*12 ANGRY MEN (1957)* is one of the GREATEST movies of all time | FIRST TIME WATCHING | REACTION

[@RolyPolyOllieReactions]

Get up to 30% off Ekster's Labor Day sale from August 22 to September 3! Remember to use code ROLY at checkout to unlock further savings at partner.ekster.com/rolypolyolliereactions

[@ChicagoDB]

The bathroom towels are cloth on a long/large clean roll/roller…you pulled down to a fresh section and the used section goes on to a different roller…the unit roll is then taken to laundry to be laundered/sterilized. They were very common until about 1990. It is one of the most common questions when people watch the movie.

[@Damianzukowski-xi1nt]

hey react wolyn 2016, movie is have englisch subtilles

[@RLucas3000]

If you enjoyed this movie, watch Witness for the Prosecution, from the same year.

[@theTruthwillsetyoufree]

@RolyPolyOllieReactions: I just made a video - correcting the 12 ANGRY MEN....! Please watch it, and tell me if you disagree with me, for I am one of the best Judges in this World....!

[@ChicagoDB]

The bathroom towels are cloth on a long/large clean roll/roller…you pulled down to a fresh section and the used section goes on to a different roller…the used roll is then taken to laundry to be laundered/sterilized…and replaced with another by a janitor. They were very common until about 1990. It is one of the most common questions when people watch the movie.

[@chidagamer6497]

I remember when I was a kid, in the early to mid nineties, there were a few places still using them. They always kind of icked me out, to be honest, they never seemed to work quite right.

[@katwithattitude5062]

@@chidagamer6497 Especially when the towel roll got stuck and everyone used the visible portion even when it looked filthy.

[@tubekulose]

We still have them here in Austria in some places but for the last 40 years or so they have been working with motion detectors releasing the fresh piece of the towel automatically so you don't have to pull any more.

[@JackieG717]

Yeah still have this at our shitty football club rooms ha

[@gregghelmberger]

I HATED those things. It always seemed like every bathroom I went into had reached the end of the roll and 78 filthy men had wiped their hands on the last portion showing and the cloth was black. I can't count how many times I dried my hands on my clothes instead.

[@robertcringle4865]

One of the finest casts of all time.

[@jnagarya519]

It began with the WORD -- the superb script.

[@dashasl2582]

And to the superb script you add a superb cast of great actors.

[@janehollander3843]

Juror 3: Lee J Cobb gives such an outstanding performance. I always choke up at the end. Legendary actor.

[@laralongstaff5139]

I know, right! I've seen this movie about 10 times and his breakdown at the end gets me every time!

[@captainkangaroo4301]

Yes indeed. And the magnanimity of Henry Fonda helping him put his jacket on at the end was wonderful.

[@Christian_Adonis1]

@@captainkangaroo4301-That’s the part that makes me tear up every time.😢

[@davidmacias741]

Yes emotional scene I love it.

[@fuxion22]

I like how, at the end, juror number 3 says "not guilty" two times. One for the kid on trial and one for his kid.

[@captainkangaroo4301]

My mother went to high school in the 1930’s in Minnesota with juror number 4 who does not sweat. The actor known as E.G. Marshall my mother knew as Everett Grunz over 90 years ago.

[@drchaos2000]

i really appreciate the ending of the movie where he helps jury member 3 into his jacket, its a lesson we really need to learn more in the days of social media. just because a person is really obnoxious about one topic, they might have their reasons and it doesn't make them a bad person in general.

[@stormbrewer3004]

That's the crowning moment of the movie to me. To show you respect and care about your adversary as a fellow human in their moment of defeat/humiliation without being patronizing. That dimension of grace and empathy ... well, we can surely use more of that today.

[@PolferiferusII]

I'd go as far as saying even if they were 'a bad person in general' (who are we to judge from such a brief acquaintance) acts of respect like that are kind, and if a person isn't accustomed to being treated like that it might be a tiny bit healing. A coworker of mine from long ago once said something that was so simple it helps me get perspective to this day. She said (paraphrasing): "One time [name] didn't answer when I said 'good morning'. I used to take it personally when things like that happened, and think they were rude and full of themselves. Then one day it was me who didn't respond to a 'good morning', and the person went off on me! I'd been up all night with my dying father in the hospital, and could barely function. I would start sobbing out of the blue, and hide in the restroom stall until I was able to compose myself. I hadn't been trying to be rude, the 'good morning' just didn't reach me. After a while, it occurred to me how I sometimes took offense at things like that, and now I don't get mad at such little things. Because you never know what someone else is going through in their life." And that's the story, but all I can remember verbatim was the important part, "you never know what someone else is going through..."

[@bryanCJC2105]

This is one those great movies. I want to bring up an important point. This movie is from a time when the real man, a mature man, is often portrayed as wise, thinking, considerate, courteous, and respectful. In being this way, he gains respect without using force, threats, or bravado, only his thoughtful deliberate words. In this movie, you clearly see that. The loud, bullying, and vulgar men are seen as childish and immature, the worst kind of man. Even in the last scene when Henry Fonda helps the last holdout with his jacket in a mature and respectful manner. He never disrespected the man. This was common in movies and TV shows of the 40s, 50s, and 60's as examples of how to behave and gain respect, and began to change in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Today, we see man-boys in movies and on TV most often. I love how these 12 men seemed so ordinary. None of them were super attractive or overplayed their roles. They were so ordinary; people we have all seen or heard in real life. These men are people we see everyday. The childish men weren't normalized the way we normalize them today. The adults were exhibiting a higher standard for how we should behave, debate, and reason. How often do we see grown men today acting like overgrown children? We can see how these adult mature men gain respect and how the childish men lose it. The childish reasoning made by the childish men could be heard today almost verbatim. Despite being made in 1957, it still has so much relevance today with one exception. In 1957, maturity was a standard to aspire to. That has disappeared today. This movie is about a jury deliberation but it's also a movie about life, about justice, about prejudices, about reason, about the ideals we are supposed to uphold, and about maturity and respect.

[@BennyFordPerfectlySafe]

Well said.

[@isabelsilva62023]

So true.

[@moeball740]

Bullying is accepted today and even openly encouraged with many politicians. There is a significant portion of today's population that wouldn't like this film and would say the Henry Fonda character was a weak beta male and shouldn't be respected. In fact, Thomas Sowell has done a video claiming that the film is just liberal propaganda and that the jurors had everything all wrong and the kid should have been convicted!

[@richardrobinson4020]

So true

[@davidstevenson1933]

Did Juror #3 write this comment? Kids today, huh? There were plenty of childish immature men in 1957. Hell - I'd argue most of them were. Movies made from the 30's through most of the 60's portrayed people this way because they were prohibited by the studios from portraying people realistically. Bad behavior on screen had to be punished. While the censorship of this period was technically "self-censorship" since the studios created and enforced it, it was done under the constant threat of congressional action. I for one don't believe it was a good thing (I guess some you apparently disagree). I think modern audiences often assume film from that period depicts people accurately but it just doesn't and it leads people to wrongly believe people were better behaved in 1950 than they are today.

[@SirMarshalHaig]

Storytelling at its finest. No special effects, no intense background or weird places, just a room full of people and it gets me hooked every time, no matter how often I´ve seen it. It´s a classic for a reason

[@neojc128]

Juror 3 is a secret tragedy at the end of this movie. His bias because of his son is obvious, but early on in the movie, he mentions he sat on many juries. It is only safe to assume he was as cavalier on the other juries and there is a strong possibility that he realized how biased he was at the same time he tore the picture of his kid. We can't know the details of his past cases, but there's a strong possibility by the way he acts that he has done this before. Without Henry Fonda to stop him.

[@jasoncaldwell5627]

The world is full of people like that- they view their unwillingness to examine their own motivations as "strength".

[@pauld6967]

@neojc128 Bravo! I have not seen anyone else make that observation in the comments section of reactions to this movie.

[@rikk319]

Self-awareness is one of the most important skills to develop in life.

[@jnagarya519]

During that period there was a lot of stuff about Puerto Ricans, switchblades (which were illegal), and "zip" guns. Same period as the original "West Side Story".

[@brianboye8025]

Switchblades are crazy scary. They are made to stab and penetrative as deep as the blade. Easy to carry and quick to use.

[@JohnTK]

My calculus teacher in high school made us watch this in class. Best math teacher ever.

[@TheDaringPastry1313]

One of the few films that is considered perfect in my eyes. The whole movie takes place within 4-5 settings, every character has their own unique arc that just naturally happens, the story only reveals information when relevant, it's beautifully written and nothing feels forced with the pacing of the film. It's the definition of masterpiece. One of my favorite little details in the movie: The secret hidden ballot was smart because people can be influenced into going with the group since it is our natural instinct to not be the odd person out. The same old man that voted not guilty on the piece of paper was the last one to slowly and reluctantly raise his hand when they did a first public vote while he looked around at 6:40. It tells me that he had some doubts on the first vote, but he didn't want to be a bother and vote not guilty.

[@schimmelbaura]

hallo, I am 60 year old woman, have seen this movie in german television when I was about 14 or so. When I was 18, I watched it live in the very well known german theatre Ernst-Deutsch-Theater in Hamburg, knewing the film before made this experience much more enjoyable, and I still have very beautiful memories of this day. I liked your review very much. I don't know, why you thought you get bad comments about your arguments conc. racist-issues, you were absolutely right. I just smiled a litte, that you didn't know the name Sidney Lumet. Even me, who ist absolutely not in movie-knowledge knows this name, he is very very famous. But I think, this is generation-thing, the 50 are really long gone.

[@david4883]

What a flawless movie. Stacked cast. Guys like Martin Balsam and Jack Warden don’t get tons of praise, but damn they were great at what they did(they were also both in All The President’s Men which is another masterpiece). Insane it’s held up this well for this long. But you touched on it yourself at the beginning. They found a way to keep the tension high. It’s a testament to what a great script can do.

[@TheDougMan]

Great point about actor’s Balsam and Warden. Edward Binns (juror #6: “you should have more respect mister”) another one who gives solid performances in his career.

[@cattewest]

This play, written as a teleplay in 1954, was in my Literature book Freshman year of high school 1963. Blew me away. Later, seeing the movie was amazing. What a cast!!

[@neojc128]

$27,000 selling marmalade would be 300K today

[@jasoncaldwell5627]

That's a SWEET career, amirite? See? It's "sweet" because it's lucrative.

[@bfdidc6604]

Not bad. Considering, you know, marmalade.

[@jasoncaldwell5627]

@@bfdidc6604 Hey, put some orange marmalade over salmon and you've got a hell of a dinner....Mmmm...salmonalade....

[@guestuser2373]

I need to sell marmalade

[@jamesalexander5623]

I make Peanut Butter and Marmalade Sandwiches!

[@BFKate]

I love it when movies made so long ago find new audiences. Proof that great art is timeless.

[@chriscma1]

You have now seen one of he greatest films ever made.

[@jasoncaldwell5627]

The only film everyone agrees is superior is "Hell Comes To Frogtown".

[@ChicagoDB]

If you’ve never seen it, then I most highly recommend “To Kill A Mockingbird”…it’s superb!

[@ryanfeit1420]

Gregory Peck is phenomenal in that film. He won an Academy Award for his performance.

[@susanpeters5392]

My favourite and cannot be 're-made absolute timeless ...I'm 64...a MUST see

[@ChicagoDB]

@@ryanfeit1420 - he deserved one for “Roman Holiday” as well ❤️

[@ChicagoDB]

@@susanpeters5392 - I’ve probably watched it at least 50x and I never tire of it. “Roman Holiday” also ❤️

[@erickcerveny5325]

One of the jurors was John Feidler, he voiced Piglet in Winnie the Pooh, his voice is very recognizable

[@LarryGonzalez00]

He also played Vinnie, one of Oscar's poker buddies, in the 1968 film version of The Odd Couple. Of course Jack Klugman played Oscar Madison the the classic TV version of The Odd Couple (70-75.)

[@firebird7479]

A classic. Many of the actors here went on to excellent careers as character actors or leads in TV series. Jack Klugman, for instance, the juror from the slum who knew how to handle a switchblade, played Oscar Madison in the TV series version of The Odd Couple, then a couple of years later he was the title character of the Series "Quincy", a coroner who solves crimes. Klugman was from South Philly (not far from where Rocky runs through the Italian Market). Rumor has it that he got a girl pregnant, a boy, who grew up to become my neighbor whose family was close to ours. He and the son both have a lot of the same characteristics as Klugman --- especially the eyebrows and nose. Even though Klugman was Jewish, he always sent my neighbors' mother a Christmas card the rest of his life with a crisp $100 bill inside.

[@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.

[@RolyPolyOllieReactions]

Wow only 21 days of filming but those rehearsals must have been intense! I could really see how much effort every actor was putting into the movie!

[@moonblaze2713]

I'm guessing that game got rained out.

[@kirkdarling4120]

Juror #6, the house painter, had been looking after the old man from the very beginning (helping him with his chair, taking note that he was in the restroom)...so it was no surprise for him to come to the old man's defense later. The old man probably voted to continue deliberation because jury duty was also the most important thing he'd ever done.

[@TJinMO]

If you went to a movie theatre in 1957 --------you would sit in the white section. Sorry to say that is a part of my past and my earliest moviegoing experience. I was always so jealous thet I couldn't sit in the balcony. I'm not sure when that changed, but when it did, I ran up those red carpeted stairs to the balcony every Saturday afternoon!!! Jeea, I'm so old....

[@kirkdarling4120]

I had to sit in the balcony (if we were allowed into a particular theater at all). The last time I had to sit in segregated movie seating was July 20, 1969...the day Neil Armstrong stepped out on the moon.

[@ZeroOskul]

4:20 "Heat" is an anagram of and phonetically one hard syllable below "Hate".

[@humegoon_6817]

The acting in this one is unreal, one of my favourtite movies of all time.

[@marshallprince2583]

Filming your reaction in black and white was a really nice touch! This movie is great! I love movies like this that stand the test of time. You don't need special effects or anything fancy. The writing, cinematography, and acting are all more than enough to make it a classic!

[@walterpanovs]

Sidney Lumet was one of our greatest directors, specializing great dialogue, economical shots, and realistic scenarios. He started out in TV in the early '50s with dramas presented like plays. This was his first feature film and it was based on a successful play. Lumet went on to direct several masterful films, including the much-praised "Serpico" (1973) and "Dog Day Afternoon" (1975), both starring Al Pacino and both based on real events that took place in New York City. His on-location shooting, superb casting, and no frills style greatly enhanced those stories. His final film, "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" (2007), starring Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke, holds up with his great earlier work.

[@emichaelny336]

Don't forget 1962's "Long Day's Journey into Night."

[@coulsonintahiti]

I now want there to be a criminal trial in Winnie-the-Pooh with archive audio of John Fiedler (Juror #2, Piglet) as Piglet.

[@BennyFordPerfectlySafe]

That’s why he was so familiar. Thanks.

[@cashflowhustles]

And as far as SIDNEY LUMET? He DEFINITELY has an impressive rabbit hole as far as his body of work.

[@jakubfabisiak9810]

The cast was super stacked. Kids these days don't recognize the names, maybe except Henry Fonda, but those were absolute heavyweights. Lee J. Cobb (juror #3) played a magnificent character. Juror #4 is the logical one - once something is brought up that raises doubt if the testimony was accurate enough, he is convinced (rather - he understands that there is enough doubt that he can't in good conscience vote to convict). Ed Begley (the racist juror #10) sits down, and doesn't speak again (and he sits at a separate table). And all of that happens in one rom (well, two if you count the bathroom), over 90 minutes, and we don't even learn the names of the jurors.

[@pauld6967]

@RolyPolyOllieReactions To answer your question about the whistling @26:00 Mr. Baseball was trying to mock Mr. Architect. The tune being whistled would be very familiar to the 1957 audience as it is a signature tune for the Laurel & Hardy comedy movies.

[@kennethspears22]

One of my favorite movies. You're a little familiar with Henry Fonda, the juror who said he doesn't sweat was EG Marshall. You saw him in Superman 2 playing The President of The United States.

[@ryanfeit1420]

EG Marshall also played Beverly DeAngelo's grumpy father in "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation".

[@pauld6967]

Henry Fonda is also the president in another great film: _'Fail Safe'._

[@TedLittle-yp7uj]

With respect, it was not the old jurors who were prejudiced and the young ones who weren't. The first juror to call out the bigot ("only an ignorant man can believe that") was the old man with the 20/20 vision. Later, the salesman shows his prejudice against foreigners ("they come here running for their lives...").

[@jerodast]

I caught the same thing about Ollie's phrasing, but I don't think he intended to imply the age of the people themselves was that "dividing line", he was referring to the "attitude" - a less progressive, less open-minded, more traditional, more hard-nosed attitude was the common thread for the guilty-leaners, not their age. Of course, even calling that an "older mindset/attitude/perspective" is pretty close to ageism haha.

[@Dr_KAP]

We also need to remember they were all male and all white so there is a lot of implicit prejudice we now know exists in certain populations.. juries are usually more representative these days.

[@gravitypronepart2201]

​@Dr_KAP "certain populations" sounds a lot like "those people".

[@Dr_KAP]

@@gravitypronepart2201 nah not at all it’s the Aussie sociologist in me, it’s how we refer to different groups of settlers and indigenous populations, for example. Probably a little academic lol.

[@jasoncaldwell5627]

A truly great movie- like The Thing and Alien, a director can REALLY ramp up the performances of the actors as well as the pressure on the characters when it's a small cast in a confined space. Add to the pressure with withering heat or freezing cold and you've got a recipe for pure gold. 12 Angry Men has a cast of incredible actors on top of a great script.

[@kingamoeboid3887]

Same for Bitter Tears Of Petra Von Kant, Secret Honor, Locke, and many others.

[@jasoncaldwell5627]

Yeah- and modern movies like Reservoir Dogs. The director takes essentially a stage play and films it.

[@RTSOB1]

@@jasoncaldwell5627 Glengarry Glenn Ross has much of the same dynamic. The plot is carried by dialogue and not action, is mostly shot in the same space (the sales room), has a tremendous cast and was a very successful play before being filmed.

[@jasoncaldwell5627]

@@RTSOB1 Yeah, but I kinda...hate... everyone in that movie. Great acting to be sure, but the entire film makes me feel down. The entire company is about screwing people and for very little return. Most of the sales agents there are scraping by.

[@brianboye8025]

The filmmakers were 100 times more sophisticated than your theory that they wanted to have the audience assume guilt for racist views. The young actor looked lost and not at all sinister or wild. The evidence is revealed slowly and resolved just as slowly. Very artistic.

[@PolferiferusII]

I agree. He looked harmless, too. Puppy eyes.

[@timriggs08]

An absolute classic. In my opinion, should be required classroom viewing for all US students. The basic tenets of the Jury system and being innocent until proven guilty, the abject rejection of racism, etc are all fundamentally given in a great medium here. Absolutely fantastic film.

[@peterphilly4148]

Henry Fonda. Lee J. Cobb. E.G. Marshall. Martin Balsam. Ed Begley. Jack Klugman. Jack Warden. Robert Webber. One of the strongest casts ever assembled composed of some of the greatest actors of the 50's. They appear in many of the best movies and plays from the 50's onward. You have seen Lee J. Cobb (juror #3) before as the detective in The Exorcist at the end of his career. Martin Balsam (juror #1) was the PI in Psycho. John Fiedler (juror #2) appeared in an episode (Wolf in the Fold) of STTOS (which you haven't reacted to.) Jack Klugman (juror #5) is probably most remembered for playing Oscar Madison in The Odd Couple TV series and the medical examiner Quincy in the TV series of the same name. One of the strengths of the movie is that the script was adapted from a teleplay, so the characterizations were well-developed and the pacing tighter than many films. The use of long shots, particularly at the beginning establish the tense atmosphere. My personal favorite juror that, in my opinion, should be the model for a juror was E.G. Marshall's juror #4. He was the most dispassionate of all of the jurors, basing his conclusions on the evidence rather than emotion. Interestingly, many lawyers don't view the deliberations favorably. I even read one interesting take that perhaps juror #8 (Henry Fonda) was actually the murderer (he did, after all, have a similar knife!)

[@QuisletEsq]

His going out and finding a similar knife could be grounds for a mistrial. Jurors are not supposed to investigate. A juror on their own going to the crime scene is not allowed.

[@Paul_1971]

@@QuisletEsq He went to a nearby shop the apartment, not the apartment itself.

[@ga7654]

Those towel things were cloth, and didn't tear off. Before paper towels.

[@auapplemac1976]

It was a large roll of cloth towel. After you used it, you pulled it and it retracted leaving a fresh piece for the next person.

[@ThePonderer]

28:15 a lot of people interpret 12 as not paying attention in this scene. Personally I think he was just stuck thinking about it cause he was unsure.

[@chipurBillWhite]

I’ve watched several reactions to this film and you’re the only one who showed empathy toward the juror that broke down. Nice touch.

[@jnagarya519]

The judge's bench in a court of law is elevated because it represents authority.

[@CreatorsCorner-r4n]

the cast is absolute fire

[@Anduril1974]

That opening 8 minute continuous shot is stunning. One of the finest examples I've EVER seen. You learn everything about these 12 men in that 8 minutes.. Genius. Easily in my top 10 of all time.

[@heather9857]

I felt like the first shot of the kid in the beginning was to show how young and innocent he looked. Also, think how all of the other jurors were disgusted by the one mans' racism and how they all walked away from him when he went on his rant. It wasn't like the majority of the group fell into the racist category. They were sickened by that type of ignorant thinking. So I disagree with your analysis of the opening shot of the accused.

[@DylansPen]

And best to watch this black and white version. Easily one of the best films ever made.

[@ryanje8147]

Ollie......I like your new and updated reaction style. It is very refreshing. Good job.

[@joanward1578]

Love Henry Fonda in Mister Roberts.

[@StephenHooper-p1i]

This movie was based upon a teleplay written by Reginald Rose for Westinghouse Studio One in 1954. Henry Fonda saw it and the two got together to collaborate on this production. The first decision the two of them made was to hire Sidney Lumet to direct the movie, even though this would be his first film. Sidney had a great reputation as a theater and TV director because he worked well with actors and brought projects in on time and on budget. They made the film for under $350,000, even though it contained one of the greatest ensemble casts ever assembled. It was nominated for four Oscars, best picture, best director, best screenplay and cinematography. The film is studied to this day for Sidney's creative use of lighting and camera angles. Rose also adapted this into a stage play, which believe it or not may be even better as the language is more authentic, for it was not hobbled by the Hays Code which governed film back then. You can watch the teleplay on KZbin and see just how much better this film is. In my opinion, it is a work of art. Only two actors were holdovers from the original teleplay, Joseph Sweeney and George Voskovec, Jurors #9 and 11. In the stage play, the defendant was only 16 years old, which qualified him for the death penalty in 1957.

[@therealhotdog]

you can even see in the the judges body language at the start, to me he figured is was a conviction as well

[@dow311]

I like how each juror does get angry at one point in the movie while discussing the trail.

[@Nomad-vv1gk]

Twelve Angry Men is an American courtroom drama written by Reginald Rose concerning the jury of a homicide trial. The production was staged in New York City and aired live on TV, September 20, 1954, as the first episode in the seventh season of the program, Studio One. The following year it was adapted for the stage. It was adapted for a film of the same name, directed by Sidney Lumet, and released in 1957. The production won three Emmy Awards: for Rose's writing, Schaffner's direction, and for Robert Cummings as Best Actor. The cast included performances by: Robert Cummings as Juror #8 Franchot Tone as Juror #3 Edward Arnold as Juror #10 Paul Hartman as Juror #7 John Beal as Juror #2 Walter Abel as Juror #4 George Voskovec as Juror #11 Joseph Sweeney as Juror #9 Bart Burns as Juror #6 Norman Fell as Foreman Lee Phillips as Juror #5 Will West as Juror # 12 Uncredited cast Vincent Gardenia as Bailiff[

[@johnmccarthy3111]

You couldn't be more wrong. The shot of the defendant was to show how young he was, how real the death penalty would be.

[@gaffo7836]

FYI- you say "turns out the boy did not murder his father" not right: He may have. Juror 8 said so early on. the whole movie is about "reasonable doubt" - which you can't put a number to, and have to use your gut (I'm a number guy and a gut guy, so will put a number for myself -- 85 percent for me - anything lower is "guilt") I find the defendant "innocent" and at my personal 85-percent, So if I were in that room I'd rule "innocent" - knowing it might be I let a guilty kid go free, but he met my standard of "innocence"

[@TallyDrake]

Jurors don't vote guilty or innocent, it's guilty or not guilty. Just because the jury found reasonable doubt doesn't mean the defendant was innocent, it only meant the prosecution failed to prove its case.

[@jasnycal]

Great pick man!! Hopefully you watch more classics. Keep up the good work.

[@DelGuy03]

It's different in different states, but where I live, whoever happens to be seated as juror #1 is automatically the foreperson and pretty much in charge of proceedings in the jury room. That seems to be the case here, with juror 1 tasked with running the meeting.

[@TheCkent100]

This trial was supposed to have taken place in New York, and yes, that is the rule in New York courts. We saw that recently with a certain high profile case that made national news. In California, where I live, the jurors vote on who should be the foreperson once deliberations start.

[@RTSOB1]

@@TheCkent100 Like California, jurors select the foreman in Florida.

[@lonelyp1]

This is a movie that really stands the test of time. Like Inherit The Wind. A great movie even when you're a kid.

[@joeb588]

I don’t think I agree that the point of the shot of the kid at the time was to get people into the mindset that he was guilty because of racial prejudice. I actually think the point was the exact opposite, to make you feel some empathy for him so you’ll be more convinced he could be innocent when they start poking holes in the evidence. He looks extremely young like he might not even be 18, and he has sort of an innocent look on his face. Also, I think his race is rather ambiguous, even with the shot.

[@JohnLittle-i6o]

Incredible film. One of my three favourites of all time, along with Citizen Kane and The Third Man.

[@edwinlemus8530]

Every camara shot in this movie hook you up and lays down the mood of it.

[@shawnzzz]

Great reaction to a great movie. I really do like the way you carefully watch these movies and have very thoughtful and accurate response to them. You do not just say, "I liked this movie, please give me clicks, bye!" No, you are invested and I appreciate that about you. Thank you!

[@crawdaddy1234]

I think how the wound was made is the thing that tips me the most. If the defendant wanted to get the advantage in a fight with his much larger opponent, no way would he handle the weapon improperly.

[@MysteriousMose]

This is definitely in my top 10 movies - the writing, acting and cinematography are all top tier. The really crazy thing that is pretty much since sound came to movies, anybody could have made this film. What I mean is, it doesn't rely on any technological advance, it's all done with very simple, accessible techniques - it's just done really, really well.

[@janehollander3843]

Good point about the opening shot. However, they picked an actor with a very innocent and heartbroken looking face. I immediately thought he was not guilty.

[@JustMeAndThePossums]

You might want to watch the "12 Angry Men Inside Amy Schumer" episode of Comedy Central's Inside Amy Schumer - it was a masterpiece as well.

[@firebird7479]

Another excellent movie from that era --- the Manchurian Candidate, starring Frank Sinatra and Angela Lansbury.

[@TallyDrake]

And Laurence Harvey.

[@jamespfp]

1:52 -- RE: The One Room Device; A: This is a special case of "theatrical device", since that's more or less the reality for all theater until motion pictures, and even then the Audience were expected to go into one room to watch it. Strangely, the phrase "behind closed doors" is one translation of the Latin phrase "in camera", even when it implies there's some form of necessary secrecy. One of the cinematic strengths of this film is how the Audience is encouraged to perceive all the walls inside this room, and also the rest room attached to it. So Yeah, it's one of the best examples of a type of McGuffin in this particular script because this one room happens to be the room assigned to a Jury for the purposes of deliberation after the testimony has concluded at a trial, and so it is integral to the plot and gives the Audience an additional reason to suspend disbelief at the beginning because otherwise it's a pretty boring proposition. By comparison, Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs" abducts the Audience into a "one room" script that has more rooms when we tell the narrative out of order and figure out who these characters are.

[@jamespfp]

^^ There's more than one way to use a One Room setup; obviously horror pictures can do well with them, but so can suspense without shocking violence. My own personal favorite in recent times comes from an independent production that was released in 2009 called "The Man From Earth", and all its main action occurs inside a remote house where a group of friends are gathering for a goodbye party. The Setup works best when there is a strong cast ready to display the Characters without having to chew the scenery because there's not much scenery to chew on.

[@glennlesliedance]

They used to have cloth towel rolls. You'd pull on it to advance it and use it. The next person would do the same, and so on until the entire roll had been used then it would be replaced and taken to be laundered.

[@JohnSipe-jt7bm]

As soon as Fonda produced the knife, the proceedings should have ended in a mistrial. 16:01

[@kirkdarling4120]

That's true, at least now (maybe not in NY in 1957). I served on a jury where we took spent four days in deliberation. As we suspended deliberation the first evening, we were sternly instructed not to discuss the case with anyone and not to do any investigation of any issue of the case, either of which would be considered "testimony" or "evidence" that neither counsel would have had a chance to cross-examine.

[@lostwizard]

Things were not nearly so strict then. You'll note he was able to walk in carrying the knife. That wouldn't get past security in the first place today. But you can consider it a form of literary license to get a bit of a jump scare in there. But the same story could be told without the extra knife with some adjustments to the script. The non-uniqueness of the knife isn't even the primary source of reasonable doubt.

[@RTSOB1]

@@lostwizard The movie does take a few liberties. In fact, the original knife (the murder weapon) as well as the floor chart would not have been in the jury room without having been requested by the jury, and even then, might have been denied to them, depending upon their relevance.

[@lostwizard]

@@RTSOB1 They *did* ask for both the knife and the floor plan, at different times. Considering the time period, I imagine it might have gone either way on whether they were provided with knife itself. I doubt the floor plan would have been denied if it was in evidence, and I suspect it must have been to have such a nicely drawn one available immediately. Even if it wasn't, it's a convenient shortcut to deliberations that could have arrived at the same conclusion through other means.

[@WanderingRoe]

Loved your commentary throughout the movie, it really was as if you were Juror #13, lol! One of my favorite movies. It’s good to see it getting more attention among reactors. 👏

[@Nomad-vv1gk]

In New York, under law, the first juror selected is known as the foreperson. During deliberations, the foreperson's opinion and vote are not entitled to any more importance than that of any other juror. The foreperson may also chair the jury's discussions during deliberations. When the jury has reached a verdict, guilty or not guilty, the entire jury will be asked to come into court. The foreperson will be asked whether the jury has reached a verdict. If the foreperson says yes, he/she will then be asked what the verdict is for the/each charged crime [considered in accordance with my instructions]. After that, the entire jury will be asked whether that is their verdict and will answer yes or no. Finally, upon the request of a party, each juror will be asked individually whether the announced verdict is the verdict of that juror, and then, upon being asked, each juror will answer yes or no

[@jnagarya519]

Presumption of innocence: the jury doesn't find the defendant guilty or innocent. It determines whether the prosecution proved guilt. If the prosecution fails, the defendant remains innocent.

[@TallyDrake]

No, if the prosecution fails to make its case, the defendant is found not guilty. "Not guilty" and "innocent" are not the same thing.

[@jnagarya519]

@@TallyDrake The defendant is presumed innocent, and remains innocent unless the jury determines that the prosecution proved guilt. The guilt not being proven means the defendant is still innocent. The language obscures that basic fundamental reality.

[@TallyDrake]

@@jnagarya519 Nope.

[@jnagarya519]

@@TallyDrake Yes. Unless one allows the taint of "not guilty" -- implying doubt -- to obscure one's clarity as to the meaning of presumption of innocence. If one is presumed innocent, and is not proven guilty, then one is still innocent.

[@TallyDrake]

@@jnagarya519 No. Defendants plead guilty or not guilty. Juries find defendants guilty or not guilty. Not guilty is not the same as innocent. At least that's how it is in the U.S.; other countries have other systems.

[@2tone753]

Addendum: For me the film is a masterpiece with great actors. He holds a mirror up to you as to what type of juror you would be/are.

[@jamesangell5687]

They moved the scenery in during the jury room so it would be more claustrophobic as the movie progresses.

[@dashasl2582]

Baseball fan was so lucky. Game was probably rained out. lol

[@imocchidoro]

Great reaction to a brilliant film. Hard to get better than this. Fantastic cast, and Lee J. Cobb was phenomenal as usual.

[@rubensalvador9422]

Another movie that starts after the trial and sentencing is Rashomon. Its a fabulous movie directed by Akira Kurosawa.

[@isoldejaneholland8370]

No kidding : when I was summoned for jury duty in December 2009, I was eager to do it because this movie had made me curious about the process.

[@tomfowler381]

For another Henry Fonda classic, watch “The Ox Bow Incident”.

[@book_Emmy]

I love this movie so much and I could praise it for hours, but just one decision I appreciate: we never actually find out whether the boy was guilty or not. That's not the point of the movie. It's a study of human nature, character, biases, how experiences shape opinions and decisions and also a deeper look into justice and the flawed system we came up with trying to establish it. My #1 movie of all time!

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

Most people will start off hearing the evidence early on and believe that defendant is guilty. But any person with a functioning brain will realize by the end of the movie that none of the evidence stands up to scrutiny to the extent needed to overcome reasonable doubt.

[@dashasl2582]

We don't know for sure that the defendant is innocent, but we end up knowing he must be acquitted.

[@mildredpierce4506]

The jury foreman, Martin Balsam, played detective Arbogast in Psycho.

[@CoastalNomad]

Great Reaction to this Classic...... I saw this Presented Muliple Times as a play in High School (Early 1980's)....... Shout out to the Legends in this Movie...... Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Jack Klugman, Martin Balsam, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, Ed Begley Director Lumet wrote in an article: "I shot the first third of the movie above eye level, shot the second third at eye level, and the last third from below eye level. In that way, toward the end, the ceiling began to appear. Not only were the walls closing in, the ceiling was as well. The sense of increasing claustrophobia did a lot to raise the tension of the last part of the movie." The kid not remembering the films is a believable statement. Movie houses weren't multi-screen when this movie was made. A cinema showed one or two movies so in the evening you could buy a double feature ticket without ever asking the name of the films. An angry kid wanting to get out of the summer heat buys a double feature ticket and spends the time stewing in anger paying no attention to the films is quite believable. The hand towel machine in the restroom doesn't reuse the same cloth. As you pull it down off the top reel, it wraps around another reel in the bottom. Eventually you pull all the towel off the top reel. At that point, all the used towel is wrapped on the bottom reel and can be removed to be laundered. These still exist today ion some places and there's usually a service company that supplies clean rolls and washes the dirty ones. The "Them" they are refering to in the original script were "Puerto Ricans" who had Immigrated...... Another Classic Movie that (mostly) takes place in one room, is "Arsenic and Old Lace"(1944), It had a long run on Broadway, and the movie was shot using most of the actors from the Broadway Production.....

[@timeisstandingstillforme]

I really enjoyed your reaction to one of my favorite movies of all time! Please never censor yourself for people who might disagree with you. Your opinion and insight is why I watch your channel. I first saw Henry Fonda in an underrated movie with Lucille Ball called Yours, Mine, and Ours and was so happy to see him in this movie.

[@jnagarya519]

The same director made the excellent 1980's film "The Verdict" starring Paul Newman in one of his best.

[@RTSOB1]

When courtroom dramas are discussed in these comments, The Verdict is seldom mentioned, and it is a jewel.

[@jnagarya519]

@@RTSOB1 It really is a terrific film. Both satisfyingly complex and of satisfying length.

[@ondrejvasak1054]

I don't think I agree with you with the first shot analysis and racial profiling. The whole argument is just based on the fact that the movie is old and assuming people didn't know any better. But the movie proves our assumptions wrong time and again. Look at what it says about corporal punishment, prejudice or reliability of witnesses. At each point it is much more advanced than we would assume for the time. And it's not just this movie, we often assume that our current understanding of a problem, especially social issues, is very advanced and people in the past were dumb and didn't know any better. But once you start looking at some old movies, books etc, you'll often find out our perception is not that new and people had these ideas long, long time ago. Often you find out that a dialogue, that you assumed we only just started having (because we are so smart and advanced) was exactly the same fifty years ago.

[@ThomasBiddle-c2d]

12 Angry Men is one of my all time favorite films. I've seen it probably a dozen times. It's thrilling and smart and brilliantly directed and acted by the entire cast. I LOVED watching your reaction to seeing it for the first time. It's reassuring to me (as an old guy) to see a younger guy make intelligent comments and really get into a classic film. I meet lots of younger guys like you who don't have the patience to invest in character and dialogue and filmmaking technique. Your observations were just excellent. (Check out other brilliant movies by the same director, Sidney Lumet... you need to watch "Dog Day Afternoon" and "Network".). Good job! I wish I could watch good films with you.

[@lilyandrose8557]

Yes, racial discrimination was supported by the law at that time. Could you please react to 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner ' with Spencer Tracey and Katherine Hepburn

[@Shilohpreston]

I was supposed to recommend it to Ollie, but I forgot. It's really worth watching.

[@scp3178]

There is a very good German version, called "Die 12 Geschworenen" ** (the 12 jurors), I repeatedly watch. (Full Version and free on KZbin). ** With famous German actors like Mario Adorf (could be known in USA), Siegfried Lowitz, Ernst Fritz Fürbringer, Ralf Wolter, Herbert Bötticher, Lukas Ammann, Robert Graf etc. I love your reactions. Chris

[@jaypeso4879]

Its is better to let 100 guilty men go free than it is to imprison 1 innocent man.

[@PhilipWeisman-dl4ik]

Henry Fonda worked with Sidney Lumet again in FAIL SAFE. Also, notable were JEZEBEL, THE GRAPES OF WRATH, THE LADY EVE, THE FUGITIVE, MISTER ROBERTS, SPENCER'S MOUNTAIN, YOURS, MINE AND OURS, THE BEST MAN & ON GOLDEN POND.

[@gordonduke8812]

The opening shot of the boy serves a singular purpose with a dual outcome. You are right that prejudice and racial bias was much more prevalent during this time, but as you stated was not the mindset of all. The shot of the boy was meant to divide the audience. The boy not being white served to convince the racially biased audience members of his probable guilt, while the innocent scared look on his face was meant to create doubt among the more liberally minded audience. That way, as the story played out the audience could experience each revelation differently, depending their own motivations, much like the cast members were portraying. I think you were spot on with your analysis, just a little short. Good catch.

[@charrid56maclean]

Sidney Lumet is a great director. Network, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico and Murder on the Orient Express all great films. One suggestion for you to consider: In This Our Life, a Bette Davis film.

[@Shilohpreston]

And "A Stranger Among Us" (1992).

[@uncleruss8420]

Very insightful breakdown and good reaction. Tell haters Uncleruss said bite it.

[@rdumontdebeque]

I played Juror #3 in my high school’s production of 12 Angry Men…..except it was called 12 Angry Jurors cuz there were girls in the cast. In fact juror # 8 was played by my friend Vicki A. It was a little strange lunging at her yelling “I’ll kill her!” This was in 1975.

[@Lepidopray]

Henry Fonda produced, and helped get it made due to his star power. He also partially funded it, but didn't make money on his investment. Ironic considering how highly regarded it is - definitely one of the top 100 films ever.

[@applejayz1987]

The best thing about this movie for me, we dont actually ever know if hes guilty or innocent, and it doesnt matter. What DOES matter is that uncertainty we have, the "reasonable doubt" as they continue to emphasize, an important point that most people just try and skip over in discussions

[@PhilipWeisman-dl4ik]

The defendant had two qualities in addition to the ones you mentioned : he looked scrawny and scared or forlorn. He was not muscular or imposing. I am surprised, Ollie, that as a huge Hitchcock fan, you did not recognize the jury foreman, Martin Balsam, as Milton Arbogast from PSYCHO. Robert Webber, Juror #12 the advertising man, became part of the Blake Edwards stock company, playing the gay songwriter friend of Julie Andrews in 10. Lee J. Cobb had a long acting career playing disagreeable supporting roles, most oddly as the Kralahome, in ANNA AND THE KING OF SIAM. Ed Begley Sr. also played villians or antagonists, famously as the heroine's father in SWEET BIRD OF YOUTH. Sidney Lumet had a long career as a television and film director. He helmed the films THE PAWNBROKER, LONG DAYS'S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT, DOG DAY AFTERNOON, MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS, THE WIZ & THE VERDICT. He was married to Lena Horne's daughter Gail Jones.