Juror #4 understood the assignment. Once he was presented with evidence that the eyewitness testimony wasn't as reliable, as he thought, he recognized that was enough of a reasonable doubt that he couldn't vote guilty anymore.
@@ptthatswhatshesaid reasonable doubt is why US football player OJ Simpson was would not guilty of murder; the Los Angeles police has a witness (officer Mark Fuhrman,) who lied in court and was unreliable; & the LAPD crime lab was sloppy in their handling of blood evidence; they spilled blood all over the crime scene
The fact that some of these actors caused you to be so pissed off at them gives testimony that they have effectively done their job as an actor so well, they convinced you to hate them.
No no no, it has one special effect... a practical one. The rain that breaks them up for a while :p I love to point out how that is the only thing about the movie that wasn't done through acting, lighting or camera work. My personal favorite movie of all time >.
This is a famous stage play. The fact it takes place in basically one room and is 100% dialog makes it an easy low cost production for high schools and theater houses.
I believe it started as a television play, presented and recorded live. The Criterion Collection Blu-Ray includes a copy of the teleplay, which I found unwatchable. The camera barely moves, there are no closeups, and the cast wasn't as uniformly great as this film. Two of the actors were in both versions: the old man played by Joseph Sweeny and the foreign man played by George Voscovic. Mr. Voscovic was Czech, by the way. One interesting discovery from one time doing jury duty: the jurors in the jury pool were all in the courtroom as individual jurors were questioned by the attorneys. By the time it was over (they got all the jurors before they got to me), I knew everything about the case except the verdict; I knew the charges, I knew who the witnesses would be, I knew the defense arguments. I'd never seen that portrayed in a movie or on television, nor have I seen it since.
I love the scene of Juror 8 questioning Juror 4 about his memory (eventually about 'The Amazing Mrs. Bainbridge') because it shows how humble and fair Juror 4 is about admitting doubt. The defendant boy was asked (by the police) about something that happened 4 hours ago. Juror 4 is asked about what he did A WEEK ago. Clearly, the stress levels are different, but the amount of time that passed is also a HUGE factor. Yet, Juror 4 humbly admits that it was reasonably difficult and more difficult than he thought it would be. BUT he also remains genuinely convinced that the other evidence makes the boy guilty. It just makes us respect his dissent even more (until the glasses that finally change his mind).
Presumably all of the testimony presented in court is also given weeks after the event and yet people testify with the surety of a recent event. And since they've all also signed a written statement, there's pressure for a witness to stick with the first story they told. The women who claims she saw the killing didn't want to admit she wore glasses so she had no choice except to testify to clearly seeing something. One of the main points in this movie is how unreliable eye witness testimony can be just because of silly human foibles.
Thank you, guys. This screenplay is so well thought-out and so well written. Henry Fonda fought for years to get this film made, finally financing it himself. There are so many great actors snd performces here.
The staging in the scene where the racist spews his poison is really significant. The order in which the men leave the table makes sense, given what we’ve learned about them. The first is juror #5, the one from the slums. The last to actually walk away from the table is juror #12, the ad man who changes his mind based on how the wind is blowing. His departure leaves just juror #7, the one doesn’t give a damn-he’s shifted in his chair so he’s not watching the racist, but he doesn’t care enough to put in the energy to actually get up-and juror #4, who has decided to hear the racist out so he could pass judgment on him, which he does very effectively.
One thing is that the nominal antagonist of the whole movie number 3 is basically one of the first to clearly show disgust as he stares intently out the window trying to withhold his anger from flowing out again. In that moment it's made clear that for all his flaws he's not a bad human being at his core. The same goes with 7 he is lazy and disinterested in the trial but he also shows disgust very quickly turning away from what he knows to be inherently wrong. I believe that I read that particular scene as many were was left up to the actors themselves and each reacts in the way they felt their characters should rather than be directed to do so by the director. They all show disgust in their own unique ways. Only 4 had a specific direction and that was to remain stoic and then deliver his denouncement as coldly as possible. It's perhaps the greatest character acting scene of all time and yet most of them don't even speak during it.
Bigots tend to hang around with other bigots, to feel vindicated in their views. And to hear the latest racist jokes. But Juror #10 wasn't with his pals in the jury room. He spouted off as he normally does, but he found not one person who would side with him. That's a serious shock to the ego, and to the psyche. It was depicted ingeniously.
Regarding the theater scene: In the 1950s, it was common to go to the theater without specifically choosing a movie. Many cinemas offered "Double Features," showing two films back-to-back, often in a continuous loop. Audiences would come and go during the screenings, similar to how people casually watch TV today. In the movie, a Double Feature is mentioned, which was a common practice at the time. This makes it plausible that the defendant couldn’t remember the movie he saw-he likely went to pass the time rather than watch a specific film. This casual movie-going experience began changing in the late 1950s and was significantly influenced by Alfred Hitchcock’s *Psycho* in 1960, which famously prohibited late entry to maintain suspense, marking a turning point in cinema culture.
To add to that a reason that a lot of people would go to the movies was that it what's a cheap way to cool down on a hot day. They could go to the movie theater where there was air conditioning, and it was not on common to see people sleeping or paying no attention to the movie
As well, TV wasn't yet in every home and a Newsreel of current events would usually be shown between the films, along with a cartoon or two. (Especially during wartime).
In the early 20th century, cone-shaped disposable cups were widely used for several reasons, primarily for their cost-effectiveness and hygiene benefits. Invented in 1908 by Lawrence Luellen and marketed as the “Health Kup” in 1912, these cups were designed to prevent the spread of germs from shared drinking vessels. The cone-shaped cups were commonly used with inverted-bottle water dispensers, encouraging immediate disposal after use to maintain cleanliness. The design made it difficult to set the cup down when full, prompting users to finish their drink and dispose of the cup properly. This practical feature helped keep areas like conference rooms cleaner. Additionally, cone-shaped cups were used at soda fountains with a plastic base to hold the cone, eliminating the need for washing reusable glasses and enhancing convenience.
I still see them at my local dentist's office in Korea. A great way to prevent people from leaving cups lying around while also minimizing material used to make cups (they were really thin and only meant for single-use).
Ironically reuseable cone shaped glass ice cream penny lick containers were banned for the reason that they spread disease because the point of the cone was hard to clean and they ended up spreading diseases.
The housepainter who defended the old man had been looking after the old man from the start, helping him with his chair, for instance. The old man was probably willing to vote to continue the discussion because...like the old witness...he was doing something important late in his life. I've served on a couple of juries, both federal felonies (one was a military court-martial). In the civilian jury, the initial vote was 11:1 for guilty. It was a four-hour trial and we deliberated for four days before finally acquitting the suspect. I was much like juror #4, holding out for guilty until the last day, when I finally realized that the last piece of evidence I thought was rock-hard was not so certain after all.
One of the things that makes this film so good is the attention to small details about everyday life experiences, so much so that several reactors have expressed a slight frustration when Juror 9 (Joseph Sweeney) takes so long to get out of the bathroom. Mr. Sweeney was 73 at the time and was the oldest actor in the film and as every man knows as he gets older, it sometimes takes a while to take care of business in the bathroom. It’s just one very subtle realistic representation of a common affliction that affects a lot of men as they age.
Lucy, this was an amazing reaction. To see your roller coaster of emotion. Lucy got so mad, so annoyed, frustrated, triumphant, then back to frustrated. --------- Eventually Lucy got great satisfaction at the end. Love this.
You need an ability to control yourself to be a good lawyer, not an ability to overreact or show emotional involvement with your case - you need to remain neutral. I'm not in the judiciary, merely a simple human being watching this classic film for the umpteenth time!
@@johnhickman2033 Lucy is passionate. I'm sure if she's in court she's controlled, but in the office I'm sure she'll fight hard as hell for her clients if she believes in them.
In the first couple minutes, she seems to have made some sort of judgement without any of the facts.., but hey this is UA-cam...not sure if I'll watch to the end.
@@johnhickman2033 all lawyers change their posture inside the court room, or even on a clients meeting. Especially in Portugal, where everything is so formal ! That’s why I get all emotions while watching a movie 😂 at least I can say what is reaaally going on my mind, for a change 😅 Xx Lucy
I am always really happy to see young people checking this one out for the first time...especially when my favorite reaction channels post reaction videos to it. Sidney Lumet is one of the great directors of all time, and this is his first movie and also one of his best. Another movie by Lumet that I always recommend is Fail Safe from 1964...it also stars Henry Fonda. Other older movies that I suggest that were not made by Lumet are...To Kill a Mockingbird(1962), Inherit the Wind(1960), and Judgement at Nuremberg(1961)...all three are highly renowned courtroom dramas filmed in black and white.
You should check out the cast of the 1997 TV-Movie remake. Some interesting choices, and also some big names, like Tony Danza, Edward James Olmos, Jack Lemmon or James Gandolfini, and many of the other actors on the cast also have a couple awards and/or big roles to claim.
The scene where number 10 goes on his racist rant and the others all cant look at him and number 4 tells him to never speak again is perhaps the greatest character acting I've ever seen. Every person in that room absolutely nails it with each reacting in their own unique but similar way - even people who are problematic like 3 and 7 are shown in that moment to be at their core decent human beings. Neither 3 or 7 do what they do out of malice but rather their own pain or lack of interest but 10 is malicious and twisted but also ignorant of the fact that he is those things. When he realises that the others see him with disgust he suddenly realises what he really is and it breaks him. It's spectacularly well done.
Unfortunately, it's a bad idea. The scene is emblematic of 20th century idea of prejudice: they're ignorant, so ignore them and you strip them of their power. I think by 2024, we've learned how disastrous wrong that philosophy is.
@@Theomite They dont ignore him though - they shun him and ultimately one slaps him down verbally. They treat him with the respect he deserves - none. Nobody argues with him because they know it's a waste of time they just make it very clear that they loathe him.
@@Theomite There's _ignoring_ and there's _ignoring_. They didn't _ignore_ him and let him carry on with his prejudices, unaware of their disgust and disapproval. They _ignored_ him when he needed them to be paying attention to him. They made clear what they thought of his offensive behavior.
This is my favorite movie. It's a masterclass in pacing, writing, actor, blocking and all the techniques of cinema. And Juror number 4 is my favorite character. Although he's technically an antagonist, he's fair and honest in his arguments, he listens to the points being made against him and directly addresses those arguments. He doesn't get personal and he's visibly irritated by some of the more bombastic members of the jury. He also kinda looks like my dad, which makes him easy to like. But I think Lee J. Cobb's performance as Juror number 3 is still a show stealing effort. His character might be nasty, but he puts on a barnstorming performance as a genius actor.
Glad to see you young people watching the classics. There is a weird quirk that four of the best legal dramas of all-time (IMHO) came out in just a few years. "Witness for the Prosecution" (1957), "Inherit the Wind" (1960), "Anatomy of a Murder" (1959) and "12 Angry Men" (1957). You've now seen one of them. I'd love to follow you as you see the others.
One of the great things about this movie is how the backstory -- the trial itself -- is fed to the audience to support the interactions between the jurors.
Yes, like we said in the reaction, the information is revealed in a very natural way and seems to come out naturally from the interactions between the jurors
You guys really are very entertaining. It's interesting to see a lawyer's reaction. Lee J, Cobb, who played juror number 3, the guy who was estranged from his son was a fabulous character actor. In "The Exorcist," he played a kindly police detective who was always trying to get witnesses to go to the movies with him.
Lucy, you appeared very elegant in the intro. Thank you for dressing up. Your frustration with the actors as they played out their roles is a testament to their acting abilities. Thanks for watching this one.
A MASTERCLASS in film making 1. Great Director 2. Great cinematography 3. Provacative, interesting story 4. Magnificent character development, i mean we understand these gentlemen, their personalities, priorities and motivations 5. IMPECCABLE acting... We BELIEVE in the reality of these men. I really have enjoyed your reaction. God's Peace to you and your family and all here 🙏 💪✌️🙏
Couldn’t agree more, that’s why investigations need to be very thorough, and lawyers/judges need to question everything. Which doesn’t happen every time unfortunately Xx Lucy
@@ptthatswhatshesaid Anatomy of a Murder (1959) is another legal drama, consider one of the best, plays into the temporary insanity defense. that I think you would enjoy. Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) is a movie about the trial of four German judges and prosecutors accused of crimes against humanity for their involvement in atrocities committed under the Nazi regime.
I think that this is more of a philosophy than a principle, and As someone with a family member who was murdered, I must disagree. It's equally bad to convict an innocent person as it is to acquit a guilty person in my view. A jury who thinks like that is more likely to let a guilty person walk, and that's bad.
@@gravitypronepart2201 If a guilty person walks, it generally is because the government failed to carry its burden to prove that it had the right to lock a person up or take their life.
@@gravitypronepart2201 It is a principle part of both English and American law. It is know as Blackstone's ratio: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Some courts even use it to quantify a reasonable doubt standard in jury instructions, for example, that a juror should only vote to convict if he is more than x% certain of the defendant’s guilt.
About the immigrant Juror 11 (that chooses his English words carefully): he is played by a famous Czech actor. He could be representing all immigrants, a white immigrant, or a European immigrant, but I personally think he was meant to specifically represent Eastern European immigrants fleeing WW2 or the subsequent Communist governments of the Eastern Bloc in the 1940s and 1950s. I like to imagine his experiences in his home country make him a particularly strong defender of liberal democracy. But it's crazy how the same things can be said for so many other immigrants going to the US when Juror 7 says: "they come over here, running for their lives, and now they think they should run the show". (I always think of Ukraine nowadays when Juror 7 says that.) Just telling you this because Daniel thought he kinda looked Portuguese or Spanish lol.
Well... That's not a very typical eastern European accent. And I checked his background. So he was born in the times of the Austrian Empire. His grandfather, had the German name Wachsmann, which looks like, he was at least a part jewish. And of course, he learned right German in school and it supposed to be speakin' yiddish at home. Because of this and the way he speaks, he is more likely to be Swiss. The cliché of the watchmaker completes the picture. And besides, since the Soviets came to power, it has been very difficult to leave the Eastern bloc. That would imply that he must have left Europe before the war began. In almost 20 years, all dialects wear out, unless you are travelling in your own country.
@@melchiorvonsternberg844 I never said that's a very typical 'fresh-off-the-boat' Eastern European accent. Clearly Juror 11 is a well-spoken English speaker (given his solid vocabulary and lack of grammatical mistakes) who has had years of experience living in the US by the time of the movie, but he still has a 'noticeable' non-Anglophone accent. I know Jiří/George Voskovec's background too and he himself identified as "a born and bred Czech", despite living in many places (like the US, France, and Czechoslovakia/Bohemia). Maybe he also identified as Jewish just as strongly. Not sure about that. (Also, I have no information saying he spoke Yiddish at home.) How does speaking Yiddish & German, being part Jewish, and being a watchmaker make him SWISS? Switzerland doesn't have a monopoly on watchmakers + Czech people can work in Swiss watchmaking companies. Also, Swiss people did not have high incentives to flee their country, which was relatively (compared to the rest of Europe) stable and peaceful during the 1930s-1950s. I rate Eastern Europe as WAY more likely to be Juror 11's region of origin. I agree that Juror 11 must have emigrated to the US either before WW2, during WW2, OR right before the Commies took power in his country (which was not immediately after the end of WW2 in 1945, btw. For example, the Commies took power in Czechoslovakia in 1948 after a coup). I think his accent is just about right for someone who moved to the US as an adult around 1939. Not unintelligible, but definitely still noticeable (as of 1957).
@@YoonbeenPark Well... You have to take in account, that is highly likely, that in his a family, was spoken yddish. And he grow up, speakin' German at school as well. Yddish, has so much German influence, that it brought many German words into American English, like verkackt, or verschwitzt. It seems that sometimes it has had more influence on American than the German immigrants who, at a good 30%, make up the largest single ethnic group in the US population. And there's something else... As a Central European, I can distinguish the different dialects very well. I am also very familiar with the way Eastern Europeans speak English. I have a good friend who fled the former CSSR with her parents to escape Stalinist oppression. She was 10 years old. And even though she has lived in Germany for over 45 years, I can still hear the subtle nuances. I have been to Bohemia and Moravia several times (twice alone, before the Iron Curtain fell) and am very familiar with the way the people there speak. The whole melody and rhythm of the language is very different to the way the actor speaks. In this film, he speaks in a somewhat slow manner, which is typical of members of the Alemannic tribes who live in southwest Germany and Switzerland. The emphasis on the flow of words is also appropriate. The man sounds as if he has spoken German for a considerable part of his life...
@@melchiorvonsternberg844 Thanks for your input and I agree with most of what you say. Your central point seems to be that he's a GERMAN-speaking European immigrant. I do not disagree. But that gets into the question of "does your language define your nationality/ethnicity?". Were 'Sudetendeutsche (Sudeten Germans)' Germans or Czechs? (My primary language is English, but I am ethnically and nationality-wise Korean.) I put less emphasis on Juror 11's accent alone and focus more on his attitude towards liberal democracy, given the historical backdrop of 1957. I attribute Juror 11's slow speaking to his challenges with English rather than to his presumed native tongue (exemplified by the scene where he has to think about the phrase "notified by mail"). It is highly possible that Juror 11 is German (maybe even East German), but I put Swiss as much less likely than German, Austrian, or (German-speaking) Czech. But hey. Who knows. Maybe he's Pennsylvania Dutch for all we know (and just doesn't bother correcting Juror 7's assumption that he's an immigrant). I just assume Juror 11 is Czech because the actor they chose to play him is Czech-American.
@@YoonbeenPark Well... The Swiss are very democratic people. But you're right in many ways. So it's my impression, that he could be Swiss, but it don't have to be. But the main thing is, he played the role very well, as a central European migrant, who takes the new life in the US very serious and he's proud about the republic, he live in...
I have a law degree and was the NYC Coordinator for law related education, but I'm an educator, not a practicing attorney. I have been excused for jury duty because of my background. But you are right--people picked to serve as jurors generally take their responsibilities seriously.
I really like the scene of Juror 8 and Juror 4 discussing the probability of there being 2 or more similar switchblades. Juror 8 is an architect, so a building collapse must be 99.99% impossible. Juror 4 is a stockbroker, so a profit needs to be 51% probable. I imagine they have these probabilities in mind when they discuss how likely it is someone else used a similar knife. It shows how personal 'prejudice' like your job can affect your moral judgements too. Great writing.
I never realised that before but you are right - each mans inherent understanding of doubt is different of course but why ... that's a brilliant insight.
Juror #11 is Czech. Actually, I don't know if the script specifies the nationality, but I mean that the actor is Czech, so that is probably who he is playing as well.
Juror #11 is generally a curious case in both versions I've seen so far, this one and the 1997 TV-Movie remake. The English version only just states he is from Europe in both cases, but as you said, the actor in the original one is Czech, so, that is one way to interpret his cultural background, while in the German dub, they gave him a Swiss accent, probably due to the line about how the best watchmakers allegedly come from Europe, with Switzerland being most famous for it. The 1997 one interestingly chose Edward James Olmos for the role, an American of Mexican decent. They still state he is European if I'm not mistaken (seen that one by far not as often as the 1957 one), but even if they hadn't, his character would still work if the implication would be that he was a Mexican immigrant. The entire idea of the character is the "outside perspective", coming from someone who did not grow up in this society and still shows a deep understanding of the responsibility and weight of the position he is in, more so than the guy he is in most stark contrast to, no.10, and it's very noteworthy that he is also the one to confront no.7 when he switches his vote just to get out of there. There is soooo much to read into and interpret about the outsider to the system taking it more serious than almost anyone else there.
I was the foreman of a jury for a 1st degree murder trial in 1986. I wasn’t impressed with the jury pool before the jury was picked but the 12 of us picked all took our role seriously. We were sequestered so spent night and day with each other. I was convinced he was guilty on the very last day and believed that everyone watched the trial exactly as I had. So, I was completely shocked when the first vote was 3 guilty and 9 not guilty. We spent 2 days going around the room and discussing the case. I found it interesting that we each felt different parts were more important. We eventually got to 8 guilty and 4 not guilty but were not going to get any farther. We had the ability to look at 2nd degree murder and finally voted to convict him of that. The final person to change their mind did break down and cry, feeling like she was sending a man to jail. In all of the years since then I have never doubted the decision. The interesting thing is he would have walked free if he hadn’t talked to the police before talking to a lawyer. He admitted being in the bar shooting at the victim but claimed the victim was also shooting and that he was defending himself. The physical evidence was most important to me. All of the bullets and all of the shells were from a single gun. But if he would have said that he was never in the bar or even said nothing at all he would have walked after the first vote. This case was 7 years after the crime and most of the witnesses were not in the USA legally so hadn’t kept the police with updated addresses. The ones that did testify weren’t positive on who was shooting except that there was only one shooter.
Something I learned recently: the walls of the set were movable so they played with the size of the room to make it feels more or less cramped / claustrophobic to increased or decrease the tension. Genius filmmaking
Peer Pressure! In the beginning, the pressure on everyone to convict was strong. Eleven to one. Only Juror 8 had the guts to resist it. As the discussion continued, the resistance slowly increased. We see the smiles from the jurors who found allies against the pressure. By the end of the film, the peer pressure had been totally flipped to that of acquittal. Eleven to one - Juror 3. I remember watching videos in school that showed the classic effects of peer pressure. Meek people being unable to dissent, but then finding the courage once they find allies. Classic psychological experiment.
Whether or not you think the accused is guilty, the prosecution still has to prove their case. My ex was a member of a jury in a murder case. Though everyone was sure the woman accused was guilty, they had to acquit her; the evidence was all circumstantial. The entire jury was upset because they felt they had to release a murderer. Six months later we found out that she had been acquitted in another murder case a year or so previously, under virtually identical circumstances. She eventually wound up in prison over another issue, not murder. As bad as it is that sometimes the guilty will go free, I'd rather that happen than people being put away based on jurors' feelings.
The prosecution proved that the boy is guilty already, juror No8 made a lot of bad points and finally got through with it. First of all saying "it is possible" is not relevant in court or in the juryroom, the definition clearly says they can send him to prison or onto the chair if there is no reasonable doubt. The important word is reasonable. And No8 made some very unreasonable points, best example is that he made them forget that someone said that there is only a one to a million chance that the boy lost his knife and only hours later someone else stabed the father with a very similar knife. And they were right in the first place, that is very unreasonable to assume. Later they just ignored that thought. Or what about the fake interrogation of non-sweater juror? He was able to remember 99% of things that happened days ago and just because he had one little detail wrong compared to the boy who remembered NOTHING, this means what? That No8 was right? I dont think so! And of course there was the eyewitness testimony, they never called the bailiff they never analysed the testimony. Did she describe things that only someone with good eyes was able to describe? They didnt even care, they just assumed that indentations around her nose means she has bad eyes, that very sloppy at least. But for sure their verdict is bad in any way you can imagine.
@PaulWinkle the prosecution didn't prove their case. They only presented their evidence. It's up to the jury if they believed the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
@@PaulWinkle… I disagree with every point you make, but that’s not important because it’s a work of fiction! Since Reginald Rose (the author) clearly wanted the audience to side with juror #8, your argument is with him. Most of us are swayed by the dramatic arc, sorry you weren’t.
@@kjs438 And you think No8 saying "it is possible" all the time, refuted the prosecutor's points? That is not even relevant in court, therefore is just irrelevant gibberish. The only thing that matters is "reasonable doubt", but the doubt has to be reasonable and not just "it is possible". One juror got it right, everything is possible, therefore no one can be found guilty by the definitions of No8
@@PaulWinkle The verdict is correct. The women's eyesight was in question. The prosecution didn't prove that she had perfect eyesight, and her behavior was that of someone who wears glasses. And not sunglasses either, since you don't wear them long enough to cause that kind of irritation. So for all they know, she may be blind as a bat, and her testimony is not reliable enough to believe she correctly identified the boy at night, 60 feet away, through a moving train. Juror #8 proved the knife was very common. The prosecution was banking on the fact that the knife was unique as proof that the murder weapon was actually the same knife. And we know that's not the case - for all we know, every hoodlum in that area might be carrying that kind of knife, and one of them may have had a beef with the father. You don't seem to realize that the prosecution's job in a murder trial is not simply to show their version of events is the most probable, but to show that other versions are impossible. Then there's the fact that there were no fingerprints on the knife, and since the light went out immediately after the killing, the killer either wiped the knife clean in the dark, after turning the lights off, or was wearing gloves - either way, that indicates some level of preparation, and then you want us to accept that the boy didn't even bother to check out what movies were playing to use as an alibi? If he was under great distress, interrogated on the spot his mind overloaded with the grisly murder scene, it's reasonable to expect he wouldn't remember the movies. Perhaps he was so angry, and upset, that he wasn't paying attention to the movies, who knows. Bottomline - the prosecution wants the jury to accept a very particular series of events took place - that the boy planned the murder, went out to buy the murder weapon, killed his father with an overhead stab despite his own experience indicating that wasn't a good way of stabbing someone, and putting his faith in a single strike against someone he knew was bigger, and stronger than him, with the advantage of intimidation due to past events. To remember to wipe the knife of fingerprints quickly, but first to turn off the light so he wouldn't be seen doing it (clearly concerned with possible witnesses), but not think to take the knife, and get rid of it. To come up with an alibi that gave him plenty of time to go, and check the movies that were playing, but being too lazy to do it, and just hoping to "wing it" Again - it's not up to the defense, or juror #8 to prove the boy's innocence - just to show that the evidence of his guilt isn't reliable enough to go over without reasonable doubt.
In a U.S. criminal trial, the government prosecutor is the de facto legal representative for the victim, because the alleged crime is a violation of the codified laws of the state.
24 frames per second was settled on in early sound films. It’s the minimum amount of frames that you can include sound and not have audio distortion that humans can hear. This is because film doesn’t run continuously through the camera when filming or projector when showing films. The film moves and stops 24 times per second in front of a shutter that opens and closes as is passes in front of a light bulb. The sound was included on the side of the filmstrip.
Glad you were interested in this one. You should check "Anatomy of a Murder" - a similar story, but courtroom based, involving the early introduction to American criminal justice of murder caused by "irresistible impulse" or "temporary insanity" Highly rated for its accurate depiction of courtroom proceedings of the time. Based on a 1952 case, released in 1959.
@@Stinger2222 Yes, Joseph Welch, famous as the lawyer who confronted Senator Joseph McCarthy - with the famous quote "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
In a way, this movie is part of the heart of our jury system. Many people have seen it in high school long before they ever served on a jury. Also... the movie has a many very funny moments that relieve tension that people don't even realize are there consciously.
The defendant is presumed innocent. The jury is a check against the power of the state -- represented by the prosecution. The jury doesn't determine whether the defendant is guilty, but whether the prosecution proves guilt. If the prosecution fails, the defendant remains presumptively innocent.
A grand jury is the main check against the power of the state to bring court cases against individuals on flimsy evidence. There is no trial without an an indictment from a grand jury first. In some states, a judge issues an indictment instead of a grand jury. A petit jury like this one is the second stage. It is less about checking the power of the state and more about balancing the rights of the accused against the rights of a just society.
@@gunkulator1 Indictments can be brought based on sufficient evidence by a prosecutor without a grand jury process. DAs do it all the time. The evidence underlying the indictment is then tested in court.
The Prosecution is the US is not supposed to represent the state, but Justice. If the Prosecutor finds halfway through the trial that the defendant is innocent, the Prosecutor is supposed to request a dismissal. Admittedly, this is rarely done, so additional measures are taken - the Prosecution must give all the evidence they will use PLUS all potentially exculpatory evidence to the Defense. Failure to do so is malpractice and risks dismissal with prejudice regardless of how minor said evidence is - witness the Alec Baldwin trial. The next is the requirement of a jury, and the requirement of a unanimous verdict “beyond a reasonable doubt”. This is designed to skew the process as much as possible away from control by the state. And it still fails. Around 4% of Death Row convicts examined by the Innocence Project turned out to be innocent. This rate is far less than Franklin would have liked - he said "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"
@@aaronbredon2948 "The Prosecution is the US is not supposed to represent the state, but Justice." The state -- gov't -- prosecutes crimes in behalf of society. The goal is justice, but it is impossible for the prosecutor to not represent the gov't because the govt is by definition the rule of law and the law being enforced.
@jnagarya519 but the Prosecutor's job is not to win the case, but to convict THE PERSON WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME. If the Prosecutor finds out the defendant did not commit the crime, their job is to let that person go, and continue investigating. This is often contrary to the stated interests of the people in government who possibly appointed them, and for elected Prosecutor's, the people who elected them. Being a good Prosecutor means you are always the bad guy. Bring a bad Prosecutor who gets elected based on convictions (rather than correctly decided cases) can make one popular with the people (until it is found out that you were prosecuting innocent, but easy to convict properly - like the Central Park Five). So there are plenty of bad prosecutors who work to convict people regardless of guilt. The interest of Justice requires that Prosecutors work for the innocent. But that is political suicide, and many Prosecutors are elected. That's why criminal cases are stacked in favor of the defense as much as possible. It still doesn't even the playing field, but it helps a little (for those who can afford lawyers). Ideally, the State should pay Defense lawyers that win. And the rate should be fairly high (above the median per hour rate). That way, good criminal lawyers would also defend poor people.
All those characters, as well as the plot, came out of one man's mind. Reginald Rose. He was also a producer on the film, along with Henry Fonda. Rose and Fonda used their own personal money to get it made. Rose originally wrote the story as a teleplay for TV (a program called "Studio One") back in 1954. Two of the actors from the TV version were also used in the movie version: Jurors #9 and #11 (the "old man" and the "immigrant")
I loved your foreign perspective on this, which is one of my favorite movies. Most of the actors were, or would be, significant stars, and the others were well-known character actors. The most obscure was and is Joseph Sweeney (#9), who was primarily a stage actor. He gave another terrifically powerful performance in "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit" (1956), a fine movie, playing a small part as a villain trying to steal his deceased employer’s estate. In his autobiography, Henry Fonda (#8) talks about how difficult it was to shoot this movie (originally written as a television play and excellently expanded for this version). First, the actors had other commitments, so they had limited time to get it done. Also, the confined setting and tricky camera work made it essential for them to do a huge amount of rehearsing in the hot room (that’s real sweat you see). This movie aims at realism, and succeeds, I think. I’ve been on a jury, and this is still how it is, although with more variety of races and sexes, and with less overt anger. Some don’t want to be there, some are bored, some are prejudiced, and so on. Although it is common, taking a preliminary vote is a very bad idea at the start of deliberations. People get locked into defending their position when that is done. Talking first is better. To address some of your questions: The reason why there were no women is that the jury pool usually came from tax records, and since far fewer women held jobs in those days, they had a low chance of being called for duty. The lack of Blacks or diverse ethnicities is not unrealistic for the time. The jury will reflect the demographics of the jurisdiction, which in those days was much less commonly mixed. However, the realistic reason is that this was originally a TV drama, and discrimination prevented Blacks from playing important roles in TV then. Cooler cups are cones so that they can be efficiently stacked, one inside the other. Also, cones tend to discourage workers from lingering at the water cooler. “Double features,” the showing of two movies for one ticket, were very common for most movies in those days, a practice that continued through the 1960s, when I was growing up.
The cone paper cups are for sanitary reasons. They encourage immediate consumption and reduce the risk of spills and trash being left around. They are still commonly used in many places.
I agree with you about eyewitness testimony. Even when the witness is completely honest and unbiased, they are often mistaken. Ten people witnessing the same incident might give you six or eight different stories.
The little cone-shaped cups used to be very common at water coolers like this. They are simple, just a piece of waxed paper rolled up and glued together, and they stack together neatly.
They're cone shaped because it prevents people from putting them down; it is a subtle way to ensure the cups are mostly going into the recycling or trash cans.
Good one, D&L! A lot to think about from a movie that is almost 70 years old, right? It was fun rewatching this one with the two of you. Lucy, you are a hoot! 🤣Thank you both for sharing this one with us! I think you might also both enjoy Primal Fear from 1996, another crime/courtroom drama. Good stuff. Oh, and just so you know, there are many famous actors in this movie, but juror #2 is most famous as the voice of Piglet in the Winnie The Pooh cartoons. Thought you might enjoy knowing that!
I realise I'm two months late on this, but I love watching reactions to this film. Having a Portuguese viewpoint was really interesting. In the UK we have a jury system for serious crimes, vaguely similar to the US system (as the US system grew from ours!). I sat on a jury about 25 years ago - it also included a death, though it wasn't a murder and the person wasn't on trial for the death, just conspiracy. I have to say, that though no one on the jury was legally trained, and we all had different backgrounds and education, once we were in the jury room we took it very seriously. We talked for hours, called back evidence, asked for a transcript, and though the trial was complex and lasted four weeks, we spent another week reaching our verdicts on the nine cases involved.
The actors in this movie were masters of their craft back in the day. Some of the most famous actors of their time. The writers were amazing, and the camera work was perfect. This film is a masterpiece and a textbook lesson on making a movie. This movie was made over 65 years ago and has the same impact today as the day it was released. In the American legal system if you cannot afford a defense lawyer one will be appointed to you. The court-appointed lawyers often lack experience. As for the jurors every time you renew your driver’s license your name is entered into a jury pool, If your name is picked you are called for jury duty. Even if called you may not actually serve on a jury. The prosecution and defense lawyers pick who will serve on the jury. Usually, 30 people are called to serve on a trial jury, and from those people maybe 16 are chosen. 12 to sit on the jury and a few alternates in case a jury member gets sick or some other reason cannot complete the service on the jury after being picked to serve. I’ve been called for jury duty seven times and only served on one jury. If you are not picked as a jury member or an alternate you can go home..
Both District Attorneys(prosecution) and Public Defenders (state-appointed defense counsel) are paid the same, and it's a good decent amount. The contest between them is generally pretty well balanced.
I was on a jury once in the UK. I am not allowed to speak about what happened in the jury room. But one big difference was that all we had in the jury room were 12 chairs. and some lighting. It was a basement room with no windows. I think the idea is to focus the minds of the jury. Jurors are not allowed to do their own research. No one is allowed to question jurors about how they reach their decision. Like speaking about what happens in the jury room that would be contempt of court.
Well, it does make sense to be like you’re saying. Since we do not have jury trials it’s not easy to know the reality, so we highly appreciate the input ! Thanks ! Xx Lucy
Here in the US, we have the same rule about research. #8 finding another knife is artistic license; in the real world, that would be misconduct. OTOH, jurors here usually _are_ allowed to talk about the deliberation after the trial, if they want to, but they can't be compelled to, and trying to do so or engaging in intimidation of one may be a crime.
I have also been on a jury twice. In the second case, I based my verdict on the evidence. But, we had a couple of holdouts. But keeping this film in mind, I wanted to hear EVERYTHING that countered my view in order o make sure I felt my conclusion was right in my mind. I only gave my points in delberation, but never to "convince anyone". I then listened to everyone carefully. I encouraged everyone to speak their mind without intimidation. We talked for a while and I even questioned my own conclusions to make sure any doubts were voiced. This film influenced me greatly in how important being on a jury is and weight of responsibility it carries.
I work for my state’s agency that provides attorneys for criminal defendants who can’t afford an attorney. While we have some attorneys on staff 80% of the cases are handled by private attorneys who we pay. While what we pay is not nearly what they could charge paying clients they do take these cases because they want to.
Another court room drama from this era you should consider is Anatomy of a Murder. If you want another movie that focuses on jurors I would recommend Runaway Jury.
Lucy you expressed at first to expecting the movie to be boring cause it was such a simple promise. --------- What you didn't know was the high level of script writing you were about to experience with this movie. --------- The movie has no, effects, no massive sets, or fantastical heroes. -------- It just has a dynamic week thought out captivating alternate view of the trial process.------- in so glad you loved it.
Films like this, that forgo all the things you mentioned, are so much harder to make and be successful. This is why I love this, and another like it, The Breakfast Club. They focus on the human condition and require a great script, excellent actors that deliver performances that can touch us and bring about emotional reactions. It's facinating when diverse characters clash and we get to see their differences and, in the case of The Breakfast Club, what makes them the same, even though it's not obvious from the start. I'd like to see someone else attempt to make something else like this, but understand just how difficult it would be.
just watched you react to A Few Good Men. i've watched that and this one many times. fun watching a variety of people react to these moral questions told from an American point of view.
I never thought the judge at the beginning was "bored"...he was unemotional about the trial, as he should be. Plus, it's the 1950s- different style of movie making.
I think he's meant to be bored ... it's presented as a somewhat tedious open and shut case and for him he's basically just there for however long it goes for to sentence someone to death at the end after they are found guilty - he doesn't even have the ability to change that sentence because it's mandatory. If the case has been more debated then no doubt he may have had to make rulings or the like but instead he's just been sitting there massively over-qualified for the role this particular trial requires of him. I have to imagine that for someone who has spent 20 or 30 years in the law sitting there for that would be incredibly dull and tedious. It's almost foreshadowing the Jury room where almost everyone walks in expecting to deliver a speedy Guilty verdict.
It's also that he has to instruct the jury extremely carefully and specifically. Imperfect instructions, instructions with a bias, etc., of any kind that are seen to possibly affect the outcome of the trial are grounds to appeal the verdict and gain a new trial.
For more court room drama, check out "Primal Fear" (1996) starring Richard Gere, and Edward Norton in his first role, and "A Time To Kill" (1997) starring basically everyone, but the three main characters are played by Matthew McConaughey, Samuel L. Jackson and Sandra Bullock.
Great to hear perspectives from other nations. I watched a film called "Anatomy of a Fall" which is about a trial that takes place in France. I was lost. It's so different from how the U.S. does it that I spent most of the film trying to get my head around their procedures and methods.
I get it xD I suppose we would find it slightly more familiar to us (even though the French legal system is not that similar to ours). I suppose we find the American legal system and procedures slightly more familiar because of the many movies about it! We recently saw a show that was about a court case in the north of Spain and we're shoked at some of the differences from the way we do things here in Portugal! 😬
In the U.S., a defendant is legally entitled to a defense attorney. If the defendant can't afford a lawyer, the court will appoint one free of charge. Today, every jurisdiction has a public defender's office with lawyers who are paid by the government, and whose only job is to defend people in these cases. Public defenders are usually good lawyers, but are often overworked, so they can't always give a defendant's case the attention it requires. At the time and place the movie was set (New York City in 1957), the public defender system had not been created yet. Juror #8 mentioned that the court had appointed a lawyer who might not have wanted the case. That lawyer would have come from a private practice.
The key to this movie Brilliance is the actor's performance, each of them play del role (Characters) like professionals, whoever directed is a genius (knows his trade like a master painter conveys on the canvas his masterpiece).
I just found your channel the other day. I realize that this is 2 months later, but I love your analysis and the thoughtful consideration you put into your comments. I am 71 and grew up in the 1950's and 1960's. In the USA, we don't owe allegiance to our government or to the president. We owe allegiance to our country and to the Constitution. Our Constitution guarantees certain rights among which are freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and most important is the right to free speech. When I grew up, we could have heated debates, but everyone had the right to their own opinion. That is what is so dangerous about today's cancel culture. Today, special interests will gang up like we saw in the jury if you disagree with their view. We need to get back to intelligent debate. I can tell that you are both very intelligent, caring people. Thank you for sharing this with us.
Thank you very much and welcome 🙏🏻 Couldn't agree more about the need for healthy debate. Thankfully we still didn't get a full on cancel culture like you said here where we live, but it can happen of course. Family is a very important part of our culture, and since you will always have people with different opinions inside the family, you get used to argue in a friendly way xD most of the time!
while nowadays going to the movies is a dedicated thing with one of a small selection of films, movie theaters back in the day were cheap and can just go into the theater whenever. another thing is theyd be one of the few air conditioned buildings you can go to cheaply.
This is truly one of the greatest films ever made, certainly in the top five and my personal favourite film. A cinematic masterclass - acting, cinematography, direction. I believe it's used as a blueprint for people wanting to learn how to make movies.
A funny thing I get in my head with this film is the idea that this case could’ve ended up being a big break for the Defense attorney. I mean winning a murder case like this one? It would’ve been a huge boost to their career, which of course is a hilarious idea as they clearly phoned in the defense expecting a guilty verdict was inevitable. Juror #8 may have just made that lawyers career.😂
Another rather similar classic film I think you’d REALLY enjoy is The Ox-Bow Incident, also starring Henry Fonda. It was nominated for Best Picture that year (1943) but lost to Casablanca. It’s not as good as Casablanca, but it’s very good. It’s similar to 12 Angry Men in some ways, but it’s not about a jury, it’s about a posse. You should check it out sometime, I’d love to see your take on it!
Great reaction! I knew you would enjoy this one! It's one of my favorite films of all time--so well written, acted, and filmed. The issue of juror guilt over letting a 'guilty' person go free is based on a misconception. The jury is not there to establish objective fact, but to determine whether the prosecution was able to prove their case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case the prosecution failed, despite the poor performance of the defense attorney. Fortunately juror #8 was there to prevent an overhasty guilty verdict...
Just found your channel and love it, watched your reaction to my Cousin Vinny, and 12 Angry men. I did a quick look through the movies you have watched and have a suggestion that I did not see. In1960 a movie called "Inherit the Wind" was released. It is based on a true event that took place in 1925 in Dayton Tennessee. The case took a teacher to trial for teaching evolution and was called the Scopes Monkey Trial. The acting is top notch, and the court scenes are outstanding.
Great movie. Henry Fonda does get very lucky that every piece of evidence has a precise counterpoint, though The Rainmaker (1997) is a great, somewhat underrated legal drama. It's half about an actual court case, but also half about the practicality of starting out as a young lawyer in less-than-ideal circumstances (in the US). Might be something you'd find interesting, coming as I do from outside the US
30 years ago, I was on a 6-person jury for a drug case. However, I had a very similar experience. They took a vote right away. It was 5-1. I believed he was guilty of possession of drugs. But I wanted to talk about it. We did find him guilty after about 2 hours. For the punishment phase, we had to deliberate again. This took about 5 hours. Because I refused to give the maximum of 20 years. The other 5 wanted to just give maximum and go home. Again, I wanted to discuss this. The thing that bothered me was that the public defender attorney barely spoke. He even looked like he was asleep a few times. When I saw this movie many years later, it was striking how similar my experience was. Like I said, he was guilty. We eventually gave him 10 years. Sadly, I think it was because they rest of the jury wanted to go home for the weekend. I wanted it to be 5. But agreed to 10 years. Otherwise, it would have been a hung jury.
Interingly, different states have different rules around juries. Sometimes, there are 12 jurors, sometimes less. Also, some states do not require a jury to be unanimous in order to get a conviction or acquittal.
In the US (whether state or federal), there is a prosecutor for the criminal aspect (state/federal - typically called a district attorney) and a defense attorney. The defense attorney can be hired by the defendant or, as the Miranda Rights say "if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you by the state." State defense attorneys are often over-worked and while not stupid necessarily, they may have trouble keeping up with their caseload. Many of the public defenders (appointed attorneys) do work in order to have a paying job to pay for tuition for their law school debts. While victims families are allowed to speak at sentencing, they don't get a say in the court proceedings otherwise. If a sentenced criminal comes up for early release for good behavior, the families may again speak to force the criminal to stay in jail to complete their sentence. It's not a guarantee, but it can happen. In a civil (non-criminal) case where an individual or company sues another individual or company (mix or match as appropriate) lawyers are hired to carry out the task. A jury (sometimes with only six people) may be used or just a judge will be used depending on the specific type of law pending. For example, if a judgement specifically requires knowledge of the statutes exactly, a jury might not be convened. Lastly, when appealing either civil or criminal cases, it must be because of a perceived violation in legal proceedings. As such, these don't typically have juries since legal statutes require a judge's knowledge. There are several levels of appeals courts all the way up to the supreme court in each state, then in federal district courts, ending up in the Federal Supreme Court of the United States (sometimes referred to as SCOTUS). SCOTUS typically ONLY rules on appeals or cases directly related to constitutional law. All states and the federal government must abide by the constitution of the US. We have separate Penal (criminal) code laws, but for the most part our "Civil Code" is combined and simply codified in separate parts for Commercial, Labor, and laws pertaining to individuals (e.g. property damage not covered by insurance or injury caused by any given item - not sure where that falls in you laws). Basically, if it is criminal, the penal code applies. For all else the civil code covers it in various codification.
I always found it interesting how Juror #3, the one who was last to change his verdict, doesn't just contradict himself with the case. He started out talking about "kids these days" not being respectful, but then he disrespects the older man. He talks about being disgusted when his son ran away from a fight, but even though he's being aggressive and confrontational with everyone, when Juror #6 threatens to knock him out if he disrespects the old man again, he says nothing and just walks away.
One thing I think is important is that EVERY juror needs to agree, all those voting guilty need to be CONVINCED, you can't dismiss them as unreasonable or stupid. As any good lawyer should know...😊😊
Our court systems seem to be quite similar. There are defense and prosecution attorneys, if the defendant can't afford to pay an attorney, the court appoints him one. But, of course, their pay is low, so they are often not the best and brightest. Apparently it helps to have money! And as other have said, in those days theaters played two alternating films throughout the day. Usually one was the main feature and the other a secondary film, both often playing from morning into the night. Typically 5 shows per day. Theaters make most of their money selling concessions between shows, so the more breaks the better. For money reasons (and because of some very long "blockbuster" films) scheduling changed eventually to a single film playing repeatedly. Drive-in theaters, a peculiarly American thing, still regularly show double (sometimes triple!) features, often ending after midnight. They are a fun evening.
Another thing for Europeans to remember is that any given state has its own laws and penalties. While some laws are the same, the penalties may be quite different. Also, for the purposes of this movie, this "kid" is not a juvenile. In 1950, juveniles weren't allowed to be tried as an adult (yet). Now they are if the statute deems the crime as substantial. For example, murder may not in many states, but murdering a police officer can get a juvenile tried as an adult. We have 50 states, many larger than the average European country and each with its own separate laws plus federal (applying to all states) laws.
Lots of the construction of the story has to do with the occupations of the jurors. Architect, traveling salesman, ad man, clock maker, small business owner, stock broker, construction contractor, high school football coach, banker, pensioner. Also, the music is only at the moment he asks for the secret ballot.
Sydney Lamont directed this and later in 1982 directed another excellent film called The Verdict with Paul Newman and an actor in this movie. I highly recommend this courtroom drama also to you two lawyers. Also it wasn’t until 1973 I think that women were allowed to serve on a jury.
Always find it so interesting how people from other countries react to American movies. Reactors from other countries always seem to like the old black and white movies better than the new blockbuster big-time CGI movies today. Story more important than effects.
This movie is more about how we allow our prejudices and personal baggage interfere with our thought processes. Some are disinterested, some are bigoted, and some (one) has baggage of his OWN kid's rebellion against him. Once those are taken away they finally see the truth of the case.
Since you guys are from Portugal and doing classics you need to do Spencer Tracey's Captain's Courageous. It is about a Portuguese fisherman in Gloucester Massachusetts in the States. It is based on a book by Rudyard Kipling who got the inspiration while staying in Gloucester. It is a coming of age story.
Great Reaction to this Classic...... (My Standard Post So some might have already been mentioned)..... 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.....
This movie was set in New York City. Women could be on a jury in 1957 in New York. There were only two states at that time that still did not allow women to be on a jury.
Actually, that's not really true in this scenario. In criminal law, only the defense can call for a mistrial after the verdict is handed down. In this case the verdict was "not guilty." Furthermore, they really don't frisk people going into the jury room. Let alone in the 1950's. Metal detectors in federal buildings weren't a thing used back then.
@@dennislopez1272 The POINT is that the introduction of EVIDENCE by a JUROR that was NOT RULED admissible BY THE JUDGE before or during the trial, is grounds for mistrial. Properly, in reality, jurors themselves can report that violation of the rules to the court.
That's a problem I have with the movie as well. Any time I was on a jury for a multi-day trial the judge instructed the jurors not to visit the scene or do any independent research. Only evidence submitted in court may be considered. Call the "infraction" literary license. Still a fine movie.
@@randyshoquist7726 One of the other jurors called him on it, and he said something like "yes, I committed a crime"; but the judge didn't know so ... The bigger problem is that the defendant is almost certainly guilty. All of those "isn't this possible?" things are *possible*, but the probability of them *all* being true at the same time, which would be necessary for him not to be guilty, is negligible.
Brilliant and interesting reaction. I must recommend the greatest courtroom drama ever made: Otto Preminger's Anatomy of a Murder from 1959, the year after this. Actually, I'm writing a book about Preminger so I have a special interest here. I've watched this film dozens of times, and each time I don't know which evidence I'm going to believe and which not, whether I'd vote guilty or not guilty. It's amazing because sometimes I have strong reasonable doubt and at other times not. I am It's also about the mistakes that lawyers make, rather than their brilliance.
Thank you very much ☺️ Last poll we made that movie didn't won but it still might in the future 😉 Next courtroom drama reaction for UA-cam will be Witness for the Prosecution
@@ptthatswhatshesaid Thanks a lot for replying. WftP is a good, entertaining film directed by Billy Wilder, like Preminger a Jewish exile from Vienna: they were friends and colleagues. Anatomy of a Murder is Otto's realistic answer to the melodrama of Billy's movie. It's too intelligent a masterpiece to ever top a poll, though, I fear.
Juror #4 understood the assignment.
Once he was presented with evidence that the eyewitness testimony wasn't as reliable, as he thought, he recognized that was enough of a reasonable doubt that he couldn't vote guilty anymore.
Yep.
Agreed. He's stern but he's logical. And intellectually honest.
Always found him a very logical and respectable person
@@ptthatswhatshesaid
reasonable doubt is why US football player OJ Simpson was would not guilty of murder;
the Los Angeles police has a witness (officer Mark Fuhrman,) who lied in court and was unreliable;
& the LAPD crime lab was sloppy in their handling of blood evidence;
they spilled blood all over the crime scene
My favorite. And his dressing down of the bigoted #10... priceless.
The fact that some of these actors caused you to be so pissed off at them gives testimony that they have effectively done their job as an actor so well, they convinced you to hate them.
One of my Top 10 movies all time... No special effects no violence just superb writing and epic acting.... Great reaction 😊
Thanks a lot! 🤗
And yes, what a magnificent piece of filmmaking 👌🏻
No no no, it has one special effect... a practical one. The rain that breaks them up for a while :p I love to point out how that is the only thing about the movie that wasn't done through acting, lighting or camera work. My personal favorite movie of all time >.
This is a famous stage play. The fact it takes place in basically one room and is 100% dialog makes it an easy low cost production for high schools and theater houses.
I believe it started as a television play, presented and recorded live. The Criterion Collection Blu-Ray includes a copy of the teleplay, which I found unwatchable. The camera barely moves, there are no closeups, and the cast wasn't as uniformly great as this film. Two of the actors were in both versions: the old man played by Joseph Sweeny and the foreign man played by George Voscovic. Mr. Voscovic was Czech, by the way.
One interesting discovery from one time doing jury duty: the jurors in the jury pool were all in the courtroom as individual jurors were questioned by the attorneys. By the time it was over (they got all the jurors before they got to me), I knew everything about the case except the verdict; I knew the charges, I knew who the witnesses would be, I knew the defense arguments. I'd never seen that portrayed in a movie or on television, nor have I seen it since.
@@scapevelocityYes. My understanding is that it started off as a TV play (not a stage play).
I love the scene of Juror 8 questioning Juror 4 about his memory (eventually about 'The Amazing Mrs. Bainbridge') because it shows how humble and fair Juror 4 is about admitting doubt.
The defendant boy was asked (by the police) about something that happened 4 hours ago. Juror 4 is asked about what he did A WEEK ago. Clearly, the stress levels are different, but the amount of time that passed is also a HUGE factor. Yet, Juror 4 humbly admits that it was reasonably difficult and more difficult than he thought it would be. BUT he also remains genuinely convinced that the other evidence makes the boy guilty. It just makes us respect his dissent even more (until the glasses that finally change his mind).
Presumably all of the testimony presented in court is also given weeks after the event and yet people testify with the surety of a recent event. And since they've all also signed a written statement, there's pressure for a witness to stick with the first story they told. The women who claims she saw the killing didn't want to admit she wore glasses so she had no choice except to testify to clearly seeing something. One of the main points in this movie is how unreliable eye witness testimony can be just because of silly human foibles.
"Juror 4 is asked about what he did A WEEK ago"
4 days ago
Thank you, guys.
This screenplay is so well thought-out and so well written. Henry Fonda fought for years to get this film made, finally financing it himself. There are so many great actors snd performces here.
Fantastic script yes! 👌🏻
The staging in the scene where the racist spews his poison is really significant. The order in which the men leave the table makes sense, given what we’ve learned about them. The first is juror #5, the one from the slums. The last to actually walk away from the table is juror #12, the ad man who changes his mind based on how the wind is blowing. His departure leaves just juror #7, the one doesn’t give a damn-he’s shifted in his chair so he’s not watching the racist, but he doesn’t care enough to put in the energy to actually get up-and juror #4, who has decided to hear the racist out so he could pass judgment on him, which he does very effectively.
“Now sit down, and don’t open your mouth again.” (chef’s kiss)
One thing is that the nominal antagonist of the whole movie number 3 is basically one of the first to clearly show disgust as he stares intently out the window trying to withhold his anger from flowing out again. In that moment it's made clear that for all his flaws he's not a bad human being at his core. The same goes with 7 he is lazy and disinterested in the trial but he also shows disgust very quickly turning away from what he knows to be inherently wrong. I believe that I read that particular scene as many were was left up to the actors themselves and each reacts in the way they felt their characters should rather than be directed to do so by the director. They all show disgust in their own unique ways. Only 4 had a specific direction and that was to remain stoic and then deliver his denouncement as coldly as possible. It's perhaps the greatest character acting scene of all time and yet most of them don't even speak during it.
Number 4 is definitely the best 👌🏻
Bigots tend to hang around with other bigots, to feel vindicated in their views. And to hear the latest racist jokes. But Juror #10 wasn't with his pals in the jury room. He spouted off as he normally does, but he found not one person who would side with him. That's a serious shock to the ego, and to the psyche. It was depicted ingeniously.
Regarding the theater scene: In the 1950s, it was common to go to the theater without specifically choosing a movie. Many cinemas offered "Double Features," showing two films back-to-back, often in a continuous loop. Audiences would come and go during the screenings, similar to how people casually watch TV today. In the movie, a Double Feature is mentioned, which was a common practice at the time. This makes it plausible that the defendant couldn’t remember the movie he saw-he likely went to pass the time rather than watch a specific film. This casual movie-going experience began changing in the late 1950s and was significantly influenced by Alfred Hitchcock’s *Psycho* in 1960, which famously prohibited late entry to maintain suspense, marking a turning point in cinema culture.
To add to that a reason that a lot of people would go to the movies was that it what's a cheap way to cool down on a hot day. They could go to the movie theater where there was air conditioning, and it was not on common to see people sleeping or paying no attention to the movie
@@brandyanderson3522 Yep. Theaters used to make air conditioning part of their marketing precisely for that reason.
Now please use your extensive historical knowledge to tell us the origin of those cone shaped cups.
As well, TV wasn't yet in every home and a Newsreel of current events would usually be shown between the films, along with a cartoon or two. (Especially during wartime).
THAT is an easy answer that requires absolutely no historical knowledge. Cone-shaped cups were quick, cheap, and easy to make. @@bobbolondz2701
In the early 20th century, cone-shaped disposable cups were widely used for several reasons, primarily for their cost-effectiveness and hygiene benefits. Invented in 1908 by Lawrence Luellen and marketed as the “Health Kup” in 1912, these cups were designed to prevent the spread of germs from shared drinking vessels. The cone-shaped cups were commonly used with inverted-bottle water dispensers, encouraging immediate disposal after use to maintain cleanliness. The design made it difficult to set the cup down when full, prompting users to finish their drink and dispose of the cup properly. This practical feature helped keep areas like conference rooms cleaner. Additionally, cone-shaped cups were used at soda fountains with a plastic base to hold the cone, eliminating the need for washing reusable glasses and enhancing convenience.
I still see them at my local dentist's office in Korea. A great way to prevent people from leaving cups lying around while also minimizing material used to make cups (they were really thin and only meant for single-use).
Ironically reuseable cone shaped glass ice cream penny lick containers were banned for the reason that they spread disease because the point of the cone was hard to clean and they ended up spreading diseases.
Plus, they arr revered for their potential as party hats in dire circumstances.
@@kengruz669 🤣🤣🤣
The housepainter who defended the old man had been looking after the old man from the start, helping him with his chair, for instance. The old man was probably willing to vote to continue the discussion because...like the old witness...he was doing something important late in his life.
I've served on a couple of juries, both federal felonies (one was a military court-martial). In the civilian jury, the initial vote was 11:1 for guilty. It was a four-hour trial and we deliberated for four days before finally acquitting the suspect. I was much like juror #4, holding out for guilty until the last day, when I finally realized that the last piece of evidence I thought was rock-hard was not so certain after all.
One of the things that makes this film so good is the attention to small details about everyday life experiences, so much so that several reactors have expressed a slight frustration when Juror 9 (Joseph Sweeney) takes so long to get out of the bathroom. Mr. Sweeney was 73 at the time and was the oldest actor in the film and as every man knows as he gets older, it sometimes takes a while to take care of business in the bathroom. It’s just one very subtle realistic representation of a common affliction that affects a lot of men as they age.
A lot of great details, that is so correct 👌🏻
Lucy, this was an amazing reaction. To see your roller coaster of emotion. Lucy got so mad, so annoyed, frustrated, triumphant, then back to frustrated. --------- Eventually Lucy got great satisfaction at the end. Love this.
You need an ability to control yourself to be a good lawyer, not an ability to overreact or show emotional involvement with your case - you need to remain neutral. I'm not in the judiciary, merely a simple human being watching this classic film for the umpteenth time!
@@johnhickman2033 Lucy is passionate. I'm sure if she's in court she's controlled, but in the office I'm sure she'll fight hard as hell for her clients if she believes in them.
In the first couple minutes, she seems to have made some sort of judgement without any of the facts.., but hey this is UA-cam...not sure if I'll watch to the end.
@@lethaldose2000 thank you! That’s exactly how I felt ! 😅
Xx Lucy
@@johnhickman2033 all lawyers change their posture inside the court room, or even on a clients meeting. Especially in Portugal, where everything is so formal !
That’s why I get all emotions while watching a movie 😂 at least I can say what is reaaally going on my mind, for a change 😅
Xx Lucy
I am always really happy to see young people checking this one out for the first time...especially when my favorite reaction channels post reaction videos to it.
Sidney Lumet is one of the great directors of all time, and this is his first movie and also one of his best. Another movie by Lumet that I always recommend is Fail Safe from 1964...it also stars Henry Fonda.
Other older movies that I suggest that were not made by Lumet are...To Kill a Mockingbird(1962), Inherit the Wind(1960), and Judgement at Nuremberg(1961)...all three are highly renowned courtroom dramas filmed in black and white.
This one was great to check out! 😋
To Kill a Mockingbird we already reacted to and Judgement at Nuremberg we will probably react to soon :)
Nearly every actor in this film has a very impressive career listing throughout the decades they performed. Great cast.
You should check out the cast of the 1997 TV-Movie remake. Some interesting choices, and also some big names, like Tony Danza, Edward James Olmos, Jack Lemmon or James Gandolfini, and many of the other actors on the cast also have a couple awards and/or big roles to claim.
The scene where number 10 goes on his racist rant and the others all cant look at him and number 4 tells him to never speak again is perhaps the greatest character acting I've ever seen. Every person in that room absolutely nails it with each reacting in their own unique but similar way - even people who are problematic like 3 and 7 are shown in that moment to be at their core decent human beings. Neither 3 or 7 do what they do out of malice but rather their own pain or lack of interest but 10 is malicious and twisted but also ignorant of the fact that he is those things. When he realises that the others see him with disgust he suddenly realises what he really is and it breaks him. It's spectacularly well done.
Unfortunately, it's a bad idea. The scene is emblematic of 20th century idea of prejudice: they're ignorant, so ignore them and you strip them of their power. I think by 2024, we've learned how disastrous wrong that philosophy is.
@@Theomite They dont ignore him though - they shun him and ultimately one slaps him down verbally. They treat him with the respect he deserves - none. Nobody argues with him because they know it's a waste of time they just make it very clear that they loathe him.
@@Theomite
There's _ignoring_ and there's _ignoring_. They didn't _ignore_ him and let him carry on with his prejudices, unaware of their disgust and disapproval. They _ignored_ him when he needed them to be paying attention to him. They made clear what they thought of his offensive behavior.
This is my favorite movie. It's a masterclass in pacing, writing, actor, blocking and all the techniques of cinema. And Juror number 4 is my favorite character. Although he's technically an antagonist, he's fair and honest in his arguments, he listens to the points being made against him and directly addresses those arguments. He doesn't get personal and he's visibly irritated by some of the more bombastic members of the jury. He also kinda looks like my dad, which makes him easy to like.
But I think Lee J. Cobb's performance as Juror number 3 is still a show stealing effort. His character might be nasty, but he puts on a barnstorming performance as a genius actor.
@@seraphinaaizen6278 I have to agree with you on juror number 4 being my favourite 😅
Glad to see you young people watching the classics. There is a weird quirk that four of the best legal dramas of all-time (IMHO) came out in just a few years. "Witness for the Prosecution" (1957), "Inherit the Wind" (1960), "Anatomy of a Murder" (1959) and "12 Angry Men" (1957). You've now seen one of them. I'd love to follow you as you see the others.
I’d like to throw ‘Judgment At Nuremberg’ (1961) in there as well
One of the great things about this movie is how the backstory -- the trial itself -- is fed to the audience to support the interactions between the jurors.
Yes, like we said in the reaction, the information is revealed in a very natural way and seems to come out naturally from the interactions between the jurors
You guys really are very entertaining. It's interesting to see a lawyer's reaction.
Lee J, Cobb, who played juror number 3, the guy who was estranged from his son was a fabulous character actor. In "The Exorcist," he played a kindly police detective who was always trying to get witnesses to go to the movies with him.
Thank you very much :) we're glad you enjoyed
OMG, I didn't recognized him straight away but yes!! I remember him from The Exorcista!
i loved her reaction to 'Maybe its possible for a lawyer to be just plain stupid.' lol
😂😂
I like to imagine the looks on the faces of the courtroom when the jury emerged with the verdict.
I like to imagine the look on the bailiff's face when he finds a second illegal flick knife in the jury room
I like to try to imagine the unconvincing defense attorney's reaction. 😆
@@sabalos what, where did this knife come from 😅
Xx Lucy
Lucy, you appeared very elegant in the intro. Thank you for dressing up. Your frustration with the actors as they played out their roles is a testament to their acting abilities. Thanks for watching this one.
Thank you very much ☺️🙏🏻
Best reaction I've seen to this film (and I've seen a lot of them). It was a pleasure watching it. Well done!
Thank you so much! 🤗
It was really great watching this great film 👌🏻
A MASTERCLASS in film making
1. Great Director
2. Great cinematography
3. Provacative, interesting story
4. Magnificent character development, i mean we understand these gentlemen, their personalities, priorities and motivations
5. IMPECCABLE acting... We BELIEVE in the reality of these men.
I really have enjoyed your reaction.
God's Peace to you and your family and all here 🙏 💪✌️🙏
Thank you very much 🙏🏻🤗
And yes, it is a masterpiece of a film 👌🏻
An important legal principle is that is: "It is better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to go to jail"
Couldn’t agree more, that’s why investigations need to be very thorough, and lawyers/judges need to question everything. Which doesn’t happen every time unfortunately
Xx Lucy
@@ptthatswhatshesaid Anatomy of a Murder (1959) is another legal drama, consider one of the best, plays into the temporary insanity defense. that I think you would enjoy. Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) is a movie about the trial of four German judges and prosecutors accused of crimes against humanity for their involvement in atrocities committed under the Nazi regime.
I think that this is more of a philosophy than a principle, and As someone with a family member who was murdered, I must disagree. It's equally bad to convict an innocent person as it is to acquit a guilty person in my view. A jury who thinks like that is more likely to let a guilty person walk, and that's bad.
@@gravitypronepart2201 If a guilty person walks, it generally is because the government failed to carry its burden to prove that it had the right to lock a person up or take their life.
@@gravitypronepart2201 It is a principle part of both English and American law. It is know as Blackstone's ratio: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Some courts even use it to quantify a reasonable doubt standard in jury instructions, for example, that a juror should only vote to convict if he is more than x% certain of the defendant’s guilt.
About the immigrant Juror 11 (that chooses his English words carefully): he is played by a famous Czech actor. He could be representing all immigrants, a white immigrant, or a European immigrant, but I personally think he was meant to specifically represent Eastern European immigrants fleeing WW2 or the subsequent Communist governments of the Eastern Bloc in the 1940s and 1950s. I like to imagine his experiences in his home country make him a particularly strong defender of liberal democracy.
But it's crazy how the same things can be said for so many other immigrants going to the US when Juror 7 says: "they come over here, running for their lives, and now they think they should run the show". (I always think of Ukraine nowadays when Juror 7 says that.)
Just telling you this because Daniel thought he kinda looked Portuguese or Spanish lol.
Well... That's not a very typical eastern European accent. And I checked his background. So he was born in the times of the Austrian Empire. His grandfather, had the German name Wachsmann, which looks like, he was at least a part jewish. And of course, he learned right German in school and it supposed to be speakin' yiddish at home. Because of this and the way he speaks, he is more likely to be Swiss. The cliché of the watchmaker completes the picture. And besides, since the Soviets came to power, it has been very difficult to leave the Eastern bloc. That would imply that he must have left Europe before the war began. In almost 20 years, all dialects wear out, unless you are travelling in your own country.
@@melchiorvonsternberg844 I never said that's a very typical 'fresh-off-the-boat' Eastern European accent. Clearly Juror 11 is a well-spoken English speaker (given his solid vocabulary and lack of grammatical mistakes) who has had years of experience living in the US by the time of the movie, but he still has a 'noticeable' non-Anglophone accent.
I know Jiří/George Voskovec's background too and he himself identified as "a born and bred Czech", despite living in many places (like the US, France, and Czechoslovakia/Bohemia). Maybe he also identified as Jewish just as strongly. Not sure about that. (Also, I have no information saying he spoke Yiddish at home.)
How does speaking Yiddish & German, being part Jewish, and being a watchmaker make him SWISS? Switzerland doesn't have a monopoly on watchmakers + Czech people can work in Swiss watchmaking companies. Also, Swiss people did not have high incentives to flee their country, which was relatively (compared to the rest of Europe) stable and peaceful during the 1930s-1950s. I rate Eastern Europe as WAY more likely to be Juror 11's region of origin.
I agree that Juror 11 must have emigrated to the US either before WW2, during WW2, OR right before the Commies took power in his country (which was not immediately after the end of WW2 in 1945, btw. For example, the Commies took power in Czechoslovakia in 1948 after a coup).
I think his accent is just about right for someone who moved to the US as an adult around 1939. Not unintelligible, but definitely still noticeable (as of 1957).
@@YoonbeenPark Well... You have to take in account, that is highly likely, that in his a family, was spoken yddish. And he grow up, speakin' German at school as well. Yddish, has so much German influence, that it brought many German words into American English, like verkackt, or verschwitzt. It seems that sometimes it has had more influence on American than the German immigrants who, at a good 30%, make up the largest single ethnic group in the US population. And there's something else... As a Central European, I can distinguish the different dialects very well. I am also very familiar with the way Eastern Europeans speak English. I have a good friend who fled the former CSSR with her parents to escape Stalinist oppression. She was 10 years old. And even though she has lived in Germany for over 45 years, I can still hear the subtle nuances. I have been to Bohemia and Moravia several times (twice alone, before the Iron Curtain fell) and am very familiar with the way the people there speak. The whole melody and rhythm of the language is very different to the way the actor speaks. In this film, he speaks in a somewhat slow manner, which is typical of members of the Alemannic tribes who live in southwest Germany and Switzerland. The emphasis on the flow of words is also appropriate. The man sounds as if he has spoken German for a considerable part of his life...
@@melchiorvonsternberg844 Thanks for your input and I agree with most of what you say.
Your central point seems to be that he's a GERMAN-speaking European immigrant. I do not disagree. But that gets into the question of "does your language define your nationality/ethnicity?". Were 'Sudetendeutsche (Sudeten Germans)' Germans or Czechs? (My primary language is English, but I am ethnically and nationality-wise Korean.) I put less emphasis on Juror 11's accent alone and focus more on his attitude towards liberal democracy, given the historical backdrop of 1957.
I attribute Juror 11's slow speaking to his challenges with English rather than to his presumed native tongue (exemplified by the scene where he has to think about the phrase "notified by mail"). It is highly possible that Juror 11 is German (maybe even East German), but I put Swiss as much less likely than German, Austrian, or (German-speaking) Czech.
But hey. Who knows. Maybe he's Pennsylvania Dutch for all we know (and just doesn't bother correcting Juror 7's assumption that he's an immigrant). I just assume Juror 11 is Czech because the actor they chose to play him is Czech-American.
@@YoonbeenPark Well... The Swiss are very democratic people. But you're right in many ways. So it's my impression, that he could be Swiss, but it don't have to be. But the main thing is, he played the role very well, as a central European migrant, who takes the new life in the US very serious and he's proud about the republic, he live in...
I was just called for jury duty this week. My experience is that the people who show up almost entirely take their responsibilities seriously.
I’ve been on numerous juries and I found only about the the jury members really care the rest just go along with the rest.
Glad to hear it!
I have a law degree and was the NYC Coordinator for law related education, but I'm an educator, not a practicing attorney. I have been excused for jury duty because of my background. But you are right--people picked to serve as jurors generally take their responsibilities seriously.
I really like the scene of Juror 8 and Juror 4 discussing the probability of there being 2 or more similar switchblades. Juror 8 is an architect, so a building collapse must be 99.99% impossible. Juror 4 is a stockbroker, so a profit needs to be 51% probable. I imagine they have these probabilities in mind when they discuss how likely it is someone else used a similar knife. It shows how personal 'prejudice' like your job can affect your moral judgements too. Great writing.
I never realised that before but you are right - each mans inherent understanding of doubt is different of course but why ... that's a brilliant insight.
You guys are quickly becoming two of my favorite reactors. Keep up the good work and discussion! 👏
Thank you! ☺️
Juror #11 is Czech. Actually, I don't know if the script specifies the nationality, but I mean that the actor is Czech, so that is probably who he is playing as well.
Juror #11 represents an "other" who is automatically resented by a lot of non-"others" simply for existing. The defendant is also an "other."
Juror #11 is generally a curious case in both versions I've seen so far, this one and the 1997 TV-Movie remake. The English version only just states he is from Europe in both cases, but as you said, the actor in the original one is Czech, so, that is one way to interpret his cultural background, while in the German dub, they gave him a Swiss accent, probably due to the line about how the best watchmakers allegedly come from Europe, with Switzerland being most famous for it. The 1997 one interestingly chose Edward James Olmos for the role, an American of Mexican decent. They still state he is European if I'm not mistaken (seen that one by far not as often as the 1957 one), but even if they hadn't, his character would still work if the implication would be that he was a Mexican immigrant. The entire idea of the character is the "outside perspective", coming from someone who did not grow up in this society and still shows a deep understanding of the responsibility and weight of the position he is in, more so than the guy he is in most stark contrast to, no.10, and it's very noteworthy that he is also the one to confront no.7 when he switches his vote just to get out of there. There is soooo much to read into and interpret about the outsider to the system taking it more serious than almost anyone else there.
@@aleeceb4993 I love Edward James Olmos, I might actually watch the 1997 version just for that.
I was the foreman of a jury for a 1st degree murder trial in 1986. I wasn’t impressed with the jury pool before the jury was picked but the 12 of us picked all took our role seriously.
We were sequestered so spent night and day with each other. I was convinced he was guilty on the very last day and believed that everyone watched the trial exactly as I had. So, I was completely shocked when the first vote was 3 guilty and 9 not guilty.
We spent 2 days going around the room and discussing the case. I found it interesting that we each felt different parts were more important.
We eventually got to 8 guilty and 4 not guilty but were not going to get any farther. We had the ability to look at 2nd degree murder and finally voted to convict him of that. The final person to change their mind did break down and cry, feeling like she was sending a man to jail.
In all of the years since then I have never doubted the decision.
The interesting thing is he would have walked free if he hadn’t talked to the police before talking to a lawyer. He admitted being in the bar shooting at the victim but claimed the victim was also shooting and that he was defending himself.
The physical evidence was most important to me. All of the bullets and all of the shells were from a single gun. But if he would have said that he was never in the bar or even said nothing at all he would have walked after the first vote.
This case was 7 years after the crime and most of the witnesses were not in the USA legally so hadn’t kept the police with updated addresses. The ones that did testify weren’t positive on who was shooting except that there was only one shooter.
Very interesting, and I do realize that in a lot of cases its really not that easy to be able to be sure one way or another 🤔
She is the first reactor that mentioned the jury foreman wearing a polo shirt and necktie. Great catch - and excellent reaction.
Well, that was a fashion attack 😂
Thanks !
Xx Lucy
Something I learned recently: the walls of the set were movable so they played with the size of the room to make it feels more or less cramped / claustrophobic to increased or decrease the tension. Genius filmmaking
Peer Pressure! In the beginning, the pressure on everyone to convict was strong. Eleven to one.
Only Juror 8 had the guts to resist it. As the discussion continued, the resistance slowly increased.
We see the smiles from the jurors who found allies against the pressure.
By the end of the film, the peer pressure had been totally flipped to that of acquittal. Eleven to one - Juror 3.
I remember watching videos in school that showed the classic effects of peer pressure. Meek people being unable to dissent, but then finding the courage once they find allies. Classic psychological experiment.
Whether or not you think the accused is guilty, the prosecution still has to prove their case. My ex was a member of a jury in a murder case. Though everyone was sure the woman accused was guilty, they had to acquit her; the evidence was all circumstantial. The entire jury was upset because they felt they had to release a murderer. Six months later we found out that she had been acquitted in another murder case a year or so previously, under virtually identical circumstances. She eventually wound up in prison over another issue, not murder. As bad as it is that sometimes the guilty will go free, I'd rather that happen than people being put away based on jurors' feelings.
The prosecution proved that the boy is guilty already, juror No8 made a lot of bad points and finally got through with it. First of all saying "it is possible" is not relevant in court or in the juryroom, the definition clearly says they can send him to prison or onto the chair if there is no reasonable doubt. The important word is reasonable. And No8 made some very unreasonable points, best example is that he made them forget that someone said that there is only a one to a million chance that the boy lost his knife and only hours later someone else stabed the father with a very similar knife. And they were right in the first place, that is very unreasonable to assume. Later they just ignored that thought. Or what about the fake interrogation of non-sweater juror? He was able to remember 99% of things that happened days ago and just because he had one little detail wrong compared to the boy who remembered NOTHING, this means what? That No8 was right? I dont think so! And of course there was the eyewitness testimony, they never called the bailiff they never analysed the testimony. Did she describe things that only someone with good eyes was able to describe? They didnt even care, they just assumed that indentations around her nose means she has bad eyes, that very sloppy at least. But for sure their verdict is bad in any way you can imagine.
@PaulWinkle the prosecution didn't prove their case. They only presented their evidence.
It's up to the jury if they believed the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
@@PaulWinkle… I disagree with every point you make, but that’s not important because it’s a work of fiction! Since Reginald Rose (the author) clearly wanted the audience to side with juror #8, your argument is with him. Most of us are swayed by the dramatic arc, sorry you weren’t.
@@kjs438 And you think No8 saying "it is possible" all the time, refuted the prosecutor's points? That is not even relevant in court, therefore is just irrelevant gibberish. The only thing that matters is "reasonable doubt", but the doubt has to be reasonable and not just "it is possible". One juror got it right, everything is possible, therefore no one can be found guilty by the definitions of No8
@@PaulWinkle The verdict is correct.
The women's eyesight was in question. The prosecution didn't prove that she had perfect eyesight, and her behavior was that of someone who wears glasses. And not sunglasses either, since you don't wear them long enough to cause that kind of irritation. So for all they know, she may be blind as a bat, and her testimony is not reliable enough to believe she correctly identified the boy at night, 60 feet away, through a moving train.
Juror #8 proved the knife was very common. The prosecution was banking on the fact that the knife was unique as proof that the murder weapon was actually the same knife. And we know that's not the case - for all we know, every hoodlum in that area might be carrying that kind of knife, and one of them may have had a beef with the father.
You don't seem to realize that the prosecution's job in a murder trial is not simply to show their version of events is the most probable, but to show that other versions are impossible.
Then there's the fact that there were no fingerprints on the knife, and since the light went out immediately after the killing, the killer either wiped the knife clean in the dark, after turning the lights off, or was wearing gloves - either way, that indicates some level of preparation, and then you want us to accept that the boy didn't even bother to check out what movies were playing to use as an alibi? If he was under great distress, interrogated on the spot his mind overloaded with the grisly murder scene, it's reasonable to expect he wouldn't remember the movies. Perhaps he was so angry, and upset, that he wasn't paying attention to the movies, who knows.
Bottomline - the prosecution wants the jury to accept a very particular series of events took place - that the boy planned the murder, went out to buy the murder weapon, killed his father with an overhead stab despite his own experience indicating that wasn't a good way of stabbing someone, and putting his faith in a single strike against someone he knew was bigger, and stronger than him, with the advantage of intimidation due to past events. To remember to wipe the knife of fingerprints quickly, but first to turn off the light so he wouldn't be seen doing it (clearly concerned with possible witnesses), but not think to take the knife, and get rid of it. To come up with an alibi that gave him plenty of time to go, and check the movies that were playing, but being too lazy to do it, and just hoping to "wing it"
Again - it's not up to the defense, or juror #8 to prove the boy's innocence - just to show that the evidence of his guilt isn't reliable enough to go over without reasonable doubt.
In a U.S. criminal trial, the government prosecutor is the de facto legal representative for the victim, because the alleged crime is a violation of the codified laws of the state.
The same director, Sidney Lumet, made the great 1980s film "The Verdict," with Paul Newman in one of his greatest performances.
One of my fav movies of all time and as usual Lucy was on point!!! She really must be a top lawyer over there kok
Such a great movie for sure! 👌🏻
24 frames per second was settled on in early sound films. It’s the minimum amount of frames that you can include sound and not have audio distortion that humans can hear. This is because film doesn’t run continuously through the camera when filming or projector when showing films. The film moves and stops 24 times per second in front of a shutter that opens and closes as is passes in front of a light bulb. The sound was included on the side of the filmstrip.
Glad you were interested in this one. You should check "Anatomy of a Murder" - a similar story, but courtroom based, involving the early introduction to American criminal justice of murder caused by "irresistible impulse" or "temporary insanity" Highly rated for its accurate depiction of courtroom proceedings of the time. Based on a 1952 case, released in 1959.
The judge in the movie was an actual judge.
@@Stinger2222 Yes, Joseph Welch, famous as the lawyer who confronted Senator Joseph McCarthy - with the famous quote "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
In a way, this movie is part of the heart of our jury system. Many people have seen it in high school long before they ever served on a jury.
Also... the movie has a many very funny moments that relieve tension that people don't even realize are there consciously.
Excelent writing throughout 👌🏻
The defendant is presumed innocent. The jury is a check against the power of the state -- represented by the prosecution.
The jury doesn't determine whether the defendant is guilty, but whether the prosecution proves guilt.
If the prosecution fails, the defendant remains presumptively innocent.
A grand jury is the main check against the power of the state to bring court cases against individuals on flimsy evidence. There is no trial without an an indictment from a grand jury first. In some states, a judge issues an indictment instead of a grand jury. A petit jury like this one is the second stage. It is less about checking the power of the state and more about balancing the rights of the accused against the rights of a just society.
@@gunkulator1 Indictments can be brought based on sufficient evidence by a prosecutor without a grand jury process. DAs do it all the time.
The evidence underlying the indictment is then tested in court.
The Prosecution is the US is not supposed to represent the state, but Justice.
If the Prosecutor finds halfway through the trial that the defendant is innocent, the Prosecutor is supposed to request a dismissal.
Admittedly, this is rarely done, so additional measures are taken - the Prosecution must give all the evidence they will use PLUS all potentially exculpatory evidence to the Defense. Failure to do so is malpractice and risks dismissal with prejudice regardless of how minor said evidence is - witness the Alec Baldwin trial.
The next is the requirement of a jury, and the requirement of a unanimous verdict “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
This is designed to skew the process as much as possible away from control by the state.
And it still fails. Around 4% of Death Row convicts examined by the Innocence Project turned out to be innocent.
This rate is far less than Franklin would have liked - he said "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"
@@aaronbredon2948 "The Prosecution is the US is not supposed to represent the state, but Justice."
The state -- gov't -- prosecutes crimes in behalf of society. The goal is justice, but it is impossible for the prosecutor to not represent the gov't because the govt is by definition the rule of law and the law being enforced.
@jnagarya519 but the Prosecutor's job is not to win the case, but to convict THE PERSON WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME.
If the Prosecutor finds out the defendant did not commit the crime, their job is to let that person go, and continue investigating.
This is often contrary to the stated interests of the people in government who possibly appointed them, and for elected Prosecutor's, the people who elected them.
Being a good Prosecutor means you are always the bad guy.
Bring a bad Prosecutor who gets elected based on convictions (rather than correctly decided cases) can make one popular with the people (until it is found out that you were prosecuting innocent, but easy to convict properly - like the Central Park Five).
So there are plenty of bad prosecutors who work to convict people regardless of guilt.
The interest of Justice requires that Prosecutors work for the innocent. But that is political suicide, and many Prosecutors are elected.
That's why criminal cases are stacked in favor of the defense as much as possible. It still doesn't even the playing field, but it helps a little (for those who can afford lawyers).
Ideally, the State should pay Defense lawyers that win. And the rate should be fairly high (above the median per hour rate). That way, good criminal lawyers would also defend poor people.
It was amazing to see both Danny and Lucy putting their brain power to the analysis of the movie. Great reaction to the movie.
Thank you so much! ☺️
This was GOLD! A great film and a great reaction. Thanks, you two.
Thank you!! 🙏🏻
All those characters, as well as the plot, came out of one man's mind. Reginald Rose. He was also a producer on the film, along with Henry Fonda. Rose and Fonda used their own personal money to get it made. Rose originally wrote the story as a teleplay for TV (a program called "Studio One") back in 1954. Two of the actors from the TV version were also used in the movie version: Jurors #9 and #11 (the "old man" and the "immigrant")
I loved your foreign perspective on this, which is one of my favorite movies. Most of the actors were, or would be, significant stars, and the others were well-known character actors. The most obscure was and is Joseph Sweeney (#9), who was primarily a stage actor. He gave another terrifically powerful performance in "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit" (1956), a fine movie, playing a small part as a villain trying to steal his deceased employer’s estate.
In his autobiography, Henry Fonda (#8) talks about how difficult it was to shoot this movie (originally written as a television play and excellently expanded for this version). First, the actors had other commitments, so they had limited time to get it done. Also, the confined setting and tricky camera work made it essential for them to do a huge amount of rehearsing in the hot room (that’s real sweat you see).
This movie aims at realism, and succeeds, I think. I’ve been on a jury, and this is still how it is, although with more variety of races and sexes, and with less overt anger. Some don’t want to be there, some are bored, some are prejudiced, and so on. Although it is common, taking a preliminary vote is a very bad idea at the start of deliberations. People get locked into defending their position when that is done. Talking first is better.
To address some of your questions:
The reason why there were no women is that the jury pool usually came from tax records, and since far fewer women held jobs in those days, they had a low chance of being called for duty. The lack of Blacks or diverse ethnicities is not unrealistic for the time. The jury will reflect the demographics of the jurisdiction, which in those days was much less commonly mixed. However, the realistic reason is that this was originally a TV drama, and discrimination prevented Blacks from playing important roles in TV then.
Cooler cups are cones so that they can be efficiently stacked, one inside the other. Also, cones tend to discourage workers from lingering at the water cooler.
“Double features,” the showing of two movies for one ticket, were very common for most movies in those days, a practice that continued through the 1960s, when I was growing up.
In a career filled with terrific performances, I think this might be my favorite performance for Lee J. Cobb, who played Juror #3 (the father).
Hey was fantastic in this one. But unfortunately I think Im not familiar with the rest of his filmography.. 😔
The cone paper cups are for sanitary reasons. They encourage immediate consumption and reduce the risk of spills and trash being left around. They are still commonly used in many places.
I agree with you about eyewitness testimony. Even when the witness is completely honest and unbiased, they are often mistaken. Ten people witnessing the same incident might give you six or eight different stories.
I’ve done it myself. Seen pictures or video and seeing something I definitely remembered differently.
Yes, absolutely. I think its very easy for us to "trick" ourselves sometimes 😅
The little cone-shaped cups used to be very common at water coolers like this. They are simple, just a piece of waxed paper rolled up and glued together, and they stack together neatly.
They're cone shaped because it prevents people from putting them down; it is a subtle way to ensure the cups are mostly going into the recycling or trash cans.
Good one, D&L! A lot to think about from a movie that is almost 70 years old, right? It was fun rewatching this one with the two of you. Lucy, you are a hoot! 🤣Thank you both for sharing this one with us! I think you might also both enjoy Primal Fear from 1996, another crime/courtroom drama. Good stuff. Oh, and just so you know, there are many famous actors in this movie, but juror #2 is most famous as the voice of Piglet in the Winnie The Pooh cartoons. Thought you might enjoy knowing that!
Great, great movie!
Thank you ☺️ we are glad you enjoyed rewatching it with us!
(I don't think she has ever watched Winnie the Pooh though 😂😂)
@@ptthatswhatshesaid Oh nooz! The stories are Charming. Very cute! Though some of the characters might annoy Lucy to no end, LOL!
@@ThistleAndSea 😂😂
I realise I'm two months late on this, but I love watching reactions to this film. Having a Portuguese viewpoint was really interesting.
In the UK we have a jury system for serious crimes, vaguely similar to the US system (as the US system grew from ours!). I sat on a jury about 25 years ago - it also included a death, though it wasn't a murder and the person wasn't on trial for the death, just conspiracy. I have to say, that though no one on the jury was legally trained, and we all had different backgrounds and education, once we were in the jury room we took it very seriously. We talked for hours, called back evidence, asked for a transcript, and though the trial was complex and lasted four weeks, we spent another week reaching our verdicts on the nine cases involved.
Im glad to hear that people took that responsability seriously 👏🏻
The actors in this movie were masters of their craft back in the day. Some of the most famous actors of their time. The writers were amazing, and the camera work was perfect. This film is a masterpiece and a textbook lesson on making a movie. This movie was made over 65 years ago and has the same impact today as the day it was released.
In the American legal system if you cannot afford a defense lawyer one will be appointed to you. The court-appointed lawyers often lack experience. As for the jurors every time you renew your driver’s license your name is entered into a jury pool, If your name is picked you are called for jury duty. Even if called you may not actually serve on a jury. The prosecution and defense lawyers pick who will serve on the jury.
Usually, 30 people are called to serve on a trial jury, and from those people maybe 16 are chosen. 12 to sit on the jury and a few alternates in case a jury member gets sick or some other reason cannot complete the service on the jury after being picked to serve. I’ve been called for jury duty seven times and only served on one jury. If you are not picked as a jury member or an alternate you can go home..
As soon as I saw this I knew Lucy would love it.
How not to xD
Both District Attorneys(prosecution) and Public Defenders (state-appointed defense counsel) are paid the same, and it's a good decent amount. The contest between them is generally pretty well balanced.
I was on a jury once in the UK. I am not allowed to speak about what happened in the jury room. But one big difference was that all we had in the jury room were 12 chairs. and some lighting. It was a basement room with no windows. I think the idea is to focus the minds of the jury. Jurors are not allowed to do their own research. No one is allowed to question jurors about how they reach their decision. Like speaking about what happens in the jury room that would be contempt of court.
Water is provided and the restroom/loo is available.
Well, it does make sense to be like you’re saying.
Since we do not have jury trials it’s not easy to know the reality, so we highly appreciate the input !
Thanks !
Xx Lucy
Here in the US, we have the same rule about research. #8 finding another knife is artistic license; in the real world, that would be misconduct.
OTOH, jurors here usually _are_ allowed to talk about the deliberation after the trial, if they want to, but they can't be compelled to, and trying to do so or engaging in intimidation of one may be a crime.
I have also been on a jury twice. In the second case, I based my verdict on the evidence. But, we had a couple of holdouts. But keeping this film in mind, I wanted to hear EVERYTHING that countered my view in order o make sure I felt my conclusion was right in my mind. I only gave my points in delberation, but never to "convince anyone". I then listened to everyone carefully. I encouraged everyone to speak their mind without intimidation. We talked for a while and I even questioned my own conclusions to make sure any doubts were voiced. This film influenced me greatly in how important being on a jury is and weight of responsibility it carries.
4 of the actors were Academy Award Winners!
I think only three of them
@@danshaggy292 Martin Balsam, Jack Warden, Henry Fonda and Ed Begley Sr.
@jamesalexander5623 Warden was nominated, didn't win unfortunately :-)
@@danshaggy292 I thought he won for "Shampoo" he was really good.
I work for my state’s agency that provides attorneys for criminal defendants who can’t afford an attorney. While we have some attorneys on staff 80% of the cases are handled by private attorneys who we pay. While what we pay is not nearly what they could charge paying clients they do take these cases because they want to.
Another court room drama from this era you should consider is Anatomy of a Murder. If you want another movie that focuses on jurors I would recommend Runaway Jury.
My favourite line in this is always ... "He was just trying to bait me."./"He did an excellent job."
Lucy you expressed at first to expecting the movie to be boring cause it was such a simple promise. --------- What you didn't know was the high level of script writing you were about to experience with this movie. --------- The movie has no, effects, no massive sets, or fantastical heroes. -------- It just has a dynamic week thought out captivating alternate view of the trial process.------- in so glad you loved it.
Films like this, that forgo all the things you mentioned, are so much harder to make and be successful. This is why I love this, and another like it, The Breakfast Club. They focus on the human condition and require a great script, excellent actors that deliver performances that can touch us and bring about emotional reactions. It's facinating when diverse characters clash and we get to see their differences and, in the case of The Breakfast Club, what makes them the same, even though it's not obvious from the start. I'd like to see someone else attempt to make something else like this, but understand just how difficult it would be.
just watched you react to A Few Good Men. i've watched that and this one many times. fun watching a variety of people react to these moral questions told from an American point of view.
I never thought the judge at the beginning was "bored"...he was unemotional about the trial, as he should be. Plus, it's the 1950s- different style of movie making.
I think he's meant to be bored ... it's presented as a somewhat tedious open and shut case and for him he's basically just there for however long it goes for to sentence someone to death at the end after they are found guilty - he doesn't even have the ability to change that sentence because it's mandatory. If the case has been more debated then no doubt he may have had to make rulings or the like but instead he's just been sitting there massively over-qualified for the role this particular trial requires of him. I have to imagine that for someone who has spent 20 or 30 years in the law sitting there for that would be incredibly dull and tedious. It's almost foreshadowing the Jury room where almost everyone walks in expecting to deliver a speedy Guilty verdict.
It's also that he has to instruct the jury extremely carefully and specifically. Imperfect instructions, instructions with a bias, etc., of any kind that are seen to possibly affect the outcome of the trial are grounds to appeal the verdict and gain a new trial.
For more court room drama, check out "Primal Fear" (1996) starring Richard Gere, and Edward Norton in his first role, and "A Time To Kill" (1997) starring basically everyone, but the three main characters are played by Matthew McConaughey, Samuel L. Jackson and Sandra Bullock.
All great actors!
Great to hear perspectives from other nations. I watched a film called "Anatomy of a Fall" which is about a trial that takes place in France. I was lost. It's so different from how the U.S. does it that I spent most of the film trying to get my head around their procedures and methods.
I get it xD I suppose we would find it slightly more familiar to us (even though the French legal system is not that similar to ours). I suppose we find the American legal system and procedures slightly more familiar because of the many movies about it!
We recently saw a show that was about a court case in the north of Spain and we're shoked at some of the differences from the way we do things here in Portugal! 😬
Thanks for the reaction and sharing your thoughts. Much appreciated.
Thank you very much ☺️
In the U.S., a defendant is legally entitled to a defense attorney. If the defendant can't afford a lawyer, the court will appoint one free of charge. Today, every jurisdiction has a public defender's office with lawyers who are paid by the government, and whose only job is to defend people in these cases. Public defenders are usually good lawyers, but are often overworked, so they can't always give a defendant's case the attention it requires. At the time and place the movie was set (New York City in 1957), the public defender system had not been created yet. Juror #8 mentioned that the court had appointed a lawyer who might not have wanted the case. That lawyer would have come from a private practice.
32:33 Those paper cones were extremely common until the era of everyone carrying bottles around. 😄
Makes sense, just had never seen one before!
Usually I can't relate to movies this old but this is a brilliant masterpiece.
The key to this movie Brilliance is the actor's performance, each of them play del role (Characters) like professionals, whoever directed is a genius (knows his trade like a master painter conveys on the canvas his masterpiece).
I just found your channel the other day. I realize that this is 2 months later, but I love your analysis and the thoughtful consideration you put into your comments. I am 71 and grew up in the 1950's and 1960's. In the USA, we don't owe allegiance to our government or to the president. We owe allegiance to our country and to the Constitution. Our Constitution guarantees certain rights among which are freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and most important is the right to free speech. When I grew up, we could have heated debates, but everyone had the right to their own opinion. That is what is so dangerous about today's cancel culture. Today, special interests will gang up like we saw in the jury if you disagree with their view. We need to get back to intelligent debate. I can tell that you are both very intelligent, caring people. Thank you for sharing this with us.
Thank you very much and welcome 🙏🏻
Couldn't agree more about the need for healthy debate. Thankfully we still didn't get a full on cancel culture like you said here where we live, but it can happen of course. Family is a very important part of our culture, and since you will always have people with different opinions inside the family, you get used to argue in a friendly way xD most of the time!
while nowadays going to the movies is a dedicated thing with one of a small selection of films, movie theaters back in the day were cheap and can just go into the theater whenever. another thing is theyd be one of the few air conditioned buildings you can go to cheaply.
This is truly one of the greatest films ever made, certainly in the top five and my personal favourite film. A cinematic masterclass - acting, cinematography, direction. I believe it's used as a blueprint for people wanting to learn how to make movies.
A funny thing I get in my head with this film is the idea that this case could’ve ended up being a big break for the Defense attorney. I mean winning a murder case like this one? It would’ve been a huge boost to their career, which of course is a hilarious idea as they clearly phoned in the defense expecting a guilty verdict was inevitable. Juror #8 may have just made that lawyers career.😂
With him doing such a poor job though 🤦🏻♂️😂
Another rather similar classic film I think you’d REALLY enjoy is The Ox-Bow Incident, also starring Henry Fonda. It was nominated for Best Picture that year (1943) but lost to Casablanca. It’s not as good as Casablanca, but it’s very good. It’s similar to 12 Angry Men in some ways, but it’s not about a jury, it’s about a posse. You should check it out sometime, I’d love to see your take on it!
Great reaction! I knew you would enjoy this one! It's one of my favorite films of all time--so well written, acted, and filmed. The issue of juror guilt over letting a 'guilty' person go free is based on a misconception. The jury is not there to establish objective fact, but to determine whether the prosecution was able to prove their case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case the prosecution failed, despite the poor performance of the defense attorney. Fortunately juror #8 was there to prevent an overhasty guilty verdict...
Just found your channel and love it, watched your reaction to my Cousin Vinny, and 12 Angry men.
I did a quick look through the movies you have watched and have a suggestion that I did not see.
In1960 a movie called "Inherit the Wind" was released.
It is based on a true event that took place in 1925 in Dayton Tennessee.
The case took a teacher to trial for teaching evolution and was called the Scopes Monkey Trial.
The acting is top notch, and the court scenes are outstanding.
Great movie. Henry Fonda does get very lucky that every piece of evidence has a precise counterpoint, though
The Rainmaker (1997) is a great, somewhat underrated legal drama. It's half about an actual court case, but also half about the practicality of starting out as a young lawyer in less-than-ideal circumstances (in the US). Might be something you'd find interesting, coming as I do from outside the US
Oh interesting, someone becoming a lawyer 🤔
the fastest way to get a close measurement between feet and meters is to see one meter is about three feet. So 60 feet is 20 meters.
Not sure if a film about 12 Happy Men would've been as compelling as this one.
30 years ago, I was on a 6-person jury for a drug case. However, I had a very similar experience. They took a vote right away. It was 5-1. I believed he was guilty of possession of drugs. But I wanted to talk about it. We did find him guilty after about 2 hours. For the punishment phase, we had to deliberate again. This took about 5 hours. Because I refused to give the maximum of 20 years. The other 5 wanted to just give maximum and go home. Again, I wanted to discuss this. The thing that bothered me was that the public defender attorney barely spoke. He even looked like he was asleep a few times. When I saw this movie many years later, it was striking how similar my experience was. Like I said, he was guilty. We eventually gave him 10 years. Sadly, I think it was because they rest of the jury wanted to go home for the weekend. I wanted it to be 5. But agreed to 10 years. Otherwise, it would have been a hung jury.
Interingly, different states have different rules around juries. Sometimes, there are 12 jurors, sometimes less. Also, some states do not require a jury to be unanimous in order to get a conviction or acquittal.
In the US (whether state or federal), there is a prosecutor for the criminal aspect (state/federal - typically called a district attorney) and a defense attorney. The defense attorney can be hired by the defendant or, as the Miranda Rights say "if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you by the state." State defense attorneys are often over-worked and while not stupid necessarily, they may have trouble keeping up with their caseload. Many of the public defenders (appointed attorneys) do work in order to have a paying job to pay for tuition for their law school debts. While victims families are allowed to speak at sentencing, they don't get a say in the court proceedings otherwise. If a sentenced criminal comes up for early release for good behavior, the families may again speak to force the criminal to stay in jail to complete their sentence. It's not a guarantee, but it can happen. In a civil (non-criminal) case where an individual or company sues another individual or company (mix or match as appropriate) lawyers are hired to carry out the task. A jury (sometimes with only six people) may be used or just a judge will be used depending on the specific type of law pending. For example, if a judgement specifically requires knowledge of the statutes exactly, a jury might not be convened. Lastly, when appealing either civil or criminal cases, it must be because of a perceived violation in legal proceedings. As such, these don't typically have juries since legal statutes require a judge's knowledge. There are several levels of appeals courts all the way up to the supreme court in each state, then in federal district courts, ending up in the Federal Supreme Court of the United States (sometimes referred to as SCOTUS). SCOTUS typically ONLY rules on appeals or cases directly related to constitutional law. All states and the federal government must abide by the constitution of the US. We have separate Penal (criminal) code laws, but for the most part our "Civil Code" is combined and simply codified in separate parts for Commercial, Labor, and laws pertaining to individuals (e.g. property damage not covered by insurance or injury caused by any given item - not sure where that falls in you laws). Basically, if it is criminal, the penal code applies. For all else the civil code covers it in various codification.
I always found it interesting how Juror #3, the one who was last to change his verdict, doesn't just contradict himself with the case. He started out talking about "kids these days" not being respectful, but then he disrespects the older man. He talks about being disgusted when his son ran away from a fight, but even though he's being aggressive and confrontational with everyone, when Juror #6 threatens to knock him out if he disrespects the old man again, he says nothing and just walks away.
The conversion of feet to meters is one foot equals .3 meters, so 43 feet is about 13.1 meters.
One thing I think is important is that EVERY juror needs to agree, all those voting guilty need to be CONVINCED, you can't dismiss them as unreasonable or stupid. As any good lawyer should know...😊😊
Our court systems seem to be quite similar. There are defense and prosecution attorneys, if the defendant can't afford to pay an attorney, the court appoints him one. But, of course, their pay is low, so they are often not the best and brightest. Apparently it helps to have money! And as other have said, in those days theaters played two alternating films throughout the day. Usually one was the main feature and the other a secondary film, both often playing from morning into the night. Typically 5 shows per day. Theaters make most of their money selling concessions between shows, so the more breaks the better. For money reasons (and because of some very long "blockbuster" films) scheduling changed eventually to a single film playing repeatedly. Drive-in theaters, a peculiarly American thing, still regularly show double (sometimes triple!) features, often ending after midnight. They are a fun evening.
Would love to experience a drive-in theater, its such a foreign concept to us!!
Love your reactions! I vote for you to watch the Devil's Advocate soon!
Thank you ☺️
And will had that one to the courtroom movies list 😉
Great reaction to a classic. I'm subscribed.
Thank you! 🤗
Another thing for Europeans to remember is that any given state has its own laws and penalties. While some laws are the same, the penalties may be quite different. Also, for the purposes of this movie, this "kid" is not a juvenile. In 1950, juveniles weren't allowed to be tried as an adult (yet). Now they are if the statute deems the crime as substantial. For example, murder may not in many states, but murdering a police officer can get a juvenile tried as an adult. We have 50 states, many larger than the average European country and each with its own separate laws plus federal (applying to all states) laws.
Yes, the US is so massive!
Lots of the construction of the story has to do with the occupations of the jurors. Architect, traveling salesman, ad man, clock maker, small business owner, stock broker, construction contractor, high school football coach, banker, pensioner.
Also, the music is only at the moment he asks for the secret ballot.
Sydney Lamont directed this and later in 1982 directed another excellent film called The Verdict with Paul Newman and an actor in this movie. I highly recommend this courtroom drama also to you two lawyers. Also it wasn’t until 1973 I think that women were allowed to serve on a jury.
Always find it so interesting how people from other countries react to American movies. Reactors from other countries always seem to like the old black and white movies better than the new blockbuster big-time CGI movies today. Story more important than effects.
I would argue that most people (no matter where they come from) would prefer films with a great story over big special effects ☺️
This movie is more about how we allow our prejudices and personal baggage interfere with our thought processes. Some are disinterested, some are bigoted, and some (one) has baggage of his OWN kid's rebellion against him. Once those are taken away they finally see the truth of the case.
Since you guys are from Portugal and doing classics you need to do Spencer Tracey's Captain's Courageous. It is about a Portuguese fisherman in Gloucester Massachusetts in the States. It is based on a book by Rudyard Kipling who got the inspiration while staying in Gloucester. It is a coming of age story.
Very interesting! 🤔
Great Reaction to this Classic...... (My Standard Post So some might have already been mentioned).....
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.....
Great reaction, thanks!
Thank you!
This movie was set in New York City. Women could be on a jury in 1957 in New York.
There were only two states at that time that still did not allow women to be on a jury.
The juror bringing in evidence not admitted by the court at trial would be a mistrial.
Actually, that's not really true in this scenario. In criminal law, only the defense can call for a mistrial after the verdict is handed down. In this case the verdict was "not guilty." Furthermore, they really don't frisk people going into the jury room. Let alone in the 1950's. Metal detectors in federal buildings weren't a thing used back then.
@@dennislopez1272 The POINT is that the introduction of EVIDENCE by a JUROR that was NOT RULED admissible BY THE JUDGE before or during the trial, is grounds for mistrial.
Properly, in reality, jurors themselves can report that violation of the rules to the court.
If the judge knew about it. They brought that up when he presented it.
That's a problem I have with the movie as well. Any time I was on a jury for a multi-day trial the judge instructed the jurors not to visit the scene or do any independent research. Only evidence submitted in court may be considered. Call the "infraction" literary license. Still a fine movie.
@@randyshoquist7726 One of the other jurors called him on it, and he said something like "yes, I committed a crime"; but the judge didn't know so ...
The bigger problem is that the defendant is almost certainly guilty. All of those "isn't this possible?" things are *possible*, but the probability of them *all* being true at the same time, which would be necessary for him not to be guilty, is negligible.
Brilliant and interesting reaction. I must recommend the greatest courtroom drama ever made: Otto Preminger's Anatomy of a Murder from 1959, the year after this. Actually, I'm writing a book about Preminger so I have a special interest here. I've watched this film dozens of times, and each time I don't know which evidence I'm going to believe and which not, whether I'd vote guilty or not guilty. It's amazing because sometimes I have strong reasonable doubt and at other times not. I am It's also about the mistakes that lawyers make, rather than their brilliance.
Thank you very much ☺️
Last poll we made that movie didn't won but it still might in the future 😉
Next courtroom drama reaction for UA-cam will be Witness for the Prosecution
@@ptthatswhatshesaid Thanks a lot for replying. WftP is a good, entertaining film directed by Billy Wilder, like Preminger a Jewish exile from Vienna: they were friends and colleagues. Anatomy of a Murder is Otto's realistic answer to the melodrama of Billy's movie. It's too intelligent a masterpiece to ever top a poll, though, I fear.