He was also in the WW2 movie A Walk in the Sun. It was very jarring the first time I watched it and heard Piglet's voice coming out of a soldier.

Simone... That is IMPRESSIVE...

He was also Jack the Ripper in Star Trek TOS

And The Odd Couple, always reminding everyone of the time, and going to Florida 'off-season'.

Good catch Simone. Damn.

So true !

And only a few decades from the advent of sound in cinema. Seems so strange now.

Definitely, how come hollywood isn't capable of writing such awesome scripts is beyond me though? Would only make sense that it would be the other way around. I have no idea how to write a script, but honestly watching films like this makes me really want to try it

@@cassu6 I think part of the reason is that audiences generally don't have the attention span to actually listen to dialog anymore. Now they prefer action, flashy effects and catchy one-liners. ☹

Don’t forget Sydney Lumet. He directed some of my other favorites “Dog day afternoon” and “The Pawnbroker”

The cast is great. Not just Fonda, but all of them. EG Marshall was in Creepshow. Jack Klugman did the Twilight Zone among other things. If you watch movies or tv shows from this time period up to the '80s, you'll see a lot of these guys popping up in everything.

Every cast member could claim this was their best performance, and any level of pride would be completely justified.

The more times I've watched it, I've become more astounded by Lee J Cobb's performance. Fonda is excellent but Cobb's final outburst followed by him collapsing and sobbing is still my favorite scene of this masterpiece.

@@flibber123 I'm pretty sure that several of them appeared on The Twilight zone. Jack Warden and Martin Balsam and John Fiedler. . Of course they all appeared alot on TV in the 60's and 70's and 80's.

Yes that is such a poignant moment, and then it's followed up by the jurors walking outside and you find out these men didn't even know each others names

Yes. For all we know the kid was guilty. All the jurors did was decide that the state didn’t make the necessary case. I like that aspect as well.

The movie, it seems to me, is not about the trial at all but rather about the jurors and the decision making process. Each juror has strengths and weaknesses, beliefs and prejudices, and they have to fight it out to get to the truth. When all is said and done, the movie is about each one of us. I'd like to be Henry Fonda in this movie but I confess, to my shame, that I, more often than I would like, all the other jurors at different times.

Jurors never really know for sure what happened, as they weren’t there. So they’ll always be reliant on evidence & how well it’s presented. Ideally, every case would be decided on only the evidence and not how good the lawyers/cops/forensics/judges are at their jobs, or jurors’ preconceptions & prejudices. In reality, as this story highlights, it’s just lots of imperfect people that hopefully come to the correct conclusion.

@@TedLittle-yp7uj Well said.

I love how it so perfectly illustrates why we should always be vigilant about not letting the fallacied thinking of others, influence our own thinking. So many people are susceptible to groupthink, and they aren't even aware of it. Social conditioning is a powerful force that operates on a sub-conscious level in our minds. We need to get in the habit of constantly reviewing our beliefs. Analyzing them with a healthy dose of skepticism, so we can weed out any fallacied ideas that may have infiltrated our minds.

He starts by saying something like "look at these sissies letting their emotions take control" Yet by far he is the most emotional one! Almost getting an innocent man killed. All of their flaws are visible and revealed FROM THE START! Even the good guy! And even the good traits can be seen as flaws. The guy who started it all by doubting the evidence ALSO doubted himself and asked for a vote without him! Almost getting an innocent man killed. Every singe char remains consistent. God this movie is so good! The only one i couldn't figure out was that no sweating guy. I couldn't see his flaw/strength He was pretty based tho and functioned on pure logic. it is like he figured out already that all the evidence aside from the woman testimony was not to be trusted. So to me he dident look stubborn...Just isolated from the others. In his own mind.

"I have no personal feelings about this. I just want to talk about facts." The genius of this line being throw away, but setting up his entire arc. Muah!

@@aziouss2863 He's actually the juror I respect most after Fonda and the old man. He doesn't change his vote till not guilty until all of the evidence has been put under suspicion. But as soon as all the evidence has been questioned he changes his vote. Unlike the other two he doesn't keep a guilty verdict for personal reasons, but purely based on what he believes to be damning and reliable testimony.

I've never made a habit of studying the history of jurisprudence throughout the world, but I've no doubt it is indeed a curious concept. 🤔 😐

I did jury service - oh, 23 years ago now. It wasn't as dramatic as this but it was a serious case that involved conspiracy, death and serious injury, and we spent four and a half weeks altogether. As this was in the UK I'm not allowed to talk about what went on in the jury room but suffice it to say, everyone took their roles really seriously, even those who'd tried to get out of serving or got bored occasionally. And then, as you say, we all said goodbye and walked off. It remains a very special - and yes, odd - time of my life. I still see one of the other jurors walking round town occasionally and I wonder if he feels the same. The judge took us off the jury rota for 10 years, but I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

I was a juror about 2 years ago. It was the other way around -- after the winnowing, I was the one holdout not convinced that there was enough evidence to positively send a guy off for a long jail sentence. Two of the other jurors suggested we review the evidence, and in one of the photographs one of them pointed out an oddity on the door handle of the alleged perp's car, which matched the car found in the perp's driveway. (There was no photo of the license plate, and it was a more common model than a couple of the other jurors wanted to admit.) In the end I said "I think you flipped me," to which the jury forewoman said "You've got to be kidding me." No, I just wanted to be sure. In the end it turned out that he had knocked over two other convenience stores that night but they couldn't bring that into evidence at trial. I was just making sure we did our jobs right, and we got the right result.

@@markharris1125I also did jury duty on 6 criminal cases. Not as dramatic but being part of a group that holds someone’s fate is humbling and a little scary. I did think we delivered a just verdict.

But there were no explosions! Isn't that what makes a movie great nowadays?

Yea, and in real life that's how it's supposed to be. There are many factors to consider in the idea of finding someone "not guilty". Even though it sounds like a positive assertion that the person did not commit the crime, it isn't. It's the simple idea that we can't be sure they are guilty so we can't convict them. There is a subtle but important difference in saying "I do not believe he is guilty" and "I believe he is innocent."

Watch "Anatomy of a Fall"

​@@Lord_of_BonesConservative activist Thomas Sowell has done videos and commentary on this film that addresses the possibility that the jury just acquitted a guilty man. He tries to make a case of things that the jury got wrong and how the kid was actually guilty. I'm not convinced.

@@moeball740 It doesn't really matter if he's guilty or not. The characters in the film could not, in good conscience, find him guilty. Neither the prosecution nor the defense did their job. That isn't the fault of the jurors. They have to go on the (lack) of information they were given.

I was in an amateur theater group for a couple of years. Pretty good director. Anyways, I learned that they did mount a production of 12 Angry Jurors at some point, and this being one of my favorite films, I was pretty disappointed I missed the opportunity. But we did The Compleat Wrks of Wllm Shkspr (Abridged) so I got that going for me :P

At this time, in New York, women could sit on juries, but it was rare. And remember that the personal experience that inspired the play and then the movie happened years earlier. Note that most women cared for the children while husband's work. Day care was not really a thing and we were still in the baby boom.

Originally a CBS TV movie 1954 , it was adapted to stage in 1955 and then this movie 1957. Then Sergio Leone got a great idea, 1968 he put Henry Fonda in a movie as bad guy , Once Upon a Time in the West

@@markkondilis9237 Man I hear you, we did it aswell, called it guilty/not guilty because of copyright stuff and it was a bit abridged. I was 8 and actually astonished how much text one can memorize when you're comitting to it (it was just a last-year-of-school optional subject, so nothing to brag about but it was dope to experience theater like that for a year). Such a great and important piece of culture that'll probably always have relevancy

I wasn't aware of this. I guess old dogs can learn new tricks. Thanks for the Info.

Would you really prefer that all cases were decided by a computer?

Yeah, but half the people saw the gorilla. Eyewitnesses can be accurate.

Eyewitnesses are considered one of the least reliable forms evidence in criminology for a reason.@@jasonseipler2665

I don't know if that's an accurate test they were told to focus on one thing. As far as eyewitnesses it depends, if for example if I'm in the yard and look over and see my next-door neighbors who I've known for years aurguring and one pulls out a gun and shoot the other I would say that I could reliably identify that it was my neighbor. Now if it's someone I don't know or never saw before and I'm asked to pull someone out of a lineup or identify by mugshots that that's different.

@@jasonseipler2665 He didn't said they are never accurate. Just that it's not nearly as reliable as one may think.

When you look at older movies from let´s say the 30s there are many, many instances where you can see women in the jury. It apparently was a pretty common occurence, only for this play Rose chose twelve men because of the interplay and characterization.

Also, I don't know if George noticed the door to the Women's room at 7:10...

@@scoots66 Isn´t that bathroom just for women attending trials?

...and that was for white women, for women of color it's a different story

@@creativeuserneim And your point is...?

Have u seen coogans bluff with Lee j cobb clint Eastwood? One of the only few men to put clint in his place!

Lee J Cobb, yup...very powerful actor. He had the best performance in this one, maybe not by a lot but I think the best.

Not a second earlier and not a second later, in fact. EG Marshall's the actor here. Very good actor.

I especially liked that he never dismissed or ridiculed arguments when they were brought up. He acknowledged them, he just didn't think they were enough to override the testimony of the woman.

Juror number 4 is my favourite character for that very reason. He isn't biased, and he has no personal investment that colours his judgement. He is interested in the facts and the arguments, and he's willing to both listen to other people's arguments and intelligently makes his own.

True, #4 don't get enough praise in general. He's fair and objective, sticks to the facts without following a personal agenda. And there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that speaks against the boy (after all, the boy could very well still be guilty, we'll never know). To not just dismiss all of that right away is totally correct. But after all of the evidence turned out to be at least not as "safe" as it appears first, he admitted that there is reasonable doubt. And the important point is "reasonable", because you could ofc doubt and question absolutely anything.

Yes! I liked him the most. He says he is a broker; I call him The Mathematician. He is 100% impartial; he doesn't allow emotions to affect his judgement; he admits being wrong without shame or even hesitation. Brilliant. BTW, my nicknames for the jurors: 1) The Foreman, 2) The Piglet, 3) The Father, 4) The Mathematician, 5) The Slums guy, 6) The Blue Collar, 7) The Fan, 8) The Fonda, 9) The Elder, 10) The Bigot, 11) The Immigrant, and 12) The Advertiser (probably will change it to The Superman now).

I want to see a sequel where he reconnects with his kid. :(

@@Argumemnon What would you call it? "One happy man"??😜😂🤣😄

As I commented a very well written script that is equally well directed & performed. It is truly a shame that the art of making great movies (& music) has died in favour of making a fast buck, I feel sad that we unlikely see many great movies like this in the near future as 'The Hook' (like the big effects) today is more important that the story itself with as George mentioned is often broken (not consistent) just to get 'The Hook'.

@@TheFalconerNZ The "hook" today isn't special effects, it kind of never has been, I don't know anyone who goes to see a movie just for effects, the "hook" today is the "IP", a pre-established franchise which means something to people already usually because they did tell a great story decades ago and it's the memory of that which "hooks" people into seeing the new entries not visual effects, nobody gives a rats ass about those.

Agreed Lee J Cobb, very powerful.

Same bro! I jumped out from my sear 😂

And they nailed it. Great job!

Well, your siren works. Now try your lights.

But he slipped through our fingers!!

It should be essential viewing for film students.

​@EmlynBoyle Aa someone who tends towards the more popcorn movies...this movie should be required viewing...period.

@@unvoicedapollo3318 100% 🤘🏼

Yours is the first comment on this movie that mentions different lenses were used. I've seen it mentioned for several other reviewers that the set was movable and the director gradually shrank the room. Anyone have sources saying which it was?

@@steveoz8416 I do. The book Making Movies, by Sidney Lumet, the director. He wrote about it.

I liked how when he went to demonstrate the stabbing action, the other jurors were actually worried he might really do it!

I agree. First time watching as a teenager that scene did create doubt in my mind. But rewatching as an adult, as soon as he threw the knife down, my first thought was: "how did he get through security with it?" That took me out and lessened the impact. Maybe back then, the jurors were not searched (nor nobody else). Different times.

This movie came out a year before I was born, so I dont know what the laws were back then. Wouldn't the jury be sequestered? and not be able to go buy the knife. Wouldn't If someone had brought a knife in and was not presented at trial it wouldbe a mistrial.

While I am an advocate for movies making sense in some way, sometimes you have to suspend your disbelief for minor things like that.

@@stevenwoodward5923The trial presumably took more than one day, and it is extremely rare that a jury is completely sequestered (put up in hotel rooms, meals brought in, not allowed to go out, etc.), so the jurors were still going back to their own homes every evening after the court recesses. That was certainly the case when I was a juror in a murder trial for a few weeks a little over a year ago. The jurors should, however, have been instructed not to try to investigate the crime on their own time, but to rely only on the evidence presented to everyone in court and on the court record. Today that mostly means don’t try to search the internet for information about the crime, but jurors also aren’t supposed to visit the crime scene on their own and the like. So, Henry Fonda’s character did very likely violate the instructions that the judge gave to the jurors about not investigating on their own, and his introduction of new evidence in the jury room that he had improperly gathered and presented off the record could have become grounds for an appeal had it somehow been used to sway the verdict toward guilty.

@@charlesedward5047 60 years ago, even in major cities, security was rarely necessary, even in court rooms. And sequestering juries is also rare, even now. No one pointed a finger and yelled "Racist!" at the guy, they just turned their backs, they recognized it then even without any indoctrination from a college professor.

Additionally, I've read that they physically closed the walls in closer as the movie went on to create even more claustrophobia.

Add to it, the cast is a who's who of Broadway and Hollywood's best character actors of the era. Hope S and G start deeply diving on more older films.

Lumet has been great his entire career.

Yes, you got that from IMDb trivia.😄

@@rustincohle2135 IMDb trivia got it from me.

100% agree. The 80s and 90s were a wealth of great/campy movies worth watching but the previous 50 years also created many timeless classics that are waiting to be discovered by new generations

Psycho 1960, Casablanca 1942 should be the next watched

and yet, the discussion ended up being so personal, even intimate. They really got to know the innards of each other without even knowing each others' names.

👏@@tinatidmore3809

...and THE VERDICT

​@@vincentsaia6545 And "Prince Of The City". Treat Williams, who died this year, should have been Oscar nominated.

I was 11 years old when I saw Fail Safe. Scared the heck out of me.

And "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead."

@@michaelorlowski7722 His last film.

I'm always baffled when I hear people say statements like _"for me,_ this is one of the best films ever made" or _"in my opinion,_ this is one of the greats" about some of the greatest films of all time. Cuz it's like, well... yea. That's literally *everyone's* opinion of this film. Like it's not an individual opinion, it's _collectively_ considered one of the all-time greats. People say the same with _Casablanca_ and _The Godfather._ Cuz it's like, _"are you guys not aware of the reputation of this movie?"_ Everyone thinks it's great, It's ain't just you.😆

Lee j cobb was really great in a movie with clint Eastwood called coogans bluff.

Speaking of Henry and Jane Fonda, their story has some unusual twists. Not surprising for the 1960s and 1970s, father Henry became more conservative as he aged while daughter Jane was very liberal. They had some real nasty arguments and became estranged and hardly spoke to each other for years. Then came the movie On Golden Pond in which they played an estranged father and daughter finally reconciling after years of animosity towards each other. Off screen was mirroring the on screen story as well as Henry and Jane finally settled their differences. Henry won an Oscar for his portrayal but was too ill to attend the Academy Awards so Jane tearfully accepted his Oscar for him. Quite the turnaround! Henry died soon afterwards.

Also, EG Marshall as Clark's father in law in Christmas Vacation ("Don't piss me off, Art.")

I remember Jack Warden from " Problem Child" with John Ritter.

But be careful or he'll slip through our fingers!!

I don't agree.... No comparison. Twelve Angry Men was a well-thought out story with a point and a skilled writer telling it... Casablanca is a mess of a film; they barely had a script when they started shooting, about fifty guys had a hand in writing the dialogue, no idea what they were going for... it's just liked for the nostalgia and attractive actors and a couple of good scenes - entirely by accident. It's wildly overrated.

@@theuninformedobserver7878 yeah casablanca is a typical (for the time) hollywood melodrama, maybe executed better than most. more of a crowd-pleasing audience favourite than a really important boundary-pushing piece of cinema like Citizen Kane or the Red Shoes

@theuninformedobserver7878 Wildly overrated? A melodrama, that has actors of the caliber of Bogart, Rains, Bergman, Greenstreet, Lorre is elevated beyond that tedious term. There's always that guy that has to be abstract, and different. When it comes to Casablanca, that's you. Bless you.

I’ll settle this 5 Black and White films they need to watch next Casablanca Inherit the Wind Creature from the Black Lagoon The best years of their lives And just because they are Canadian Run Silent Run Deep And honourable mention because it is a Canadian film “Zero Hour”

OMG you guys haven't seen Casablanca ???

What a cool experience. And it's a great idea to use this in school.

cap

@@nlberglov8458 nah, its something i think about when i feel like shit. Lol. At least i did something cool in my life

@@gotpaladin9520 I would have loved (still would!) to participate in a project like that. It's such an interesting story with so much room for character expression! I love that you cherish the experience. Have a great life, bro.

Wow I never thought of it that way.

I thought it was so cute that Simone recognized this! It’s such a distinct voice lol I always imagine Piglet when I hear him talking

He performed as Piglet for like 60-70 years

@shawnmiller4781 he was 80 when passed away so hardly 60-70 years. Try 1968-2005...that's the year he passed. R.I.P.

The gentle, friendly guy in the film ... who knows how to use a switchblade.

@@RideAcrossTheRiver just like me 😁

@@vincegamer No, because Klugman's character wasn't smug about it.

Yup we need more of the older stuff!

i want them to see the 1975 'The Count of Monte Cristo'

_Whatever Happened to Baby Jane_

He also played George Halas the head coach of the Chicago Bears in the tv movie Brian's Song one of my favorite movies

Yes! This builds the tension perfectly.

There are plenty of riveting thrillers still being made. Old Hollywood doesn't have a monopoly on good films.

@@patjacksonpodium Any suggestions? I stopped watching, mostly, 'Hollywood' about five years ago, could do with something decent to watch. My point was really aimed at the content of this film and how it deals with the subject matter.

@@notjustforhackers4252 I really liked Ford v. Ferrari. You don’t have to be a car guy to appreciate the drama in it.

@@notjustforhackers4252 What kind of movies do you like? I tend to drift towards horror, scifi, war, and historical films mostly so that's where I'm coming from.

Wouldn't surprise me. She did reference "Those Old Scientists" in one of the videos.

@@PaperbackWizard oh she’s definitely a Trekkie, given her reaction to Brent Spiner in Independence Day

A dozen great actors, a great lighting cameraman, a fantastic script and a great director... job done.

I have never seen anyone react to Inherent The Wind, I would love it if they ever do

I was waiting for Awkward Ashley to review that one since it takes place in Tennessee. I’m pretty sure that growing up in a religious family in the part of the world she has heard of the Scopes Monkey Trial

Based on the Scopes Monkey Trial which was a real case argues by William Jennings Bryant and Clarence Darrow. Harry Morgan, Claude Akins and Fred Astaire

@@shawnmiller4781 The trial that allowed evolution teaching in public schools. Landmark case

@@jeffperdue2804 And it was also a total publicity stunt on the part of the town

Hell yeah that movie is awesome. Everyone in that movie was fantastic.

I have read somewhere that he comes from former Czechoslovakia.

Jiri (George) Voskovec was big star in pre-WWII Czechoslovakia

I love Once Upon a Time in the West. You can definitely see it's influence in Tarantino's work. It's also one of the few films I can remember where Henry Fonda plays a villain.