. This would be his only appearance in the screen... and his whereabouts are unknown today.
@@georgeanthony7282 Really?
@@georgeanthony7282 The actor was Italian. He was chosen specifically so his race would be uncertain. He could have passed for an eastern European Jewish boy, a Puerto Rican or an Italian.
I don't think they ever used the word immigrant. It was always "them", an even broader bigotry.
@@stevemiller6923 Correct. The closest to use of that word was when the baseball fan spoke of "they come over here" about the juror with the moustache, who is an immigrant, but who understands democracy and due process better than the spinless "all-American" baseball fan.
I've seen several reactions to this movie and it's interesting how many of you young people note that the handwriting is in cursive. At 63 I still write in cursive (sometimes), so it's not unusual to me. Things change 😆.
Anyway, nice reaction to a terrific movie.
Young people today are not taught to read cursive, and they don't know how to read an analog clock (the one with 12 numbers and hands). They're just not part of a young person's life now.
What was once called "longhand"
Heck I went to school in the 80s and I can tell from reactions its like another world. We were scared of our teachers and definitely didn't want anything getting back home, had typing class with typewriters and no one worried where we were, we could go around all day in the summer with no mom holding our hand which seems to surprise a lot of young reactors. Not trying to be critical there, not their fault, but its something I would miss completely seeing a movie.
Nice glasses!
Great reaction. Thanks for watching this film.
I got someone out of a tough sentence once as part of a jury. This kind of thing can actually happen. I had to convince people, and I did. It was an awesome feeling.
Some people don't want to do jury duty. I feel it's the duty of a U.S. citizen to serve when called.
Many people put this movie in the top ten of all time. Yes, high voice guy with glasses was in Star Trek, the attorney who was Jack the Ripper. Been on two juries myself. Everyone should in their life.
Excellent movie! My favorite part is when the man is doing his bigoted rant and everyone gets up and turns their back on him. Very powerful!
You recognized Martin Balsam detective Arbogast in PSYCHO . I was hoping you would’ve caught John Fiedler as Mr. Hengist from the STAR TREK episode “Wolf in the Fold”
A memorable actor and episode for sure.👍
I caught him later on after looking at the cast. I thought his voice sounded familiar, but I couldn't place him at the time 🙂
@@CourtReacts-zm9yv I love when John Fiedler shows up on TV shows and movies. His appearances are always a treat.
John Fiedler is Piglet!
@@proofprof50 Yes, he was a great voice actor too!
Switchblades were illegal; the store owner who sold it said it was the only one like it he'd seen -- but it turned out not to be.
Was he lying, because it was illegal to possess and sell them?
We don't know Davis got the knife in the same shop that the defendant did, only in the same neighborhood. Even if it was the only one of that style of knife that particular shopkeeper saw, the important thing is that it isn't really a unique blade, that there was at least one other in the neighborhood and it wasn't wildly expensive. $6 in 1957 equals about $67 in 2024.
@@gregoryeatroff8608 It also matters that switchblade knives were illegal -- as made clear in the film. Even "Davis" says that in buying the knife he broke the law.
It is also the fact that the store owner who sold the knife broke the law. Perhaps that is why his apparent testimony was that it was the only one (like it) he'd ever seen, as if that were the only one he'd ever had and sold.
And: the father was a criminal who did time for forgery. Did he have criminal associates who wanted him dead?
This is a fascinating movie for people of the younger generations to watch because of its historic relevance. Obviously it coming out in 1957 it was ONLY 3 years after the landmark Brown v Board of Education ruling that ended segregation. However it was ALSO about 30-40 years (one generation) after America's largest legal immigration period (1900-1920) where the majority of new immigrants from Southern Europe lived in big city slums (Little Italy, Little Odessa, Hells Kitchen Irish etc...), and the animosity between different cultures in those slums as well as the disdain socio-economically between peoples was vast.
When you think about it, these actors not only lived through those periods but also may have experienced both sides of it. In fact the actor who played the old man (McCardle) was born in the 1800s (1878).
Also, when Juror number 5 made those remarks about the immigrant watch maker juror this was a really great example of the disdain between a member of one European culture against another... especially since he still had his accent.
Anyway, enjoyed your reaction!
Indeed. Immigration was heavily skewed toward middle class (people who could afford the ship's passage) white Europeans. So many young reviewers are fixated on identifying the specific race of the defendant. They are positive that "those people" is a reference to race. It wasn't. This is straight up poor bashing. I grew up in the times before race was regularly talked about in mainstream culture. Think about the movies dealing with slums in the 1950s - West Side Story, On the Waterfront, The Cross and the Switchblade - slums had not yet acquired an association with race. After they did acquire that association, they were no longer called slums, they were ghettos (think Elvis Presley's song "In the Ghetto").
Modern audiences don't see this as a diverse cast. But in 1957, it was considered very diverse. Especially to urban audiences, as you pointed out. The jury is WASP, Irish, Jew, Italian, Czech, etc. There were still tons of stereotypes and animosities among ethnicities of white people, let alone anyone else. Viewers of the time would have picked up many more subtleties that were written and/or played here.
Joseph Sweeney, the eldest juror, was born in 1884. His father grew up during the Civil War and my parents grew up during Sweeney's final years. We are all just 3 or 4 generations away from the Civil War. Weird. Juror 2 was the voice of Piglet. The bigot was the father of Ed Begley Jr. Lumet locked the actors in a small room to run .Ines and amp up the tension and discomfort. A timeless classic that will be great in 100 years. 500. ❤
A lot of famous faces that we who are older recognize easily, while young people don't: Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Matin Balsam, Jack Klugman, John Fiedler, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, Edward Binns, Jack Warden, Ed Begley (Sr.) - incredible cast.
I wish I could be considered "young" but none are familiar besides Fonda whom I had seen because our teacher had us watch the Grapes of Wrath sometime before we watched this. I had seen Cobb in the Exorcist but didn't make the connection, I don't think his health was very good at this point.
So now we know that you appreciate a black and white, well-written, well-acted courtroom drama from this period. It's time to check out "Inherit the Wind." Fantastic film.
Also the loudmouth was the detective in the Exorcist. Every cast member was fairly huge. Like, all of them. Some serious talent in this movie. Ensemble indeed.
Looks like I need to put The Exorcist on my list 😁 I have never seen it.
Would love for you to react to some Sydney Poitier movies. Here's a list of some of my favorites.
1. In the heat of the night
2. A patch of blue
3. A raisin in the sun
4. Guess who's coming to dinner
5. A piece of the action
6. Let's do it again
You won't be disappointed.
My favourite Poitier film is "A Patch of Blue." "To Sir with Love" also holds a special place in my heart. "Lilies of the Field" is also great fun.
One of Lee J. Cobb's (Juror #3) greatest performances (by one of the 20th Century's greatest actors), particularly the final scene in which he breaks down and ends the deadlock.
Fun fact: When playwrite Arthur Miller wrote "Death of a Salesman," he wrote the character Willy Loman specifically with Lee J. Cobb in mind. If you ever get a chance, watch a performance of this play with Cobb in the lead, or check out the audio version. It's an incredible performance.
Good reaction. Great timing when you asked why the same time the juror asked the same thing to the baseball guy who changed his mind in order to get to the game.
Courtney, some of the best actors in the world did this movie. You might find it interesting to look up the cast. The man who voted not guilty to begin with and persuaded the others is Henry Fonda, a huge star on the order of Tom Hanks in his day. He often acted in, and produced, films of social significance. And reading his biography, I learned that when he was a child he saw a man lynched in the south. It was his father, he said, who taught him about injustice and how everyone must fight against it. He was also a producer on this film.
If you like mysteries and court room dramas, Please consider Witness for the Prosecution from 1957, it’s a masterpiece.
Also, it’s July 5th now, but 1776 (from 1972) is an incredible and fun movie about the founding fathers, starring Mr Feeney from Boy Meets World.
If every aspect of the justice system fails you, as it did here, having to rely on a jury to make an informed decision is scary.
Yes, Martin Balsam played Arbigast in PSYCHO.
They did that on the stage for, if I am correct, 2 years before the movie . Incredible performances. All those actors were great character actors in their own right, some like Fonda and Lee J Cobb were top shelf
Two of the jurors in this was in star trek episodes you reacted to. The first one you know about because he was the lawyer in wolf in the fold, but the old man was in the episode bread and circuses when kirk and spock and mccoy landed on a rome like plant and the old man was one of the rebels they met. He was explaining about the religion they followed which is why they became enemies of the state. His name was edward sweeny.
A brilliant masterpiece. More relevant than ever. A group of citizens coming together with their individual predjudices and being forced to examine them. 10/10.
Now you have to do Witness for the Prosecution.
This movie is a bookend to this one. Different story Different characters, but a court room drama told from the view of the Defense.
Jurer the 8th is a true hero.
The worst type of person for me is the Jurer 7th who seeks the ball game.
Many more classics await you, Courtney.
From the days when well-written scripts were far more important than flashy special effects and frantic activity every 2.5 seconds.
Since everyone cites _'Casablanca'_ at this point, I will instead recommend to you _'Harvey'_ starring Jimmy Stewart and _'The Bishop's Wife'_ starring Cary Grant.
And.. besides the episode A Wolf in the Fold from Star Trek, Juror#2 was also the voice of Piglet in all the Disney Winnie the Pooh cartoons!
Piglet? Who is Piglet? Do you really believe that a bear would actually name himself Winnie?
I appreciate your videos always start with thanks to veterans. Thank you and God bless you, sis.
You are so welcome!
I'm less than two minutes in and your reacting, quickly, and get the material more quickly and deeply than anyone I can remember. I don't give comments quick or often for want reactors, but i want to see more of you watching stuff. Subbed and cheers.
Wow! Thank you so much 😁
some of the best actors of their time and an acclaimed director … based on a play written of the author's own jury experience, and less than a decade after ww2 and around the korean 'war,' making race n prejudice issues very relevant.
Lawyers always rip this movie apart, even though they might love it. Juror 8 re-tried the entire case in the jury room, appointing himself the boy's defense attorney. That would cause an immediate mistrial if discovered. Plus he convinced everyone that unless they had absolute certitude about every bit of evidence, they couldn't convict, repeating "I'm just saying it's possible!" But as Juror 4 pointed out, "It's not very probable." Thankfully, this isn't a movie about the law. It's a riveting study of human nature and 12 vivid characters.
"Maybe sunglasses, maybe she was farsighted..." He did not mean that she wore sunglasses in a room. He meant that marks on nose could have been made by other type of glasses. But that is not good argument, as those type of glasses are worn rarely. Could not make those deep impressions
Another amazing ensemble cast movie - also featuring Martin Balsam - is Murder on the Orient Express from the 1970s with Albert Finney as Hercules Poirot.
Great reaction, Courtney! Now when you need something interesting to do, that'll take you out of yourself for a while, you can look at 12 Angry Men. Both my husband and I have seen it innumerable times since we were teenagers in the 1970s. It has so many layers because of the script and the actors that you'll always see something new.
Great Reaction to this Classic...... I saw this Presented Muliple Times as a play in High School (Early 1980's).......
Shout out to the Legends in this Movie...... Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Jack Klugman, Martin Balsam, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, Ed Begley
Director Lumet wrote in an article: "I shot the first third of the movie above eye level, shot the second third at eye level, and the last third from below eye level. In that way, toward the end, the ceiling began to appear. Not only were the walls closing in, the ceiling was as well. The sense of increasing claustrophobia did a lot to raise the tension of the last part of the movie."
The kid not remembering the films is a believable statement. Movie houses weren't multi-screen when this movie was made. A cinema showed one or two movies so in the evening you could buy a double feature ticket without ever asking the name of the films. An angry kid wanting to get out of the summer heat buys a double feature ticket and spends the time stewing in anger paying no attention to the films is quite believable.
The hand towel machine in the restroom doesn't reuse the same cloth. As you pull it down off the top reel, it wraps around another reel in the bottom. Eventually you pull all the towel off the top reel. At that point, all the used towel is wrapped on the bottom reel and can be removed to be laundered. These still exist today ion some places and there's usually a service company that supplies clean rolls and washes the dirty ones.
The "Them" they are refering to in the original script were "Puerto Ricans" who had Immigrated......
Another Classic Movie that (mostly) takes place in one room, is "Arsenic and Old Lace"(1944), It had a long run on Broadway, and the movie was shot using most of the actors from the Broadway Production.....
@25:58 _Here's how: 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 found was *found clean of fingerprints.* It is just assumed to be the murder weapon with no proof or based clues.
I gathered that they found the murder weapon sticking in the victim, and what Jack Klugman showed was that an experienced knife fighter like the defendant wouldn't have used that weapon in that way.
@@gregoryeatroff8608 There was one account like that from the biased Juror No.3 but I think the movie has established this juror's accounts as unreliable at best. Furthermore two jJurors (nos. 7 & 12) said that "it was not nice to leave the knife sticking out of someone's chest" when they were confronted with the question about wha the accused went back. Thry assumed the accused removed the knife from the wound when he cleaned it. Nevermind all that what what the movie established was only that the switchblade is higly unsuitable for downwardstabbing & that there were nofinger prints at all. The movie didn't establish the knife remaining in the victims chest.
Another great court room movie is "Primal Fear" with Edward Norton and Richard Gere.
I really enjoyed your reaction. I love this movie too. Another great classic movie I think you will like is "To Kill a Mockingbird" (1963) starring Gregory Peck.
One of the greatest, if not the greatest courtroom dramas of all time. Henry Fonda is always spectacular, and it was directed and shot masterfully. And, not for nothing, some of the greatest acting I’ve ever seen. Beats a lot of the slop you get these days. A real classic! Without hitting it right on the head, you have a few bigots in that room. Plain and simple.
Enjoyed your thoughtful cometary and your reaction. Subscribed.
This is such a great film. One of the all-time classics. Great reaction and commentary.
Other great b/w films worth your time: "The MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE," "MODERN TMES," "FAIL SAFE," and "7 DAYS IN MAY."
Other great, overlooked newer films: "PLEASANTVILLE," "STRANGER THAN FICTION," "GRAVITY," and "CHILDREN OF MEN" Cheers!
I love your reaction! I read comments loving your glasses but I saw none-thanks for confirming you were not wearing them in this program. 33:30 33:31
1:28 In _Do The Right Thing_ Spike Lee reminded us that hate is just heat handled poorly.
Heat is oppressive and we react to it in the same way.
This is one of my all time favorite movies, probably top five!!! Good to see an African-American perspective on it. And always good to see your great beauty, with and without your glasses 😍
I was part of a jury once! Here in "Silicon Valley"...
But we didn't get to deliberate, because the prosecution rested their case because they said they could not meet their burden of proof. But I would have voted not guilty.
It was about an undocumented immigrant from Mexico being accused of exposing himself to two kids and their babysitter walking by his car. But he swore up and down he was just adjusting his pants. A big part of jury selection was them asking each of us if we could handle presuming someone to be innocent even though they were here "illegally". Of course, it's the San Francisco Bay Area, and we embrace multiculturalism and welcome immigrants, so all of us agreed that it wouldn't be a problem.
The guy did run from the police....but I figured that was because he was undocumented. My opinion was that it was in the early evening, not much sunlight, and the lady probably just saw him adjusting his belt and thought he was adjusting something else...I thought there was a lot of reasonable doubt.
But, the prosecution dropped their case. I hope the guy is doing ok these days and is on a track to becoming a US citizen.... 🙂
I'm pretty sure that jurors can not bring their own evidence or do any independent research. Him going to the neighborhood and buying a knife, and bringing it into the juror's room is very much a mistrial.
Was it like that in the 50's though. Now you would get checked before you go in
There are two more westerns with along the same lines The Ox Bow Incident with Henry Fonda where three cowboys were lynched w/o a trail the other is High'em High with Clint Eastwood. The were hung for rustling cattle and murder.
The man that was ranting was a actor doing his part in the movie
Ed Begley, Sr., father of actor Ed Begley, Jr.
32:10 For those interested, adjusted for inflation, $5,000 in 1957 is the equivalent of over $55,000 today.
EDIT: Reflections aside, the glasses suit you.
I think the kid was possibly Irish, they were attacked alot back then.
Then, at the end, you find out the old man was also Irish, with that last name.
The kid was probably supposed to be Puerto Rican. The young actor who played him was of Italian ancestry.
Anti Irish discrimination was mostly gone by that time. Irishmen are pretty much never dark skinned too. You did bring up a good point though as to why an older white man might have stood up so early. As a young man it is possible he experienced discrimination for being Irish or knew that his father did.
court I would still love to see you react to "In the Heat of the Night".😃 It has Sidney Poitier as a detective from Philadelphia. He visits his mother (or maybe his grandmother, I always forget) in a very racist town in the deep south. They have a murder in the town, and one of the junior policemen is sent to look for suspicious people who might be the killer. He finds Sidney Poitier waiting for the train, and racially profiles him, and arrests him for Waiting For a Train While Black. The sheriff questions him and calls him the n-word and then figures out that Poitier is a detective, and is very embarrassed. Poitier eventually solves the murder, but it isn't who we thought it was! And the sheriff is less racist at the end, telling Poitier with a smile, "y'all take care" and Poitier says "yeah" and smiles. There's a famous scene in that movie where they are questioning a rich white plantation owner and the owner slaps Poitier for daring to suggest, as a black cop, that a white man could be involved with the murder, and Poitier slaps him right back, much harder, the first time a black guy slapped a white guy in a movie, apparently. 😲
They also made a series from the movie, in the 90s, I watched it all the time in high school. Unfortunately the guy who plays Poiter's character had a drug problem and ultimately had to be fired, and the series wasn't as good after that, but still good. 🙂
The acting talent that's in this room likely won't ever be seen together again.
After you finish your Stat trek journey, you should try the original "Twilight Zone" series.
OK. Again. In the original stage play juror 3 was not hit by his son but the son tried to stab him with a knife. That is why he was that involved. Don't know why they changed it.
Oh wow. That detail makes more sense.
I like your glasses! Play with adding bright color like yellow orange or pink. Could be fun for u
What's interesting about this movie at the end we never find out if he's guilty or innocent
It is interesting that there were no ladies on the jury. If there had been, maybe tempers would not have been so high. I looked it up and the 1957 Civil Rights Act gave women the right to serve on Federal juries, but it wasn't until 1973 that all 50 states allowed women on state court juries.
Most states had given women the right to be on juries by the early 40s...a couple even in the late 1800s. However, a "housewife waiver" was easy for a woman to get, and in some states women needed to officially "opt in" to be called for jury duty.
If you look in the background of the jury room, you will see a women's restroom right next to the men's. So at least for this movie, there was a chance a woman or women could have been on the jury. But this time, only men were selected.
@@kirkdarling4120 Good to know. And New York, where this movie seems to be set, legalized women on juries in 1937
Thank you for watching this great movie ⚖️👩🏽⚖️
When Juror 8 produces his knife, the case should have been dismissed as a mistrial. 11:42
That's exactly what would have happened in a real trial.
I like you, so I'm a subscriber. This movie is one I rate right up there with Shawshank Redemption, and It's A Wonderful Life, These are movies that move you emotionally.
I think this is my first time here. Well done. Thank you. I will be back.
A strong script, but a "bottle" movie like this required the right cast to keep it compelling, with such a limited setting. Fortunately, they cast mostly accomplished stage actors, including many Broadway veterans, or else it could have been more static and less compelling. (Hitchcock's "Rope" and "Rear WIndow" also succeed despite basically taking place in one room and are worthy of future reactions. )
Note- Rope was based on a true story (the Leopoldo-Loeb killing). Compulsion is another movie on the subject. 16:03
I love your insightful commentary.
Watch the 1997 remake! Not as good as the 1957 version but it’s still good!
The original is the live teleplay written by Reginald Rose for television. A recording of the live broadcast is available on CZcams. So is a copy of the 1997 remake. A couple of the original actors in the teleplay reprise their roles in this movie.
@@kirkdarling4120The elderly juror and the immigrant juror were those men. 24:06
I knew you wore glasses. I saw the marks on the side of your nose! 😃
I loved your reaction. This movie is indeed one of the greats.
Excellent film and noticing the private investigator from Psycho.
I wear John Lennon type, round, 'granny' glasses. Everyone I've said, here try these, let me see how they look on you, they suit. Male or female, they just work. Maybe consider an alt pair. I've always thought, thick black frames, no matter what the styling, always look a bit severe. Although the thick style Morrissey used to wear look cool. Just a thought. Have an alt pair in a different style.
Enjoy your Star Trek reactions, but this film in particular is quite perfect for ANY Trek fan. It's as if the creators of Trek made this film first before color came in. Just like Star Trek: Conversation, dialogue, moral truth, exploration of philosophy, character development, and normal human weakness.
Great reaction to this classic. I'm subscribed.
Great reaction / review. Spot on!!
As we say in Texas; y'all be safe
Great choice : I hope you will comment more classics !
I enjoyed your reaction!👍👍
I really enjoyed your reaction and comments
Excellent review and commentary.
Thank you so much!
Love this movie and your reaction to it. Thank you for sharing. FYI....You look beautiful with or without your glasses.
I would suggest you watch the 1972 version of "The Taking Of Pelham 1,2,3", starring Walter Mathau and Robert Shaw, but it also co-stars Martin Balsom. Love, Hope, and Joy.
Beyond all the jurors turning away during the bigot diatribe the other visual was him then sitting at the smaller table. Similar to children seated at smaller tables at larger family gatherings at a larger dining table with holiday events.
Great reaction to a classic masterpiece!! 👏👍🎉🤗
U look ADORABLE in your glasses, mama! Chic, studious - yet not nerdy & somehow make your big beautiful eyes even bigger. Gorgeous! Lol And your reaction to this was excellent, of course!😘
Aww! Thanks 😊
the guy from star trek tos is from wolf in the fold, he played the killer
So when the baseball fan mockingly calls him "okay, killer".... he was more right than he knew!!!
The father was a convicted criminal -- did time for forgery. Did he have enemies?
I like your approach. Thanks.
2) THE EYEWITNESS
The woman who lived directly across from where the father and son lived claims to be able to positively identify the killer, even though she witnessed the stabbing from 60 feet away, at midnight, while lying in bed trying to get to sleep, without wearing her glasses, while having to see through the windows of a passing elevated train, with only a three-second or so glance. Any rational person would have a reasonable doubt about her ability to do so.
But what about the woman saying she saw the son do the stabbing?
"JUROR 10: Anyway, she looks out the window, and right across the street she sees the kid stick the knife into his father. The time is 12:10 on the nose. Everything fits. Look, she's known the kid all his life. His window is right opposite hers across the el tracks, and she swore she saw him do it."
The brain can be primed to see or hear things differently than they actually are. There is a CZcams video (titled, "Why people believe weird things | Michael Shermer", on the channel TED, and the segment mentioned above starts at the 9:03 mark. An even better source on how fallible the human brain is an entire series by National Geographic called "Brain Games") where a guy on stage plays a portion of a song backwards for an audience and asks the people what they heard. Some people made out one word: Satan. Then he plays the same portion of the same song backwards, but this time he shows words on a screen: the words people are "supposed" to hear. That primes the people's brains to hear what they are "supposed" to hear and now they hear every word, clear as day. But those words aren't actually there: the mind is tricked.
Similarly, the woman eyewitness could have been "mentally primed" to see the boy. Every time she looked across the way into that apartment she saw the father and/or the boy. So that night, she saw a stabbing, but not totally clearly, and her brain was primed to tell her that the shorter person, who did the stabbing, was the son. She could believe she saw the boy do the stabbing, even if it was actually someone else.
Here is a snippet of a recent paper that touches on the misidentifying strangers as familiar people:
"The questionnaires revealed that the participants misidentified both known and unknown persons as familiar persons approximately six (traditional questionnaire) or 19 (diary method) times a year on average, regardless of whether they expected the persons to be there. They were more likely to misidentify a person as a familiar than as a less familiar person. It was also shown that the similarity of the faces of the person actually seen and the person they were mistaken for was not as high as the similarities of build and clothing."
(Itoh Y, Miura H, Shimane D. A descriptive study on misidentifications of a person as a familiar person in an everyday situation. Sci Rep. 2023 May 26;13(1):8530. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-35094-8. PMID: 37237029; PMCID: PMC10220049).
Notice that the misidentifications occurred mostly due to similarity in build and clothing, not on the person's face. So if the woman saw a shorter person stab the father - especially seeing that occur in the apartment where she is primed to see the son - that could potentially lead to a misidentification.
I am not saying she is lying, just that she is convinced of something that she shouldn't be convinced of.
You might want to read about the case of Lennel Geter, a black engineer who was convicted of armed robbery in Texas in the 80s and sentenced to life. As it turned out, he was fifty miles away sitting in his supervisor's office for a scheduled performance review. But he had been positively identified by everyone in the store...because the police had repeatedly showed them his picture.
@@kirkdarling4120 It's difficult to tell people of a different racial group apart unless you have spent significant time with different members of the group. I used to think Asians looked quite similar and while they don't have different hair and eye color to help, otherwise they vary just as much as anyone else. But it took some time to get accustomed to that for me.
Remember the title
Great reaction.
Good show!
Trivia question: Two actors reprised the movie roles of Walter Matheau for TV.
@@FloridaMugwump Ooh! I know Jack Klugman played Oscar Madison on TV (Matthau having played the role on Broadway and the movies)… but who was the second actor… and role? I’m annoyed with myself for not knowing! 😉
@mckeldin1961 Jack Warden, the baseball fan, played coach Buttermaker on the TV Bad News Bears
@@FloridaMugwump Thank you!!
Possible does not mean reasonable.
The actors were extremely talented people! Most were character actors, but Henry Fonda, E.G Marshall, Lee J Cobb were superior & stared in fameous movies
❤❤😍😍
Hey nice reaction! Can you please react to the movie Edmond (2005)? Its classic and underrated. Subscribed!.....
This film is timeless, and can't be bettered. Don't bother with the remake.
That’s what I thought at first viewing, but I found it gets better. The black members added a different dynamic. 26:05
The remake's certainly not nearly as amazing, but it wasn't bad.
This movie shows why America was great. And now All of these are beeing thrown away by "strange" beliefs and ideological nonsense.