12 Angry Men (1957) | First Time Watching | Movie Reaction

[@susanliltz3875]

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)

[@Cbcw76]

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'.

[@StCerberusEngel]

He was also a Twilight Zone Regular. Cool you got to meet him.

[@popculturallychallenged]

Very cool! - Toni 🤓

[@classylady107]

What was his response?

[@mervinmerencio6861]

Jack Klugman was a great actor, I remember that he did several twilight zone episodes

[@Mr-gg8ek]

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.

[@raybernal6829]

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.

[@Mr-gg8ek]

@@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.

[@raybernal6829]

@@Mr-gg8ek disagree but ok

[@tommytbone9778]

OH boy, the great replier of youtube, and who are the students that these remarkable lessons are addressed to us or them?

[@funnyml3356]

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.

[@StCerberusEngel]

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.

[@tedrowland8672]

The kid is guilty can't you see that?

[@WATSONMUTH]

you dont know them , they lie

[@Felipe-u8p]

​​@@tedrowland8672What You mean?

[@Felipe-u8p]

​@@WATSONMUTHI don't think so

[@Dej24601]

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.

[@StCerberusEngel]

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.

[@deepermind4884]

​@@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.

[@StCerberusEngel]

​ @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.

[@HuntingViolets]

@@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.

[@MagusMirificus]

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.

[@BigGator5]

"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.

[@popccpatreon]

That's cool! I didn't even realize that it was in real time! Great film! Thanks as always for the info! -David

[@iKvetch558]

Lumet really is one of the greatest of all time...I really hope they watch more of his movies.

[@Dej24601]

@@iKvetch558yes, and with Henry Fonda again, in “Fail-Safe.”

[@popculturallychallenged]

Thank you so much for all the intel!! Would love to watch more of these movies. - Toni 🤓

[@BigGator5]

You're welcome, David and Toni. 😁 Go with God and Be Safe from Evil. 😎 👍

[@garylee3685]

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.

[@Straydogger]

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.

[@popculturallychallenged]

I would really like to visit New York City before I die. - Toni 🤓

[@belvagurr403]

The little guy with the glasses is John Fiedler, the voice of Piglet.

[@micahf5143]

I’m case no one told you…the remake is called ‘Runaway Jury”. It’s a good one.

[@phillymike3181]

"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.

[@popculturallychallenged]

Thank you for clearing that up. That’s kinda sad. - Toni 🤓😢

[@maddwitch]

I think that they purposely left the “them” vague because there’s always a ”them”, be it race, ethnicity, religion, or socioeconomic background, and leaving it more open makes it relatable to a wider group of people and gives it longevity.In this particular version, the boy is Puerto Rican. Around the time that this film was made, there was a large wave of immigration from Puerto Rico and it was the cause of some tension at the time. There is a Russian adaptation, titled 12, where the boy is Chechen.

[@JustinHamsley]

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.

[@popculturallychallenged]

Thank you for that info. I have added it to our list - Toni 🤓

[@johnmaynardable]

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.

[@kevind4850]

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.

[@book_Emmy]

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.

[@sprayarm]

The jury foreman was investigator Arbogast in Psycho.

[@lenorawilson2326]

Yes the remake is worth a watch, I think the actors in the remake did a good job. They updated it for the time, 1997 I believe was when the remake came out.

[@marke8323]

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).

[@JoeD0403]

I just finally saw this for the first time recently and now I see where The Breakfast Club got its inspiration. Even down to a switchblade scene.

[@popculturallychallenged]

I havne't seen The Breakfast Club in years but I think you're right! 😀

[@dionysiacosmos]

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.

[@davidkelly2355]

Maybe it’s me but every reaction I’ve watched,somebody doesn’t know what Henry Fonda means when he asks Ed Begley why he believes the woman “she’s one of those” or when Ed Begley says “you know about those people “. It must be great to not have experienced racism ( I haven’t either, being white)

[@popculturallychallenged]

I think using the words themselves is rude no matter what color you are discussing. - Toni 😢

[@Marlenne-bo1xw]

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) :)

[@garri5108]

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

[@popculturallychallenged]

Very interesting!! Thank you for that insight. - Toni 🤓

[@kaig.6367]

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.

[@popculturallychallenged]

Oh wow! Thanks for the info!

[@ericmeador835]

One of my all time favorite movies !

[@popculturallychallenged]

I might have to add it to my all time favorite list too. I currently don't have one. - Toni 🤓

[@gazza1196]

One of the greatest dramas ever made.

[@popculturallychallenged]

It was a great movie! - Toni

[@chrisl9813]

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.

[@philmakris8507]

Whoa. Did dude just rolls his eyes at the thought of the perceived inconvenience of getting called up every 3 years for Jury Duty??? Excuse me for saying so but Jury Duty is just that a duty. The rolls for jury duty are detetmined by voter registrations. Do you have an objection to voting? In other words you by the ticket you take the ride. It's all part of enjoying the freedom you have, paid for in blood and treasure. If they only took ppl that wanted to do jury duty. The would never be able to form "fair and impartial juries of ones peers". And there is a mechanism in place to those that have a religious or ethical objection to serving. Short of that you know where they don't have jury duty? Places like North Korea and Cuba. God Bless America. 🇺🇸

[@kirkdarling4120]

Somone had to say that. Thanks.

[@belvagurr403]

AC wasn’t a common appliance in the 50s

[@Scopper81]

I had stenographers for captioning in college. I remember one saying that they can make good money, even as much as lawyers.

[@ammaleslie509]

He didn't say that his father was killed with the same knife that fell out of his pocket! The point was that there were other switch knives like that on sale in the neighborhood as the Henry Fonda character proved.

[@zomish13]

Pretty sure those steps and court house are the same steps we saw in The Godfather when Barzini was assassinated.

[@PaulWinkle]

I guess No8's mysterious killer cracked the jackpot in the blame-game lottery, Mysterio got everything correct without even seeing the boy's knife in the first place (like No8 did during the trial) and Mysterio was even extra lucky cause the boy lost his knife only hours before it happened, how convient isnt it? There was so much choice for Mysterio before he went to the dad, there are guns, axes, bats and so much other stuff. No he picked a knife and the correct style matching the boy's knife. No8 on the other side was perfectly aware of what he was looking for, him pulling out the knife in the jury room was so much more unimportant than the movie was making us believe! There is a reason why (real world) Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor said: that events such as Juror 8 entering a similar knife into the proceeding; performing outside research into the case matter in the first place; and ultimately the jury as a whole making broad, wide-ranging assumptions far beyond the scope of reasonable doubt (such as the inferences regarding the woman wearing glasses) would not be allowed in a real-life jury situation, and in fact would have yielded a mistrial

[@Center1240]

The point is that the evidence didn’t allow one to find another guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Failing to reach that threshold requires the jury to find the accused not guilty. It is always possible that the accused actually committed the crime, but the system requires that the evidence be that convincing.

[@stanfluellen2689]

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.

[@AdamNisbett]

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.

[@stanfluellen2689]

@@AdamNisbett You're probably right.

[@popculturallychallenged]

Thank you for that info. - Toni 🤓

[@jeffreyphipps1507]

McCardle was played by Joseph Sweeney - he played in a lot of famous TV shows including Father Knows Best, Car 54, Ben Casey, MD, and more. One other famous juror was Jack Klugman - Known for Quincy, M.E. Many of the actors were known for TV and movies in the 50s/60s. Henry Fonda, of course, was the father of Jane Fonda and Peter Fonda. He was the grandfather of Bridget Fonda (Who is famous for Point of No Return, Single White Female, and Lake Placid, among others). Point of No Return is an exceedingly violent movie and one I don't mind telling you NOT to watch. I enjoyed it for what it is, but it's really rough. They graphically show execution of her character - and she is revived to be a secret assassin, a job she is well suited for in the story. However, the violence - watching it takes a stern acceptance that "this is just a movie". The "Fonda family" lives on - she has a son. Whether he'll be an actor is hard to say. Bridget is the daughter of Peter.

[@Jeff_Lichtman]

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."

[@marksterner7532]

Henry Fonda played virtuous characters in most of his films. I highly suggest that you review his iconic "evil" performance in "Once Upon A Time in the West". One of the greatest western films ever, and one of Henry Fonda's best performances. After you review that film, please check out the last film Henry Fonda made - "On Golden Pond". Co-staring Kate Hepburn, Jane Fonda, and Dabney Coleman, it is a film about family relationships, growing old, fearing death, and being able to finally open one's heart (both father and daughter) after so many years 0f animosity. It is definitely one of the all-time great films! Please check out both of these Henry Fonda classics!

[@rs91268]

Awesome movie 🍿

[@popculturallychallenged]

👍🏼 - Toni 🤓

[@djgrant8761]

The 1997 remake is in colour with Jack Lemmon (Juror #8) and George C. Scott (Juror #3). I prefer George C. Scott’s performance to that of Lee J. Cobb.

[@kirkdarling4120]

I agree about Scott's performance.

[@DONLove-e8u]

The point is doubt.. a reasonable doubt. Key stone of jury trial. Likewise the kid is innocent and the state must prove guilt.

[@crawdaddy2004]

28:00 “Every three years” - nope, not possible. Your rotation doesn’t come up until at least FOUR years.

[@hound3000]

There is a remake in 1997 with the same name.

[@popculturallychallenged]

That should be easy to find. - Toni 🤓

[@multieyedmyr]

He just bought the knife but stated earlier in the film he was arrested 2 times before for knife fighting.

[@kirkdarling4120]

When he was arrested before, the police confiscated those knives.

[@aldersleysteven]

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.

[@praapje]

Despite the reasonable doubt I still think the accused is the main suspect in this case.

[@popculturallychallenged]

Why do you think that? - Toni 🤓

[@kirkdarling4120]

The "main" suspect in a household homicide is nearly always someone who lives there. That doesn't prove anything, though.

[@SunShine-qk4rb]

I love this movie.great reaction

[@popculturallychallenged]

Thank you!

[@ThisLoveIsSweet]

No remake that I'm aware of. You're thinking if the sequel 13 Angry Men. haha I'm hilarious

[@markb3186]

INHERIT THE WIND IS THE BEST COURT ROOM DRAMA MADE 1960

[@stephenvincentgiles1306]

PLEASE react to the Peabody Award-winning episode of "Inside Amy Schumer" Season 3 Episode 3: "12 Angry Men Inside Amy Schumer." This is my favorite movie and they did such a great job parodying it.

[@katwithattitude5062]

It isn't true that nobody wears eyeglasses to bed. I do. And I love this movie.

[@kirkdarling4120]

Eyeglasses are much sturdier now than they were then. And would you still have your glasses on if you were tossing and turning and trying to go to sleep, as this woman reported was?

[@katwithattitude5062]

@@kirkdarling4120 I always do.

[@mervinmerencio6861]

The kid had an ethnic look to him, possibly Latino, maybe that’s what the guy means when he says them

[@dasx2gra]

f.y.i., the director made the jury room smaller and smaller as the tensions built!!!!

[@markb3186]

Try INHERIT THE WIND -must be the one with spencer tracey -it is REMARKABLE AND MORE IMPORTANTANT THAN EVER -AN HISTORIC FILM AND IMPORTANT BEYOND THIS ONE

[@757optim]

Like & comment.

[@popculturallychallenged]

Yes please!! - Toni 🤓

[@sloot69x]

Its all about reasonable doubt!

[@gwwaz]

At the beginning of the movie it was stated that the kid was Puerto Rican, but you were too busy bull shitting.

[@philmakris8507]

No A/C because it's 1956

[@ronniesandoval8254]

Why why why why

[@popculturallychallenged]

Did I ask that many questions? I thought I stayed focus on this one. - Toni 🤓

[@ronniesandoval8254]

😄

[@hiyadroogs]

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.

[@popculturallychallenged]

That makes sense. Thank you for clearing that up. - Toni 🤓

[@williamjamesayers7719]

There is a zoom in on Henry Fonda that looks like he is looking at the camera.

[@gregghelmberger]

Sorry, but Jurors 6 and 9 do directly address the camera. When the director has an actor address the camera, it essentially bypasses the artifice of having one character speak to another and has the character speak directly to the audience. That's cinematic shorthand for "This character is trustworthy, you can believe what they're saying."

[@jeffreyphipps1507]

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.

[@popculturallychallenged]

Thanks for clearing that up for me. - Toni 🤓

[@chrismalik1579]

A masterpiece. Maybe the greatest script ever written

[@popccpatreon]

Agreed!

[@Abbie-g1b]

Indeed

[@cjpreach]

You stole my thought!

[@DurkMcGerk]

And performed by accomplished actors who inhabited those characters.

[@garufia]

Certainly one of the best. Very limited, simple scenery in that it took place basically in 3 rooms. Making it to be more cerebral.

[@susanliltz3875]

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!!

[@pleutron]

I was going to say something similar. Ms. Roo ;)

[@cjpreach]

He also played a role in "Raisin in the Sun" with Sydney Poitier.

[@StCerberusEngel]

@@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.

[@popculturallychallenged]

Such great information from everyone. - Toni 🤓

[@joecarr5412]

Lee J Cobb the last juror to render Not Guilty- will play Lt. Kinderman in "The Exorcist" yrs later 😊

[@StCerberusEngel]

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.

[@tkin1973]

(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

[@josephpaul4548]

He also played the infamous mob boss Johnny Friendly in On The Waterfront, which starred Marlon Brando.

[@popculturallychallenged]

Interesting, I'm going to go look at bio too!!! - Toni 🤓

[@bankbarcomo806]

oh my gosh I'm a huge Exorcist fan (1 & 3) and I never noticed that!

[@DiggitySlice]

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.

[@maximillianosaben]

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!

[@popccpatreon]

This was a great movie!

[@Demigord]

70 years since the first version

[@popculturallychallenged]

Thank you for the recommendation. I have added Find me Guilty to our list. - Toni 🤓

[@ronaldjeffrey8712]

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.

[@MagusMirificus]

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.

[@kirkdarling4120]

Yes. Most homes and apartments were not air conditioned. It was common to go to the movies just for air conditioning...maybe even take a nap. People commonly went to movies without even knowing what was playing, so if it was a boring movie, it would have been quickly forgotten. The stockbroker was a very intelligent movie. The fact that he was a stockbroker and even that he played bridge, which was considered the "intelligent man's card game," were the cues that his ability to remember details was greater than most people's.

[@johnmonk66]

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.

[@popculturallychallenged]

Good point. - Toni 🤓

[@kirkdarling4120]

In US jurisprudence, it definitely _does_ mean "innocent." Remember that the basic tenet is "Innocent until proven guilty." Unless the court (the jury in this case) declares the defendant "guilty," the defendant is _innocent._ The courts cannot be used to stage trials so that a person's life is thereafter tainted by spurious allegations.

[@susanliltz3875]

Good job Toni!! Loved that when you told David he should’ve remembered what movies he saw some of these people in!!👍

[@popculturallychallenged]

😁 - Toni

[@susanliltz3875]

“RUNAWAY JURY” with John Cusack and the great Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman is also “very “good and twists and turns in it!!!!

[@raybernal6829]

Yesssssss!

[@TesseRact7228]

Agreed. I'd throw "Presumed Innocent" with Harrison Ford, Greta Scacchi, Raul Julia, Bonnie Bedelia into the pot as well.

[@popculturallychallenged]

Thank you for the recommendations. adding them to our list now. - Toni 🤓

[@grumpyoldgraymetalhead2441]

The actor who was the eldest juror, Ed Begley, has a son who played a doctor on that series St. Elsewhere.

[@popculturallychallenged]

I'll need to go find that. - Toni 🤓

[@bobbuethe1477]

More recently, Ed Begley Jr. has the recurring role of Dr. Linkletter on "Young Sheldon."

[@iKvetch558]

One of the greatest ever...really hope you folks LOVE this one. Hi Toni...I believe "them" is Puerto Ricans. 6:13

[@popculturallychallenged]

Oh, I wouldn't have guessed that! - Toni 🤓

[@bobbuethe1477]

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.

[@iKvetch558]

@@bobbuethe1477 Indeed, they never do say it explicitly...and the movie is better for it.

[@susanliltz3875]

Yes!!!! The juror with the hat is from While You Were Sleeping!! Great job!!

[@popculturallychallenged]

David is so smart that way!! - Toni 🤓

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

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.

[@gravitypronepart2201]

Reasonable? I think you can come up with a scenario for just about anything to create doubt. But reasonable?

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@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?

[@gravitypronepart2201]

@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.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

​@@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.

[@gravitypronepart2201]

@TonyTigerTonyTiger Sorry, I meant juror #8. The rules of the court forbid jurors from going to the crime scene, conducting their own investigation, and introducing evidence not in discovery. They also can't consider anything outside of the evidence presented. That constitutes a mistrial. As for blood or a hole on the pocket, we as the audience don't know one way or the other. Why? Because that's how the script was written. If it were an actual case, the jury had the duty to consider only evidence presented and nothing else. However, during discovery, a juror can ask questions by note to the judge. But if the question is about any evidence not presented, the judge will tell them to look at evidence as presented. Nothing else. As for what is an overabundance of caution, I mean that evidence presented leds me to believe he is guilty. I want to be sure to do the right thing. I feel for the defendant, but letting him go based on my emotional leaning or on an infinite number of possibilities would not serve justice. The Perponderence of the evidence leads me to conclude his guilt.

[@robertnichol3669]

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.

[@blueeyedcowboy8291]

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.

[@popculturallychallenged]

I would agree. Very well said! - Toni 🤓

[@terryv2006]

Such an amazing movie. Brilliant acting tells the whole story.

[@popccpatreon]

Completely agree!!

[@popculturallychallenged]

I truly enjoyed this one. Would love to watch more like this. - Toni 🤓

[@terryv2006]

@@popculturallychallengedAdd The Sting to your list Toni. An old time caper flick with some real movie stars. It won 7 Academy Awards.

[@jnagarya519]

Air conditioning wasn't common in 1957.

[@popculturallychallenged]

I've learned that now. I wasn't born then and I don't remember a day without air conditioning.... unless the system broke. (and that was a terrible experience) - Toni 🤓

[@BlueShadow777]

I really wouldn’t bother with the two remakes. One is a TV movie and the other a TV ‘video’. Neither is a patch on this original.

[@popculturallychallenged]

👍🏼 - Toni

[@cenotemirror]

Something that goes over a lot of people's heads is that the point isn't whether or not the kid did or did not really kill his father. The point is whether or not there's a reasonable doubt that he did: that is, whether or not a reasonable pewrson, presented with the facts, could say, 'I don't know'. That's the bar for Not Guilty, not proof, or even likelihood, that the accused is innocent. The movie never answers the question of what actually happened.

[@shallowgal462]

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!

[@popculturallychallenged]

Such great information. Thank you for sharing your knowledge. - Toni 🤓

[@jhilal2385]

There are 2 remakes. Each changes the story to add increasing "diversity" to the 12 Angry Persons. Watch them at your own risk.

[@popculturallychallenged]

😂 Thank you, I like you put that. - Toni 🤓

[@mjr320]

Another great and funny Henry Fonda movie is called Mister Roberts well worth a watch on the channel

[@popculturallychallenged]

I would like to watch funny. 😄 - Toni

[@fernandomendez2709]

A clasic-A film that dares to put into question the jury system. I recomend you watch the showtime remake.

[@popculturallychallenged]

Thank you for watching with us. I will had the remake on our list. - Toni 🤓

[@BlueShadow777]

I highly recommend Billy Wilder’s 1960 Oscar winner “THE APARTMENT”.

[@popculturallychallenged]

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 🤓

[@jnagarya519]

The defendant appears to be Puerto Rican. He is one of "them".

[@popculturallychallenged]

I thought he was italian. 😂 - Toni

[@kdot89]

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."

[@popculturallychallenged]

good catch! - Toni 🤓

[@MrRondonmon]

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.

[@kirkdarling4120]

The wound direction was the most convincing to me (plus the fact that the knife was left in the wound), after they'd already established that the kid was an experienced knife fighter.

[@jnagarya519]

See the great "The Verdict" by the same director.

[@popculturallychallenged]

Thank you for the recommendation. - Toni 🤓

[@richelliott9320]

Good job Dawn. This movie is a steak dinner not cotton candy like most new movies

[@popculturallychallenged]

❤️ - Toni

[@eddie_77]

Yes there was a remake made in the late 90s. Awesome cast as well.

[@SvenAnarki]

A AND a Russian re-make ("12")

[@EShelby2127]

The hold out saw how this kids dad was abusive, like he was to his son.

[@popculturallychallenged]

Oh, didn’t see that. Thank you! - Toni 😊

[@Abbie-g1b]

One of the best. 🤧 Not guilty. 👍☮️💫

[@popculturallychallenged]

Well said. - Toni 🤓

[@johnmonk66]

The remake is not worth watching.

[@popculturallychallenged]

We might watch it off camera just for the fun of it. - Toni 🤓

[@johannesvalterdivizzini1523]

"Really overdone" building? Are you opposed to architecture? That courthouse still looks like that, since the whole hallways/lobby are made of marble. It's called "classic", not "overdone". Also--it's all about doubt of convincing proof of guilt. 1) the knife was not "one of a kind" 2) The old man upstairs could not have heard everything he claimed if a El train was rumbling by. 3) Why would the kid have come back to apt where he'd just murdered his father?4) The "eyewitness' vision was in doubt. Henry Fonda didn't have to convince them that the boy was innocent, just that the case of the prosecution was shaky.

[@JoseGonzalez-wv5br]

The remake in the 90’s does not live up to the original. It goes to show that some things can not be redone.

[@popculturallychallenged]

Thank you for your comment. - Toni 🤓

[@vincentsaia6545]

Yes, the buildings in this part of town are mostly the same.

[@popculturallychallenged]

Thank you. - Toni 🤓

[@johnmonk66]

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.

[@popculturallychallenged]

That sounds like a great job. I would do that! - Toni 🤓

[@alexistrebexis3195]

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.

[@iKvetch558]

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. 👍

[@popculturallychallenged]

Is there alot of Puerto Ricans in New York City? (I wish I was Puerto Rican!!) -Toni 🤓

[@bobbuethe1477]

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.

[@iKvetch558]

@@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.

[@dow311]

I thought the kid could of been Italian too.

[@gregall2178]

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