12 Angry Men

[Tommy Tainant]

Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.

Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.

He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.

The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.

Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.

Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.

Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.

Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.

Great movie - America at its best.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.

Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.

He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.

The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.

Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.

Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.

Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.

Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.

Great movie - America at its best.

Easily one of the best movies ever made. And it's easy to see how the uber conservatives in the room are driven by emotion, racism, laziness.

I was foreman on a jury a while back and all but two of the people were reasonable. One woman was so angry the judge wouldn't excuse her from jury duty she told us when we got in the jury room she'd vote not guilty no matter what. It turns out that after a couple days of deliberations she also was swayed to consider the evidence rather than her emotion. The defendant was found guilty of one charge and innocent of the other though both decisions at first were split.

12 Angry Men does a great job of portraying 'reasonable doubt'. The part where E.G. Marshall who was unswayable but when asked if the woman would go to bed with her glasses on responded "no, no one wears glasses to bed. I'm convinced".

And notice Henry Fonda says throughout the movie that he doesn't know if the kid is guilty. He wasn't 100% sure of his own opinion either. The whole thing was to show that the standard of 'reasonable doubt' is what should be the deciding factor.

 

[Jackson]

That was a great movie and a riduculous post. You, my friend are a hater. You fallacies fall apart when the rest of the jury was open to changing their minds. Unlike you.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

That was a great movie and a riduculous post. You, my friend are a hater. You fallacies fall apart when the rest of the jury was open to changing their minds. Unlike you.

I mentioned the jurors in the middle.There were just two or three extremists in the room but, as usual, they made a lot of noise.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.

Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.

He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.

The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.

Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.

Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.

Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.

Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.

Great movie - America at its best.

Easily one of the best movies ever made. And it's easy to see how the uber conservatives in the room are driven by emotion, racism, laziness.

I was foreman on a jury a while back and all but two of the people were reasonable. One woman was so angry the judge wouldn't excuse her from jury duty she told us when we got in the jury room she'd vote not guilty no matter what. It turns out that after a couple days of deliberations she also was swayed to consider the evidence rather than her emotion. The defendant was found guilty of one charge and innocent of the other though both decisions at first were split.

12 Angry Men does a great job of portraying 'reasonable doubt'. The part where E.G. Marshall who was unswayable but when asked if the woman would go to bed with her glasses on responded "no, no one wears glasses to be. I'm convinced".

And notice Henry Fonda says throughout the movie that he doesn't know if the kid is guilty. He wasn't 100% sure of his own opinion either. The whole thing was to show that the standard of 'reasonable doubt' is what should be the deciding factor.

People really resent jury duty over here, never been called myself. Touch wood.

 

[Tank]

It's a movie, not reality

 

[IsaacNewton]

Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.

Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.

He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.

The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.

Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.

Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.

Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.

Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.

Great movie - America at its best.

Easily one of the best movies ever made. And it's easy to see how the uber conservatives in the room are driven by emotion, racism, laziness.

I was foreman on a jury a while back and all but two of the people were reasonable. One woman was so angry the judge wouldn't excuse her from jury duty she told us when we got in the jury room she'd vote not guilty no matter what. It turns out that after a couple days of deliberations she also was swayed to consider the evidence rather than her emotion. The defendant was found guilty of one charge and innocent of the other though both decisions at first were split.

12 Angry Men does a great job of portraying 'reasonable doubt'. The part where E.G. Marshall who was unswayable but when asked if the woman would go to bed with her glasses on responded "no, no one wears glasses to be. I'm convinced".

And notice Henry Fonda says throughout the movie that he doesn't know if the kid is guilty. He wasn't 100% sure of his own opinion either. The whole thing was to show that the standard of 'reasonable doubt' is what should be the deciding factor.

People really resent jury duty over here, never been called myself. Touch wood.

I actually enjoyed it. It is a lot like you see on tv or in movies. After the verdict a few of us stayed behind to talk with both lawyers and have them ask us questions which I've never seen before. The defense told me that he asked the judge to remove me after some comments I made in the courtroom to clarify something someone else had said on the jury. I was like "what do you want, we aren't pros here most of us have never done this".

I recommend to anyone to do it at least once.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.

Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.

He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.

The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.

Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.

Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.

Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.

Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.

Great movie - America at its best.

Easily one of the best movies ever made. And it's easy to see how the uber conservatives in the room are driven by emotion, racism, laziness.

I was foreman on a jury a while back and all but two of the people were reasonable. One woman was so angry the judge wouldn't excuse her from jury duty she told us when we got in the jury room she'd vote not guilty no matter what. It turns out that after a couple days of deliberations she also was swayed to consider the evidence rather than her emotion. The defendant was found guilty of one charge and innocent of the other though both decisions at first were split.

12 Angry Men does a great job of portraying 'reasonable doubt'. The part where E.G. Marshall who was unswayable but when asked if the woman would go to bed with her glasses on responded "no, no one wears glasses to be. I'm convinced".

And notice Henry Fonda says throughout the movie that he doesn't know if the kid is guilty. He wasn't 100% sure of his own opinion either. The whole thing was to show that the standard of 'reasonable doubt' is what should be the deciding factor.

The language and arguments used by the trumpers is the exact same shit used today. They even mock the immigrant because of his accent and er politeness.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.

Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.

He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.

The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.

Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.

Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.

Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.

Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.

Great movie - America at its best.

Easily one of the best movies ever made. And it's easy to see how the uber conservatives in the room are driven by emotion, racism, laziness.

I was foreman on a jury a while back and all but two of the people were reasonable. One woman was so angry the judge wouldn't excuse her from jury duty she told us when we got in the jury room she'd vote not guilty no matter what. It turns out that after a couple days of deliberations she also was swayed to consider the evidence rather than her emotion. The defendant was found guilty of one charge and innocent of the other though both decisions at first were split.

12 Angry Men does a great job of portraying 'reasonable doubt'. The part where E.G. Marshall who was unswayable but when asked if the woman would go to bed with her glasses on responded "no, no one wears glasses to be. I'm convinced".

And notice Henry Fonda says throughout the movie that he doesn't know if the kid is guilty. He wasn't 100% sure of his own opinion either. The whole thing was to show that the standard of 'reasonable doubt' is what should be the deciding factor.

People really resent jury duty over here, never been called myself. Touch wood.

I actually enjoyed it. It is a lot like you see on tv or in movies. After the verdict a few of us stayed behind to talk with both lawyers and have them ask us questions which I've never seen before. The defense told me that he asked the judge to remove me after some comments I made in the courtroom to clarify something someone else had said on the jury. I was like "what do you want, we aren't pros here most of us have never done this".

I recommend to anyone to do it at least once.

Maybe when I retire. Couldnt afford to do a few weeks at the rate they pay.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.

Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.

He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.

The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.

Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.

Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.

Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.

Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.

Great movie - America at its best.

It is a brilliant film and one of Sidney Lumet's best films along with "Fail Safe" made in 1964 again with Henry Fonda and "Serpico" made in 1973 and "Dog Day Afternoon" made in 1975 both with Al Pacino. In "12 Angry Men" Lee J. Cobb and E. G. Marshall are also excellent.

I agree with Jackson, there was no need for you to indulge in your political rant and your Trump Derangement Syndrome.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.

Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.

He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.

The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.

Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.

Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.

Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.

Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.

Great movie - America at its best.

Easily one of the best movies ever made. And it's easy to see how the uber conservatives in the room are driven by emotion, racism, laziness.

I was foreman on a jury a while back and all but two of the people were reasonable. One woman was so angry the judge wouldn't excuse her from jury duty she told us when we got in the jury room she'd vote not guilty no matter what. It turns out that after a couple days of deliberations she also was swayed to consider the evidence rather than her emotion. The defendant was found guilty of one charge and innocent of the other though both decisions at first were split.

12 Angry Men does a great job of portraying 'reasonable doubt'. The part where E.G. Marshall who was unswayable but when asked if the woman would go to bed with her glasses on responded "no, no one wears glasses to be. I'm convinced".

And notice Henry Fonda says throughout the movie that he doesn't know if the kid is guilty. He wasn't 100% sure of his own opinion either. The whole thing was to show that the standard of 'reasonable doubt' is what should be the deciding factor.

People really resent jury duty over here, never been called myself. Touch wood.

I actually enjoyed it. It is a lot like you see on tv or in movies. After the verdict a few of us stayed behind to talk with both lawyers and have them ask us questions which I've never seen before. The defense told me that he asked the judge to remove me after some comments I made in the courtroom to clarify something someone else had said on the jury. I was like "what do you want, we aren't pros here most of us have never done this".

I recommend to anyone to do it at least once.

I do not support Trial By Jury for the below reason you give:

"I was like "what do you want, we aren't pros here most of us have never done this".

All trials should be by Judicial Panel comprised of legal professionals and not lay persons who have no education or training in legal situations.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.

Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.

He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.

The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.

Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.

Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.

Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.

Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.

Great movie - America at its best.

It is a brilliant film and one of Sidney Lumet's best films along with "Fail Safe" made in 1964 again with Henry Fonda and "Serpico" made in 1973 and "Dog Day Afternoon" made in 1975 both with Al Pacino. In "12 Angry Men" Lee J. Cobb and E. G. Marshall are also excellent.

I agree with Jackson, there was no need for you to indulge in your political rant and your Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I havent seen Fail Safe in over 40 years. Think I might track it down.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.

Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.

He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.

The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.

Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.

Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.

Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.

Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.

Great movie - America at its best.

Easily one of the best movies ever made. And it's easy to see how the uber conservatives in the room are driven by emotion, racism, laziness.

I was foreman on a jury a while back and all but two of the people were reasonable. One woman was so angry the judge wouldn't excuse her from jury duty she told us when we got in the jury room she'd vote not guilty no matter what. It turns out that after a couple days of deliberations she also was swayed to consider the evidence rather than her emotion. The defendant was found guilty of one charge and innocent of the other though both decisions at first were split.

12 Angry Men does a great job of portraying 'reasonable doubt'. The part where E.G. Marshall who was unswayable but when asked if the woman would go to bed with her glasses on responded "no, no one wears glasses to be. I'm convinced".

And notice Henry Fonda says throughout the movie that he doesn't know if the kid is guilty. He wasn't 100% sure of his own opinion either. The whole thing was to show that the standard of 'reasonable doubt' is what should be the deciding factor.

People really resent jury duty over here, never been called myself. Touch wood.

I actually enjoyed it. It is a lot like you see on tv or in movies. After the verdict a few of us stayed behind to talk with both lawyers and have them ask us questions which I've never seen before. The defense told me that he asked the judge to remove me after some comments I made in the courtroom to clarify something someone else had said on the jury. I was like "what do you want, we aren't pros here most of us have never done this".

I recommend to anyone to do it at least once.

I do not support Trial By Jury for the below reason you give:

"I was like "what do you want, we aren't pros here most of us have never done this".

All trials should be by Judicial Panel comprised of legal professionals and not lay persons who have no education or training in legal situations.

Magna Carta ?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.

Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.

He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.

The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.

Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.

Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.

Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.

Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.

Great movie - America at its best.

It is a brilliant film and one of Sidney Lumet's best films along with "Fail Safe" made in 1964 again with Henry Fonda and "Serpico" made in 1973 and "Dog Day Afternoon" made in 1975 both with Al Pacino. In "12 Angry Men" Lee J. Cobb and E. G. Marshall are also excellent.

I agree with Jackson, there was no need for you to indulge in your political rant and your Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I havent seen Fail Safe in over 40 years. Think I might track it down.

I agree Fail Safe is another great movie. I never miss either one, Fail Safe or 12 when they are on. I also recommend Dr Strangelove by Stanley Kubrick. I believe the cockpit of the B-52 in Dr Strangelove was built entirely from one photo of a B-52 cockpit and the production crew using a B-29 for reference as well. The 'movie' cockpit of the B-52 was so accurate even though it was built mostly by creative people guessing that Kubrick got a call from the authorities asking if they had used real blueprints or other material. Kubrick called his production crew and said "I hope you haven't used any restricted pictures or material to build that thing". They hadn't.

And more recently War Games is a great send up of these earlier films though more whimsical.

 

[2aguy]

Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.

Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.

He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.

The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.

Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.

Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.

Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.

Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.

Great movie - America at its best.

Yes.....they let a guilty killer go free....and you applaud it...

https://film.avclub.com/did-12-angry-men-get-it-wrong-1798232604

So what if they probably let a guilty man go free?

Clearly, Reginald Rose, who wrote the original teleplay as well as the film script, intended the unnamed defendant—we’ll just call him The Kid, as the jurors generally do—to be innocent. There isn’t some hidden twist that nobody’s ever noticed until now. But in attempting to make the scenario as dramatic as possible, Rose inadvertently and unwittingly made it almost impossible for The Kid not to have killed his old man.

------

No. What ensures The Kid’s guilt for practical purposes, though neither the prosecutor nor any of the jurors ever mentions it (and Rose apparently never considered it), is the sheer improbability that all the evidence is erroneous. You’d have to be the jurisprudential inverse of a national lottery winner to face so many apparently damning coincidences and misidentifications.

 

[2aguy]

And more on why the kid was guilty.....

Here’s what has to be true in order for The Kid to be innocent of the murder:

• He coincidentally yelled “I’m gonna kill you!” at his father a few hours before someone else killed him. How many times in your life have you screamed that at your own father? Is it a regular thing?

AND

• The elderly man down the hall, as suggested by Juror No. 9 (Joseph Sweeney), didn’t actually see The Kid, but claimed he had, or perhaps convinced himself he had, out of a desire to feel important.

AND

• The woman across the street saw only a blur without her glasses, yet positively identified The Kid, again, either deliberately lying or confabulating.

AND

• The Kid really did go to the movies, but was so upset by the death of his father and his arrest that all memory of what he saw vanished from his head. (Let’s say you go see Magic Mike tomorrow, then come home to find a parent murdered. However traumatized you are, do you consider it credible that you would be able to offer no description whatsoever of the movie? Not even “male strippers”?)

AND

• Somebody else killed The Kid’s father, for reasons completely unknown, but left behind no trace of his presence whatsoever.

AND

• The actual murderer coincidentally used the same knife that The Kid owns.

AND

• The Kid coincidentally happened to lose his knife within hours of his father being stabbed to death with an identical knife.

The last one alone convicts him, frankly. That’s a million-to-one shot, conservatively. In the movie, Fonda dramatically produces a duplicate switchblade that he’d bought in The Kid’s neighborhood (which, by the way, would get him disqualified if the judge learned about it, as jurors aren’t allowed to conduct their own private investigations during a trial), by way of demonstrating that it’s hardly unique. But come on. I don’t own a switchblade, but I do own a wallet, which I think I bought at Target or Ross or some similar chain—I’m sure there are thousands of other guys walking around with the same wallet. But the odds that one of those people will happen to kill my father are minute, to put it mildly. And the odds that I’ll also happen to lose my wallet the same day that a stranger leaves his own, identical wallet behind at the scene of my father’s murder (emptied of all identification, I guess, for this analogy to work; cut me some slack, you get the idea) are essentially zero. Coincidences that wild do happen—there’s a recorded case of two brothers who were killed a year apart on the same street, each at age 17, each while riding the same bike, each run over by the same cab driver, carrying the same passenger—but they don’t happen frequently enough for us to seriously consider them as exculpatory evidence. If something that insanely freakish implicates you, you’re just screwed, really.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.

Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.

He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.

The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.

Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.

Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.

Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.

Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.

Great movie - America at its best.

It is a brilliant film and one of Sidney Lumet's best films along with "Fail Safe" made in 1964 again with Henry Fonda and "Serpico" made in 1973 and "Dog Day Afternoon" made in 1975 both with Al Pacino. In "12 Angry Men" Lee J. Cobb and E. G. Marshall are also excellent.

I agree with Jackson, there was no need for you to indulge in your political rant and your Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I havent seen Fail Safe in over 40 years. Think I might track it down.

It's an excellent film, available on Amazon very cheap. Another excellent film is "Seven Days In May"

"Seven Days in May is a 1964 American political thriller motion picture about a military-political cabal's planned takeover of the United States government in reaction to the president's negotiation of a disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union. Directed by John Frankenheimer, it stars Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, Fredric March, and Ava Gardner. The screenplay was written by Rod Serling based on the novel of the same name by Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II, published in September 1962."

Seven Days in May - Wikipedia

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.

Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.

He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.

The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.

Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.

Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.

Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.

Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.

Great movie - America at its best.

Easily one of the best movies ever made. And it's easy to see how the uber conservatives in the room are driven by emotion, racism, laziness.

I was foreman on a jury a while back and all but two of the people were reasonable. One woman was so angry the judge wouldn't excuse her from jury duty she told us when we got in the jury room she'd vote not guilty no matter what. It turns out that after a couple days of deliberations she also was swayed to consider the evidence rather than her emotion. The defendant was found guilty of one charge and innocent of the other though both decisions at first were split.

12 Angry Men does a great job of portraying 'reasonable doubt'. The part where E.G. Marshall who was unswayable but when asked if the woman would go to bed with her glasses on responded "no, no one wears glasses to be. I'm convinced".

And notice Henry Fonda says throughout the movie that he doesn't know if the kid is guilty. He wasn't 100% sure of his own opinion either. The whole thing was to show that the standard of 'reasonable doubt' is what should be the deciding factor.

People really resent jury duty over here, never been called myself. Touch wood.

I actually enjoyed it. It is a lot like you see on tv or in movies. After the verdict a few of us stayed behind to talk with both lawyers and have them ask us questions which I've never seen before. The defense told me that he asked the judge to remove me after some comments I made in the courtroom to clarify something someone else had said on the jury. I was like "what do you want, we aren't pros here most of us have never done this".

I recommend to anyone to do it at least once.

I do not support Trial By Jury for the below reason you give:

"I was like "what do you want, we aren't pros here most of us have never done this".

All trials should be by Judicial Panel comprised of legal professionals and not lay persons who have no education or training in legal situations.

Magna Carta ?

I'm sorry I am not that up on a lot of the Magna Carta, are you saying that it ensures Trial By Jury or what?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.

Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.

He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.

The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.

Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.

Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.

Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.

Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.

Great movie - America at its best.

It is a brilliant film and one of Sidney Lumet's best films along with "Fail Safe" made in 1964 again with Henry Fonda and "Serpico" made in 1973 and "Dog Day Afternoon" made in 1975 both with Al Pacino. In "12 Angry Men" Lee J. Cobb and E. G. Marshall are also excellent.

I agree with Jackson, there was no need for you to indulge in your political rant and your Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I havent seen Fail Safe in over 40 years. Think I might track it down.

If you like these old films, I have a Film thread that I start in January 2016 that has many good posts in it although no posts in two months I notice, so if you like these old films and want to post about them then do so:

Why don't people watch films?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

And more on why the kid was guilty.....

Here’s what has to be true in order for The Kid to be innocent of the murder:

• He coincidentally yelled “I’m gonna kill you!” at his father a few hours before someone else killed him. How many times in your life have you screamed that at your own father? Is it a regular thing?

AND

• The elderly man down the hall, as suggested by Juror No. 9 (Joseph Sweeney), didn’t actually see The Kid, but claimed he had, or perhaps convinced himself he had, out of a desire to feel important.

AND

• The woman across the street saw only a blur without her glasses, yet positively identified The Kid, again, either deliberately lying or confabulating.

AND

• The Kid really did go to the movies, but was so upset by the death of his father and his arrest that all memory of what he saw vanished from his head. (Let’s say you go see Magic Mike tomorrow, then come home to find a parent murdered. However traumatized you are, do you consider it credible that you would be able to offer no description whatsoever of the movie? Not even “male strippers”?)

AND

• Somebody else killed The Kid’s father, for reasons completely unknown, but left behind no trace of his presence whatsoever.

AND

• The actual murderer coincidentally used the same knife that The Kid owns.

AND

• The Kid coincidentally happened to lose his knife within hours of his father being stabbed to death with an identical knife.

The last one alone convicts him, frankly. That’s a million-to-one shot, conservatively. In the movie, Fonda dramatically produces a duplicate switchblade that he’d bought in The Kid’s neighborhood (which, by the way, would get him disqualified if the judge learned about it, as jurors aren’t allowed to conduct their own private investigations during a trial), by way of demonstrating that it’s hardly unique. But come on. I don’t own a switchblade, but I do own a wallet, which I think I bought at Target or Ross or some similar chain—I’m sure there are thousands of other guys walking around with the same wallet. But the odds that one of those people will happen to kill my father are minute, to put it mildly. And the odds that I’ll also happen to lose my wallet the same day that a stranger leaves his own, identical wallet behind at the scene of my father’s murder (emptied of all identification, I guess, for this analogy to work; cut me some slack, you get the idea) are essentially zero. Coincidences that wild do happen—there’s a recorded case of two brothers who were killed a year apart on the same street, each at age 17, each while riding the same bike, each run over by the same cab driver, carrying the same passenger—but they don’t happen frequently enough for us to seriously consider them as exculpatory evidence. If something that insanely freakish implicates you, you’re just screwed, really.

He doesnt have to prove anything. The prosecution has to prove he did it. And they couldnt.