12 Angry Men (1957) | First Time Watching | Movie Reaction
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 06. 2024
- This week we're checking out a movie that has been on my list for years! When we received it in a package from Dawne a few weeks ago we decided it was time to finally move it up on the list! This was a smart movie that had us both questioning everything, even the ending!
Special thanks to our Studio level Patrons for their support of our channel: Cody Yote, Phoenix Drawz, RE/MAX Alamo Realty, Zecca V1
Patreon - Full length reactions
www.patreon.com/user?u=80969409
EMAIL
popculturallychallenged@gmail.com
Send us mail!
Pop Culturally Challenged
PO Box 1173
Helotes, TX 78023-1173
Buy Toni A Coffee
www.buymeacoffee.com/popcc
Instagram
/ popculturallychallenged
00:00 Intro
01:44 Reaction
23:37 Review - Zábava
The kid probably didn't remember much about the movies, because he didn't go to watch them for entertainment. He escaped from his father's abuse and probably needed some time to think about what to do with his life. He probably thought about doing, what the kid of Jury No 3 did: leave him.
It wasn't uncommon for the movies to just be a place where teens went to get snacks and hang out, and not necessarily to watch the films either. Often because the theaters were air-conditioned, whereas most people didn't have AC in their houses yet.
The kid is guilty can't you see that?
you dont know them , they lie
@@tedrowland8672What You mean?
@@WATSONMUTHI don't think so
In 1950, AC would have been exceedingly rare and expensive. Even most supermarkets wouldn't have had AC. Most buildings used ceiling fans and/or other fans.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. - Toni 🤓
One of the few perfect films.
I use this film as the exemplar to answer to the question “What would you get if you removed all of the bad things about current movies (cgi, pretty but mediocre actors, poor writing, other gimmicks, et cetera) and amplified all of the things great about film (engaging story, great actors, intelligent dialogue, employing classic techniques such as blocking, cinematography, lighting, et cetera)?
The entire film takes place in one room and could be made in one day, but is more engaging than the latest $200,000,000 blockbuster.
You are correct on most of that though because of all the different angles needed as the film goes on there is no way it could be done in one day ... 12 Angry Men took 3 weeks to film not including rehearsal time.
@@raybernal6829 With the much less obtrusive cameras we have today it could definitely be shot in one day because you could get many shots, including inserts, in one take with multiple cameras. The set would not have to accommodate one camera the size of a refrigerator.
@@Mr-gg8ek disagree but ok
A masterpiece. Maybe the greatest script ever written
Agreed!
Indeed
You stole my thought!
And performed by accomplished actors who inhabited those characters.
Certainly one of the best. Very limited, simple scenery in that it took place basically in 3 rooms. Making it to be more cerebral.
None of the actors are looking at the camera!
The camera is zooming in on their faces to reveal each characters feelings & thought processes, & to add to the claustrophobic atmosphere that the jurors are experiencing.
That makes sense. Thank you for clearing that up. - Toni 🤓
There is a zoom in on Henry Fonda that looks like he is looking at the camera.
The actor demonstrating how the knife works that was Jack Klugman he was in the tv series The Odd Couple and Quincy M.D. …
Ps. I met him once at a charity event where I used to work, got to tell him I thought he was a talented actor!!!( he was also in quite a few other movies too)
Every actor delivers their career-best performance. Most will never be given a similar chance but, in this film, each one has powerful statements. These folks also cheated because they had a year of stage performances to 'rehearse'.
He was also a Twilight Zone Regular. Cool you got to meet him.
Very cool! - Toni 🤓
What was his response?
Jack Klugman was a great actor, I remember that he did several twilight zone episodes
The camera shows a quick shot of the accused kid in the beginning, and it is left deliberately vague but it suggests that he may be Puerto Rican, as there was a lot of conflict at that time in New York between Puerto Ricans and white residents (see “West Side Story”). But the story works as a look at prejudice against any group or ethnicity and by not naming what his background, race or religion may be, it makes the story more timeless and universal.
I've often wondered what people's thought process would be if they didn't show him, or at least not his face. I've seen several people immediately side with the defendant because of how he looks, which is interesting considering the theme of personal prejudice. Prejudice doesn't just mean a negative inference, though we tend to think of it that way. Not criticizing the decision to show the defendant, mind you, but it does beg the question of how it affects different viewers.
@@StCerberusEngelPrejudice means holding an opinion on something or someone before you have all the relevant facts. That has a negative connotation to it. Bias is when one has a general partiality to something over something different. That has both a negative & positive connotation to it. So generally, bias describes leaning towards something, while prejudice describes being against something.
@deepermind4884 According to both Merriam-Webster
"prejudice /prĕj′ə-dĭs/
noun
The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions"
and Oxford
"prejudice noun
an unreasonable dislike of or preference for a person, group, custom, etc., especially when it is based on their race, religion, sex, etc."
Note that both a positive and negative inference is possible in both cases. A prejudice isn't necessarily a negative inference, but its use is generally associated with a negative. You can have a prejudice for something as much as you can against.
In practice both bias and prejudice are a negative in and of themselves, but the words do not necessarily hold a negative connotation toward the subject.
Now, if you want a more positive association you could use the word preference. But preferential treatment of something or someone is a prejudice or bias as well.
@@deepermind4884 People sometimes say, "I think she's brilliant. But I'm prejudiced" -- or things like that, so it's not necessarily having a negative view.
I think the kid belonging to a poor minority group is important, because regardless of his guilt, it is a fact that in 1957 the entire deck would be stacked against him, and he'd have next to no chance, even on next to no evidence. Whether he did it or not, he was definitely being railroaded.
The partially bald guy with the glasses and he was timing Henry Fonda as he walked like the old man he was the voice of “PIGLET “from Winnie the Pooh!!
I was going to say something similar. Ms. Roo ;)
He also played a role in "Raisin in the Sun" with Sydney Poitier.
@@cjpreach And he was in the original film version of The Odd Couple, which Jack Klugman (the slum juror) was in the TV series version of as Oscar. The cast is a real who's-who of greats of the day.
Such great information from everyone. - Toni 🤓
Almost 70 years later and this film is still engrossing to this day. The late great Sidney Lumet has an incredible filmography, including a few legal dramas such as this. Another one, though surprisingly very fun and lightly comedic, is Find Me Guilty, starring Vin Diesel. Cannot recommend it enough!
This was a great movie!
70 years since the first version
Thank you for the recommendation. I have added Find me Guilty to our list. - Toni 🤓
Lee J Cobb the last juror to render Not Guilty- will play Lt. Kinderman in "The Exorcist" yrs later 😊
And in Exorcist III, Lt. Kinderman would be played by George C. Scott, who also played the same juror in the '97 remake of this.
(looking up Lee J Cobb bio) I've got the same birthday as him and his character in The Exorcist has the same last name. crazy
He also played the infamous mob boss Johnny Friendly in On The Waterfront, which starred Marlon Brando.
Interesting, I'm going to go look at bio too!!! - Toni 🤓
oh my gosh I'm a huge Exorcist fan (1 & 3) and I never noticed that!
Not guilty does NOT mean innocent.
Not guilty means you are not convinced he is guilty.
OJ was not guilty, he sure as hell was not innocent.
Good point. - Toni 🤓
This is right up Toni's alley. No scares, gore, heartbreak, etc. Just an amazing script with amazing actors set mostly in a single room. A top 10 movie for me.
I would agree. Very well said! - Toni 🤓
The actor who was the eldest juror, Ed Begley, has a son who played a doctor on that series St. Elsewhere.
I'll need to go find that. - Toni 🤓
More recently, Ed Begley Jr. has the recurring role of Dr. Linkletter on "Young Sheldon."
As far as not remembering the movies. It's possible after having just been in an argument with his father and being hit, he may have just gone into any random movie just to sit in the dark for a few hours to be alone with his thoughts. Probably wasn't the least bit interested in the film.
Also, most people weren't invested in movies in general the way young people generally are nowadays. Kids probably paid no attention to the cast and crew of the movies they saw most of the time, and would only bother to remember the titles half the time: remember, it's not like they ever expected to see it again.
I'm glad you acknowledged that the guy could have easily still been guilty. A lot of reactors instantly believe he's innocent just because that's what our "hero" is arguing, and that's really not the point of the story.
The accused is Puerto Rican- one of "them."
A juror only has to have doubt to aquit. True, they may have freed a guilty person, but the state didn't prove their case. We saw the whole trial in the jury room. Would have been redundant.
This was a play originally, so seeing the remake is the same script, different actors.
Good job Toni!! Loved that when you told David he should’ve remembered what movies he saw some of these people in!!👍
😁 - Toni
"Gentlemen, that's a very sad thing... to be nothing."
Fun Fact: Feature directorial debut of Sidney Lumet.
Hot Take Fact: Shot in a total of 365 separate takes. However because of the painstaking rehearsals for the film lasted an exhausting two weeks, filming was completed in 21 days.
Method Director Fact: Sidney Lumet had the actors all stay in the same room for several hours on end and do their lines over and over without filming them. This was to give them a real taste of what it would be like to be cooped up in a room with the same people.
The Quest For Real Time Fact: Once the jurors are sequestered the film proceeds in real time. About halfway through they establish that it's 6 o'clock. They reach their verdict in another 45 minutes. This would leave plenty of time for Jack Warden's juror character to still make the 8 o'clock ball game.
That's cool! I didn't even realize that it was in real time! Great film! Thanks as always for the info! -David
Lumet really is one of the greatest of all time...I really hope they watch more of his movies.
@@iKvetch558yes, and with Henry Fonda again, in “Fail-Safe.”
Thank you so much for all the intel!! Would love to watch more of these movies. - Toni 🤓
You're welcome, David and Toni. 😁
Go with God and Be Safe from Evil. 😎 👍
12 Angry Men was shot entirely in New York City and the opening and closing exteriors depict Foley Square. The hour-long Law & Order was set in New York City.
I would really like to visit New York City before I die. - Toni 🤓
Yes!!!! The juror with the hat is from While You Were Sleeping!!
Great job!!
David is so smart that way!! - Toni 🤓
The court recorder is one of the most important people. They have to record every word accurately, which is essential in things like appeals. That is why judges maintain strict and keep people from talking over each other order to insure that the recorder hears each word.
“RUNAWAY JURY” with John Cusack and the great Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman is also “very “good and twists and turns in it!!!!
Yesssssss!
Agreed. I'd throw "Presumed Innocent" with Harrison Ford, Greta Scacchi, Raul Julia, Bonnie Bedelia into the pot as well.
Thank you for the recommendations. adding them to our list now. - Toni 🤓
Classic, one of the best screenplay ever. Think was based on a play or televised play a few years earlier....very much feels like watching a live performance on stage.
The knife. The knife could have fallen out of the boy's pocket as he was leaving his apartment, heading to the movies: it fell right outside the door, but he didn't hear it hit the floor because of the noise of the door closing. That puts the knife at the scene of the crime to begin with. There is no need to explain how the knife went from someplace else to the apartment. For example, there is no need for some stranger - who doesn't know the boy or the father, or where they live - to find the knife blocks away on the street and just so happen to walk to the father's apartment.
Where the father lived was a slum so just about anyone - homeless people, drug dealers, pimps, robbers, home invaders, anyone - could have walked inside the building and found the knife on the floor right outside the father's door. It could even have been someone who lived in the same building and who hated the father (for example, because this other person knew the father used his fists to beat the son, beating the son all the time). This bum/thug/robber/neighbor finds the knife outside the door on the floor and says something to himself ("sweet knife!") or makes some noise when picking it up and opening it up. The father hears someone outside his door and opens it, only to be confronted with a bum/thug/robber/neighbor with an open switchblade knife, and that person forces his way into the apartment. A fight ensues and the stabbing occurs ... with the bum/thug/robber/neighbor doing it the wrong way (from above, down and in, instead of upward and with an underhand motion, as the son probably would have done since he was very handy with knives).
There were no fingerprints on the knife (forensic DNA analysis was not available yet), so there was no forensic evidence showing the boy was holding the murder weapon when the stabbing occurred, or even that the boy ever held that particular knife. Heck, there isn't even any forensic evidence showing that the murder weapon was the same knife the boy bought: it could have been just a similar-looking knife, like the one juror 8 bought at a pawn shop just 2 blocks from the boy's place. The only evidence indicating the two knives were the same knife is that the friends identified the knife the police showed them as the one the boy had shown them. But without a serial number or something else definitive, no one could positively identify the two knives as being the same one, only that - from memory - the two looked very much alike. Even juror 3 (the final holdout) confused the knife juror 8 had bought with the knife used in the murder.
NOTE: Heck, it's not impossible that one of the boy's friends killed the father. The friend could have hated the boy's father, because the father used his fists to beat the son -- the friend's friend -- all the time. The friend could have waited for the boy to go to the movies, then knocked on the old man's door, rushed the old man, and stabbed him. The friend (1) could have just so happened to already have a knife similar to the one the boy bought that night, or (2) maybe when the friend saw the boy's knife that night he liked it, and after the boy left the group of friends, the friend went to a pawn shop and bought one similar to it, or (3) as above, the knife could have fallen out of the boy's pocket and the friend found it when he went to the father's door, picked it up, and then confronted the father.
Yes, and all of that leads to reasonable doubt. Thank you.
Reasonable? I think you can come up with a scenario for just about anything to create doubt. But reasonable?
@@gravitypronepart2201 That can explain a lot about the knife. What is the evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the boy did kill his father?
@TonyTigerTonyTiger If this were real, I'd say It wouldn't get to a verdict, because juror 11 would have triggered a mistrial. If I were a juror, I would have asked if the defendant's cloths were in evidence, and if there really was a hole in his pants pocket. If he wasn't there during the murder, there would be no blood on his cloths. If his dad's blood was there, then he would be guilty to me. The evidence we get was pretty strong. I would have to rule out marks on the woman's nose as inadmissible. The same with the old man wanting attention. Theories and guesses don't constitute evidence or reasonable doubt. And yet eye witness testimony is often wrong. For me, out of an overabundance of caution, I'd probibly vote guilty, and be bothered by it the rest of my life, considering what we know. But that was the intent of the writers, and thank God it wasn't real. Wouldn't want to be a murder trial juror.
@@gravitypronepart2201 Why would juror 11 have triggered a mistrial?
The boy claimed the knife fell through a hole in his pocket: the detectives surely would have checked to make sure he actually did have a hole in his pocket. If he didn't, that would have been brought up in court. None of the jurors indicate it was. Most reasonable conclusion: there was a hole in the boy's pocket that night.
The detective would have also mentioned if blood was on the boy's clothes, and if there were, that would have been brought up in court. None of the jurors indicated there was blood on the boy's clothes. Most reasonable conclusion: there was no blood on the boy's clothes.
Why would the marks on the woman's nose be "inadmissible"?
You said, "out of an overabundance of a caution, I'd probably vote guilty ..." That's the opposite of what an overabundance of caution would lead someone to do, considering the defendant is presumed innocent. Erring on the side of caution would have someone vote not guilty.
One of the greatest ever...really hope you folks LOVE this one.
Hi Toni...I believe "them" is Puerto Ricans. 6:13
Oh, I wouldn't have guessed that! - Toni 🤓
I think they deliberately avoided saying who "they" were, so that the audience would hear the juror's bigotry for what it was without being influenced by their own personal prejudices. The kid might have been Puerto Rican, or Mexican, or Italian, or Romanian, or many other things. Impossible to tell from the brief shot of his face.
@@bobbuethe1477 Indeed, they never do say it explicitly...and the movie is better for it.
Fun facts: John Fiedler, the voice of Winnie the Pooh's Piglet is the bald gentleman with glasses. You can hear it a little in his regular voice.
This cast is an all-star group for it's time. You would have to get Denzel Washington, Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Leonard DiCaprio and a collection of the well known character actors to get close to the talent here.
The director played with the walls to increase and brought them in to make the room look smaller at times and increase the tension.
What gets lost is we don't know ANYTHING about the characters, not even their names until the final scene.
I could totally see Denzel playing Fonda's part. And Brad Pitt playing the sports fan. Oh, and Tom Cruise would be the ad agency guy.
To answer your question.
Many courts still use court reporters, but some have upgraded to what is called FTR, where all audio is recorded and if people need transcripts we send dvd recordings out to get typed up by outside agencies.
That sounds like a great job. I would do that! - Toni 🤓
One of the best movies EVER! Welcome aboard!
😃 - Toni
Such an amazing movie. Brilliant acting tells the whole story.
Completely agree!!
I truly enjoyed this one. Would love to watch more like this. - Toni 🤓
@@popculturallychallengedAdd The Sting to your list Toni. An old time caper flick with some real movie stars. It won 7 Academy Awards.
This movie works so well because it has probably 12 of the best character actors ever committed to film, special mention to Lee J Cobb
Well said. - Toni 🤓
The best camera work ever
P.S. The last juror who stayed on gulty in the end said "not guilty" and he said that to his son
Very interesting!! Thank you for that insight. - Toni 🤓
This script premiered on CBS live starring Robert Cummings in 1954. Fonda loved it and wanted to make it into a feature film. It was the only movie he ever produced in his entire career. At the time, much like It's a Wonderful Life and The Shawshank Redemption, it was a box-office disappointment that came to be regarded as a classic masterpiece. The private detective from Psycho and the police detective from The Exorcist are there, as is Oscar from TV's The Odd Couple, and the actor who did the voice of Piglet in Winnie the Pooh and played Jack the Ripper on Star Trek. Quite a cast!
Such great information. Thank you for sharing your knowledge. - Toni 🤓
Its not about whether you had every single scenario right. No one in the jury was there to see the murder. It was about reasonable doubt. That's why he kept saying, "I don't know. It's possible."
good catch! - Toni 🤓
Yes, the buildings in this part of town are mostly the same.
Thank you. - Toni 🤓
We watched this Morality / Philosophy class in High School. Even then as a I teenager, I was floored. I've seen 2,200 movies now, and this still tops them all.
This was Sidney Lumet's first film, the brilliance of his career is already there.
It was fantastic!! - Toni 🤓
The jury foreman was investigator Arbogast in Psycho.
Usually courtroom dramas show us the trial but skip the jury deliberations, this is a smart inversion
I highly recommend Billy Wilder’s 1960 Oscar winner “THE APARTMENT”.
I feel like I have heard of that one. Will need to find out if I have already watched. Maybe one that David has asked me to watch and I haven't.... - Toni 🤓
Fun Fact: Juror number 2 is played by John Fiedler..who is also the voice of Piglet in Disney's animated Winnie The Pooh movies
Yep, learned that reading the comments. Thank you so much. - Toni 😊
One technique the director used was as the scenes progressed he moved the walls inward to create an almost claustrophobic atmosphere.
I believe Twelve Angry Men will always be the best movie I've ever seen. I've seen it for the first time when I was 17 or 18 and immediately fell in love with the script, acting, blocking, sound design... And now, over 10 years later, I can still watch it every few months and find new details that fascinate me.
Toni, I believe that juror #3 (the last one to change his vote) was projecting a lot, seeing himself in the murdered father and his son in the accused. And saying "not guilty" would mean admitting to himself and everyone around him that his own son was not guilty of ruining their relationship, realizing it was himself that drove his son away. That's why he had to break down first, only saying not guilty with his son's face in front of him, imagining dooming his son to the chair, realizing his pride is not worth this boy's/his son's life.
One of my 10 Favorite films ever made. A great cast, extraordinarily written, and phenomenally acted.
Hey you two I always stop in for a reaction to a great movie like this is. There are 5-7 movies that everyone lists as the best and this is one. I love seeing first timers get blown away by a really good black and white film.
David loves black and white movies which I'm sure we will watch some more. - Toni 🤓
One of the actors is Ed Begley, Sr. - Father of Ed Begley, Jr. (14 episodes of "Better Call Saul" and more shows and movies).
Thank you for that insight. I have added Better Call Saul to our list. -Toni 🤓
Henry Fonda was also in "The Ox-Bow Incident" (1943), which was a western courtroom drama, but without the courtroom. Very similar in concept to this. Also really good, just not as good.
Thank you for that info. I have added it to our list - Toni 🤓
It isn't whether the defendant is guilty; it is whether the prosecution PROVED guilt.
Good point. - Toni 🤓
The entire cast... you.couldnt cast it any better.
I watched this innthw 9th grade as part of of government class. It has been my favorite movie ever.
nice. - Toni 🤓
Looking directly at the camera was a way of including the audience and making it seem as though you were there in the room with them. Each individual is actually talking directly to you like you’re part of the jury . Nowadays, everybody calls it breaking the fourth wall like you’re not supposed to look into the camera. That used to be a very effective technique in filmmaking. Don’t know why so many directors got away from that.
This film came to mind when I watched DUNE. When the Fremen are said to be “dangerous and unreliable,” I sarcastically said, “Oh, there’re some GOOD things about ’em, too. I’ve known a COUPLE who were okay.”
Starting at 00:48:10 in the actual movie is when Juror 11 starts asking, Why did the boy come home if he did murder his father? This is a good question (asked by Juror 11 in the movie). That the boy came home at all - let alone at 3:10, which is consistent with him having watched the movies - is more consistent with the boy having watched the movies rather than having killed his father.
1) The old man downstairs says he saw the murderer running down the stairs and out the front door of the building.
2) Just after the train passed, the woman across the way screamed, having just witnessed a murder.
Note: In the movie, two potential reasons are given for why the murderer might not know about, or worry about, (2).
a. Maybe the murderer didn't hear the eyewitness scream.
b. Maybe the murderer did hear the eyewitness scream, but since it was a bad neighborhood the murderer thought the scream was for something else.
Personally, I find both of those weak, especially the second one. Regardless, there are two ad hoc reasons given for why (2) might not be all that important.
Whoever the murderer was would have known for sure about (1) ... and possibly/probably also about (2). Therefore, the murderer would have known that the police would probably be called, and he would want to stay away from the crime scene.
a) If the boy was the murderer, then he would have known that the police would most likely have been called, so coming home would put him at high risk of being arrested for murder. He would have great incentive to stay away.
b) If the boy did not murder his father, then he would have no reason to suspect the police would have been called and no reason to stay away, and would have come home after the movies, at about 3:10.
And which of those 2, (a) or (b), is more consistent with what the boy did do? Of course, (b).
PS: The movie tries to give a reason why the boy would come back home, even if he did murder the father; to get the knife because he knew it could be identified. But the logic seems a bit twisted to me.
A: If the boy really did stab his father, why did he leave the knife there, sticking in his father's chest for police to find and tie back to him? That doesn't make sense.
B: Well, the boy was in a panic, not thinking clearly.
A: The boy was in a panic?? He was calm enough to make sure there were no fingerprints on the knife.
Note that leaving the knife stuck in the victim's chest would not be a problem for anyone except the boy - the only person who would know it could be tied back to him. So the fact that the knife was left stuck in the victim's chest points away from it being the boy who did the stabbing - he would have been the only person with something to lose by leaving it there.
a) If someone else was the murderer, then there is no inconsistency. The murderer could have been calm, making sure there were no fingerprints, and there was no reason to worry about the knife being left at the scene of the crime.
b) If the boy was the murderer, then there is an inconsistency. He would have to have been in a panic in order to leave the knife at the scene of the crime, but would have to have been calm to make sure there were no fingerprints. A satisfactory answer is never given for this inconsistency, which people at the time faced: if the boy was the murderer, was he in a panic, or calm?
C: The boy figured no one had seen him running out and assumed that the body would not be discovered until the next day. So the boy assumed it was probably safe to come back home.
ME: This makes no sense. According to testimony, the murderer KNEW someone saw him running out, when the old man downstairs opened his door and saw the murderer running down the stairs, and then out the door of the building. The murderer would know that the police would likely be called, and that the body would be discovered when the police got there: the murderer would likely know it would not be safe to go back to the scene of the crime.
Here again, this is only an issue if the boy is the murderer. If the murdered was anyone else, he would have known that the police probably would have been called, and would have stayed away: and noone else came back to the apartment that night, which makes sense. If the boy was the murderer, he would have known that the police probably would have been called, and would have good reason to stay away: but he came back to the apartment that night, which is hard to explain rationally.
------------------------------------------------------
Quotes from the movie:
JUROR 11: There is a question I would like to ask. Let us assume that the boy really did commit the murder. Now, this happened at 10 minutes after 12. Now, how was he caught by the police? He came back home ... at three o'clock or so, and he was captured by two detectives in the hallway of his house. Now, my question is: If he really had killed his father, why would he come back home three hours later? Wouldn't he be afraid of being caught?
JUROR 12: He came home to get his knife. It's not nice to go around leaving knives sticking in people's chests.
JUROR 7: Yeah, especially relatives'.
[Juror 12 laughs at Juror 7's comment]
JUROR 4: I don't see anything funny about it. The boy knew the knife could be identified as the one he had just bought. He had to get it before the police did.
JUROR 11: But if he knew the knife could be identified, why did he leave it there in the first place?
JUROR 4: Well, I think we can assume the boy ran out in a state of panic, after having just killed his father. When he finally calmed down, he realized he'd left his knife there.
JUROR 11: This, then, depends on your definition of panic. He would have had to be calm enough to see to it that there were no fingerprints left on the knife. Now, where did this panic start and where did it end?
JUROR 3: Look, you voted guilty. What side are ya on?
JUROR 11: I don't believe I have to be loyal to one side or the other. I'm simply asking questions.
JUROR 12: Well this is just off the top of my head but ... well, if I were the boy and I'd done the stabbing and everything, I'd take a chance and go back for the knife. I'll bet he figured that nobody had seen him running out and that the body wouldn't be discovered till the next day. After all, it was the middle of the night. I bet he figured nobody would find the body until the next day.
JUROR 11: Pardon. This is my whole point. The woman across the street testified that the moment after she saw the killing, that is, a moment after the train went by, she screamed, and then went to telephone the police. Now, the boy certainly must have heard the scream. So he knew that somebody saw something. I just don't think that he would have gone back.
JUROR 4: Two things. One: In his state of panic he may not have heard the scream. Perhaps it wasn't very loud. Two: If he did hear it, he may not have connected it with his own act. Remember, he lived in a neighborhood where screams were fairly commonplace.
The remake in the 90’s does not live up to the original. It goes to show that some things can not be redone.
Thank you for your comment. - Toni 🤓
I was hoping Toni asking who "them" were was rhetorical... Another great Henry Fonda movie from 1940 is The Grapes of Wrath... Great reaction and comments guys ❤
Thanks for watching with us. I'll add The Grapes of Wrath to our list. - Toni 🤓
It's not that he's not guilty, it's that there's reasonable doubt. By the way, the remake was very well done. Simply updated to the times. This version remains my favorite.
Good point. - Toni 🤓
Not mentioned, but there are also two things that indicate, somewhat, that the boy did go to the movies that night: the fact that he came home when he did, and even that he did not remember the names of the movies and actors.
1) The boy came home when he did
The boy says he left his place t 11:30 to go the movies. The murder occurred at about 12:10am. The boy came home about 3:10am, when he was promptly arrested. The boy coming home at that time must have been consistent with him having gone to the movies - if it was not, surely such an inconsistency would have been brought up by the police and the prosecution. But there was no mention of him returning at 3:10 being inconsistent with him having gone to the movies.
2) The boy didn't remember the names of the movies or actors
For a minute, assume the boy did kill his father, and his plan was to give himself an alibi by claiming he was at the theater watching movies at the time. In this scenario, the boy would have had 3 hours to waste after killing his father. If watching movies was going to be an alibi for a killing, going to the theater to see what movies were playing and who was in them is something that everyone would have done, especially when they had 3 full hours to waste before they could go home (i.e., at a time consistent with having watched the movies). So if the body had killed his father and fabricated going to the movies as an alibi, then why didn't he know the names of the movies and actors? His not knowing the names greatly harmed his alibi; something that, if he had killed his father, he would have simply avoided by going to the theater and finding out what was playing that night. Logically, then, his not remembering the names is actually less consistent with him having killed his father than with him having watched the movies.
Nice Disney T shirt David. This is such a great movie with such a great cast. Everyone in this movie went on to do so much more afterwards. Henry Fonda had a great career before and after this film. I served on a jury the first time I was called, If we only had volunteers we wouldn't have enough for all of the juries needed. It is our civic duty to serve on juries.
8:04. The fact that a juror brought evidence into the courtroom (and investigated the case on his own) would mean a mistrial and possibly a charge of contempt of court (with a jail sentence).
Btw, the kid on trial is supposed to be Mexican or Latino. Which is where that one old guys bigotry was coming from. And he was poor and lived in the ghetto. So, that too.
The specific group were Puerto Ricans...so yes, Latino. I believe there was a lot of stuff going on in New York City in the 1950s in the Puerto Rican neighborhoods...so Lumet was being topical. 👍
Is there alot of Puerto Ricans in New York City? (I wish I was Puerto Rican!!) -Toni 🤓
Ever see "West Side Story?" It's a musical based on "Romeo and Juliet," but instead of two feuding families, it's about two street gangs in New York, one Puerto Rican and the other Italian.
@@popculturallychallenged I am not sure about nowadays, but historically, there was a lot of immigration to New York from Puerto Rico back in the late 1940s and 1950s.
I thought the kid could of been Italian too.
The courthouse was in Foley Square Manhattan near where I worked. This was Sidney Lumet's first movie he directed. This was a great stage play which I saw and enjoyed. There was a remake, but you saw the right one to see.
Earlier in the deliberations, it was mentioned the alleged murderer had been arrested for being in several knife fights.
Yeah, Jack Warden (#7) was in _While_ _You_ _Were_ _Sleeping_ many years later. In the 1950s, many people from Puerto Rico moved to New York. Most were poor and took low-paying jobs and lived in slum neighborhoods. Though they were already US citizens, they were that era's group that was automatically blamed for things like gang violence, increases of petty crime, etc. and given the appearance of the boy and the way they were talking about "them", I'm fairly sure that's the group to which the more bigoted jurors referred. They were depicted in many stories of that period (I suppose _West_ _Side_ _Story_ is the most famous). The "beyond a reasonable doubt" is an extremely high standard in capital cases (as it should be) even if it may acquit someone who may have been guilty. Unfortunately, too many people, particularly those with less competent or court-appointed public defender representation, have been executed (some only exonerated later) in the past on far flimsier evidence than we know of in this fictional case. Henry Fonda was a huge star in the 1930s and 1940s and played all sorts of leading roles (alongside superstars such as Bette Davis, Tyrone Power, John Wayne, Claudette Colbert, Jimmy Stewart, Joan Crawford). He's in his 50s here, and won his only "Best Actor" Oscar late in life for the _On_ _Golden_ _Pond_ you remembered. You may want to watch Fonda in _Grapes_ _of_ _Wrath_ - perhaps his finest performance.
Yes there was a remake made in the late 90s. Awesome cast as well.
A
AND a Russian re-make ("12")
There were two remakes. One was in 1997, and starred Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, Hume Cronyn, Ossie Davis, James Gandolfini, Tony Danza, Edward James Olmos, and several others. There was also a Russian remake in 2007 called "12".
The standard of proof in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not what's the most likely. Their discussion revealed a lot of doubt in the evidence. It's possible that the defendant actually did kill his father, but if there's another reasonable explanation for all the facts, the verdict must be "not guilty."
Good job Dawn. This movie is a steak dinner not cotton candy like most new movies
❤️ - Toni
The juror who "didn't sweat" (and who couldn't remember the second feature at the movies) is E.G. Marshall, who is better remembered today as Ellen Griswalds curmudgeon dad in National Lampoons Christmas Vacation.
He also had a terrible bug problem in Creepshow, (They're Creeping Up On You).
Ed Begly's #10, is worse than you think. He hated people from slums and bad neighborhoods. But he begins his diatribe with," I've lived among all my life!" Which means he also likes in the same bad neighborhood as the folks he's vilifying. Spot on character, spot on performance.
'innocent' is not a verdict you can return to a judge. The options are guilty, not guilty or no verdict (hung jury).
Oh interesting. I don't think I knew that. - Toni 🤓
You guys edited out a bit much for my taste, but I'm glad you liked it! Some of the best cinematography, blocking and shot composition I've ever seen in a film, for sure.
Probably due to copy right issues. David tries to include as much as possible. - Toni 🤓
"Those people" were Puerto Ricans ----- Like in West Side Story (The same year, I think) Puerto Ricans and Anglos had issues in NYC at that time.
Thank you for clearing that up. That’s kinda sad. - Toni 🤓😢
nah, you don't need to watch the remake at all. love this movie. henry fonda was a fantastic actor. he was in westerns like warlock and my darling clementine and earlier movies like the lady eve and the mad miss manton
Thank you for the fun and for a great reaction. (Henry Fonda is one of my favorite actors). One of his films that I haven't seen anybody else react to, but would like to see, is a movie from 1964 called "Fail Safe". In it, Henry Fonda plays the President ... it's a thriller concerning a crisis between the USA and Russia caused by a nuclear weapons error.
That sounds interesting. Adding it our list. - Toni 🤓
It's one of the rare cases where a movie remake is very well regarded, although the original is better. Another great "one room" drama is The Guilty (2018) Denmark also has a decent remake with Jake Gyllenhaal (2021) either or both are worth a watch.
In answer to your question at 14:55, most buildings in the 1950s were not air conditioned at all. In answer to your question at 18:20, he probably means Italian immigrants and their decedents, especially those living in slum conditions.
I think they also intentionally left who “they” were vague, so as to allow it to be relatable even as the exact people groups that are looked down on change both based on the location and time.
@@AdamNisbett You're probably right.
Thank you for that info. - Toni 🤓
One of the tightest written and best directed films to have ever been made. It takes place entirely in one room. Just goes to show you that you don't need a 500 million dollar budget to make a all time great film. All you need is to give a writer/writers time to come up with a great script (1+ years) get a director who knows how the technical aspects of film works, and get a cast that's committed to really inhabiting their characters and willing to bring them to live in all their flaws.
No, the guy was stabbed downwards, that mean a taller guy did it or a guy not from the "hood" because all those guys knew how to use a switchblade. If you stabbed down like that 9 times out of 10 you would cut your own hands.
🤔This is certainly an Interesting Movie: some very Powerful Performances and really makes You Listen-&-Think to figure out the Truth! Nice Reaction, I had a Fun time👍Thank You for sharing, and an extra Thanks to Dawne!👌
Really enjoyed sharing this with everyone. You are absolutely correct, Thank you Dawne!! we really enjoyed this. - Toni 🤓
One of the greatest dramas ever made.
It was a great movie! - Toni
A movie that I DON'T think Toni will cry in.
The hold out saw how this kids dad was abusive, like he was to his son.
Oh, didn’t see that. Thank you! - Toni 😊
But you're letting him slip through our fingers!
Was on a Justice of the Peace jury and was part of a 36 person pool for a murder trial, but didn’t get selected. Harris County, Texas brings in about 800 people twice a day on trial week. You get separated into civil and criminal groups, then broken up in pools of 36, assigned to a Deputy and marched to a court room. Pretty fun😊
A great Classic, Henry Fonda was a huge star at the time and many of the supporting cast were well known actors too. A/C was very rare and not even in cars yet (for the masses).
I have never been on a jury but few times I have been an interpreter in the court. It is as far from fun as you can imagine, deeply uncomfortable, and I quickly quit the job.
But the movie is great. I love this kind of movies, when they make an entire action take place in one room or is based on a single conversation. From this kind of movies I would recommend The Exam (2009) :)
From what I hear from the USA these days it's mostly about skin colour, but there was a time when the social divides were nearly as deep. These 'people', could be from the wrong neighbourhood, a vocation and so on. Remember from history when the Irish immigrants were generally disliked? Similar to people these days working minimum wage where I heard that others say 'if they don't like it, why don't they go to college'.
Never mentioning exactly whot they mean, they made the movie more timeless.
Another great and funny Henry Fonda movie is called Mister Roberts well worth a watch on the channel
I would like to watch funny. 😄 - Toni
I have never been on a jury but few times I have been an interpreter in the court. It is as far from fun as you can imagine, deeply uncomfortable, and I quickly quit the job.
But the movie is great. I love this kind of movies, when they make an entire action take place in one room or is based on a single conversation. From this kind of movies I would recommend The Exam (2009) 🙂
Ok. Maybe someone wrote it already. In the original play the son of the last juror did not fight and hit him. The son tried to stab him with a knife. Thats why he is so involved.
Oh wow! Thanks for the info!
Check out Henry Fonda in "Mr. Roberts". This film was shot in sequence, which wasn't very often done. The angle of the camera, with the close up, make it look like that person is looking at the person he's talking...the camera representing the other person. He wasn't trying the defendant, he was trying his own son.
I've been called for jury duty many times, in 3 different counties (Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino).
I only served on one jury, tho.... The trial took place in the same courthouse as O.J. Simpson's trail, but on a different floor. Saw Robert Shapiro once (they were still doing pre-trial things). The place was always packed. My trial was a murder trial, 4 counts. It was the driver in a car-to-car shooting (the shooter hadn't been caught at that time). We convicted him.
A couple suggestions for courtroom movies (or movies that include trials)...
The Oxbow Incident (also with Henry Fonda)
Inherit The Wind
Meet John Doe
To Kill A Mockingbird
The Pelican Brief
The Rainmaker
The kid could certainly have been guilty. But, if a jury can't figure out for sure they have to find not quilty.
It must be a hard task. - Toni🤓
A clasic-A film that dares to put into question the jury system. I recomend you watch the showtime remake.
Thank you for watching with us. I will had the remake on our list. - Toni 🤓
This would end up being a mistrial. The jurors are told not to go to the crime scene or look for evidence outside of what was presented.
The defendant appears to be Puerto Rican. He is one of "them".
I thought he was italian. 😂 - Toni
Yes there was a remake from 1997.
New York in the 1950's, most likely when they say "these people" they are most likely referring to the large wave of Puerto Ricans that were a relatively recent settlement group.
Same as in West Side Story.
One of my all time favorite movies !
I might have to add it to my all time favorite list too. I currently don't have one. - Toni 🤓
I'm glad you both liked it. Amazing how an old black and white film that relies completely on dialogue can capture your attention. I like hanging out with those guys and I watch the film often. I've seen the remake and felt it wasn't worth the effort. While it has good actors and lasts a little longer, there aren't many meaningful changes. Never remake the classics. I would say that Philadelphia is another really good film with a strong courtroom element. Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington are in that. It's extremely sad though.
One of the top 5 best movies of all time.
This is literally my favorite movie of all time. I watch it once a week, on average.
😍 - Toni
See the great "The Verdict" by the same director.
Thank you for the recommendation. - Toni 🤓