Latest / All The Right Movies / 12 Angry Men (1957) | Ep. 69 - Part 1

Transcript

12 Angry Men (1957) | Ep. 69 - Part 1 · All The Right Movies

0:08
On the point of that night, a man's life is at stake.
0:12
I'm just saying it's possible and I say it's not possible.
0:18
Here's what I think happened. Not going to be positive about
0:20
anything. I don't understand you people.
0:23
12 men with the smell of violent death in their nostrils.
0:27
What's the matter with you guys? 12 Angry Men was released in
0:35
1957 and became a classic of courtroom drama, Sydney Lumet's
0:39
directorial debut with a tale of 12 jurors deliberating the fate
0:43
of a young man accused of murder, the film with a tense
0:45
exploration of justice, prejudice and the power of
0:48
reasonable doubt. My name is John and the men
0:51
sweating through their suits with me are Matt.
0:54
He's a common ignorant slob. He don't even speak good
0:57
English. And Westie.
0:58
Gentlemen, that's a It's a very sad thing to be nothing.
1:01
ATRM are locked in a room to talk Lumet, Henry Fonda and why
1:05
you shouldn't judge a film by number of locations so quick.
1:08
Wesley's got a ball game to get to.
1:10
Oh yeah. Hello and welcome to All the
1:31
Right Movies, A Lousy Bunch of Bleeding Hearts, and a podcast
1:35
on classic and hit films. So what?
1:38
Definitely. We tell the story of Hollywood
1:40
one film at a time here. We do, we do.
1:42
And this is 1 we've been building towards for years,
1:45
isn't it? It is, yeah.
1:47
One room, 12 men, all angry and what many consider the greatest
1:51
courtroom drama ever made. It's not body of evidence,
1:55
unfortunately. Not that's next year.
1:58
That's next year. It is 12 angry men.
2:01
Yes. Sounds great.
2:02
Furious. So, Wesley the 13th angry man?
2:06
Yeah, Why are we covering this one?
2:07
Well, I mean, it's a classic. It is in every sense of the
2:11
word. I think from a technical point
2:13
of view, it blows me away. And then there's the performance
2:15
elements that blow me away, and it's just in one location, which
2:17
also blows me away. I think there's so much to
2:20
admire here. And it is, like I've just said,
2:23
I mean, it's technically perfect as film Megan.
2:25
It's so proficient and it's a debut.
2:27
It's ridiculous. It's like definitely maybe.
2:31
And just as angry as well. Just as angry. 5 angry men, 12
2:35
angry men. It's absolutely fine.
2:37
I came to this late. I think I was kind of like mid
2:40
20s when I first saw it and it was like, what on earth?
2:45
Why have I missed this? This is just magic.
2:47
It's just lightning in a bottle. It's absolute magic that's been
2:50
captured here. And I remember finished watching
2:52
it thinking that can never be replicated.
2:54
I don't think anyone will ever be able to do anything even
2:57
close to that. An hour and a half flies by,
3:00
blows me away. Everything about it is pretty
3:02
much top notch. So yeah, I'm dying to get into
3:05
this one. Yeah, well, I saw this a little
3:07
earlier, so when I was a teenager for the first time.
3:10
OK. I think I watched it just
3:11
because of the reputation it had.
3:13
Yeah, I mean, like 50s black and white films were in massively
3:16
high on my list then, but I wasn't disappointed.
3:19
Yeah, loved it. First time I saw it.
3:21
It's probably the only film that when I recommended it to people,
3:24
no one's ever came back saying that it was less than brilliant.
3:27
Yeah. Tends to go down a bit better
3:29
than Primer when I recommend that.
3:33
They're you too. That reputation hasn't lessened
3:36
since then. Universally acclaimed, often
3:38
called one of the greatest films ever made.
3:40
So we'll be talking about all that in terms of the acting, the
3:43
writing, the directing, all very meaty things to get into on this
3:47
one. I think definitely.
3:48
And despite the lack of locations or budget, the behind
3:51
the scenes tales very interesting, especially from a
3:53
creative point of view. So if that's your thing, stick
3:56
around. Absolutely.
3:57
And there's a lot of laughs in this film, at least for me
3:59
anyway. So should be maybe?
4:02
Unnecessarily so, but we'll find out.
4:04
So I mean, great to revisit Old Hollywood again.
4:06
And they don't come much bigger than this one, not really.
4:09
And Matt, what about you and 12 Angry Men?
4:13
Similarly to you John, when I was first getting into film,
4:15
this one came up all the time. And all those lists in Empire No
4:19
100, Films You have to see before you die, etcetera.
4:22
And I'll be honest, this one always sounded like it was going
4:25
to be a bit like homework. Like it's all in one room with.
4:28
Yeah, a bit of a slug. Yeah, a bit of a slug.
4:30
It's just talking. I'm sure it's historically
4:32
important, whatever, but didn't sound dynamic or massively
4:35
enticing. But then I watched it and you
4:38
know, not for the first time, realised what a fool I was.
4:40
I mean, the way it almost imperceptible, gets its claws in
4:44
you and before you know it, you are hooked on just these 12 men
4:47
arguing over points of law. And you get to the end and you
4:50
go, Yep, I get it. That's why it's so revered,
4:54
because everything that it could have been, it's not.
4:56
It's not dry. Yes, it's talky, but in a really
4:59
exciting way. And once you've seen it, I think
5:02
you spend the rest of your life really hoping you get called up
5:04
a jewelry service one day. So a 12 Angry Man was released
5:08
on April the 10th, 1957, produced by a Ryan Nova
5:11
Productions and distributed by United Artists.
5:14
The film was shot on location in New York, directed by Sidney
5:17
Lumet and written by Reginald Rowe was adapting his own
5:20
teleplay. It stars Henry Fonda's Jura #8.
5:23
Martin Balsam is Jura 1. John Fiedler is 2.
5:26
AG Marshall is 4. Jack Klugman is 5.
5:29
Edward Bins is 6. Jack Warden is 7.
5:31
Joseph Sweeney is 9. Ed Begley is 10.
5:34
George Voska Vek is 11. Robert Webber is 12 and Lee
5:38
Jacob at 3, the angriest of all the men.
5:41
Nice. I love that.
5:44
I thought we might have to go. Like, you know when you do
5:46
something and it keeps going away after it, it's got a ball
5:53
game to get there. Well, here we go then.
5:55
Let's run it up the flagpole, see if anyone salutes it.
5:58
Should we? Absolutely.
5:59
Let's do it. We're starting at the beginning
6:01
of 12 Angry Men. At the beginning. 12 Angry Men
6:10
start where most courtroom dramas finish.
6:13
The end of the trial, a young man's accused of murder, and our
6:16
twelve men are here to separate the facts from the fancy.
6:19
We're going to be talking about the knife scene that plants the
6:22
first seeds of doubt and the secret ballot that follows.
6:25
But first, it's the introduction to the jury room and the men in
6:28
it. Yeah, Yep.
6:29
So we open in an unnamed courthouse, tracking shots come
6:32
thick and fast. We meet the 12 angry men of the
6:34
title, then get the details of the King, but not before we see
6:38
our first vote where certain juror stands alone.
6:42
Westie, how are the introductions for you?
6:44
I mean, perfect introductions. This isn't it great.
6:46
Just the symmetry of that courthouse with that tilt,
6:49
Brilliant. And it's beautiful symmetry.
6:50
And then you're in and you're like, oh, it's this guy walking
6:53
through the door. Oh, no, no, it's this guy on the
6:55
balcony. Or maybe it's this guy coming
6:56
out the elevator. No, no, no, it's definitely this
6:58
guy off the phone. Spielberg does that all the
7:00
time, Absolutely loves it. Just a lead in and then scores
7:03
to somebody else. I mean, that's just 47 seconds.
7:06
And then we'll get to the door and we still don't know what's
7:07
going on. And then we're in that courtroom
7:10
and the judge is just bored. Do you know, you've got to come
7:13
to this conclusion? And if you do be unreasonable,
7:16
doubt he's going to get the electric check and you hurry up
7:18
and get this over with. And it's just has this really
7:20
sombre tone to it all of a sudden.
7:22
And then that's that shot of that kid when he's just looking
7:25
and he's just so forlorn and lost.
7:27
But that cross transition is so long to take you from his face
7:32
into that room. And then when we get into that
7:35
room, I mean, if this is just beautiful, I love the titles.
7:37
I love the fact they're all lowercase.
7:38
We'll get into that. That's absolutely fantastic.
7:41
It's like Helvetica before Helvetica.
7:42
It's wonderful. And we'll start with kind of a
7:45
security camera view. We are at the top of the room.
7:48
Yeah, it's great. We're just high up and wide.
7:51
We're sevens like playing with the fan or something, isn't he?
7:53
Yeah, it's standing next to the window.
7:54
He's looking out. He's a bit full on.
7:56
The old man's in the toilet. He's trying to buy a little bit
7:58
more time. We don't quite know who's who or
8:00
where's what. There's all this incredible
8:02
small talk and you completely forget that this is a one.
8:06
This is 1 take. It's one shot, just travelling
8:09
around as easy as you like in 1957.
8:11
It's ludicrous. It's absolutely insane to just
8:14
put all this in one shot and then go from character to
8:17
character, get little nuances about who they are.
8:20
You know all the expositions here without it being boring.
8:22
This is the hottest day of the year.
8:23
Do you want to stay at GUM? It's a beautiful introduction,
8:26
really, really well set up. And this room looks huge and by
8:30
the end of the film it's tiny and that's so good.
8:33
I mean, that was there was methods put in place and we'll
8:35
go over that as well. And as it continues to go, as
8:38
this shot continues to go, you get pulled into that room.
8:41
It's just an incredible introduction.
8:44
I agree. I mean, right from the first
8:45
images we get quality. Yeah.
8:47
That opening shot you're talking about pans us up the outside of
8:49
the courthouse. Yeah.
8:50
Then we cut to inside and the pans back down, which is a great
8:53
way to take us in. Yeah, it's up, down, yeah.
8:55
And there's brilliant long tracking shots all over the
8:57
place. Before we meet any main
8:58
character, we'll start with those two men in the foyer,
9:01
centre of frame. It looks like they could be the
9:02
main characters. But then the guy with the
9:04
briefcase walk into the foreground.
9:06
The camera follows him. He goes into an elevator, the
9:08
camera follows the guy that comes out, and then another guy
9:10
comes out of a phone booth and we'll follow him down the
9:12
corridor, and then we come across the courtroom draw.
9:15
I mean, great visuals. And I think the idea is that
9:18
setting up how like ordinary this is.
9:20
This is a building full of, like, drama and stories.
9:23
And where'd you seen one of them?
9:25
So I think it's a great way to establish scale, how big the
9:28
place is and what it represents and how small our story is
9:31
without ever really saying it. And then in the courtroom,
9:34
there's loads going on there as well.
9:36
I love how the first lines of the film are the judges charged
9:38
to the jury. And we only need to get one good
9:41
shot of the judge and he's like lazily drinking a glass of
9:44
water. So it sets up this feeling that
9:46
everyone's maybe a bit too casual about the case or the
9:48
taking this seriously enough or. The board, yeah.
9:51
Yeah, exactly. Yeah.
9:52
And another great tracking shot is that one that moves across
9:54
the jury listening to the judge the first time you see, you
9:57
don't think anything of it. But on RE watches each year as
10:00
mannerisms are basically their character for the rest of the
10:03
film. Jura 7 is looking round like he
10:05
doesn't want to be there. Jura 3 is giving the kid
10:07
absolute daggers. Yeah.
10:09
So the characters are kind of there visually straight away.
10:11
And this is all before we even enter the jury room and then get
10:14
another 8 minutes long tracking shot.
10:16
It's just like filmmaking excellence kind of from the
10:19
start. Yeah, the opening jury room shot
10:21
establishes all 12 jurors of, as we've said, it's about 8 minutes
10:25
long and made-up of 18 camera movements.
10:27
Sydney Lumina said the shot took half a data plan and seven hours
10:31
to light and set up and they got it on Take 4.
10:34
Wow. Yeah.
10:35
I mean, that kind of precise approach to the film making is
10:37
something we get all the way through the film.
10:38
Yeah. And something we're probably
10:39
going to be talking about quite a bit.
10:41
I think so, yeah. Yeah, I mean, the technical
10:43
achievement just of that shot, I think it's pretty staggering.
10:46
I mean, you just mentioned it, Wesley.
10:47
What I love as well is how it saves the story.
10:50
Lumet's not just showing off. You're setting the story up in
10:54
that one shot. We get a sense of, like, the
10:56
claustrophobia of the room. We learn that it's scorching hot
10:59
outside. We get a feel for every jurors
11:01
personality, either through words or just through body
11:03
language. And what I think he's doing as
11:05
well is telling us this is going to be a film about details and,
11:08
like, observations. Yeah, it's a shot that kind of
11:10
says pay attention to everything because, yeah, everything
11:13
matters. Yeah, like we know where the
11:15
bathroom is, we know where the entrance is, where the exit is.
11:17
Like we know that whole room in 8 minutes.
11:19
Yeah, it's great. Stan, there's no messing around.
11:22
Most of them don't want to be there.
11:23
They want the vote straight away.
11:24
So straight into the vote. The foreman doesn't really know
11:27
what's going on, but four corrects him, which tells you a
11:29
lot. About Four will go into his
11:30
character a lot and how he's approaching this.
11:33
But when I come back to this scene, the first word, I just
11:36
love going back to it and looking at who raises their hand
11:39
for guilty straight away, which is 347 and 10.
11:43
Yeah, everyone else is hesitant about it.
11:45
Some of them are clearly waiting to see which way the wind is
11:48
blowing from the start before committing to it, looking at
11:50
what everyone else is doing. And that sets up everyone really
11:53
smartly for how easily or not they're going to be swayed by
11:56
all of its arguments further into the film.
11:59
And the key thing for it here is he seems to be the only one who
12:02
really understands someone's life is at stake here, which is
12:05
what's troubling him. It's weighing heavy on him in a
12:07
way that it doesn't same do for anyone else.
12:10
And he's not even straight in with, well, this evidence
12:12
doesn't hold up. This doesn't make sense.
12:15
Like he says, he doesn't know, and that's not good enough.
12:18
All he wants to do is let's just talk about this.
12:20
Yeah. Which I think is just a life
12:22
lesson that still holds up today.
12:24
So lots of great character work here already setting it up.
12:27
Who's going to be easily swayed and who's not?
12:30
Yeah. Yeah.
12:31
I mean, we had some initial setup in the courtroom and then
12:33
in the jury room and then you write aid voting not guilty is
12:36
an end of Act one kind of plot point.
12:39
But we're only 11 minutes in, so it is straight in and I just
12:43
find it so engaging. As soon as the juror start
12:46
talking about the details of the case, I'm totally in.
12:48
Every single time. It sets up the core conflict of
12:51
the film. Straight away we see the juror
12:53
aids like an independent thinker and his key argument.
12:56
Like you say, Matt, he's not saying the boy didn't do it.
12:58
It's all about reasonable doubt, like a key part of the justice
13:01
system. What if we're wrong?
13:03
It says he sees that a lot, to be fair.
13:06
And that drives a narrative from here.
13:08
So it sets up its themes and the big ones, but I still find it
13:11
incredible how entertaining it all is.
13:14
When AC is not guilty, we go around the table and he sure
13:16
explains why they said guilty and develops all their
13:19
characters, reveals all the deals of the case in a totally
13:22
believable way. I think it's like fantastic
13:24
writing as well. So I think this is already a bit
13:26
of a master class how to make a potentially dry subject really
13:30
engaging. I just can't take my eyes off it
13:32
kind of from the start. And real studies carried out by
13:35
legal scholars say that this kind of situation in a jury room
13:39
where one juror stands against the others, is actually very
13:42
rare in reality because research shows Jews tend to conform to
13:45
the group's consensus, and peer pressure swears outliers.
13:48
What's the popular vote? And it's even more rare for one
13:51
juror to change the minds of everybody else in the room.
13:54
I would imagine so. Yeah, yeah, but that's one of
13:56
the messages of the film, I think, isn't it?
13:57
The importance of not just going along with the crowd.
14:00
You should form your own opinions based on the evidence.
14:03
Yeah. So that's the opening.
14:04
We've established the conflict. Time to see if Juror 8 can back
14:07
up his reasonable doubt, I think.
14:09
See what he's got to say, Yeah. From there, we get into the
14:14
evidence and the prosecution's case around the unique murder
14:17
weapon seems pretty airtight. Juror #3 certainly thinks so.
14:20
Yeah. He.
14:22
Certainly does. And not juror 8, though he pulls
14:24
out a knife of his own. And after a secret ballot,
14:27
another juror changes their vote.
14:28
And not guilty. Yeah.
14:30
Westie, the knife scene. How was this for you?
14:32
What? An influential film this is, I
14:34
mean, it's even reached out to the Outback.
14:36
I mean Crocodile Dundee. All over this.
14:39
You call that a knife? That's a knife.
14:42
But, yeah, the thing that strikes me about this film,
14:46
every piece of evidence is a set piece.
14:48
It's like an action sequence. Yeah, it is.
14:50
All of these things are just like action sequences, and this
14:52
is the first one. And you think, well, how
14:54
impactful can this really be? And he said, well, it's just
14:57
possible now. Everything is possible.
15:00
That's the wonderful thing about this.
15:01
And that's what you get from here.
15:02
He's just got that absolute belief that coincidence is
15:05
possible. Did it fall through all these?
15:07
Possibly, Yeah. And he just kind of really,
15:09
really stands up for what he believes.
15:12
And there's empathy here and there's morality here.
15:14
And empathy, immorality comes in the form of a switchblade knife,
15:18
which I think is incredible motif.
15:20
It's just the ultimate act of violence.
15:22
It's treachery as well because it's hidden.
15:24
So I think the iconography, views and that kind of knife, he
15:27
uses that to save somebody in the first instance.
15:30
This is where the whole film shifts.
15:32
That camera shot where we see the knife stuck in the desk and
15:35
it holds on the knife. He stands up and the camera
15:38
stays where it is and his hand goes in his pocket.
15:40
And then it's just bang. That's the same knife.
15:43
He's like, I bought that two blocks away from his house.
15:45
It was $6. Yes, I broke the law.
15:47
I'm like, fucking yes. And it was like the fourth time
15:50
I watched this, I went, actually, do you know it's the
15:53
killer, his Kaiser Soze. He knows the kids innocent
15:58
because he killed his dad. That's how he's so sure.
16:02
What? A theory that is what you take
16:04
with that theory in place. And it's like, that's how he's
16:07
so sure. And then the older guy is
16:09
Kobayashi and they've been working together all the way
16:11
through. It ends the same.
16:12
It ends unusual suspects. As this walks out, you just
16:15
expect on the knife and his pocket is the last thing you
16:17
see. But this is the first set piece.
16:19
Anything is possible. The film's blown wide open and
16:22
you just think right where we're going to go, What else is he
16:25
going to prove? And it's so, so engaging.
16:28
It really is one of the most famous scenes in the film, I
16:30
think isn't. It.
16:30
Yeah, I think so, yeah. It's so impactful the way it's
16:33
done. It really is.
16:34
I love it. When Jurafo was talking about
16:36
the knife. He's kind of laying out the
16:37
story for us, basically. And halfway through, he stops
16:40
and says, am I right so far? And eight goes, yes, you are.
16:43
And three just appears over his shoulder.
16:45
Like, you bet he is winning a pound.
16:51
But the scene itself is brilliant.
16:53
Up till now, the knife's been this like irrefutable evidence
16:56
only the boy could have owned it.
16:57
And this then revolves around that idea of reasonable doubt.
17:00
You're right. It's not saying the knife proves
17:02
the guy's innocent. It's existence just means
17:04
there's more than one explanation.
17:06
So great in the writing, that's one thing, but the film making
17:09
is just fantastic. It slams that knife into the
17:12
table, clearly with some sound design added, and the camera
17:15
feels like it crushes rooms right in on it even though it
17:18
doesn't. How great, that proper dramatic
17:20
moment. It's one of the most famous
17:22
images from the film. That knife stuck in the table
17:25
and there's knife Cobalt later on when 3 picks up the knife and
17:27
says he put this 4 inches into his father's chest and it's the
17:31
wrong knife. It's wrong.
17:32
Yeah, Yeah. So it's all really theatrical,
17:34
but it doesn't feel stagy, you know, great filmmaking and the
17:37
points and the messages, I think all land like that knife with a
17:41
bang. Yeah, the camera really shakes
17:43
when that goes into the. Table.
17:44
I know it feels like it does, yeah.
17:46
And the knives in the film, they are Italian Stella door
17:48
switchblades with a Filipino style.
17:50
Chris Patton, the Lumet, thought that it matched the description
17:53
in the script, but actually, none of this could happen in
17:56
real life. If a juror went to the
17:58
neighborhood of the crime, bought a knife matching the real
18:01
weapon, and then brought it into the jury room, it would be a
18:03
violation of jury rules. He'd be removed from the jury
18:06
and it could end up in a mistrial.
18:08
Bring the knife into a court rumor things might be frowned
18:10
upon, but if anyone knows anything about switch leads it's
18:14
you might the blade I've got. One yeah of.
18:17
Course you have. But the knives, they are really
18:20
strong visuals in the film, that kind of pattern on them.
18:23
Props to the props team for finding those that really do the
18:25
job I think. Yeah, class.
18:27
So he's making this argument, he's brought the knife out, but
18:30
it doesn't feel like he's making headway.
18:32
So he just makes this massive gamble.
18:34
Let's do a secret ballot. If it's still all 11 against me,
18:38
I'll go with you. And you can see it all on
18:40
Fonders face. It's so evocative, just weighing
18:43
heavily on him. So the relief when Balsam just
18:46
reads out not guilty, and I think it's the second, the last
18:48
one is not guilty. So really builds the tension up.
18:51
But again, Lord's Margaret character work going on here
18:53
because he can see the gap growing between those who are
18:56
dead set on guilty and those who have grown doubts.
18:58
Like despite the fact it's been a secret ballot and that's been
19:01
agreed to, 10 just demands to know who it was.
19:05
Like, why is that your priority? That's not what you're arguing
19:08
about here. And all of Three's prejudices
19:11
about people from the slums they can racing to the surface
19:14
because his immediate direction is to blame. 5 You said he's
19:17
grown up in the slums, so you've got all these like little micro
19:21
aggressions and conflicts flaring up between the various
19:23
jewelry members and it's just so compelling and you can see the
19:27
quieter members he has started to develop. 6 standing up for
19:31
9:00 because in his opinion all people deserve respect and
19:33
Nine's been yelled at so even though the majority of them are
19:37
still voting guilty, you can see the ones who are voting with a
19:40
conscience against those who aren't.
19:42
And then that punch in when 9 reveals he didn't change his
19:47
vote. I did.
19:48
I did in that massive close up. Close up the.
19:51
Confidence to have them basically address us as the
19:53
audience looks straight in the camera and just go.
19:56
I did brilliant filmmaking, really, really impactful.
19:59
Yeah. Yeah, after the vote, someones
20:01
changed the vote and you mentioned him about three goes
20:04
straight after 5. Like yeah, I know who it was.
20:07
Brother, you really are something.
20:08
It's outrageous, like towering over.
20:11
Yeah, I think that's pretty clever because Three's drawn
20:14
conclusions based on his own prejudice with the jurors, just
20:17
like he does with the case. And doing one of the votes as a
20:20
secret ballot is such a great idea, gives us a bit of variety.
20:24
But also listen again to another theme, like the dangers a group
20:27
think with no peer pressure, people like Juror 9 start giving
20:30
their real opinions and then we get some bravery as well.
20:33
When 9 does say it wasn't him or change his vote, it was me.
20:36
I think that's another thing. It's saying that justice does
20:38
require people to have like, the courage of their convictions for
20:41
it to work. So an important scene in that,
20:43
clear plot points. And I think it rings really true
20:46
in terms of real life as well. Still today.
20:49
I mean, I doubt that's the last time we're going to be seeing
20:51
something like that. I very much doubt that.
20:52
Yeah, no. Definitely not.
20:54
So this is really interesting. We'll see the votes on paper as
20:56
Dura one reads through them and if you watch carefully the shows
21:00
who changed their vote before the tell us.
21:03
As the votes are being gathered 9 puts his slip of paper under
21:05
sevens and as the papers get passed down the other votes are
21:08
all put on top of that pile. So Nines paper is second from
21:12
the bottom and that's the one that says not guilty.
21:14
Right. Some beautiful handwriting as
21:16
well from the lads it. Really is.
21:19
Really nice cursive in there. Just block capitals me.
21:23
Just to take our cross. Not yeah, like Jake Blues.
21:29
Oh, yeah, you don't get spoon feeding from Lumet.
21:31
The information's there if you want it.
21:32
And I think that's one of the reasons this holds up so well on
21:34
re watches, because there's so many little details there like
21:37
that. Almost every frame it seems
21:39
like. I think it really rewards repeat
21:41
watches, doesn't it? Yeah.
21:43
Following the secret ballot, the jurors take a break.
21:45
The perfect curtain call, end of act one.
21:47
And the perfect way to end our section on the beginning.
21:50
Some impressive visual storytelling already.
21:53
Time to discuss the man behind it, I think.
21:55
Definitely. Let's do it.
22:03
Before we deliver our version on Sydney Lumet, we'd love to let
22:06
you all know about our own jury of supporters.
22:08
If you're a regular listener to our podcast, you can help
22:11
support what we do by becoming an ATRM patron.
22:14
You get access to the full archive of this or main show, as
22:17
well as bonus shows like Double Feature and The Watch List.
22:21
Lovely. You guys know all about them,
22:22
don't you? Oh, absolutely, yeah.
22:24
Double Feature's our monthly show where we take two films
22:27
that are relevant in some way being an actor, director or
22:30
theme will compare and contrast and one will come out a winner
22:32
which will end up on this the classic podcast.
22:34
Yeah, we talk 2 films, so twice as good.
22:37
Exactly. Yeah.
22:38
And we do the watch list, which is where we pick two film seats
22:41
that are current releases or ones that maybe you've gone
22:44
under the radar bit. And we discuss them and then
22:46
either recommend them or recommend and avoid.
22:49
So 6 films on that one. Six.
22:50
Yeah, and the benefits don't end there.
22:52
You'll also get the chance to ask questions on a main show,
22:55
like the ones we'll be answering in this very episode.
22:58
And you also get a vote on future films that we cover.
23:00
That doesn't require unanimous agreement, thankfully.
23:03
We'll be there forever, no? Reasonable.
23:04
Nothing to be covered. And you'll become part of the
23:07
ever growing ATRM community and get the talk film for some
23:10
fantastic film fans. So head to patreon.com/all the
23:14
Right Movies to find out more. Or you can access the archived
23:16
episodes across Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube as well.
23:20
Indeed, you can go and have a look around and see what you
23:22
think. Thank you very much.
23:23
So that's enough for that. Let's get back to the show.
23:25
Let's do it. The director.
23:32
We've already been talking about the filmmaking and 12 Angry Men,
23:35
and now we're talking about the man leading that in director
23:38
Sidney Lumet. Yeah, making his feature film
23:41
debut, which is crazy. Yeah.
23:43
Lumet had directed hundreds of episodes of USTV dramas,
23:46
including a lot of work on landmark anthology series like
23:49
Playhouse 90, Craft Television Theater and Studio 1.
23:52
Some way to announce yourself to Hollywood.
23:54
This, though, W day it is Sidney Lumet and 12 Angry Men.
23:57
How do you find his work? It's mesmerizingly good, but I
24:00
think it's preparation. That's exactly what this film
24:03
is. It's 100% known exactly what's
24:07
happening months and months before they even pick up the
24:09
camera. All of this is premeditated, all
24:11
of it's thought through, and I think he got all of that from
24:14
his TV experience. But what he got from that as
24:17
well is the command. He knows what it can do.
24:20
He knows what actors can do. We'll say it's a debut, but he's
24:23
got so much experience under his belt.
24:25
He's worked with so many people, and I think TV is because of the
24:29
pace of it. The TV was so fast-paced, it had
24:32
to be turned around and just done and the ideas had to be
24:34
there. You know, you didn't really have
24:36
time to plan things out. I think this would have been a
24:38
joy for Sidney Lumet to just sit down and go, actually, I've got
24:41
time to go through shots and put that where I want to do.
24:44
It would have felt like slow motion to him, really.
24:46
And it's just the fact that he knows that the camera is the
24:49
audience, but the camera is also an actor because you can put
24:52
that camera somewhere to get a reaction.
24:54
Like Matt just said there with Juran Angst turning straight to
24:57
the camera and saying it was me who changed my vote.
25:00
He knows that put the camera there because he's going to get
25:02
a reaction from the audience. I think it's just brilliant the
25:06
way that it's all thought through.
25:08
But it's just to have that ability and to know exactly what
25:12
a lens can do, to know exactly what a crane shot can do, to
25:15
know exactly how that conveys the story.
25:17
I think it's just incredible work.
25:19
It wasn't me favorite. We met for a long time.
25:21
Serbia go first. I think that dogged the
25:23
afternoon. So after that, Network, Murder
25:25
on the Orient Express, all incredible films.
25:28
But this to me is just him going, you know what, I've got a
25:32
real shot at the big time and I'm not going to miss it.
25:34
And he doesn't miss any of these shots whatsoever.
25:37
It's an incredible, incredible piece of work.
25:39
Really, really confident, Really brilliant.
25:42
It is all the way through. I mean, considering it's all
25:44
shot in one location, mostly. How much you can see Lumet in
25:47
this film is Matt. There's so much that he brings.
25:51
What I like about this, maybe most, is that it's like great
25:54
art but also very scientific. Yeah.
25:57
Like, from a technical viewpoint, it's shot like
25:59
millimetre. Perfect.
26:01
If I didn't know who this was by and was asked, this was made by
26:04
a great director in 1957. Who do you think did it?
26:06
I'll be betting everything on Kubrick.
26:08
Yeah, because of the precision of it.
26:11
Just the symmetry of the opening shot.
26:12
I'll be like Kubrick. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
26:14
I mean, we'll talk about the technical stuff, but there's so
26:17
much more here as well. I think one of the biggest
26:19
challenges Lou Met has as director is 95% of the film
26:23
takes place in one room. How do you make that cinematic?
26:26
And I think it's brilliant as he's kind of turned the one
26:28
location into his advantage. It's like he's gone right?
26:32
Everything in one room fine. That means I can get everything
26:35
absolutely perfect. There's no unknowns.
26:37
So if I think it's through on planet, every frame can be shot
26:40
and blocked perfectly. And it is, I just love looking
26:44
at all the creative choices that he's clearly made to make up for
26:47
the fact he hasn't got much to shoot in terms of variation and
26:50
the range of wide shots, mid shots and close-ups.
26:53
It's fantastic. We'll get POV shots that switch
26:56
midway through scenes. The scene that we talked about
26:58
where the jurors are giving their reasons of void and
27:00
guilty, when 6 gives his, he looks directly into the camera.
27:04
It doesn't even come close to breaking the illusion.
27:06
It's so well judged. And he does that all the way
27:09
through, mixing up the visuals, the things that he could across
27:12
people by going from extreme close up to extreme close up to
27:15
extreme close up. It could be like, bloody hell,
27:18
calm down, city. Yeah, doing me in.
27:21
But it's not. It works so well.
27:22
Yeah. Again, it's just so well judged.
27:24
You know when to push in and when to pull back scene after
27:27
scene. It's like, well, that was
27:29
executed perfectly. Yeah, exactly.
27:32
Yeah. Perfectly judged directing from
27:34
Lumet, I think, with what he had to work with.
27:36
Some of the most impressive visual storytelling I've ever
27:38
seen, I think. The camera breeds.
27:40
Like the whole scene breeds. Oh yeah, that's.
27:43
Crazy, crazy. It's absolutely crazy.
27:45
Yeah, I mean we're talking about TV background and I think if you
27:49
describe a directors being very TV influenced that be seen as a
27:52
criticism. But not when it comes to Lumet,
27:54
because when I see this film is televisual, I only mean in the
27:58
sense of its piercing. Because if you work in
28:00
television, the first thing you've got to learn is the
28:03
length of whatever you're working on is non negotiable
28:05
because it's got to fit around outbreaks.
28:07
It's got to fit into a schedule, right?
28:09
Yeah. So this zero time to be self
28:11
indulgent upon dress. And that's what Lumet brings to
28:14
this. It's not one second of this film
28:16
that is ponderous. Every line is important or
28:18
relevant. No scene goes even 30 seconds
28:21
over what it needs to be or what it could be just so Lumet can
28:25
undruel himself with a longer tracking shot or a Moody closer
28:29
fond of Deep in thought. You could split this film into
28:32
330 minute episodes of something and it would have a cliffhanger.
28:36
And these are lessons Lumet learned on TV, but he's bringing
28:38
it into film seamlessly. So the genesis of 12 Angry Men
28:42
doesn't begin with Sydney Lumet, though there were two that came
28:45
involved before he came along. One of them was the writer
28:48
Reginald Rose. More on him shortly.
28:50
Yeah. And the other was Henry Fonda,
28:52
the lead actor. He plays dura #8 Fonda, was
28:55
involved before the director. So unusually for us, the part
28:58
where we talk about the movie being developed in pre
29:00
production will come under the cast.
29:02
Yeah, so once the film had been developed in greenlit by the
29:05
studio, Henry Fonda was looking for a director.
29:07
The budget was small, even for the 50s, so he knew they
29:10
couldn't afford a big. At the time, Sidney Lumet was a
29:13
respected TV and stage director like we've spoke about, looking
29:16
to get into movies. He ran a theatre workshop in New
29:19
York called The Acting Workshop and in 1955 Fonda went to see
29:22
the show they put together as their final project.
29:25
He was massively impressed with the quality of the show and
29:28
asked who the director was. Afterwards, he watched Lumet's
29:30
TV shows and asked producers about him and they all basically
29:33
said he's fantastic. And that's how Sidney Lumet
29:36
became the director of 12 Angry Men.
29:38
Amazing. Yeah, apparently the reason he
29:40
was at that workshop presentation wasn't because of
29:42
Lumet. In 1955, Fonda had been in a war
29:46
comedy called Mr. Roberts. Right.
29:48
Three of the actors he worked with in that film were part of
29:50
the acting workshop, and that's why he went to see the show.
29:53
Right. And I mean, yeah, great
29:54
director, clearly. But also, this was a small
29:56
budget. And Fonda, I must have been
29:58
thinking, this guy is going to be cheap as hell.
30:00
Yeah, exactly. He'd probably pay me if.
30:02
I knows what a camera is. That'll do, yeah.
30:06
So the film was shot New York Red set, and with the low budget
30:09
there was a lot of planning up front.
30:11
Lumet tapped into a stage experience and had the cast
30:14
rehearsed together for two weeks ahead of filming, and he
30:16
storyboarded and planned out every shot with the DP Boris
30:19
Kaufman beforehand. They had 21 days to shoot the
30:22
film and Lumet brought it in. Actually 19 days and under
30:26
budget. I mean, the quality of the
30:28
creativity is there on the screen, but the quality of the
30:31
operations behind the scenes is there as well.
30:33
Yeah. Really smooth.
30:34
Yeah. It's not like they were cutting
30:36
corners. It was just planned out of the
30:37
inch into the second. I mean, like, you're seeing them
30:40
out on day one of filming. All the cast and crew knew
30:42
exactly what they were doing from a studio viewpoint, like
30:46
the bottom line, this is like the perfect directing
30:48
performance. I think you will have been
30:50
loving Lumet. Yeah.
30:52
Yeah, and because the budget was so small, the production didn't
30:55
have a typical Hollywood crew. They couldn't afford a costume
30:58
designer. So the clothes and choices were
30:59
made by UA's in house wardrobe department.
31:02
Working with you Lumet. Yeah, the stand out dura #8 I
31:05
think that bright white suit is, Oh yeah, just fantastic.
31:09
Mark Twain, I mean, to make him stand out, obviously, and this
31:15
makes him look a bit like the boy he was being accused, sort
31:18
of white knight maybe. Yeah.
31:20
Kind of, yeah. Might have been a bit much and a
31:22
bit too obvious if it was in colour, but in black and white I
31:24
think it works. Oh, totally.
31:25
Yeah, it works, yeah. And Lumet hired Robert Markel as
31:28
the production designer because he'd worked with him in TV shows
31:31
before this. Markel designed and oversawed
31:33
the build of the main set, which was the jury room, and Lumet
31:36
told him he wanted to be claustrophobic, so Markel built
31:40
it to be as cramped as possible. Boris Kaufman said it was no
31:43
bigger than a hotel room. Like a jewelry's in, presumably
31:46
then maybe that's where they got the NIB, Yes.
31:50
So Robert Markel built the set with removable walls so they
31:53
could fit the camera equipment around the actors for close-ups
31:56
in mid shots. The crew weren't like hanging
31:57
through the windows or anything, right?
31:59
Yeah, but the only problem for the production design came with
32:02
the New York City backdrop that we see through the jewelry room
32:04
windows. Markel designed it, and
32:07
apparently when Fonda sod, he was furious.
32:09
He'd just been in the wrong man. Directed by Alfred Hitchcock.
32:12
And he said to Lumet, it looks like shit.
32:14
Hitch had great backdrops. Give a chance, it's Hitchcock.
32:18
The more people compare him to straight away.
32:20
It's my first phone bro and I'm £0.50.
32:24
Exactly. And Lumet had to assure him that
32:26
they had a plan to make the backdrops work, Right.
32:28
But yeah, Fonda's first time as producer, I guess there must
32:30
have been a lot of anxiety from his point of view.
32:32
Maybe that's why. Yeah, exactly.
32:34
Yeah, I suppose. Yeah.
32:35
And it gets even more ridiculous this evening.
32:38
Oh, it's dead simple. This premise you set in one
32:40
room? Not a problem.
32:41
But Lumet said one of the biggest challenges was
32:43
continuity. The film is set on the hottest
32:45
day of the year in New York, so the cast had to start
32:48
comfortable and then get more and more sweaty as the film goes
32:51
on. And the weather outside the room
32:52
also changes. It starts dry, then we'll get a
32:55
downpour, then back to dry. The film was shot out of
32:58
sequence, so it was all documented what level of
33:01
perspiration had to be on the actors for each scene and what
33:04
the weather outside was like. And some of them get really
33:07
sweaty. They'll get really sweaty, like
33:08
give yourself some kind of like a breathing space, but there's
33:11
nothing. Everything's just so intense,
33:14
yeah. There's a shot where Dura 1 has
33:16
like sweat patches on top of sweat patches.
33:18
Yeah, Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. That's.
33:19
What happens when you wear AT shirt with a tie?
33:21
Crazy convoys, but I. You were 10.
33:24
That's me. Not guilty.
33:28
And we met supporter editing was as efficient as everything else.
33:31
After filming, he'd only shot 63,000 feet of footage, which he
33:35
called an insanely small amount even for the 50s, he said.
33:38
Because the plant saw thoroughly, the barely needed
33:40
any coverage. Yeah, because it was TV days.
33:43
He was used to filming with a kind of get the take and then
33:45
move on approach, I guess. So that's where he and Kubrick
33:48
definitely different. Oh, definitely.
33:50
Yeah, yeah. I mean, that's kudos to the
33:52
actors as well, like nailing their Marks and nailing their
33:54
performances on them. Early takes.
33:56
Yeah, greatly all around. Yeah, and the editor was called
33:59
Lerner, and he and Lumet came up with an editing method to make
34:02
the film speed up as we go. At the start, the shots are
34:05
long. We talked about that eight and a
34:07
tracking shot at the beginning. And in the first act, the
34:09
average shot length is about 20 seconds.
34:12
But in the final act, it's about four seconds and half the cuts
34:15
in the film come in the last 20 minutes.
34:18
Right. Yeah.
34:19
I mean, obviously don't consciously notice that, but you
34:21
definitely feel it. Yeah.
34:22
The visuals literally speed up as we go along.
34:24
Yeah, it does feel like we start like a trot and by the end we're
34:27
like, galloping. Yeah.
34:29
I think that's just the definition of great filmmaking.
34:31
Sure, yes. It's your brain as you're
34:33
watching the film. It starts off slow and it's not
34:35
right. What's the next?
34:36
And then you're just kind of thinking of all of the different
34:38
scenarios that you see. It's like your thought process
34:41
is the same as the cut. Before ending the director
34:45
section, we have our first ATR and Patreon question.
34:48
So a benefit of signing up is that we answer our community's
34:51
questions on our episodes. And we have one of those now
34:54
about courtroom dramas. It comes from Stuart Mcdean.
34:57
Hello, Stuart. Hello Stuart, So Stuart's asked
35:00
what makes a good quote from drama and what are your top
35:02
three? I think it's one of the hardest
35:04
genres to pull off as with no action or special effects to
35:07
assist, it relies almost wholly on script and performances.
35:11
Minor GFKA, Few Good Men and A Time to Kill.
35:14
Good question from Stuart and some good choices.
35:16
Some good choices, yeah. What do you think Westy?
35:18
Courtroom dramas. Stole a couple of me choices
35:21
there, Stewart. But that's obviously it's the
35:25
setup which has got to be incredibly compelling.
35:27
And then you've got to feel like halfway through Act 2 thinking,
35:31
I have no idea how this is going to end.
35:33
I have no clue how they're going to resolve this where the
35:36
evidence is. And you've normally got
35:38
everything laid out in front of you before Act three.
35:41
It's the deception. I think that's the genius in the
35:43
script of a courtroom drama. And I think with 12 Angry Men,
35:46
it's it's obviously top of the pile when you say courtroom
35:48
dramas, even though it's not necessarily in the courtroom
35:50
with that back and forth, just because the way it twists and
35:54
turns. But other ones that really twist
35:56
and turn for me, I've went for kind of more of the original
36:00
feel to the courtroom drama where they've spun it a little
36:02
bit. And I think they definitely did
36:04
that in Primal Fear. Oh yeah.
36:06
Oh yeah. Huge twist in that, yeah.
36:07
Yeah, the twist at the end of that, I'm not going to spoil it,
36:09
but that's like, right, They take the courtroom drama.
36:12
You think you finished and you're definitely not sleepers
36:15
again. I think that's brilliant
36:17
courtroom drama because it's basically Brad Pitt's character
36:21
making sure that it goes the way he wants it to go.
36:24
It's the opposite of winning, which is fantastic.
36:26
Yeah, some cast in that one as well in.
36:28
It and the cast in sleep as is incredible.
36:30
It's a brilliant, brilliant film if you've not seen that.
36:32
And the Lincoln Lawyer I really enjoyed.
36:34
All right, yeah, I thought that was brilliant and it was kind of
36:36
a fresh take on it because you think, well, I've seen all that
36:38
before. Really, really brilliant.
36:40
But special shout out Philadelphia is obviously up
36:43
there, but the ultimate favorite is Liar, Liar under said.
36:48
Well, why wouldn't it be even still in mind?
36:50
Yeah. For me, a great courtroom drama
36:53
needs a few things. First, I think the stakes have
36:55
to be very clear and very high. Someone's life or someone's
36:59
freedom. If the punishment is 100 hours
37:01
community service, it's probably not going to work as well.
37:04
And if you can't handle the truth, it's a bit pointless.
37:08
Second, you need complex characters on both sides.
37:11
I think the best courtroom dramas for me aren't just good
37:13
guys versus bad guys. There's new ones in the beliefs
37:16
of the ideologies. There's usually some moral
37:18
ambiguity. And 3rd, the dialogue has to
37:21
sing. Yeah, it's probably going to be
37:23
a lot of people standing up and delivering monologues, and the
37:25
writing's not sharp and the cast can't deliver it.
37:28
It'll probably fall flat with the audience.
37:30
Yeah. I mean, for me, 12 Angry Men is
37:32
#1 it does all those things. Yeah, but if I'm picking three
37:34
of those, I'd go with a few Good Men.
37:36
Nice aren't soaking dialogue. And there's absolute fireworks
37:40
between Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson in the climax.
37:42
Yeah, I love it. Mockingbird will be in there as
37:45
well. The whole thing is great, but
37:46
Gregory Peck's closing argument, as I think it's Finch is one of
37:49
my favorite moments in any film. And then I'll go Lumet again.
37:53
The verdict? Verdict with Newman.
37:55
Paul Newman and James Mason in the cast, which is an absolute
37:58
treat, obviously. Yeah, and that one's quite
38:00
downbeat for the genre as well. So different, Yeah.
38:04
So, yeah, 12 of the men aside, those are my 3:00.
38:06
Nice. I think what makes a good one is
38:08
it's got to be about seemingly insurmountable odds and have a
38:12
very personal focus. So Tom Hanks in Philadelphia, he
38:16
can only afford one lawyer, and he's up against a law firm that
38:19
can hire half a dozen. But he can't give up because
38:22
it's his dignity and reputation on the line.
38:24
Samuel L Jackson, in the time to kill you can't afford law.
38:28
You just have to have the public 1.
38:29
Instead, he's on trial in the Deep South for murdering a
38:32
couple of white men with the death penalty waiting for him,
38:35
even though they raped his daughter.
38:36
What chance does he have that just grabs you and pulls you in
38:39
so much? I think a courtroom drama
38:41
really, really lends itself well to an underdog story.
38:44
And that's what really makes the genre sing for me.
38:46
I mean, my top three, you've both said yes, this is
38:49
definitely in there. I'd also go the verdict, you
38:52
know, Newman, one of his best performances and again, it's an
38:54
underdog stories up against the church in that.
38:57
He's hugely underrated. To be fair, the.
38:59
It's a really underrated. Film really underrated.
39:01
Really, really good. And the third one I mentioned
39:03
going back to the 50s, Otto Preminger, Anatomy of the
39:06
Murder. Of course, Yeah, yeah.
39:08
Which has that very famous poster.
39:10
James Stewart, George C Scott. That's a great film as well.
39:14
That is brilliant. Yeah, the poster is fantastic.
39:16
Sawboss isn't. It it is sawboss.
39:17
Yeah. It's like the chalk outline,
39:19
isn't it? The chalk outline of the body,
39:20
yeah. Yeah, fantastic.
39:22
Yeah. 412 Angry Men City Lumet was nominated for Best Director
39:25
of the Oscars and the film was nominated for Best Picture.
39:28
They didn't win though, no. Do you remember what did?
39:31
Same film for both. Don't ask me.
39:33
Yes, it was one we've covered bridge over the River Kwai.
39:36
Kwai, all right, OK. Correct.
39:38
David Lean, Best director, Best pitcher.
39:40
Bridge on the River Kwai. Kwai Mia, River Lumet.
39:43
That's what Lean said to him. Maybe.
39:45
Maybe. I'd like to think so.
39:49
As for Sydney Lumet though, sounds like we agree.
39:51
Not just for a debut, which makes it even better, but by any
39:54
standards this is top class film directing really is.
39:57
It really is. Yeah, the cast.
40:05
That's Sidney Lumet steering the ship.
40:06
Now it's time to talk about the 12 angry men themselves.
40:09
Or some of them, anyway. Yes, we're going to focus on
40:12
several jurors now. Lee Jacob with Juror 3.
40:15
Then we'll pick out some of the other notable members.
40:17
But first, it's the man in the white suit.
40:20
Indeed. It is Henry Fonda.
40:22
Henry Fonda. Every time I hear his name, it's
40:25
gonna hit me. Rhonda by The Beach Boys.
40:29
That's no bad thing, I. Kind of chick.
40:31
So Henry Vonda placed you in #8 or Davis, as we'll find out he's
40:35
called later. Yes, An architect in gleaming
40:38
white attire. We watch as eight votes not
40:40
guilty on the 1st ballot and acts as a paragon of reasonable
40:43
doubt, leading the charge to dismantle the prosecution's
40:46
case. I think he's wasted his noggins,
40:49
that Matt Perry Mason, this guy. Oh yeah, how was Henry Vonda?
40:54
And you were #8? I mean, I think when you're
40:57
talking about custom, someone who has to represent the
41:00
ultimate in virtue in the 1950s, it's either James Stewart or
41:04
Henry Fonda, isn't it? It's only those two guys.
41:07
I think this is still his defining role in what he would
41:09
represent in cinema, which is the epitome of goodness and
41:12
decency and sincerity. That's why it's so shocking, the
41:15
same as the bad guy and Once Upon a Time in the West, because
41:18
Tony undercuts that, because this is a guy you just want him
41:21
in your corner, literally defending your life like he is
41:24
for the accused here. And to do that in the face of
41:27
all this evidence, not on the face, which seems
41:29
incontinvertible, but more than that, the unrelenting pressure
41:32
of 11 other men all getting in his sphere, saying you're wrong.
41:36
Why do you think that? You heard what we had?
41:38
How come you're saying something different?
41:40
And he doesn't buckle for an incident, but he doesn't do it
41:43
in a big much or shout. He where he does it with
41:45
quietness and intelligence. Like I said, talking about the
41:49
first word. He just wants to talk and he has
41:51
the smart to let people trip themselves up by their own
41:54
words. When he's wound you with three
41:56
up to the point where he exploded him, you don't really
41:59
mean you'll kill me, will you? Just totally hangs him with his
42:02
own words to. Great delivery that as well.
42:04
It's wonderful delivery. He's killing him with kindness.
42:07
He isn't turning it into a shouting match, which everyone
42:09
else wants to. And I've said this on other
42:11
episodes, portraying goodness and virtue can lead to a boring
42:15
performance sometimes. Because what's interesting about
42:17
that? Not the case with Fonda.
42:19
He, you know, like I say, it's his definitive role for me.
42:22
Yeah. Yeah, In the writing, I think
42:24
every character I thought was like a core position the
42:26
original Rose has given them, and that's the point of view
42:28
they represent. Yeah.
42:29
And it seems to be that with what's at stake, he's terrified
42:33
of getting it wrong. Yeah.
42:34
You see it constantly throughout the film.
42:35
Supposing we're wrong, What if we're wrong?
42:37
They could be wrong. It even goes both ways.
42:40
During that first break, he's in the bathroom with Six, and he
42:43
kind of turns the tables and says, what if you convince us
42:45
all to say not guilty and the kid did it.
42:47
Yeah. And the look on its face.
42:49
Yeah. It's brilliant.
42:49
That bad? He looks the guilty one.
42:51
Maybe he did do it. There you go, you see all roads
42:54
point West. But I do think Reginald Rose has
42:57
picked out aid as being what Rose thinks just as it's best
43:00
looks like. Yeah, it's reasonable, it's
43:02
thoughtful, it's not prejudice, and it's desperate to deliver
43:05
justice. Yeah, whichever way that goes.
43:08
So playing the kind of personification of just as it's
43:10
best, not anyone can do that. But Henry Von I can.
43:13
No, I definitely bring his movie star gravitas.
43:15
He's got a presence that gets respect, and I believe him in
43:18
the role. What I like is how understated
43:21
it is. He's not like grandstanding or
43:23
theatrical. And his line delivery, he's
43:25
quiet and respectful, which makes him likeable.
43:28
And his line delivery, I think it's excellent.
43:30
He kind of subtly sings his lines sometimes, I think.
43:32
Yeah. And there's other versions of 12
43:34
Angry Men out there. We'll talk about some.
43:36
And some great actors have played you right 8 But none
43:39
deliver these lines as well as fond that does for me.
43:41
Not. Not at all.
43:42
And we've mentioned the white suit, but more specifically
43:44
those trousers. How high is he wearing those
43:47
trousers? Simon Cowell, How long is this
43:51
tie? I mean, only Henry fun.
43:54
I can pull that look off because it's crazy.
43:56
Yeah, definitely. He's a proper movie star in the
43:59
lead and we get what that brings, but also I think we get
44:01
to see the talent that made Thunderous star in the 1st
44:04
place. Yeah, I mean one of his great
44:05
movies and he had a few. Yeah, I think he wanted to
44:08
showcase that, didn't he? That's why he's on production
44:10
values. That's why he cast himself as a.
44:12
And I think he's like, I want to just do this more subtle role.
44:15
He plays a man with conviction very, very well.
44:18
Yeah. When I first saw Henry Fonda, it
44:20
was Once Upon a Time in the West.
44:22
So I've always thought of him as a bad guy.
44:26
That's where I first saw him. I saw him in this.
44:28
And I'm thinking he's going to just stab everyone.
44:32
He's got that, mate. He's going to explode here.
44:34
But he's just so good in this, and you guys fit the nail on the
44:38
head with everything. I mean, his performance is
44:39
fantastic, So nuanced. But the way that he gives
44:43
everybody else in the room room, he is the movie star and he
44:47
knows that. But what I get from his
44:48
performance is the amount of confidence he's putting into all
44:52
of the other actors in that room.
44:54
He's saying that's your space, that's your shot.
44:56
We've got a close up on you. This guy Lumet knows what he's
44:59
doing. You haven't heard from yet.
45:00
The kids are going to love him, but he's going to put a 50 mil
45:03
right in there and I'm telling you, you can do what he says and
45:05
I'm Henry Funder and I think that's where you get that
45:08
confidence through everyone else's performance because of
45:10
him. Absolutely, Yeah.
45:12
So we mentioned earlier that Henry Funder's role on 12 Angry
45:14
Men wasn't just actor, he produced as well as such.
45:18
Definitely. This is a first.
45:19
We're talking about how the film went from script to screen under
45:22
the cast. Yeah.
45:23
Oh, Matt is anyway, I am. Go and shoot him up.
45:27
So the first version of 12 Angry Men that was produced for
45:30
television and it aired on CBS in September 1954.
45:33
It's a 15 minute episode of the Westinghouse Studio 1 anthology
45:37
show. It was a big success, winning 3
45:40
Emmys and it was thought lost, but CBS found the footage in
45:43
2003 and added again. They did, and you can find it in
45:46
lots of places online now. So that teleplay was directed by
45:50
Franklin J Schaffner, who went on to do Planet of the Apes and
45:53
Pattern. On pattern, yeah.
45:55
And starred Robert Cummings, his due right 8.
45:57
So there was some talent involved.
45:59
And two of the other actors in the teleplay are in the film as
46:02
well, so we'll get to that. Right.
46:04
So the teleplay was successful, as I said, winning three Emmys.
46:07
So Henry Fonda watched it and straight away I thought it had
46:10
movie potential. He'd recently set up his own
46:13
production company, called Orion, and contacted to try to
46:16
Reginald Rose about doing a film adaptation.
46:19
Rose was interested, so he set up his own company called a Nova
46:22
Productions, which is why the film was produced by Orion Nova
46:25
Productions. Right.
46:27
Yes, nothing to do with Orion pictures.
46:29
It was set up in 1978. No, it didn't go from 12 Angry
46:32
Men to RoboCop. RoboCop straight in there.
46:37
But yes won the film. Henry Fonda's Mac Down producer
46:39
Reginald Rose is writer and producer.
46:42
And Orion had a three-year distribution deal with United
46:45
Artists. And even though the production
46:47
budget wasn't massive, UA weren't hugely keen on making 12
46:50
Angry Men, so Fonda and Ross both agreed to defer their
46:54
salaries so neither would be paid unless the film turned a
46:56
profit when it was released. Yeah.
46:58
So that reduced the budget to about $340,000 and UA signed off
47:02
or not, right. So off on that, Rose, taking the
47:05
risk. I mean, that's what you have to
47:06
do sometimes, isn't it? Yeah, They must have really
47:08
believed in the material though. I mean, rightly as it turns out,
47:11
obviously. Yeah, he found that later said
47:13
that he was very proud of the film and he loved acting in it,
47:16
but hated being the producer. He said he wanted to focus on
47:18
the creative side and didn't like having to get involved in
47:21
the business side and attend financial meetings.
47:24
As such, this became the only film he ever produced.
47:27
Yeah, wow, you said. Being a producer and nearly
47:29
destroyed him. I mean the ultimate one off
47:31
movie producer. Surely this is like Chesney
47:35
Hawks or Tiffany One hit one that level.
47:38
And one of the producer responsibilities Fonda hated the
47:41
most was attendance screen. And he didn't like watching
47:43
himself on screen. And he said he would summarize
47:46
with two years after one of his films came out before he watched
47:49
it. Wow.
47:50
Yeah. But because he was producer
47:52
here, he was contractually obliged to attend at least one
47:54
of the daily sessions where the scene you could would watch the
47:57
previous day as rushers. So Fonda very reluctantly went
48:00
to the first Russia screen. And on Day 2, and Lumet said
48:04
that towards the end, Fonda lean forward, squeezed Lumet's neck
48:07
and said, Sydney, it's magnificent.
48:10
And then he left and never came to another screen.
48:12
And. Squeezed his neck like I would
48:14
be like, Jesus Christ, what's he going to say?
48:17
Yeah. Exactly.
48:18
Yeah, well, Lumet said that Fonda squeezed his neck so hard
48:21
his eyes almost popped out. Like Sydney is magnificent.
48:25
She wasn't Lee Jacob doing that. Well, for his work on 12 Angry
48:30
Men, Henry Fonda received an Oscar nomination.
48:32
Not for acting, though. It was a producer.
48:34
When the film got a Best Picture norm, it didn't win.
48:37
Like we said, put Henry Fonda in producing a classic and playing
48:40
the lead role as well. He did a pretty good job, didn't
48:43
he? I think so.
48:44
Great job, Yeah. The second juror we're
48:48
discussing is Lee J Cobb as juror #3A businessman with a
48:52
volcanic temper and a complex relationship with his son.
48:55
We watch as he votes guilty, gets more and more angry,
48:59
project his own personal biases onto the case, gets more and
49:02
more angry, then furious, then irrational, until he breaks down
49:05
at the end as the final juror to change his vote and not guilty.
49:09
Yeah, quite the arc isn't. It he works his hard.
49:14
Out. He really does.
49:15
What do you make of him and Lee Jacob?
49:17
I wouldn't like to smack off him, let's be honest.
49:19
A big fella. He is a big fella.
49:21
There's no corn on the cob. Just load the Yorkshire buns.
49:26
He's a big lad, but very angry. I love Jacob anyway, but I think
49:29
this is kind of. Oh yeah.
49:31
Apart from Fonda, this is the performance for me.
49:33
This absolutely leads the film. Like we said, there's a joke.
49:36
Yeah, it is quite the arc, but it definitely is.
49:38
I mean, he's really struggling and he's the most personal of
49:42
all the jurors. His outlook on this, about his
49:45
life, where he is, the regrets that he's got, how furious he is
49:48
with everything. Nothing's worked out for him, so
49:50
nothing should work out for anybody.
49:52
He's being punished, so everyone needs to be punished.
49:55
I mean, is he not just the basis of the character of anger of
49:58
Inside Out? Like he's dressed the.
49:59
Same. I think he's angrier than anger.
50:02
He is. It was modelled on Jacob though.
50:04
Wasn't it Matter from 12 angry men, I'm sure.
50:06
All right, I don't know. He's got the same tie, the same
50:09
shirt, he's same haircut. All right.
50:11
Yeah, it. Probably isn't, yeah.
50:12
I think it pretty much is, which is how angry he really is.
50:15
He's the personification of anger, but you don't get sick of
50:19
him and you don't feel threatened by him.
50:22
I think he just feel sorry for the character because he is so
50:24
frustrated and has this real level of ignorance to him
50:28
without stupidity where he just, he knows that he's right and I
50:32
think that is just a sign of the times in the 50s.
50:34
He's very much like I am a man, I am a father, I am right.
50:38
You do this, you do that, you go over there and that's how it
50:40
needs to be. You call me Sir.
50:42
Yeah, exactly. I think he's just a man who is
50:44
just terrified of change and terrified of evolution.
50:48
And unfortunately, this story evolves beautifully and he's
50:52
just almost not ready for it until he's transformed at the
50:55
end because of that evolution. It's a great character, really
50:58
well played out. And like I said, if it wasn't
50:59
for Fonder, this would be the performance for me.
51:02
Yeah, this guy is outrageous. Yeah.
51:04
And like, right from the start, in that fucking shot that we
51:07
talked about, he's talking to Jura too.
51:09
And he's, like I've said on many juries, is he always as angry
51:13
about it? Every.
51:14
Time How many people is he killed?
51:18
He's the closest thing that we have to an antagonist in the
51:20
film, I think. And the position Rules gives
51:22
him, I think, is those personal feelings.
51:24
It's all about his son. So he represents how our
51:27
circumstances can influence our judgement.
51:30
I mean, I'm pretty sure 3 isn't supposed to be funny, but I'll
51:33
laugh at nearly everything he says.
51:34
Oh, yeah. Yeah.
51:35
Not in a bad way. He's brilliant.
51:37
It's just all these eruptions. Yeah.
51:39
Every time it makes a reasonable point and says, is that
51:41
possible? Three's there.
51:43
Like, no, no, it's not possible. And Lee J Cobb.
51:47
What a great, great actor. Yeah.
51:49
Tell you what, I think there might be an argument that Cobb
51:52
is too good. 3 is happy to see a young man executed.
51:55
He's aggressive as hell all the time.
51:57
He's bloody awful. Really.
51:58
Yeah. But I still like him.
52:00
Yeah. And that's because of Cobb.
52:01
Yeah. I do wonder if that was the
52:03
intention of Lumet's kind of sitting there going.
52:05
For God's sakes, Cobb, I want everyone to hate you.
52:08
Yeah. Yeah, he has a vulnerability
52:10
through that. He addresses through anger,
52:11
though, doesn't he? And I think you can see through
52:12
that. Yeah, I think it's actually
52:14
testament to the rest of the cast.
52:15
The Cob doesn't just run away with the film.
52:17
With lesser actors, he would have blown them away.
52:20
And I think he finds a humanity in there.
52:22
He brings vulnerability to it, like you're saying, Westie, and
52:24
you understand why is the way he is.
52:26
It's kind of pain. He's a father who lost his son,
52:29
and he's pretty emotionally stunted, it seems like, and he's
52:31
got no idea how to process it. So it comes out with rage.
52:34
Fair enough. Yeah.
52:34
All the way through I'm just thinking just go and apologize
52:37
to your son, it'll be fine. Yeah.
52:38
You don't know the situation that they're in now, though, do
52:41
you? Yeah.
52:41
At that point, you kind of just, you know, give him a ring, I
52:44
guess in the 50s that once he's gone, he's gone.
52:46
Yeah, maybe. Yeah.
52:47
Well, fantastic character in the writing, the antagonistic
52:49
opposition that you write. Yeah.
52:51
And Lee Jacob, great actor who just, like, explodes off the
52:54
screen in everywhere. Yeah.
52:56
Definitely. Just the angriest man I've ever
52:58
seen in any film in my life. He walks into that jury room,
53:03
he's already on a nine. It doesn't take much to get into
53:06
11. And I've never seen a more
53:08
threatening finger on a man in my life where he's also jabbing
53:12
it. His point?
53:14
Jabbing, that's the word, yeah. And it's such a magnificent
53:18
performance because it plays so well against Fonders Calmness
53:21
who was completely unruffled. Whereas Cobb, he's just one
53:24
second away from ripping a chair and half like Bud White and LA
53:27
Confidential, smashing his fists through the table.
53:31
It's really funny when he's talking to Drew Ford, the water
53:34
killer, about aid winding him up where he was just trying to bait
53:37
me. And Ford just goes, he did an
53:39
excellent job and then walks off.
53:42
And the fact that he's the last man standing with the guilty
53:44
verdict, he's the one that's got to change his mind.
53:46
And he's so adamant about he think what on earth is going to
53:49
make him change his mind here? I think Cobb is so good that
53:52
when he does change his mind and you realize why you completely
53:55
buy it, it's so plausible because if you don't buy that
53:58
very last change of mind, the film won't work at all.
54:01
Nah, doesn't, yeah. Absolutely.
54:02
Yeah. Hinge don't matter, isn't?
54:04
It after Henry Fonda, Lee Jacob was the most well known member
54:07
of the cast at the time. You'd already been appearing in
54:10
Hollywood films for 20 years and he'd been Oscar nominated 3
54:13
years before this for playing Johnny Friendly and on the
54:16
waterfront. Lumet said He went to Cobb
54:18
because he knew he had the screen presence to create the
54:21
big intimidating figure he wanted 3 to be.
54:23
Yeah, he certainly does have that.
54:24
He does. Yeah, he absolutely does.
54:27
Yeah, he was a name already with with Elia Kazan a few times.
54:30
George Kekor, so very established in Hollywood.
54:32
Yeah. Yeah.
54:33
He was also the original Willy Lawman on stage in Death of a
54:36
Salesman. Arthur Miller called him the
54:38
greatest dramatic actor I ever saw.
54:40
Wow. Wow.
54:41
Possibly the best actor in a great cast Pier.
54:45
Yeah, I mean, he kind of pips it for me, if I'm honest.
54:48
Everyone's fantastic, but they're not monologue at the end
54:50
where he just goes for it. I'm like, yeah, this is it.
54:52
Yeah, the great cast all around, isn't it?
54:54
Yeah, it's amazing. Brilliant actor.
54:56
And towards the end of the film, Jura 3 insults Jura, 12 by
55:00
calling him the Boy in the Grey Flannel Suit.
55:03
In one year before 12 Angry Men, Corbett starred in The Man in
55:06
the Grey Flannel Suit, which was directed by Nunali Johnson In
55:10
That film also featured Joseph Sweeney who plays during #9
55:13
here. So that line is not the Cobbs
55:15
own work. Nice.
55:16
Yeah, post World War 2 drama. Gregory Peck in that film,
55:20
right? I wonder if that was Natalie by
55:21
Cobb. Seems a strange thing to write
55:23
in. I don't think he would have
55:25
wrote that in. It's too precise to screenplay.
55:26
Yeah, I think he might have just went.
55:28
I'll just give a chance on this one.
55:30
Should have got underwater for an admit.
55:32
Really obvious. Then winks to the camera.
55:36
Johnny Friends knows me and then a couple of years before 12
55:40
Angry Men, Corbett being filmed in the Houston story with
55:43
William Castle and he had a heart attack on set.
55:45
He was replaced on that film with Jane Barry, but he was back
55:47
working within a few months. He needs to chill the hell out
55:50
here. Then he's on the verge of a
55:52
heart attack for 95 minutes. Yeah.
55:54
Yeah. Nuance's recognition for Lee
55:56
Jacob for Jura 3. Looking at the 1958 Best
55:59
Supporting Actor nominations today, this is easily the most
56:02
enduring role in there, I think. Yeah.
56:04
Red Buttons one for Sayonara that year, right?
56:07
So nothing from the Academy, but to us Lee Jacob, a brilliant
56:11
actor who brings a lot of quality and fireworks to 12
56:14
Angry Men. Oh yeah, firecrackers.
56:16
Yeah. Just about steals that I think.
56:20
The 2G, as we've just talked about, door make up the whole 12
56:23
angry men. There's ten of those, obviously.
56:26
Obviously. So which of those do we think
56:28
are notable and worth picking out?
56:30
I'm going to go for AJ Marshall as Jura 4 Lovely, who is
56:34
probably the most emotionally stunted robotic version of a man
56:38
I'm. Sure, he's a robot.
56:40
He is, he's got to be like an Android.
56:42
He's just like, so #1 He's the most logical and least emotional
56:45
member of any jury I've ever seen #2 2.
56:48
The boy can't remember the films.
56:49
And that's why I love him, because that's the what he's
56:51
hanging these hat on. If you go to the cinema and
56:54
you've got to remember who's in it, at least remember what
56:56
you've gone to see, because that's me all over.
56:58
So we've got what I want. The similar side would say, oh,
57:00
which one is it? The new.
57:03
Guilty. Forget about it.
57:04
Guilty, dead electric chair, pointless.
57:07
Just pay attention, get off your phone.
57:09
And he just looks for the most logical reasons.
57:11
It's not to do with anybody's emotion or anybody's emotive in
57:16
an emotive way. It's kind of just fact based.
57:19
He's memory or it's something that has to be convincing logic.
57:23
It has to be like down the line. But he plays it so straight and
57:27
he's excellent laying all the facts down.
57:30
And it's it's his character because he is so guarded and is
57:34
so robotic and is so emotionless.
57:36
When he breaks down and says, yeah, not guilty.
57:39
I'm convinced I've got reasonable doubt now.
57:40
You're like, right, Well, that's it.
57:42
If this guy could be turned, anyone can be turned.
57:45
So it goes from the ultimate logic, which is this guy, to the
57:48
ultimate emotion, which is 3. It's just really, really well
57:52
done, great presence as a character.
57:54
And ultimately, he's the one that helps the audience change
57:57
their mind. Yeah.
57:58
Absolutely. Yeah.
57:59
I think 4 is kind of fascinating in terms of position in the
58:01
film. Yeah, because he's both like, an
58:03
obstacle. He disagreed with AIDS most of
58:05
the way through, but he's also a sort of ideal, Yeah, because he
58:08
mostly just focuses on the evidence.
58:09
He's calm and reasonable, and he makes logical decisions.
58:12
Yeah. He recites the other the case
58:14
with like, surgical position. Yeah, and the shoulder for some
58:17
nice character touches, like when he says he doesn't sweat
58:19
unless he's being asked about what he went to see the flicks
58:21
last week. He's a nervous.
58:23
Wreck. Yeah.
58:24
Monday I went to the cinema. Oh, that's convenient.
58:26
He's like taught in Raiders. What should we talk about?
58:31
But it's new ones because even 4 is certainly influenced by
58:34
prejudices you see as the people from poorer areas are more
58:37
likely to be menaces to society. Yeah.
58:39
So I think the point Rose is making is just how powerful
58:42
stereotype prejudices are. Even the hyper logical guy has
58:45
them. Yeah.
58:45
Yeah. And AG Marshall, who plays him,
58:47
I think he's fantastic. He's brilliant.
58:49
One of my favorite performances in the film, which is saying
58:51
something. Yeah.
58:52
So we find out in the film. True Before is a stockbroker,
58:55
and AG Marshall was already one of the more experienced film
58:58
actors in the cast by 1957. And he was known for playing
59:02
controlled, authoritative characters that made logical
59:05
decisions. And he played roles like that in
59:07
13, Rue Madeleine and The Kane Mutiny.
59:10
So Lumet knew that he'd work well as a logical stockbroker.
59:13
Nice. Yeah, this is his big one, but
59:15
some of the other most well known films came later on.
59:18
Do you know some of the other films he was in?
59:20
Nope. Yes, he's Ellen's dad in
59:22
national appearance. Christmas vacation.
59:24
He is indeed. Yeah, nice, Yeah.
59:27
Those little lights on twinkling Clark.
59:30
Nice, that guy here. Oh yes, I love that.
59:33
Yeah, that's him. He was in Tora Tora Tora, the
59:35
epic World War 2 film. Right, OK.
59:37
And he plays the president in Superman 2.
59:40
Kneel before Zord. OH.
59:41
Shit, yeah. Of course he does.
59:43
Yes, Yeah. Brilliant.
59:45
Well, into that JIRA I think we're talking about is JIRA
59:47
Seven, who was the baseball fan in the hat, played by Jack
59:51
Warden. Yeah, so good.
59:53
What's interesting is that there were three jurors who aren't
59:55
really interested in the truth. Three's got personal prejudices,
59:58
10 racist, basically. Yeah.
1:00:00
And seven wants to go watch a ball game.
1:00:02
Yeah. I'm not sure which is the worst.
1:00:03
I mean, at least three and 10 care about the verdict, even if
1:00:06
their reasoning is very twisted. Right.
1:00:08
Juror 7 just wants to get out with Dodge.
1:00:10
He's unbelievable. Yeah.
1:00:12
But again, Rose does it for a reason.
1:00:13
I think 7 embodies of the, like, impatient and self interested
1:00:17
people that treat jewelry service as an inconvenience,
1:00:19
which can sometimes prevent justice.
1:00:21
Yeah. And I think Jack Warden.
1:00:23
Is outstanding, Jack. Warden's unbelievable, yeah.
1:00:26
He is. I said before that some of that
1:00:27
cast member stop Legia Cobb running away with the film, and
1:00:30
Jack Warden's one of them definitely delivered his
1:00:32
monologues brilliantly. He's got such an engaging style
1:00:36
when he's talking at length. Yeah, and he's hilarious.
1:00:39
I like when he goes into the bathroom and sevens in there
1:00:41
just like, beep, beep, Boo, Boo. What is singing there?
1:00:48
But I'll tell you where I do agree with JIRA 7.
1:00:50
There's too much yakking going on.
1:00:52
How many times does he say that you can yakety yak Till next
1:00:55
Tuesday, Yeah, amazing. Yeah, he just represents the
1:00:59
casual, everyday American white collar.
1:01:01
Male, 100%. That's what he is, yeah.
1:01:03
This massive lack of self esteem, it's like no matter what
1:01:06
he says, he's not going to make a difference so he's just going
1:01:08
to crack on and watch a ball game.
1:01:09
Yeah, exactly. I think it's such an important
1:01:11
point being made through JIRA Seven, Yeah.
1:01:13
It kind of forces us to look at ourselves a bit and say what we
1:01:16
do and would we take this kind of stuff seriously enough if we
1:01:18
were there? So Jack Warden had played a
1:01:21
secondary role in From Here to Eternity, but 12 angry members
1:01:24
his big breakthrough. Lumet said he liked his
1:01:27
versatility as he had a varied career to that point, which is
1:01:30
why he cast him. Well, he went on to have some
1:01:32
Curry afterwards, didn't he? Yeah.
1:01:34
Shampoo all the president's men. Heaven can wait.
1:01:37
The verdict? Yeah, he's in.
1:01:38
While he was sleeping as well. Yeah, he's in a series called
1:01:41
Crazy Like a Fox. I used to watch out when I was a
1:01:43
kid. Did you ever watch that?
1:01:44
No. It was just before the Equalizer
1:01:46
with Edward River came on. It was like a Friday night.
1:01:49
Things go crazy like a fox. Him and he's similar, like
1:01:51
private eyes I think. OK, right now.
1:01:53
It was class. I need to dig that out again.
1:01:54
Actually, it was really, really good.
1:01:56
I love him, yeah, but not just because he's funny, although
1:01:58
that helps. I think you can tell that he's a
1:02:00
brilliant actor. Yeah.
1:02:02
Really reminds me of Walter Matt, how I think he's got that
1:02:04
kind of vibe to him right. I could see him at out doing
1:02:06
this role. I see what you mean, yeah.
1:02:08
Yeah. Oh, definitely.
1:02:09
You could do, yeah. So I'm going to talk about three
1:02:11
or five. Jack Klugman, another great
1:02:14
performance, another actor who realizes they've only got a
1:02:17
limited time to make an impact to you, so they've really got a
1:02:19
zero in on what makes their character tick.
1:02:22
And you can see straight away at 5:00, he's not comfortable with
1:02:25
his decision of guilty. You can see he's wavering and
1:02:27
he's it's pee pressure for him because he's not open to his
1:02:30
face about his innocent decision.
1:02:33
As the evidence gets spoken about and discuss, he can see
1:02:36
just in his eyes his opinion is shifting.
1:02:39
But you can also see that realization that people around
1:02:41
this table like Jura 10, they're based on their guilty decision
1:02:45
on something other than the evidence.
1:02:46
And he's not having that. And I think part of the
1:02:49
greatness of this writing is every Jew who finds one thing
1:02:52
within them that they base every decision on.
1:02:54
And for him, it's the fact that this kid comes from a similar
1:02:57
background to see him, the slums, and everyone is holding
1:02:59
that against the kid. So he's not going to do that.
1:03:02
And then that really comes into play.
1:03:04
He gets this moment where the talk about the knife, which he
1:03:07
blows that hole in that evidence is all, no, that's not how he
1:03:10
would have held it. He'd go from underhanded.
1:03:12
He's not tall enough to do that. And when he first picks up the
1:03:15
knife and he just goes, boy, I hate these things.
1:03:17
Really subtle line, but I think I'll just tell to you, you can't
1:03:20
judge someone on their background because he comes from
1:03:22
the slums, but he wants nothing to do with knife heights or
1:03:24
anything like that. That line when he says, well
1:03:27
maybe you can still smell it on me.
1:03:28
Yeah, yeah, I. Love that it's like what a put
1:03:31
down that is. Yeah, yeah, totally agree much.
1:03:33
I think 5 is like a writing tool.
1:03:35
As much as he has a character through him, rules kind of takes
1:03:38
apart all the class prejudices running through it all.
1:03:41
Most of them do at 10, but others as well.
1:03:44
That bit when he first says something is when 10s, like, you
1:03:46
know how these people are. And Four is kind of backing him
1:03:49
up. Five doesn't explode.
1:03:50
He just goes quiet at first. But then he's like, enough's
1:03:53
enough, Yeah. And kind of goes, you can't say
1:03:55
that and steps in. And there's a real, like,
1:03:57
dignity to him, which makes a stance all the more powerful to
1:04:00
me. Yes.
1:04:01
And he gets his moment in the second knife scene, the sequel,
1:04:04
where he shows him how people actually use a switchblade
1:04:07
because how he carries himself, self and how he looks.
1:04:09
He's like, well, quaffed in a suit.
1:04:11
It does kind of challenge all these assumptions that have been
1:04:13
made about the kind of people that would use one of these
1:04:15
knives. I mean, that's the point.
1:04:17
Yeah. He kind of gets an arc as well.
1:04:19
He started almost apologetic about his background and then
1:04:22
slowly becomes more proud. He's mouthing off all over the
1:04:25
place. Yeah, by the end.
1:04:26
And I think Jack Klugman plays it all with a lot of restraint.
1:04:29
I think through him, it just highlights the point that Rose
1:04:31
is making. Yeah.
1:04:32
Again, I think it's a really good acting performance.
1:04:34
Yeah, it's very physical performance.
1:04:36
Yeah. Without actually moving much.
1:04:37
He's just got a presence, like a real presence on the screen.
1:04:40
Yeah, yes. And Klugman was the youngest
1:04:42
actor in the cast at only 35. He later said that when he was
1:04:46
being taught drama at the Carnegie Institute, his teacher
1:04:48
told him, young man, you are not suited to be an actor.
1:04:51
You are suited to be a truck driver.
1:04:53
Harsh. And this was only his third
1:04:55
feature, but he had appeared on TV in 1955 in an episode of the
1:04:59
Producers Showcase anthology series called The Petrified
1:05:02
Forest. And Henry Fonda was also in that
1:05:05
movie. So there's a connection there
1:05:07
leading to Klugman being cast. See you.
1:05:08
Right. Nice.
1:05:10
Yeah, Jack Warden was in that episode, too.
1:05:12
Wow, right. And so were Humphrey Bogart and
1:05:15
Lauren Bacall. Wow.
1:05:16
Sounds amazing. That's a bit All Star for a TV
1:05:18
show, is it? My directors.
1:05:23
And Jack Klugman went on the play Oscar in the 70s TV version
1:05:27
of The Odd Couple. Oh, yes, he did.
1:05:29
That's right. Yeah.
1:05:29
Another Odd Couple connection is dura #2, played by John Fiedler.
1:05:33
This was his first film credit but he went on have a successful
1:05:36
career. He played Vinnie in the film
1:05:38
version of The Odd Couple, the 1968 and also did the voice of
1:05:41
Piglet in the 70s version of Winnie the Pooh.
1:05:43
Yes. As soon as you hear him as
1:05:45
Piglet, you know what's him. You can't not hear it.
1:05:47
Yeah, you've got that like soft spoken voice, isn't he?
1:05:49
Yeah, I think he's good here. Quiet performance, but you can
1:05:52
tell he's also a very good actor.
1:05:54
Yeah. It makes me laugh near the start
1:05:55
when 3 is mouthing off and two goes oh wait a minute some
1:05:58
people haven't had a chance to talk yet.
1:06:00
If he puts his hand in his face and just goes be quiet a second
1:06:03
would you? The rudest man in the world.
1:06:07
So Reginald Ross had served in the US military during the
1:06:10
Second World War, and during casting he'd mentioned to Lamet
1:06:13
how his experiences of conflict had shaped as writing of the
1:06:16
conflict in 12 Angry Men. And that might have influenced
1:06:19
who Lamet hired, because eight of the 12 Jews were U.S.
1:06:22
Army veterans. And we found it.
1:06:24
John Fielder. Jack Klugman, Martin Balsam,
1:06:27
who's the former Juror 1, and Jack Warden all served in the US
1:06:31
Army Air Forces and two other cast members.
1:06:33
We've not mentioned lots yet. Edward Benson's Juror 6 and
1:06:37
Robert Webber is true of 12. Wow.
1:06:40
Well, yeah, 6 is the one who keeps threatening to punch 3
1:06:42
lights out, Yeah. Gonna lay you out.
1:06:47
And 12, the ADS guy keep doodling on his pad.
1:06:49
Yeah, I'm surprised that he doesn't get that over his hand
1:06:51
like he does with those Nords and crosses.
1:06:53
Then all right, Yeah. No award recognition for EG
1:06:55
Marshall, Jack Warden or Jack Lugman for their displays in 12
1:06:58
Angry Men. Looking back though, I think
1:07:00
they all could have been. Yeah, looking back, yeah.
1:07:03
Imagine just the old cast Five, Yeah.
1:07:06
Yeah. Brilliant.
1:07:07
But that is our cast section. Henry Fonder and Lee Jay Cobb,
1:07:10
and we mentioned some other actors and we'll mention the
1:07:12
ones we've not yet. But as a whole, this is amongst
1:07:15
some of the best ensemble work you'll see in just about any
1:07:18
film. Oh yeah, it has to be up there.
1:07:20
It's definitely top five easily. One of the best.
1:07:26
The middle. Heading into the middle of 12
1:07:31
Angry Men and the cracks in the prosecution's case are starting
1:07:33
to show. We're going to be talking about
1:07:36
the reenactment scene where Jew right aid shuffles around the
1:07:38
room to make a point. But first, it's some moments
1:07:41
that show how doubt is spreading throughout the room.
1:07:43
Yeah, it is. As the deliberations continue,
1:07:46
more Jews are starting to query the evidence. 2 testimonies in
1:07:49
particular come into question. An elderly witness who lived
1:07:52
next to an L train and the idea that the accused would return to
1:07:56
the scene of the crime. What do you think, Westy, with
1:07:59
how things are unfolding? Here's another set piece.
1:08:01
Well, another two set pieces. I mean, it's just fantastic.
1:08:04
You know, you asked the question, how long do you think
1:08:07
it would take an out train to get from this point to this
1:08:09
point? Yeah, Like you said earlier on
1:08:10
the doing the notes and crosses and he's just like, come on.
1:08:13
Yeah, it's not a game. Crumples that up. 3 furious.
1:08:16
He's kind of fulshing around all over.
1:08:18
Who do you think you are? But then we get this.
1:08:21
We're getting down to brass tacks here.
1:08:22
We're trying to figure this out. This is how intense we're going
1:08:24
to get. This is how intent.
1:08:26
It is unproven. There is doubt here.
1:08:28
You know you've got them. 10 seconds.
1:08:30
He wouldn't have heard it. That's all fine.
1:08:32
That's great. But what really gets me is 9
1:08:36
here. The main doubt in This is why
1:08:37
would he lie? And I absolutely love this
1:08:41
monologue. I think it is just wonderful
1:08:42
because he's talking about himself.
1:08:45
Yeah, he's literally saying that's why I've said not guilty.
1:08:49
That's why I'm backing him up. That's why I want to talk about
1:08:52
this. I want to be known for a good
1:08:54
reason. I don't want to be known as just
1:08:55
somebody who just turned up and said guilty and disappeared.
1:08:58
I want to fight for something and I want my life to mean
1:09:01
something, even if it's just to me.
1:09:04
And it's just so beautifully played out because he said the
1:09:07
scene with his jacket was split under the shoulder.
1:09:09
You notice that, right? Just this guy's like a very old
1:09:11
man with a ripped jacket literally talking about himself.
1:09:14
And the reason he's changed everything is because he is that
1:09:17
guy. And he knows I know him better
1:09:19
than anyone else in this room. And he just gets shut down for
1:09:22
it. Oh, what do you know about it?
1:09:24
And then there's that incredible silence.
1:09:26
He. Shakes his head.
1:09:28
You just get to an age where you disappear, you want a matter.
1:09:32
And he said it's a hard thing to be nobody.
1:09:35
There's so many clues in this whole film as to why they've
1:09:37
done what they've done and chosen what they've chosen and
1:09:39
where their moral compass points.
1:09:41
Every single character reveals that day.
1:09:43
And that's Jura Nines moment here.
1:09:44
And it really just kind of cuts me in half a little bit and how
1:09:47
he's just spilling his guts. But I think it's just a
1:09:49
wonderful scene, a wonderful performance and so well set up.
1:09:53
It definitely is. Something that Rose and Lumet do
1:09:55
throughout is it's a story where the deals of the case are
1:09:58
massively important, so we need to know them, but to always
1:10:00
manage to drop them in in such a natural way.
1:10:03
Yeah. With the L3, it starts with G,
1:10:04
right. Eight, kind of figuring out the
1:10:05
testimony doesn't make sense. And then he says, does anybody
1:10:08
ever live near an L3? And 6 is like, I'll spend a
1:10:11
couple of days working near 10, brother.
1:10:13
You couldn't hear yourself. And then we're kind of in.
1:10:15
But it's very human rather than just, like, relaying facts to
1:10:18
us. Yeah.
1:10:19
And what makes it important isn't just because it develops a
1:10:21
narrative. It's Jura 9, the oldest guy in
1:10:24
the room who figures it all out. He's the one who gets what might
1:10:26
have been going on in the Order Witness's head, that he might
1:10:29
have lied for attention. He wasn't lied maliciously, I
1:10:31
don't think. He's kind of lonely, basically.
1:10:34
He actually says he convinced himself that this happened.
1:10:36
Exactly. Yeah.
1:10:37
Which I think is a relatable observation about age and just
1:10:40
about being human for anyone. Yeah.
1:10:42
And Joseph Sweeney is Jura 9. I think he plays it so well.
1:10:45
There's real empathy in his voice when he talks about the
1:10:47
old man. Yeah, he understands him because
1:10:49
like you're saying, Wesley, he's lived that experience of being
1:10:51
kind of invisible. We'll see you in this film
1:10:54
through three, obviously, where he's like, he's no man.
1:10:57
How does he know what he saw? Yeah, So I think the scenes he
1:11:00
had to show us another form of prejudice in ageism, but also
1:11:04
that empathy matters as much as the logic does when you're
1:11:06
trying to get to the truth, seeing it from other people's
1:11:08
points of view. I mean, trying to relate to
1:11:10
people can give a a greater understanding of the facts, I
1:11:13
guess. And as always, Lumet delivers it
1:11:15
in just such an engaging way. It's just mad how good it is.
1:11:19
Yeah, so as we've said, Jura 9, who explains why the old man
1:11:23
might lie. He's played by Joseph Sweeney,
1:11:25
and he was the oldest cast member at 73 years old in his
1:11:28
first film was actually a 1918 silent comedy called Sylvia on a
1:11:32
Spree. He then spent most of his career
1:11:35
on Broadway before appearing in a few Studio 1 anthology
1:11:38
episodes in the 40s and 50s. And one of them was actually the
1:11:41
TV adaptation of 12 Angry Men we've talked about previously.
1:11:45
And Sweeney played Jura 9 there as well, which is how he came to
1:11:48
be cast by Lumet. Yeah, McArdle.
1:11:50
He's cold, isn't he? We find out in the final scene
1:11:52
as well. 12 Angry Men with Joseph Sweeney's final film
1:11:56
before he passed away. All right, but another cast
1:11:59
member from the 1954 version came back as well.
1:12:01
That was George Voskovac, who plays Dura 11.
1:12:04
Yes, the immigrant watchmaker Dura.
1:12:07
Well, talking of 11, this is his time to shine here with this
1:12:10
argument about how possible is it the boy would return for the
1:12:13
knife. And one of the things I do love
1:12:15
the most about the writing is once the first crack star
1:12:19
repeat, various Jews pick up on various different things.
1:12:22
It's not all it go on. But what about this?
1:12:25
What about this? What about this?
1:12:26
It's someone different each time, which I think works so
1:12:29
well. And this argument about the boy
1:12:32
returning for the knife is illogical.
1:12:33
What do you have done it and you have three and seven who were
1:12:36
just making jokes about it. It's not nice to leave knives
1:12:39
around sticking in people's chests.
1:12:41
Yeah, especially relatives. So you're starting to see the
1:12:43
gap wide and he and not just between those who were set on
1:12:46
guilty and those who were set on not guilty, but the different
1:12:49
attitudes even between those in the same camp.
1:12:51
Like we've been saying 4 dead set on guilty, but he shoots
1:12:55
both of these down where he just goes.
1:12:56
I don't see anything funny about it.
1:12:58
So it again, it's just these little fault lines and a little
1:13:01
conflict between everyone. And from here on in three, he
1:13:05
knows he does. Sticks to four like a Leech.
1:13:07
He's just like, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. 4 doesn't want
1:13:09
anything to do with them. Which we'll talk.
1:13:11
About here. And three still erupt in here at
1:13:14
11. What side are you on?
1:13:16
Yeah, But 11 is so calm and collected and cool.
1:13:19
I don't believe I must be allowed to one side or the
1:13:21
other. Yeah.
1:13:22
Which is. Yeah, that's very idealistic,
1:13:24
but that's where it should be. And I think the scene really
1:13:26
demonstrates who gets that and who doesn't.
1:13:28
Yeah, it does. I mean, we're talking about the
1:13:30
importance of following the facts, not your feelings in the
1:13:32
case. But one thing which isn't always
1:13:34
logical is human behaviour, and I think that's one of the points
1:13:37
that's being made here. The boy returns to the scene of
1:13:39
the crime as he says. Why would he do that?
1:13:42
Even you, his father was lying dead in the floor and there was
1:13:43
a chance that the police were waiting for him.
1:13:45
Yeah, that's the logical argument, but it doesn't mean
1:13:47
that he didn't do that. Criminals do sometimes return to
1:13:50
the scene of a crime. So the point is, I think we've
1:13:52
got 2 totally plausible explanations for the same fact,
1:13:56
which is basically the definition of reasonable doubt.
1:13:59
So this seems to be exploring spin.
1:14:01
I think to me, you can tell a story, we're coming back to the
1:14:03
crime scene proves guilt, and you can tell another story we're
1:14:06
coming back to this crime scene proves innocence.
1:14:08
Yeah. And this is still the case
1:14:09
today. That kind of thing.
1:14:10
Obviously, Yeah. Yeah, the tables are starting to
1:14:13
turn. Then we should probably see if
1:14:15
that continues. And a couple of important
1:14:17
narrative scenes there. Yeah, yeah, definitely.
1:14:20
Yeah. The attention in the room is
1:14:23
building and only grows as Juror 8 decides to challenge 2 further
1:14:27
testimonies. Could the old man really have
1:14:29
made it from his bedroom to the front door in 15 seconds to see
1:14:32
the boy fleeing the scene of the crime?
1:14:34
And could the accused have forgotten what films he saw at
1:14:36
the cinema just hours later? Time to find out as Wesley
1:14:40
investigates. Nice, Wesley Investigates.
1:14:43
That's a little spin off show isn't it?
1:14:46
Investigates. Well, this is great.
1:14:49
Do you think he could go from the bed to the door, which is 12
1:14:53
foot, then walk 43 feet down the court?
1:14:56
No, no, he can't. Definitely.
1:14:58
No, you don't have to reenact it.
1:14:59
No, he definitely can't do that. He's an old man.
1:15:02
He's dragging his leg trying to hide it.
1:15:03
But the thing that I get from this is just that brilliance of
1:15:06
reacting it. He has to prove himself.
1:15:08
He has to kind of get from one to the other.
1:15:10
I'm going to walk to that wall and walk back, but I just love
1:15:12
it. Anyone got a watch for the
1:15:13
second hand? He's like, I'm just waiting for
1:15:15
the second. 60 on that guy. But you.
1:15:19
Would would be a you would like, I want this to be absolutely
1:15:21
right, but I don't know if I really trust that guy to get it
1:15:24
right. But I think what they try to do
1:15:26
here is nail this down and have a shot that looks like it's
1:15:30
exactly the same amount of time on that watch that you're
1:15:33
watching it in real time. And I do think Lament and
1:15:36
Kaufman did try to do this. And it's really hard to judge if
1:15:40
you're shooting film through a mag and you will then time in
1:15:43
that film because then you've got the process 24 frames a
1:15:46
second. You don't, you kind of can be a
1:15:48
little bit off. So they were out by 10 seconds,
1:15:51
right? Because the kid says 41 and this
1:15:54
is exactly 31 seconds, right? So I think they allowed that 10
1:15:57
second kind of gap either side just in case there might have
1:16:00
been an issue because if it had taken too long, wouldn't have
1:16:03
worked as well. That tracking shot needs to look
1:16:05
as close to 41 as possible. And they've got a 10 seconds
1:16:08
off. And it's just absolutely
1:16:10
fantastic. Just the way it just tilts down
1:16:11
to the floor. You're following his feet.
1:16:13
Yeah. Grip again.
1:16:14
Usual suspects. It's Kaiser.
1:16:16
Really, really well done, really well judged.
1:16:20
And I love the way he changes halfway through.
1:16:21
He's like, he would have walked faster than that.
1:16:23
How'd you do that? He's like, you want to walk
1:16:26
faster? I will.
1:16:27
And then speeds up ever so slightly.
1:16:29
Yeah, tiny bit. Just a tiny bit, but you just
1:16:31
say it. It's really, really brilliant.
1:16:33
It's getting more physical now. It's tangible.
1:16:35
You can touch it, you can see it.
1:16:37
I'm going to prove it to you. This is the actual fact.
1:16:39
And you just along for the ride here.
1:16:41
I mean, this is the middle of the film.
1:16:42
You know, it's like going down a water slide and you're halfway
1:16:44
down. You definitely can't change the
1:16:46
trajectory of where this is going now.
1:16:48
It's absolutely brilliant. Yeah, yeah, here it is, the
1:16:50
action scene. Yeah, you're right.
1:16:52
It should be wearing a vest for this bit, but it's a great idea.
1:16:56
The physical reenactment changed up the piercing and the visuals.
1:17:00
And again, Lumet elevates this. Firstly, that blueprint of the
1:17:03
old man's apartment they bring in.
1:17:05
Yeah. How big is that?
1:17:06
Why is it that big? It looks like they just won the
1:17:10
post code lottery. You would have had that in the
1:17:13
courtroom. The wouldn't show the whole jury
1:17:15
at once. I think you need it that size.
1:17:16
Yeah, I mean, it's a great image.
1:17:18
And then how to shoot the reenactment.
1:17:19
The tracking shot around the room was really good, and the
1:17:21
sound, the footsteps scraping on the floor.
1:17:23
Great. And there's a shot just before
1:17:25
the reenactment where Jira 7 is shouting his mouth off about
1:17:28
Jack Dempsey fight for some reason, and they suddenly start
1:17:31
questioning the 15 seconds thing.
1:17:33
There's this one shot where characters with different
1:17:35
opinions all come in, and they're popping into the frame
1:17:38
from all over the place, and it's clear as day what's going
1:17:41
on. The blocking is outrageous, but
1:17:45
the whole scene, just a master class and using action as drama.
1:17:48
It's one of the most immersive scenes in the film, I think.
1:17:51
Yeah. And at this point in the film,
1:17:53
where they have another vote and it's tied at 6:00 to 6:00, so
1:17:56
they have another break. I like that shot The juror one
1:17:59
and eight have at the window. One's the foreman on the jury,
1:18:02
but he's a teacher, and he's telling a story about a football
1:18:05
game he was managing. And he's like the kids.
1:18:07
An axe, a real axe, you know, It's great.
1:18:11
Martin Balsam G right #1 isn't he?
1:18:13
I think he kind of shows how good an actor he is just in that
1:18:15
monologue. What do you think of him?
1:18:18
Great. I mean, you can feel the instant
1:18:20
pressure he feels is falling because this is like herding
1:18:22
cats. I mean, three kicking off every
1:18:25
two minutes. And he's trying to.
1:18:26
Yeah. Everyone just calm down, Sit
1:18:28
down. Let's have a board.
1:18:29
You know, I don't like taking shots.
1:18:30
Do you want to do take my seat? I'll step back.
1:18:32
Let's swap. I just think he's really good as
1:18:34
that guy. He really doesn't have to settle
1:18:36
any of this. Yeah, he throws a right drop at
1:18:39
the start, doesn't he? Telling everyone else you would
1:18:41
do it if it's so easy? Yeah.
1:18:43
When he agencies, I think we should carry on.
1:18:45
He just turns away, like I don't care what you do.
1:18:47
Yeah, I think. It's fairly justified though to
1:18:50
be honest. What a shit position to go and
1:18:51
even forgets that he's number one at one point.
1:18:53
He does, yeah. Oh, that's me.
1:18:55
Throw his toys right with the Bram, Yeah.
1:18:56
Yeah, yeah. So after this we know by now
1:18:59
Jewel 4 going to be a real tough not to crack here because one
1:19:03
element he keeps coming back to again and again again the boys
1:19:06
inability to remember anything about the films he went to see
1:19:09
the cinema that he says he did. But it's brilliant how air turns
1:19:12
back on him. Well, what did he do last night?
1:19:14
What about the night before? Yeah.
1:19:16
But he only goes back four nights when 4's at the cinema
1:19:18
and he's struggling to remember all the details.
1:19:20
I mean, come on. Like if I saw something four
1:19:23
days ago, I can remember the DP and all the editor and all the
1:19:26
costume designer. Yeah, you can, Matt.
1:19:28
Well, I. Can be, you know, maybe that's
1:19:29
an unrealistic bar. I mean, you get 3 chipping in
1:19:32
the background, don't you know? Tells when you get back to New
1:19:34
Year's Eve 1954. Yeah, that's great.
1:19:36
Yeah, that's a really fun kind. But it is.
1:19:38
So it's a very important scene in terms of chipping away at how
1:19:42
steadfast 4 is in his belief. And you get that great call back
1:19:45
because so far, he's been the only one not suffering in the
1:19:48
heat. He says to five earlier, no, I
1:19:50
don't sweat. But then when he realizes he's
1:19:52
now on shaky ground with this piece of evidence he's been
1:19:55
based in everything on, you just get that single bead of sweat on
1:19:57
his brow. Well, yeah, you're a force is I
1:20:00
don't sweat. Unless I'm being asked about who
1:20:02
was in the amazing Mrs. Bainbridge, obviously, yeah.
1:20:05
Then he's in deep shit, isn't he?
1:20:06
Yeah, the amazing Mrs. Bainbridge in The Scarlet
1:20:08
Circle, he mentions. They're not real films, by the
1:20:11
way, just in case anyone's wondering.
1:20:12
Yeah, Yeah. But till now, JIRA 4 has been,
1:20:14
like, the logical member of the group, and he clearly prides
1:20:17
himself on that. And I think he seems to think
1:20:19
that being that way means you can't really get anything wrong.
1:20:22
Yeah. And then the scene kind of pulls
1:20:23
the idea apart. Yeah, exactly.
1:20:24
If he can't remember anything on the no real pressure, it's
1:20:27
probably reasonable. But the boy didn't when
1:20:29
questioned by the police. Yeah.
1:20:30
Yeah. So I think it basically
1:20:31
underlines the message that sits at the core of every argument in
1:20:34
the film, really, that justice is really complex.
1:20:37
Yeah. It is, yeah.
1:20:39
And humanity needs to be understood and given a chance.
1:20:41
Absolutely. Because we aren't robots.
1:20:43
You can't just react exactly the way the people think you're
1:20:45
going to react to things. 100%, And that's the middle section of
1:20:48
12 Angry Men. The votes are shifting, and what
1:20:51
seemed like an open and short case is now anything but time to
1:20:54
talk about the people behind the scenes.
1:20:56
Well, bring this to life, I think, Yeah.
1:20:58
Yeah, definitely the crew. Time to talk about the key crew
1:21:07
members now help bring 12 angry men to life.
1:21:10
We're going to be discussing composer Kenyon Hopkins, who
1:21:13
created the score, and cinematographer Boris Kaufman,
1:21:16
whose camera work we've already touched on.
1:21:18
But first, let's talk about the man who started it all.
1:21:21
Yeah, let's do that. Yes, logical place to start I
1:21:23
think. Yeah, well, the screenplay for
1:21:25
12 Angry Men was written by Reginald Rose, adapting his own
1:21:28
1954 teleplay. Rose was mainly a television
1:21:31
writer at this point, having done a lot of work for Studio 1,
1:21:34
the anthology See, which we've mentioned.
1:21:36
He did have one previous screen writing credit to his name, the
1:21:39
1956 noir thriller Crime in the Streets, directed by Don Siegel.
1:21:44
OK, also worth mentioning that the script supervisor on 12
1:21:47
Angry Men was Faith Hubley, who became more well known as an
1:21:50
animator in later years. Right.
1:21:51
OK, but here she was the one and only woman in the whole cast and
1:21:56
crew. Wow.
1:21:57
So shout out to her. Definitely, and script
1:21:59
supervisor as well. Probably the most important job.
1:22:02
One of them, yeah. You get this right?
1:22:03
Yeah. But Matt Rosa screenplay for 12
1:22:06
Angry Men. What do you make of the writing?
1:22:09
It's the character work already stands out of me.
1:22:11
There's not one of these Jews that is forgettable or feels
1:22:14
irrelevant to the end of the film.
1:22:16
Yeah, I can go around those 12 Jews and go, I know why he voted
1:22:20
guilty. I know why he voted guilty.
1:22:21
I know why he did. I know why he changed his mind.
1:22:23
I know why he changed his mind. Yeah, And it all makes sense.
1:22:27
And a lot of that has to do with the performances, but it's the
1:22:29
little details in the writing as well and make them stand out.
1:22:32
Jew of Four is a stockbroker, so he isn't real by emotion, but he
1:22:36
thinks in very cool and calculated terms instead.
1:22:39
Jew of Six, we know he won't stand for rudeness to the
1:22:42
elderly in general, and certainly not to Jew and #9 at
1:22:45
all. That means we know he's very
1:22:47
principled. And I think it's important for
1:22:49
the film to say that, yes, 11 of them go in thinking guilty at
1:22:52
1st, and some of them have prejudices informing that, but
1:22:56
not all of them do, and it would be a disservice to say so.
1:22:59
Most of them come to that conclusion in a reasonable
1:23:02
enough manner, and when they do change their mind, it doesn't
1:23:05
come with shame or judgement against them for thinking that
1:23:08
way to begin with. So for a 90 minute film to have
1:23:10
12 very different characters established very quickly, all
1:23:14
with understandable motives for their decisions at various
1:23:16
points, that's incredible writing to me, yeah.
1:23:20
Yeah, one of the things I like about the writing is the
1:23:22
technical side of things. In some ways, Reginald Rose
1:23:25
sticks, like, religiously to Hollywood's kind of golden rules
1:23:28
of writing. Other times, he abandons them
1:23:30
completely. Like a typical rule you hear is
1:23:33
that when reading a screenplay, you should be able to cover up
1:23:35
the names of the characters and still be able to tell who's
1:23:37
speaking. They should have their own
1:23:39
distinct voices even on the page.
1:23:41
And that's definitely the case. Yeah, every character has their
1:23:44
own way of talking in the script.
1:23:46
You definitely know when 7's talking, when he hates talking
1:23:48
10 overseas, you know what I mean, if you've noticed.
1:23:52
But Rose breaks loads of those rules as well.
1:23:54
You're apparently supposed to make sure a character names are
1:23:56
distinct. Rose isn't bothered about that
1:23:58
at all. We just get numbers for names,
1:24:01
which is obviously really difficult to follow who's who
1:24:03
first time round. You're not supposed to explain
1:24:06
exposition by just having characters sitting and talking
1:24:08
to each other. That's the entire film.
1:24:10
Yeah, but it all works because, well, first of all, it's not
1:24:14
intentionally. These are mistakes.
1:24:16
And then the execution of it, I mean, it's sensational to me.
1:24:21
One of the most engaging narratives you can get I think
1:24:23
is a well written whodunit. Like, I get, like, Christie
1:24:26
became a legendary writing name because she mastered that.
1:24:29
But this is sort of the opposite to how she did it.
1:24:31
We start off knowing who did it, and I've given all the evidence
1:24:34
why, and then it works backwards to deconstruct the case.
1:24:37
So it's a great twist on that, like, classic genre structure.
1:24:40
Yeah. And what I wonder, and I
1:24:41
wouldn't be surprised if he did, is if Reginald Rose had the
1:24:44
actual story of what did happen in the case all mapped out, even
1:24:47
though he doesn't tell us. Yeah.
1:24:49
Like, does he know whether the kid actually murdered his father
1:24:51
or not? I think he probably did know.
1:24:53
So we have something to stick to that would prevent, like,
1:24:55
inconsistencies cropping up. Yeah.
1:24:57
And aside from the structure, the exploration of themes is
1:25:00
about as good as I've seen. Yeah, one of the main messages
1:25:02
seems to be our opinions are all heavily influenced by our
1:25:05
prejudices, even when we're analyzing facts.
1:25:07
And it takes a conscious, like, big effort to step outside that.
1:25:11
That is still as relevant now as it was then.
1:25:14
People forming opinions with feelings, not facts.
1:25:16
You see it all over social media now, and that's the core of what
1:25:19
we see. Yeah.
1:25:20
Yeah, it's still 100% relevant. So I think the writing is a
1:25:23
great concept, perfectly structured, great piece of
1:25:26
engaging storytelling, and also gets to something I think might
1:25:29
be at the very core of being human.
1:25:31
I think that's probably why, or a key reason why it still stands
1:25:35
up so well and makes such an impact on people today.
1:25:38
Yeah, I totally agree with all of your points.
1:25:39
Both of you said there. I think it is very, very tight
1:25:42
on the page and I think that's necessary because that's what's
1:25:47
excited wondering at the start of it is kind of it's on the
1:25:49
page here. All we've got to do is deliver
1:25:51
this because it is watertight and it's absolutely fantastic
1:25:54
writing. But the thing that really kind
1:25:56
of freaks me out about it, if I was going to date start writing
1:25:59
this, he paints himself into a corner every single time and
1:26:03
gets out of that corner with something you did not see
1:26:05
coming, right? Yeah.
1:26:06
He gives you a problem, then goes as well, how am I going to
1:26:08
get out of this problem? The tension is just right, but
1:26:11
it's the pace in here this is could so easily go wrong.
1:26:14
You could spend too long on the knife, you could spend too long
1:26:17
on the L train. He could spend too long on the
1:26:19
woman. Every single point that he has
1:26:21
here, all four of the points have the wrong amount of time,
1:26:23
and it's the perfect amount of time to address that problem and
1:26:27
solve it. Very well paced.
1:26:28
Exactly. It's the pace and then it moves
1:26:29
to the next one and then moves to the next one.
1:26:31
And within that, you're getting these, like you've said, these
1:26:34
themes of humanity, these themes of morality, these themes of
1:26:37
empathy, this massive allegory for 50s America as it is the
1:26:40
American legal system itself, you know, highlighting that its
1:26:43
reliance on morality and empathy and being a human being.
1:26:46
And it's not a science to be alive.
1:26:49
A murder isn't the science. It's not done for a specific
1:26:51
reason. It's got emotions involved.
1:26:53
It's not cut and dry. It's not black and white.
1:26:56
It's not this or this. There's a lot of grey area and
1:26:59
the writing in this film is about that grey area.
1:27:02
I mean, that's the whole point it's making, isn't it?
1:27:04
Exactly. It's not the start and it's not
1:27:06
the end. It's what's in the middle.
1:27:09
And I find that really uplifting.
1:27:10
I think it's an incredible message because don't give up
1:27:13
because there's a chance that everything, you know, what if a
1:27:16
fall? Yeah, but what if you fly?
1:27:18
And I think that's what he's trying to get with the writing
1:27:20
in this and the message that he's trying to relay.
1:27:22
And boy, does he absolutely nail that message.
1:27:25
Oh, he absolutely does to the wall.
1:27:27
It's fantastic, yeah. So in 1953, Reginald Ross served
1:27:31
on a jewelry for a manslaughter case.
1:27:33
He never publicly revealed which case, but some researchers have
1:27:36
identified the trial of William Vira, who killed a man in a
1:27:39
street fight is the one he was part of.
1:27:42
And Rose was fascinated by the trial and sort of had potential
1:27:45
for a script. So within a week, he'd come up
1:27:47
with the concept of a jury presented with evidence.
1:27:49
I needed more examination and one man holding out against the
1:27:52
other jurors. Yeah, he said that you also
1:27:55
wanted to make it clear to people the kind of things that
1:27:57
go on in a jury room because most people just weren't aware
1:28:00
of how, like, passioned and overwhelming it could be.
1:28:02
Yeah. Yeah.
1:28:03
And sweaty, it seems like. Yeah.
1:28:05
Very much. Everybody was the television
1:28:07
writer at the time as well, so he developed the concept into a
1:28:10
teleplayer, not a playoff screenplayer.
1:28:12
He presented it to CBS and they gave it the green light for an
1:28:15
episode of Studio 1. Yes, so September 1954, that
1:28:19
went out like we said. Something we didn't mention,
1:28:22
though, is that that episode went out live, all right?
1:28:24
So the actors performed it there and then.
1:28:26
Wow. So it had to be written and
1:28:27
directed in such a way to allow the actors to nail it all in one
1:28:30
take. So that's where the piercing
1:28:32
comes from then? Exactly.
1:28:33
Yeah. And Rosa's first draft of the
1:28:35
Telly player was 8500 words long, so it had to be cut down
1:28:39
for about 6000 words to the studio One one hour format.
1:28:43
And Ross said once he came to adapt it to a screenplay, he did
1:28:46
make changes to dialogue and he tweaked some scenes, but he
1:28:48
already had it more or less written.
1:28:50
Nice. Yeah, So when you watch that
1:28:52
1954 version, it's about 45 minutes shorter than the film.
1:28:55
What we do see is a lot of the time, literally word for word,
1:28:58
the same, right, Which is really interesting to compare the
1:29:01
different choices, the different directors and cast members made.
1:29:04
Yeah. Although it's not really fair to
1:29:05
just compare to Lumet's version and go, well, this isn't as
1:29:08
good. No, they'd have to do the whole
1:29:10
thing in one take. So it's.
1:29:12
Different. It's like a starter, isn't it?
1:29:13
You kind of compare to the main cause.
1:29:15
No, exactly. Yeah, and while racial prejudice
1:29:18
is one of the themes explored in the film, Rose deliberately
1:29:21
doesn't tell us the ethnic background of the suspect.
1:29:23
Rose said the important facts were that he was not of northern
1:29:26
European ancestry and their prejudice from some jurors would
1:29:30
be a big part of the process. Yes, we'll see the suspect in
1:29:33
that one shot at the start, don't we?
1:29:35
Yeah, but impossible to know for sure.
1:29:37
Any kind of ethnicity from that. Yeah, it could be from a a
1:29:40
wealth of different places, yeah.
1:29:41
Yeah, you could be, yeah. And that carries into the
1:29:43
specific details. We just get he's from the slums
1:29:45
or he's one of them. Or them or they.
1:29:47
Yeah, it's very much that. And it's the same with the
1:29:49
jurors. 0 back story, not even any names until the final few
1:29:52
seconds. I think the writing feels quite
1:29:54
ahead of its time in some ways. Oh.
1:29:56
Definitely, yeah. Yeah, yeah.
1:29:57
It's timeless as opposed to being ahead of its time.
1:29:59
It's human themes. Yeah, absolutely.
1:30:02
Or before we sign off on the writing, we have another
1:30:04
question from one of our patrons.
1:30:06
It's on the screenplay and Jacob Perry is here to ask it.
1:30:09
Hello, Jacob. Hello, Jacob.
1:30:10
So Jacob says 12 Angry Men is a masterful script and has serious
1:30:14
things to say about the era in which it was written.
1:30:17
What are the team's thoughts about how the film portrays the
1:30:19
era of McCarthyism and the prejudices of the US legal
1:30:22
system of the 1950s? Right.
1:30:25
Real, serious question here from Jacob.
1:30:27
Yeah, I think a little context might help for some people.
1:30:30
So McCarthyism, nothing to do with Mick McCarthy for our
1:30:33
British football fans, I don't think.
1:30:35
In the 1950s, AUSAI called Joseph McCarthy LED
1:30:39
investigations into the idea there'd been communist
1:30:41
infiltration into American institutions.
1:30:43
One of those institutions was Hollywood.
1:30:45
And let many writers being blacklisted, unable to work in
1:30:48
Hollywood, and some of them never recovered from it.
1:30:50
Everyone careers. Yeah.
1:30:52
So a big question. So a big man to answer it.
1:30:54
Please don't me, Matt. Thoughts on McCarthyism and 12
1:30:57
angry men I think. Pessimistically as it sounds, I
1:31:01
don't think it portrays anything that wouldn't happen today in
1:31:04
the legal system. I think if you end up on trial
1:31:06
for something and do you have the wrong colour skin or you
1:31:09
have the wrong gender or the wrong sexuality, then good luck
1:31:13
to you because the odds are quite likely going to be stacked
1:31:15
against you. Only difference is you'll get a
1:31:18
jury. DS is that isn't just 12 white
1:31:20
men, it'll be a mixture of genders and ethnicity.
1:31:23
But Even so, there's still no guarantee that loud prejudices
1:31:26
won't win out over calm reason. And unlike here.
1:31:29
So yeah, I mean, it's kind of depressing to say, but I just
1:31:33
don't know if things have changed that much.
1:31:35
Yeah, I mean, as a screenwriter in the 50s, Reginald Rose would
1:31:38
obviously have been fully aware and following exactly what was
1:31:41
happening with the whole Hollywood block listing thing
1:31:43
that was going on. And obviously he doesn't
1:31:45
directly reference that in 12 Angry Men, but I think it's
1:31:48
clearly all over it. It is.
1:31:50
The whole film is about the danger of herd mentality group
1:31:53
think, like we've been saying, the importance of standing up to
1:31:55
what you see as injustice and the courage it takes to stand
1:31:58
against a majority. That's massively relevant to
1:32:01
what Rules saw happening in the 50s in Hollywood, America as a
1:32:04
whole. I mean, he was writing this in
1:32:06
5354 and we just talked about South, like, peak McCarthyism.
1:32:10
Yeah, right. As Koreas were being destroyed
1:32:12
and if you spoke up against it, you'd probably get targeted
1:32:14
yourself. Yeah.
1:32:15
So the idea of one man standing up and saying hang on a minute,
1:32:19
let's think about this. Supposing we're wrong.
1:32:21
Yeah. Yeah.
1:32:21
It does take on a whole new meaning when you know, the
1:32:23
backdrop at the time that you've writing to.
1:32:25
Yeah. I mean, I'm not sure what 12
1:32:26
arguments explicitly about McCarthyism, but I do think it's
1:32:29
about it's kind of underlying issues and roles, whether
1:32:32
conscious or not, I think was clearly influenced by what was
1:32:35
going on around him at the time, Yeah.
1:32:36
Didn't Cobb name names as well? Do you?
1:32:39
I think, Cobb testified. Yeah.
1:32:40
Well, I know. Yeah, Kazan did, didn't he?
1:32:42
He was very close to him. Kazan did, yeah.
1:32:44
Yeah, I mean, like you've said there, I think it's impossible
1:32:46
not to write about it. I think it just would have been
1:32:48
in the subconscious anyway, and it's something that you're
1:32:50
worried about and something that he had to address and kind of
1:32:52
get down on the page. But I think what this film does
1:32:55
in regards to McCarthyism and regards to the to the era in
1:32:58
which it's set is the paranoia. Yeah, it nails that paranoia of
1:33:02
that. There's just this a distinct
1:33:04
lack of trust with everybody's their own opinion, the scared of
1:33:08
saying the wrong thing, the scared of being on the wrong
1:33:10
side. They don't even know what the
1:33:11
side is. This lack of trust that results
1:33:14
in aggression, which I think is what McCarthyism was.
1:33:17
This lack of evidence as well, That is McCarthyism straight
1:33:20
down the line. You know, it was just, you're
1:33:21
guilty. Well, can you prove it?
1:33:22
No, but you are, and your lives ruined.
1:33:25
We shouldn't. Yeah.
1:33:25
Wasn't it? Yeah.
1:33:26
Which is kind of what this whole film is about.
1:33:27
It's question and the evidence not finding it.
1:33:30
And again, like you said, John, I think it's just it's a mob
1:33:32
mentality. You're questioned by one person
1:33:35
to seek the truth and you need to stand up for what you believe
1:33:39
in. I think that's what he's
1:33:40
addressing here. Whether that was intentional.
1:33:42
There's so many themes in here that I think it's too good to be
1:33:46
intentional. He's exploring everything even
1:33:49
in his own subconscious. So that's how good the writing
1:33:51
is, really. Yeah, I agree.
1:33:53
It does feel more subconscious. I don't know, but it feels more
1:33:55
subconscious than that he's intentionally done it.
1:33:58
Yeah, it's like when you look at that, uncle, do you realize
1:33:59
you've just written about white prejudice?
1:34:02
He's like, well, Jesus, Yeah, I didn't even think about that.
1:34:04
Well, for his work on 12 Angry Men, Reginald Rose was nominated
1:34:07
for Best Adapted Screenplay at the Oscars.
1:34:09
The film again lost out, and again it was to the Bridge on
1:34:12
the River Kwai. Yeah.
1:34:13
Right. Even though the writers there
1:34:14
didn't get the Oscar either, did they?
1:34:16
No, they didn't. Go back to our episode to find
1:34:18
out why. Yeah, yeah.
1:34:20
But in writing something that is technically excellent and
1:34:22
exploring themes that seem as timeless as any film from its
1:34:25
time, we think this is top class screen writing from regional
1:34:28
Rose. Absolutely fantastic.
1:34:29
Should be taught in film skills. It isn't already.
1:34:31
Should just be taught in schools.
1:34:33
Actually, yeah, yeah. It's time for the music on 12
1:34:37
Angry Men Now, which was composed by Kenyan Hopkins,
1:34:40
mainly known as a stage composer with Radio City Music Hall at
1:34:44
the time. He previously scored features in
1:34:46
Baby Doll in 1956 and Elia Kazan Black Comedy and The Strange One
1:34:51
in War from earlier in 1957. OK, Kenyon Hopkins, third film
1:34:55
score here then Westie. Yeah.
1:34:57
How was his work on 12 Angry Men?
1:34:59
I think his work is very much from his background, Yeah.
1:35:02
It's not like the end of The Untouchables where it just lifts
1:35:05
up and saying. Imagine.
1:35:08
I think Morricone has watched this and went that's really
1:35:10
uplifting. I like that we need something
1:35:11
like that, but you know, the shots the same.
1:35:13
Let's just do something even more uplifting.
1:35:15
To me, this is perfect Bookends, isn't it?
1:35:18
Because that's all he has to do. There's no room for music with
1:35:20
this. It's so dialogue heavy.
1:35:22
You don't need any music in there tell you it's sad.
1:35:24
You don't need any music in there tell you that.
1:35:26
It's an aggressive scene. So he does exactly what you need
1:35:29
to do and he sets the tone. It feels like the curtain call
1:35:32
of a theatre. You know when the curtains open,
1:35:33
that's the opening music, and when the curtains close, that's
1:35:36
the final music. It's brilliantly done, it's
1:35:38
really proficient, it matches the visuals, it sounds
1:35:41
expensive, it really works, but it's exactly what you would
1:35:45
expect to hear in a mid 50s film.
1:35:48
It's of the era. It just sounds like all of the
1:35:51
other music of that era. There's a big swell in it.
1:35:53
It's bombastic, it's not understated, it's just very much
1:35:56
this is the start of the film, this is the end of the film and
1:36:00
for that purpose it really serves it.
1:36:02
It's beautifully done, It's really, really nice.
1:36:04
But I think you could put any music on the start and the end
1:36:07
of this film and it works. Yeah, it's quite unusual, the
1:36:09
music I think, I mean, it's partly used, isn't it?
1:36:12
Yeah. I think there's only like 3
1:36:13
tracks on the soundtrack. We only hear music a few times,
1:36:16
like the opening credits, the closing credits and a few other
1:36:19
scenes here and there. Yeah.
1:36:20
When we do hear the music, it's usually impactful, probably
1:36:23
because we don't hear it very often.
1:36:25
We had the main theme at the start that like sad sounding,
1:36:27
lilting melody, not typical, but I think it works really well.
1:36:31
And then we hear the same melody at the end, but it's very
1:36:33
different In the opening credits when the jewelry, like, wanted
1:36:36
to do the wrong thing, the orchestration is really light.
1:36:39
But then at the end, after the jury's done it's job, it's much
1:36:42
grander. Hopkins makes a lot more of the
1:36:44
wind instruments, so it does feel more sweeping.
1:36:46
Yeah. I think the music is judged
1:36:48
pretty perfectly by Lumet in terms of how and where to use
1:36:51
it. Yeah, not much it seems like.
1:36:53
Not much at all, no. And also by Hopkins, in terms of
1:36:55
composing it, it adds to the realism because it's used so
1:36:58
little. So when it does come in, it
1:36:59
feels quite imposing. And I think, again, adds to the
1:37:02
sense of claustrophobia when we hear it right here.
1:37:04
And the main theme is a nice little tune.
1:37:06
So yeah, one of the best examples of a very, very, very
1:37:10
minimal score, I think. Yeah, understated, I believe is
1:37:12
the word. Yeah, it goes from minor to
1:37:15
major. Yeah, I mean, there's not too
1:37:18
much to talk about it and I just completely agree with what you 2
1:37:21
have said. It's the conception of what
1:37:23
music can be in the film is very different back in the 50s to
1:37:26
what we understand now, with some exceptions at the time,
1:37:29
obviously, but this one, you'd be hard pressed to call it a
1:37:32
soundtrack as such. It's flourishes, it gives it a
1:37:35
tone, but what it is, you can't say that it doesn't work.
1:37:39
It's melancholy and it's sombre, as it should be.
1:37:42
It's not the most memorable part of the film, but that's OK.
1:37:44
It's not meant to be. Unless you're Hitchcock working
1:37:47
with Bernard Hermann, really pushing the boundaries of what
1:37:50
film music can be in the 50s. This is all it needs to be,
1:37:54
something that underpins the tone, and that's what it does
1:37:57
really, really effectively. It does do that for sure.
1:37:59
Kenyon Hopkins was the chief composer and Ranger at Radio
1:38:02
City Musical from 1951 to 1961. So in 1956 he was very well
1:38:07
established in New York's artistic circles, just like
1:38:10
Sidney Lumet. That connection let the Lumet
1:38:13
hire and Hopkins to score 12 Angry Men.
1:38:15
Yeah, they hadn't worked together, but Lumet would have
1:38:17
known all about him. Yeah, at the time and from
1:38:19
working at Radio City, Hopkins would have known all about
1:38:21
working with a small budget and having to deliver to tight
1:38:23
deadlines. Yeah, and he did have some film
1:38:26
experience already, like we said, So must have seemed a bit
1:38:29
like a no brainer to Lumet. This is the guy.
1:38:32
And Hopkins said that the first time he met with Lumet to talk
1:38:35
about the film, they agreed on what kind of musical approach he
1:38:38
needed. And they said the film's a
1:38:39
drama, but we don't want a dramatic score.
1:38:41
We want to score it and treat dramatically to make the point
1:38:45
that we're watching the jurors. But the core of the story is the
1:38:48
suspect. So Hopkins wrote the pieces for
1:38:50
a sad 18 year old boy. Not the case.
1:38:53
Which is why they are full on sounding and not big and
1:38:56
dramatic. That's pretty smart, Yeah.
1:38:59
And once you know that, I think you can't see it.
1:39:00
Yeah. Musics very gentle.
1:39:02
It's like it's reminding us behind all these loudmouth guys,
1:39:04
there is a kind of vulnerable person involved.
1:39:07
Yeah. After Hopkins finished writing
1:39:09
and recording the score, there was a playback session with the
1:39:11
senior crew in studio where they listened to the music in full.
1:39:15
Hopkins said the most popular piece was a piece of music for a
1:39:18
specific character, but when they got into editing and laid
1:39:21
the track on top of the film, they realized it was mirroring
1:39:23
what was on the screen too much, which is what we've talked
1:39:26
about. The rest of the score
1:39:27
intentionally didn't do that, so Lumet removed it.
1:39:30
Yeah, he didn't actually say which character I was.
1:39:33
I mean, you write it possibly, but I'd love to hear a theme for
1:39:36
three. Just furious.
1:39:38
Just tippity drums be like Mars. Bringer of War wouldn't really.
1:39:43
Handsome yet? Or something else that he did,
1:39:45
which was unconventional at the time, was in the opening scene.
1:39:47
When we get that close up of the suspect, music plays over the
1:39:50
top. Apparently a kind of rule of
1:39:52
film scoring at the time was to never stop music over a close up
1:39:56
because it would stand out too much as like music.
1:39:58
That wasn't the case of television, though.
1:40:00
Salumin. Just went with it, but I think
1:40:02
the musical choice is there and everywhere else.
1:40:04
You can't really fault them, I think, can you?
1:40:06
No, not really. That's exactly what it needs to
1:40:08
do. And another reason for the lack
1:40:10
of music is that Lumet wanted to score parts of the film with
1:40:12
ambient noise from our realism. The UA sound department objected
1:40:17
that after they saw the final film and said we can't release
1:40:19
this. He can hear trucks going by in
1:40:21
the background. But Lumet told them that when
1:40:23
audiences watched the film, he wanted them to hear sounds that
1:40:26
they couldn't tell if they were coming from the screen or
1:40:28
outside the cinema. I love that.
1:40:30
Yeah. It's great for, like, total
1:40:32
immersion in the film. Yeah.
1:40:34
I think the most notable background noise we hear is
1:40:36
maybe that rain, like, hammering against the windows in the
1:40:39
second act. Yeah, yeah, Yeah.
1:40:40
That feels really stifling, like claustrophobic.
1:40:43
Again, it does. And I think it kind of
1:40:44
represents the storm that's going on inside the jury room as
1:40:47
well. I think it's closing the windows
1:40:49
and making it more claustrophobic, yeah.
1:40:52
No award recognition for Kenyan Hopkins for a 12 Angry Man
1:40:54
Music. You're not really going to win
1:40:56
for three pieces. Oh yeah, no, unlikely.
1:40:58
Lumet was impressed, though. He brought Hopkins back to score
1:41:01
the fugitive kind in 1960, and Kenyan Hopkins also scored the
1:41:05
Hustler in 1961. All.
1:41:07
Right. Oh, nice.
1:41:08
That's great. And for us, a great example of
1:41:10
how to compose minimal music for a film.
1:41:12
Definitely. We've talked about the visuals
1:41:16
already, and now it's time to go in detail on the cinematography.
1:41:19
The director of photography on 12 Angry Men was Boris Kaufman,
1:41:23
with a career going back to 1920s French cinema.
1:41:26
His notable Hollywood work before this included Garden of
1:41:29
Eden, which was a controversial nudist film.
1:41:32
None of that in this one, thankfully.
1:41:33
Fantastic film. Baby Doll, which we just
1:41:37
mentioned, was scored by Kenyon Hopkins.
1:41:39
Yep, and Pattins, A boardroom drama which also featured Ed
1:41:42
Begley Jura, 10. Right, right.
1:41:44
And Boris Kaufman was already an Oscar winner.
1:41:47
He won Best Cinematography for On the Waterfront in 1955.
1:41:50
Yep. Oh, wonderful.
1:41:51
Bit of a TB heavyweight then, Westie.
1:41:53
Yep. So how is Boris Kaufman's work
1:41:55
on Garden of Eden? I mean 12 Angry Men.
1:41:57
I'll go to Garden of Eden first. That wide angles, sensational.
1:42:02
It's just sensational how his relationship with Lumet worked.
1:42:06
It just gels so well. And this was well plotted out.
1:42:09
This was well thought through. This is a genius of visual
1:42:13
filmmaking from one location. This is how you do it.
1:42:16
This should be studied. You can watch this with the
1:42:18
sound off and you know exactly what's happening, which is
1:42:21
ridiculous with the amount of dialogue that's in this film.
1:42:23
You know who's important, you know who's not, you know where
1:42:25
your focus is going to be. And what they did is him and
1:42:28
Lumet come up with this thesis of how they were going to shoot
1:42:30
the film, and they called it the lens plot.
1:42:34
So what we'll do is it starts with a wide frame, a high up
1:42:38
frame that we've discussed. It's kind of that security
1:42:41
camera. So we'll see the whole room.
1:42:44
So the lighting's nice and bright, the sunshine's coming
1:42:45
through the window, It's the hottest day of the year.
1:42:48
And then as we move through, it gets darker, the contrast ratios
1:42:51
drop. It ends up like a film noir, but
1:42:53
it also ends up dropping to eye level and then dropping below
1:42:55
eye level. And the lens has changed as the
1:42:58
goal. So I've kind of mapped it out.
1:42:59
So bear in mind your eyesight as you look.
1:43:02
It's about the 50 mil lens. Yeah, right.
1:43:04
So we're starting at 28 to 40. So we're quite wide and we're
1:43:07
above eye level. So that establishes the world.
1:43:09
It establishes the tone, right? Once we move into Act 2, we're
1:43:12
going to A50 mil. It was 75.
1:43:15
That's at eye level. So you are now in the room.
1:43:17
So it puts you in there and the intensity starts to ramp up
1:43:20
because you are part of what's going on.
1:43:22
Then act three would go to a 50 and then were 100 mil.
1:43:25
So where we are really close up these telephotos and that goes
1:43:29
below eye level. So we're getting the ceiling in
1:43:31
shot. So that just gives you a really
1:43:33
claustrophobic feel. And how am I going to get out
1:43:35
It's. Like the walls are literally
1:43:36
closing in. Exactly.
1:43:37
So the whole thing is the characters then feel really
1:43:40
imposing, but the room seems smaller because you've got them
1:43:42
closer to the actor, which is absolutely fantastic.
1:43:45
So they're moving through basically where the camera
1:43:47
position is and the change in that three times, then the
1:43:50
change in the lens is 3 times, then the change in the contrast
1:43:52
ratio from light to dark. So they thought about that all
1:43:55
the way through the film, as well as thinking how sweaty does
1:43:58
this guy need to be? Then there's move in the camera.
1:44:02
Then there's the 180° rule, which I'm not going to bore
1:44:05
people with because if you want to look that up, look it up.
1:44:08
You cannot cross that line. Otherwise dialogue sequences do
1:44:10
not work. It looks like one person talked
1:44:12
to somebody else's back as you cut the shots together.
1:44:14
So you need to know where that line is, right?
1:44:16
Yeah, 123 lines is hard to do. Tarantino said.
1:44:19
It was really hard to do the opening Reservoir Dogs because
1:44:21
we're all sat around the table and there was a number of them
1:44:23
doing it, right? Yeah.
1:44:24
Lumet does it with 12 eye lines in the same room with a camera
1:44:29
going above eye level to eye level to below eye level, with
1:44:31
three different lenses, like I've said, three different
1:44:33
lighting choices and 12 lines that he can't cross.
1:44:36
Well, Kaufman helps him do that. From that alone, this is an
1:44:39
absolute technical marvel of visual filmmaking.
1:44:42
It's unbelievably good. If you want to know how to shoot
1:44:45
a dialogue sequence. Actually, if you want to know
1:44:47
how to shoot a film, watch 12 Angry Men.
1:44:49
Amazing. I can't say more than that, no.
1:44:51
I think one of the key creative decisions they made, even before
1:44:54
the got to all that really complex stuff, it's just a
1:44:56
decision to shoot in black and white.
1:44:58
Yeah, I mean, Technicolor was all the rage at this time, but
1:45:01
they went against that. I imagine that was done because
1:45:03
Lumen wanted realism, not like fabulous colours.
1:45:05
Possibly. Yeah, and I think that works
1:45:07
thematically as well, emphasizing the idea of right
1:45:09
and wrong, black and white. Very possibly to get more of a
1:45:13
shadow contrast as well so it comes to be more revealed that
1:45:15
there is more of black and white towards the end when they start
1:45:17
figuring things out. Also budgetary as well.
1:45:20
Well, I mean black and white for the most bit cheaper.
1:45:22
Yeah. I mean, either way, the decision
1:45:24
that's held up I think isn't. It Oh yeah, 100%.
1:45:26
And I mean, as photographic cinematography, this isn't the
1:45:28
most stunning thing you'll ever see.
1:45:30
It's one location, the same 4 walls, it's not Lawrence of
1:45:33
Arabia. But as a technical achievement,
1:45:35
the planning of it and the execution, it looks flawless to
1:45:38
me. Yeah, I mean, we talked already
1:45:40
about how the mix of the visuals a lot and how Lumet
1:45:42
understanding of cinema was there from the start.
1:45:44
And I think you said it was the. IT looks like a clear
1:45:46
collaboration between director and DP 100% because it's not
1:45:49
just the variation in the images.
1:45:50
It's impressive. It's how well shot they all are.
1:45:53
And visually, one of my favorite things in the film is around the
1:45:56
votes. There's five separate group
1:45:58
votes in the film. And when Lumet read that in the
1:46:00
script, he must have thought this is going to get repetitive.
1:46:03
Sell this. Yeah.
1:46:04
So what they do is they come up with ways of making each vote
1:46:07
look totally different. So the first vote, like a static
1:46:10
wide shot, and everyone just raises the hands.
1:46:11
Pretty simple. Yeah.
1:46:13
Vote 2 is the anonymous one where we get the close up on
1:46:16
Jura one's hands leaping through the papers.
1:46:17
Yeah. Gray that.
1:46:18
Yeah. Others, we go around the table
1:46:20
one by one in real close up shots.
1:46:22
And my favorite is Void 5, where we get close-ups on their raised
1:46:25
hands. And on the last one, we pan down
1:46:27
the guy's arm to show Jura 12 to review.
1:46:29
Just change his vote. Yeah.
1:46:31
It's like an incredible way of making really repetitive scenes
1:46:34
feel and look fresh all the way through.
1:46:37
Yeah. So it's not classic, beautiful
1:46:39
cinematography. Like, it could never be that.
1:46:41
No. But this is some of the most
1:46:42
perfect, I think, like camera work you could ever see in a
1:46:46
film. Yeah, yeah.
1:46:47
I mean, this is my probably my favorite kind of cinematography
1:46:50
where it's almost invisible. I think you might go at first
1:46:54
Cinema Trophy and 12 Angry Men. I mean, is the much to talk
1:46:57
about. But actually there is because
1:46:58
it's just really subtle, but it's hypnotic at the same time.
1:47:01
Those tracking shots around the table, the moves into close-ups.
1:47:05
They don't call attention themselves, but they kind of
1:47:07
just get you under the spell and you suddenly realise you're
1:47:09
hooked into the drama of this. And I think the cinematography
1:47:12
is a real part of that. And yes, you can see do
1:47:15
contemporary eyes, some of those punches into close-ups.
1:47:18
They were a little melodramatic at times.
1:47:20
It's like, bam, wow, there's a big close up of someone to
1:47:23
deliver a line. But it works.
1:47:25
I mean, this film needs off moments where it really startles
1:47:28
you into paying attention what's happening.
1:47:30
Like, oh God, he's changed his vote now.
1:47:32
Now it's all up for grabs. And that's the drop that the
1:47:34
cinematography does and it's so good.
1:47:36
You can watch this film, which is 95% entirely set in this one
1:47:39
room play out and I don't think you see the same shot twice.
1:47:43
No, no, that's impressive. It feels like you don't.
1:47:45
Yeah, yeah. The first person hired his DP on
1:47:47
12 Angry Men was Gerald Hirschfeld, who had one feature
1:47:50
in Roosevelt at the time and background mostly in TV.
1:47:53
And Hirschfeld went on to do Young Frankenstein as well,
1:47:55
obviously. Well, when Boris Kaufman became
1:47:57
available, though, he was brought in to replace
1:47:59
Hirschfeld. Lumet said Kaufman's realist
1:48:02
style was what he wanted on the film.
1:48:04
Yeah, I mean, a massively experienced Oscar winner.
1:48:06
If you can get that on a film this low budget, you kind of
1:48:09
have to go for it surely? Oh.
1:48:10
Absolutely. Yeah.
1:48:11
And because of the low budget and shooting schedule, Kaufman
1:48:14
and Lumet plant everything in advance to the last detail and
1:48:18
the approach was to go around the room 3 times.
1:48:20
The first time around the short normal daylight lightning.
1:48:24
The second pass was the scenes when rain clouds are gathering
1:48:26
outside, and the third is when the storm is raging and the
1:48:29
lights of the room have been turned on.
1:48:32
If the lighting was set up for a shot that took place from one
1:48:34
particular angle, all the shots from that same angle had to be
1:48:37
filmed there and then. And this means that different
1:48:39
sides of the same conversation were some I'm shot several weeks
1:48:42
apart. Yeah, they called that the Once
1:48:44
a Chair Was Lit philosophy. Like once it's set up,
1:48:47
everything gets filmed there. Yeah.
1:48:49
I mean, productions usually she films out of order for that
1:48:51
reason. Get everything set in one
1:48:53
location when you're there to save on cost and time.
1:48:55
Yeah, but not at this level that we're treating like specific
1:48:58
parts of the room as different locations.
1:49:00
You know different sets inside the set.
1:49:02
Yeah, so like the scene where it's arguing with three near the
1:49:05
end, where three's like, no, it's not possible.
1:49:08
Vander and Cobb film their shots about two weeks apart.
1:49:11
Wow, amazing. Seamless.
1:49:13
For his 12 Angry Men work, Boris Kaufman did not receive any
1:49:16
Oscar recognition. Not really a surprise.
1:49:18
I don't think the Academy likes it.
1:49:19
Sweeping epics, doesn't it? Yeah, but this is something
1:49:23
else. It really is something else.
1:49:24
Yeah, it's a real slow burn, this one, The Academy be like,
1:49:27
yeah, he needs a lifetime achievement award now.
1:49:30
Well, with that in mind, the winner of that year was Jack
1:49:32
Hildyard for the bridge on the River Kwai.
1:49:34
Yeah, it would have been, yeah. Fair enough.
1:49:36
Yeah, Yeah. But in working within budget
1:49:38
limitations and visual limitations, we think Boris
1:49:41
Kaufman delivered a bit of a master class in one location
1:49:43
cinematography. 100. Percent really does, yeah.
1:49:46
So that's the grill. Reginald Rose's theme laden
1:49:49
screenplay, Kenyan Hopkins use of minimal music and Boris
1:49:52
Kaufman cinematography brilliance. 3 key contributors
1:49:55
who helped Lumet achieve what he did.
1:49:57
Absolutely. Yeah, The end.
1:50:05
Into the final act of 12 Angry man and the walls are closing
1:50:08
in, metaphorically and visually. Prejudices are being stripped
1:50:12
away, evidence is crumbling and tensions are breaking point.
1:50:15
Yep, we're going to be looking at the climax where the results
1:50:17
settled once and for all. But first it's a couple of key
1:50:20
vote changes that lead to that. It is so with emotions running
1:50:24
high, some of the guilty are feeling the pressure.
1:50:27
Jura 7 changes his vote leading to an interrogation from 11:00
1:50:31
and then one of the key character moments when Jura
1:50:33
tends mass drops, resulting in an almighty racist rant.
1:50:37
Yeah yeah. How was it all playing out
1:50:39
Westy? Yeah, I mean, it's been 7
1:50:41
changes he's fought. He's just the most spineless
1:50:44
character in the whole thing, isn't he?
1:50:47
But it's just the absolute voice of reason here from 11.
1:50:51
Yeah, he's just furious now. He's had enough of this
1:50:54
bullshit. He's really convinced that this
1:50:55
is now about another human being and it isn't just about a game.
1:50:59
There's something at stake here and the need to take this more
1:51:02
seriously. And you know, who are you to
1:51:04
play this way with a man's life? Don't you have the guts to do
1:51:07
what's right? You know, he's really
1:51:08
questioning right to the moral fibre now.
1:51:11
And he keeps pushing him why he's not guilty.
1:51:14
Why, why, why he wants an answer from it.
1:51:17
He's a yes. Don't think he's guilty.
1:51:20
I don't do think he's guilty. It's hilarious.
1:51:23
And it's a pathetic argument, isn't it?
1:51:27
And it's really funny, but at the same time it's kind of
1:51:30
heartbreaking where you're like, you cannot force feed people
1:51:33
intelligence and they will not stop and think and just gather
1:51:37
the facts. And he's just so tunnel
1:51:40
visioned. He wants to get a hot dog and a
1:51:42
couple of beers. He wants to watch the ball game
1:51:43
even though it's rained off. Now he's had, I've had enough of
1:51:45
this, but it's just so, so good the way he just gives up.
1:51:48
I don't think he's guilty. That's it.
1:51:50
And then that's that look from Juror 11 when he turns away and
1:51:54
he said, oh, there's just no hope with this guy.
1:51:56
And it's even more proof that he didn't know why he was saying
1:51:59
guilty either. Yeah, probably just because
1:52:01
everybody else was. Yeah, I mean, Jira Sevens been
1:52:04
pushing people's buttons all the film, hasn't he?
1:52:06
Yeah, we're not been getting nowhere with all this yakety
1:52:08
yakking. Yeah, just whistling through
1:52:10
certain dialogue sequences. A bit where he's like, OK,
1:52:13
killer, yeah, he's always checking his watch, and now he's
1:52:18
switching his vote to go faster. It's outrageous.
1:52:20
And what makes it more powerful is it's Juror 11, who's been one
1:52:23
of the quiet and more reasonable guys.
1:52:24
Yeah, he's the one. Who calls him out?
1:52:26
He's an immigrant, we presume. And it seems like he's a man who
1:52:28
values democracy. He's taking this seriously
1:52:30
because the idea, I think, is that he knows what it's like not
1:52:33
to have those kind of rights. Yeah.
1:52:35
So another reminder of the kind of responsibility that comes
1:52:37
with sitting on a jury. And it should be trapped with
1:52:39
respect. And that's something that 11 and
1:52:41
seven are a total odds on. Yeah, definitely.
1:52:44
The way it's shot with those extreme close-ups back and
1:52:46
forth, 4th on both jurors, so striking but so great.
1:52:50
Yeah. Feels like we're right in there
1:52:51
with them. Yeah.
1:52:52
I mean, both actors are fantastic and going each other.
1:52:54
It's really intense. Yeah.
1:52:56
So memorable scene brings a clash of opinions but also like
1:52:59
a clash of values. Yeah, definitely.
1:53:01
Yeah, you. Can vote however you want, but
1:53:03
you should have a good reason for it.
1:53:05
And I wonder what the Yankees V Cleveland surely isn't a good
1:53:08
reason. Definitely not, no.
1:53:10
Juror 11 is a watchmaker and played by George Voskovac.
1:53:14
And as we mentioned, he played the same character in the 1954
1:53:17
TV version. And Voskovac actually was an
1:53:20
immigrant. He was Czech born and moved to
1:53:22
the US, So his European accent that we're here, that's
1:53:25
absolutely genuine. Nice, nice.
1:53:27
So we know why he was cast then. He's done it already.
1:53:29
Yeah, yeah. No Tash in the Studio One
1:53:32
version though, so this is better straight away.
1:53:34
Yes. Miles better.
1:53:35
Greater. Yeah.
1:53:36
And George Voskovac, he'd been in Czech silent films as far
1:53:38
back as the 1920s, right? So I think he was older than he
1:53:41
looks. Must be, yeah.
1:53:42
But like a kind of stoic, dignified performance from him,
1:53:45
I think. Nice, yeah.
1:53:46
Yes, then we get the moment where due return finally gets
1:53:49
comeuppance basically. And what's that?
1:53:51
Seeing sunlight is the best disinfectant.
1:53:54
I think that's a great example of this here.
1:53:56
Like don't actually don't shut these people up.
1:53:59
Don't give them the reaction that they want.
1:54:01
And that's the key thing. No one reacts to him here when
1:54:04
he goes on this round. The just let him hang himself by
1:54:06
his own petard because he's been shooting his mouth off with no
1:54:10
retard from anyone so far. And that's led him to make that
1:54:13
fatal mistake of thinking, well, if no one's telling me I'm
1:54:16
wrong, I must be right, and everyone must be thinking the
1:54:18
same that I am. Yeah.
1:54:20
And it's when he tries to justify everything he said.
1:54:22
And he says, sure, there's some good things about them.
1:54:24
And I'm the first one to say that.
1:54:26
Yeah. Like trying to make himself like
1:54:28
the focus here. But you've heard all that before
1:54:30
in real life, haven't? You.
1:54:31
Oh, absolutely, yeah. Yeah, exactly.
1:54:33
I've got friends like that. Not all of them.
1:54:34
It's just a certain few. It's just like, oh, come on.
1:54:37
Yeah, yeah. And I think Begley just sells
1:54:39
all that ingrained racism so well because he can hear the
1:54:43
desperation of his voice when he just realizes he's literally
1:54:46
lost the room. Yeah, it could be two on the
1:54:48
nose, everyone getting out of the chair 1 by 1 to stop
1:54:50
listening to him. But I think it's so effective as
1:54:52
a visual. And you get this sense, like, as
1:54:55
a viewer, it feels really victorious because he can see
1:54:57
he's drowning here. Yeah.
1:54:59
And it's that wonderful comeuppance of when he assumes 4
1:55:01
out of everyone is the same. Same because 4 is so steadfast
1:55:05
in his belief of guilty still at this point that he therefore
1:55:08
shares tense prejudices. And he says, listen to me.
1:55:12
And he just goes. I have.
1:55:13
Now sit down and don't open your mouth again.
1:55:16
Yeah, brilliant, right? Yeah, it's the visuals here.
1:55:19
The camera kind of breathes for you.
1:55:21
It takes you out of that moment and puts you with everybody
1:55:24
else. And you have to distance
1:55:25
yourself from this opinion. And he does that visually, and
1:55:28
he takes you so far out of it where you're like, yeah, I don't
1:55:30
need to listen to this. And then stops and then pushes
1:55:33
back into Durai 8 as well to hear his side of it, because you
1:55:35
want to be back with him. He's pulling you out of the
1:55:38
whole rant to say you don't need to believe this guy.
1:55:41
It gives it legs. It gives it weight.
1:55:43
It's incredible that shot, if they're blocking as well as the
1:55:45
jurors are all turning away, obviously planned to the
1:55:48
millimetre and then it comes out and then goes back in and ends
1:55:51
on juror 88 and he's got his own monologue.
1:55:53
Yeah, yeah. It's one of the best shots I've
1:55:55
ever seen. Yeah.
1:55:56
It's amazing. Unbelievable.
1:55:57
Yeah. And Ed Begley is 10.
1:55:59
He's brilliant. He's been a loudmouth all the
1:56:01
way through. But this is his big moment, his
1:56:02
big monologue. He's fantastic.
1:56:04
Lords of you know what that means.
1:56:06
Yeah. Yeah.
1:56:06
Something to bear in mind as well is this is 1957 when this
1:56:09
was made. It was like the early years of
1:56:11
the civil rights movement in America.
1:56:13
I mean, at this point, most black people weren't registered
1:56:15
to vote for this stance of the jurors turning the backs on him.
1:56:18
It would have been pretty radical at the time, pretty
1:56:20
powerful. Yeah, amazing.
1:56:22
Yeah, it would have been, yeah. During Juror 10's rant, the only
1:56:25
jurors who stay in their seats are 7 and 4.
1:56:28
The monologue ends when 4 says to 10, sit down and don't open
1:56:32
your mouth again. In the original teleplay it was
1:56:35
different though. Four said If you open your mouth
1:56:37
again, I'm going to split your skull.
1:56:39
Massive. I mean, not so reasonable after
1:56:42
all for four, but afterwards, 10s.
1:56:46
A broken man, isn't he? He just goes and sits in the
1:56:49
corner. He doesn't say one more word in
1:56:51
the film. He just says not guilty, doesn't
1:56:52
he? Yeah.
1:56:53
Oh, no. He just shakes his head.
1:56:54
Yeah, yeah. And Ed Begley built a big career
1:56:57
in films before 12 Angry Men, and he'd been in The Great
1:56:59
Gatsby in 1949. Lumet said that Begley was one
1:57:03
of the actors he had most confidence in before filming.
1:57:05
He said Begley's previous work made it obvious he could play a
1:57:08
jury 10 convincingly. Yeah.
1:57:10
And five years later, you born in Oscar for Sweet Bird of
1:57:13
Youth, right? So yeah, she was his range.
1:57:14
You can play sympathetic characters and you can play
1:57:17
this. Yeah.
1:57:18
Absolute piece of work as well. Yeah.
1:57:20
Jack Klugman, who plays Dura 5, said that Ed Begley will come to
1:57:23
set every day with a different young girl on his arm.
1:57:26
Begley called them his nieces. One day, Klugman said to him,
1:57:29
how many nieces do you have? And Begley said, as many as I
1:57:32
can get. That is the most 1950s Hollywood
1:57:37
story, I think. Isn't it just?
1:57:39
Ed Begley. I mean, he's not Richard Burton,
1:57:42
is he? Exactly.
1:57:43
He's not Olivia. And he's got a cold as well,
1:57:48
Ted. Hasn't he?
1:57:48
Always wiping his nose, coughing all over everyone in that tiny
1:57:52
room. Hot.
1:57:53
Cold. What's that?
1:57:54
Yeah, but he's the only character who was ill, and I
1:57:57
think that might have been doing to set him apart from 3:00 and
1:57:59
7:00 because they're the others who are voting for reasons other
1:58:01
than the truth. But I think three, with his
1:58:03
personal issues and seven, baseball.
1:58:06
I don't think they're telling us they're bad guys necessarily.
1:58:09
10s, horrific, racist. Yeah.
1:58:10
So I think that might be why they give him a call.
1:58:12
He's the one who does have something wrong with him.
1:58:14
I mean, that's just my theory. Maybe I'd Begley just turned up
1:58:17
with a cold. No, it does work though.
1:58:19
Yeah, he's trying to spread his disease to other people.
1:58:22
Yeah, exactly. Yeah, key moments there.
1:58:24
Then Sevens made a switcheroo. 10 has as well and is a broken
1:58:28
shell of a man. Should we talk about how it all
1:58:30
reaches a climax? Let's do it definitely.
1:58:35
Into the finale of 12 Angry Men and the big moments are coming
1:58:38
thick and fast. First the wise old headbed is
1:58:41
due and I notice of something about a pair of glasses nobody
1:58:43
else did. And then 3 isn't happy about it.
1:58:47
No at all. No, not at all, Matt.
1:58:49
Things are heating up even more, getting even sweaty yet they
1:58:52
are. How's it all going for you?
1:58:54
I mean, I'll tell you how it's going for 9.
1:58:56
He is like Sherlock Holmes, isn't he, When he gets.
1:58:58
Oh, Columbo, the conclusions he can reach.
1:59:01
Not me, 2020. He's so smoke.
1:59:05
Isn't he's. Amazing.
1:59:06
Yeah, he's amazing. But it goes back to I said
1:59:09
before, one of my favorite things about this is that it
1:59:11
doesn't always rely on it to spot the evidence that doesn't
1:59:15
hold up. It gives it to other Jews.
1:59:16
So this moment for 9:00, it's because he has this real
1:59:20
understanding of human nature. It's like when he reached the
1:59:22
point about the old man wanting attention and he does the same
1:59:25
with this woman who is 45 years old but trying to look 35.
1:59:30
And that's why she took her glasses off in the courtroom,
1:59:32
because she's insecure and fame to understand that.
1:59:35
That's pretty amazing. And the other thing I love about
1:59:37
this, it's still all aimed to change their mind before,
1:59:41
because for really, when you think about, he is the perfect
1:59:43
jury member because everything famous is called facts.
1:59:46
Yeah, he's not fought and not guilty because he feels sorry
1:59:48
for the kid even though he might.
1:59:50
But equally, he's not fought and guilty because he doesn't really
1:59:53
have any prejudices. You know, maybe that one at the
1:59:56
beginning about people from the slums.
1:59:58
But Even so, that's not informing his decision.
2:00:00
There's no emotion in this film. So if you want to change his
2:00:03
mind, you've got to show him facts that need to be taken into
2:00:06
account. And I think Marshall is
2:00:08
brilliant in this scene. You can see in his head he's
2:00:10
going, I've got this badly wrong.
2:00:12
But even in that moment, he still doesn't get emotional.
2:00:15
He doesn't let his pride get in the way to stick to the guilty
2:00:18
verdict because that's what he said at the start.
2:00:20
He's wrong and he knows it. But he's mature enough to accept
2:00:23
that, yeah. So like I say, he's probably the
2:00:25
type of person you do want in this situation.
2:00:29
Yeah, 9 just cracks the case wide open.
2:00:31
The arguments about the impressions eyeglasses leave on
2:00:34
someone's nose. So thought of the first physical
2:00:36
evidence we've had since the knife.
2:00:38
And I think this is all about the importance of critical
2:00:40
thinking to, I mean, anything but especially a criminal case.
2:00:44
I think Rose's trace of glasses is really deliberate, kind of
2:00:48
symbolizes the fact that 9 see more clearly than the other
2:00:50
jurors. I think.
2:00:51
I mean, the point throughout the whole film has been that some
2:00:53
jurors haven't been seen clearly.
2:00:55
And now right at the end, we get that the key witness literally
2:00:58
couldn't see clearly without their glasses.
2:01:00
It's like metaphor perfection. Yeah.
2:01:01
Yeah. Still hilarious, though.
2:01:03
Three goes. She didn't want to wear glasses
2:01:05
outside, so people think she's gorgeous.
2:01:08
That is funny as hell. I agree.
2:01:13
AG Marshall is brilliant to those close-ups.
2:01:15
As you can see. The clock ticking inside his
2:01:17
head is great. And Joseph Sweeney is brilliant
2:01:20
as well. Yeah.
2:01:21
So after that, we're getting, you know, people are changing
2:01:23
the minds left, right and center, but I'll tell you who
2:01:26
isn't. Guess who?
2:01:30
Guess who? I mean, this is the performance
2:01:33
in the film from me, from Lee Jacob here.
2:01:35
It's just absolutely amazing because this monologue is also
2:01:39
exposition. This monologue is also reminding
2:01:42
us everything we've seen through the film.
2:01:44
He goes through every single piece of evidence, he goes
2:01:46
through every single case and doesn't argue anything.
2:01:50
We've already seen him looking at the photograph of his son and
2:01:54
as he's gone through his wallet, it hits the table and you see
2:01:57
the photograph. He looks down at it and just
2:01:59
says that's the entire case, and he's pointing at the photograph
2:02:03
of him and his son and that's exactly what he means.
2:02:05
For him, that is the case, isn't it?
2:02:07
Yeah, he's full of pain, he's full of angry, he's full of
2:02:09
regret. And that has clouded his vision
2:02:11
100%. God knows what he's done up to
2:02:14
now. God knows how this has affected
2:02:16
his life outside of this room, the decisions he's not made or
2:02:19
the decisions he has made, the people that he's hurt.
2:02:21
But it's some of the dialogue here, the way he convinces
2:02:24
himself that he's right. He convinces himself that
2:02:27
they're wrong. When he turns around, he's like,
2:02:28
you lousy bunch of bleeding hearts.
2:02:31
You're not going to intimidate me.
2:02:33
I'm entitled in my opinion. Yeah, great.
2:02:35
You could see what he was like as a father figure.
2:02:37
Really fucking unbearable. All of that pain, 18 years worth
2:02:41
of pain comes out here. And as soon as he tears that
2:02:45
photo up, he knows that's what he had to let go of.
2:02:48
He needs to destroy something to know he has to fix it because he
2:02:51
didn't think he destroyed it in the first place.
2:02:53
That is incredible heartbreaker. And all you hear is them.
2:02:57
Just go to the door. Yeah, everyone just leave.
2:03:00
This has changed everybody in that jury room for the better,
2:03:04
and as an audience member, it's also changed you.
2:03:06
I think that's how important this scene is.
2:03:08
It's so well played out. It's fantastic.
2:03:10
Oh it definitely is. I mean after everything Jura
2:03:12
Threes said and done, we need a huge moment when he changes his
2:03:16
vote and we get it. All the evidence has gone 3
2:03:19
left. Expose what we said, making
2:03:21
judgments based on his feelings, not the facts, and he goes
2:03:25
absolutely crazy. Cobb.
2:03:27
Superb spitting fire. He's yelling his head off.
2:03:30
He's ripping up photographs. His fingers are pointing every
2:03:33
direction possible except himself, obviously, another
2:03:36
actor. This could easily feel over the
2:03:37
top, but Cobb pulls it off. I love it when he's like this
2:03:41
woman testified in open court. That's great.
2:03:44
Yeah. Yeah.
2:03:44
But it's kind of like the whole film has been building up to
2:03:47
this point. And the release of tension when
2:03:49
he starts sobbing and says not guilty is just massive.
2:03:52
Yeah. I think one of the impressive
2:03:53
things is that every big moment where Lumet's going for a
2:03:56
certain feeling, he just knocks them out of the park.
2:04:00
Yeah, like without exception throughout the whole film.
2:04:02
Yeah, without it being cliched. Like, how was this monologue not
2:04:05
the bit that you're looking forward to most when you watch
2:04:07
this film? Yeah.
2:04:07
Or I kind of wait. I get there.
2:04:09
I kind of wait for that bit. It's like everything's just
2:04:11
consistently brilliant. I know.
2:04:12
Yeah, all the way through. This doesn't even over shadow
2:04:14
the rest of the film. No it doesn't.
2:04:15
In most films it would be by far the stand out scene.
2:04:18
Of course, it would be like, you know, the monologue at the end
2:04:20
of JFK where you like when you get to that bit, it's like, wow,
2:04:23
how did he do that? That really stands up.
2:04:25
That's really improved the film. But like this is just on the 10
2:04:28
all the way through. I agree.
2:04:30
Yeah. I mean, it's worth you bringing
2:04:32
any film to an end, I think. Yeah.
2:04:34
Unbelievable. And does the jurors all leave
2:04:36
the jury room? The camera pans along the table
2:04:38
revealing all the doodles, all the evidence we've been through
2:04:41
in Three's ripped up photograph. And there's a newspaper that 7
2:04:45
was reading and the headline says Craig Ghost Systems 4 to 1.
2:04:49
This is a reference to Roger Craig, pitcher for the Brooklyn
2:04:52
Dodgers, who won the game on July 1st, 1956 by the score of
2:04:56
four to one, with Craig pitching a complete game victory.
2:04:59
Yeah, So it's a real newspaper, presumably.
2:05:01
Yeah. Nice little touch, especially
2:05:02
for people at the time. It's a great shot that it feels
2:05:05
like it's kind of summarizing everything we've just been
2:05:07
through. Yeah.
2:05:08
Yeah. I'll tell you what, though.
2:05:10
When the jurors filed back into the courtroom and juror one went
2:05:13
not guilty, the place would have went up.
2:05:15
Yeah. Absolute bedlam.
2:05:16
Yeah. It would have been like fighting
2:05:19
an airplane. Girl Scouts flying across the
2:05:21
room. We do get a final scene,
2:05:24
although it's not that one in the courtroom, Unfortunately,
2:05:26
no. It's outside the courthouse when
2:05:28
8-9 say their goodbyes and tell each other their real names.
2:05:31
Davis and McArdle. Yeah.
2:05:33
How was this as a way to sign off?
2:05:34
I think it's just the perfect way to sign off because I think
2:05:38
that's a sense of where these people go from here.
2:05:41
They've been through this completely intense,
2:05:43
transformative experience, and it's just these two guys
2:05:46
swapping names. And there's also a sense of, is
2:05:48
that all you want to do? Do you not want to go for a beer
2:05:50
after all this? Yeah, like round the bar.
2:05:54
Let's just get a coupling, because that was something,
2:05:55
wasn't it? Yeah, there's your sequel.
2:05:58
Yeah. Exactly.
2:05:59
But you know, maybe that's the point.
2:06:00
You go through something so momentous with other people, but
2:06:03
it's only fleeting. Yeah, if you think a satisfying
2:06:06
way to finish, I think going back into the wide open fresh
2:06:08
air, it feels like another huge release.
2:06:10
I think we use the audience need as much as anything else.
2:06:13
Yeah. And the fact that gives us their
2:06:14
real names, I think as being about them, acknowledging that
2:06:17
they did share like an important experience together to the some
2:06:20
kind of connection there. Yeah, I'd love to have seen
2:06:23
three in the background one last time, though.
2:06:25
Kicking a pigeon or something. Furious 8, walking out the
2:06:29
frame. It feels like the kind of
2:06:30
perfect way to finish, I think. Yeah.
2:06:32
Yeah, it does. It really ends that lens plot as
2:06:34
well that I was talking about. When that final shot is wide and
2:06:36
high. I think it's the widest lens
2:06:38
they've used in the film. So it's like a 28 or 24, might
2:06:40
be an 18, actually, I'm not too sure.
2:06:42
But it's wide and it's nice. As we met said, it's literally
2:06:45
given us a breath of fresh air. We can finally breathe, you
2:06:48
know, take your coat off, get some deodorant on you.
2:06:51
Know that's how it feels, isn't it?
2:06:52
Yeah. I feel like I can almost breathe
2:06:53
the fresh air when I watch it. Yeah, exactly.
2:06:55
Yeah, it's really clean. So that's the end, and the
2:06:58
guilty votes drop away 1 by 1. Dura 10s done.
2:07:01
Nine turns into Peter Falk 3 has a complete meltdown and then a
2:07:05
refreshing final scene after justice has been served.
2:07:08
Indeed. Pretty satisfying ending.
2:07:10
Yeah, lovely. Completely satisfying, yeah.
2:07:15
Reception under wards. 12 Angry Men was released on April the
2:07:20
10th 1957. How do they do?
2:07:23
Well, let's get into the numbers and see what the people in press
2:07:25
made of it at the time. I'm at the start.
2:07:28
Can you talk us through the figures please?
2:07:29
Yes indeed. So 12 Angry Men made for
2:07:33
$337,000 Lumet, bringing it in under budget amazingly, and at
2:07:39
the box office it made around $1 million.
2:07:42
And as we meet in at the Oscars, 3 nominations for Best Picture
2:07:45
for Henry Fonda and Reginald Rose, Best Director for Sydney
2:07:49
Lumet and Best Adapted Screenplay for Regional roles
2:07:51
again. But as we're being saying, it
2:07:53
was up against Bridge Over the River Choir, which won all three
2:07:56
categories. Yeah.
2:07:57
Yes. So once you add in marketing
2:07:59
budget, it barely broke Even so because Fonda and Rose had
2:08:02
deferred their pay like we mentioned, they actually didn't
2:08:05
get their full salaries for 12 angry Men, which is madness
2:08:08
considering the status that it has today and.
2:08:10
It's madness. Fonda and Lumet wanted the
2:08:12
firmly ruled out across the country, starting in small art
2:08:15
house theaters, then expanding based on positive reviews.
2:08:18
Instead, you we opened at Easter week at New York Capital Theatre
2:08:22
expecting big things. I mean, that's just outrageous,
2:08:25
Fonda said. On its opening day, only the
2:08:26
first four rows were filled up and the theatre pulled the film
2:08:31
after a week out. Yeah, oh man.
2:08:34
Fonda said that was the main reason for flopping the
2:08:36
distribution strategy. Yeah, apparently the reason that
2:08:38
Fonda and Rose wanted the Roll it Out Slowly was because that
2:08:41
had worked for Marty two years earlier.
2:08:43
Right, OK. But you we just ignored them.
2:08:45
Right. Yeah.
2:08:47
If they'd rolled it out slowly and it was a massive success, I
2:08:49
think Fonda might have produced something else.
2:08:51
Possibly, yeah. And before the film was
2:08:54
released, the State Bar associations of all 48 states at
2:08:57
the time were given preview showns of the film.
2:09:00
And after 12 Angry Men was released, the American Bar
2:09:03
Association honored the film for contributing to create a public
2:09:07
understanding and appreciation of the American system of
2:09:09
justice. Nice.
2:09:11
Yeah, that was one of the reasons that Rose wrote it,
2:09:13
wasn't it? To widen the public
2:09:14
understanding of the justice system.
2:09:17
Yeah, and McCarthyism and racial prejudice and everything else
2:09:20
subconsciously. Yeah, give me a nice praise.
2:09:23
Not sure makes up for not getting paid but.
2:09:25
No, definitely not. Definitely not.
2:09:28
But it was television airings in the following years that brought
2:09:30
the film to people's attention. Yeah, that's sometimes the case
2:09:32
with classics, isn't it? Yeah.
2:09:33
Yeah, which is ironic because Lumet wanted to move away from
2:09:36
TV and then he comes out with cinema and it's back in TV.
2:09:40
Yeah. So the film bombed at the box
2:09:43
office initially. Matt, the bearer of bad news.
2:09:45
Thanks for that. Yeah.
2:09:46
Sorry, shame. But what do the critics make of
2:09:49
it? First up, AH Weiler.
2:09:51
Writing in the New York Times in 1957, he said it makes for tort
2:09:56
absorbing and compelling drama that reaches far beyond the
2:09:59
close confined of its jewelry room setting.
2:10:01
The dramas of the 12 are powerful and provocative enough
2:10:03
to keep a viewer spellbound. Strong review.
2:10:07
Yep. You saw even then that the film
2:10:08
transcends its one location. Yeah.
2:10:10
Yeah. Second.
2:10:11
And he's usually first. We have Roger.
2:10:13
You bet Rog didn't review 12 Angry Men in 1957.
2:10:17
He reviewed it much later as part of his great movie series.
2:10:20
Yeah, but he's got to be in there somewhere.
2:10:22
Obviously. Absolutely.
2:10:24
Yeah. So what do you think?
2:10:25
Rog scored it out of four. Full band.
2:10:27
Yeah, fits in this great movies series.
2:10:29
It's got to be 4. Of course he did.
2:10:30
Four of four, four Marks. And he said it is a masterpiece
2:10:34
of stylized realism, the style coming in the way the
2:10:36
photography and editing comment on the bare bones of the content
2:10:40
and the way it bounces one piece of evidence against another. 12
2:10:43
angry men and as meticulous as the summation of an Agatha
2:10:46
Christie thriller. Agatha Christie in reverse.
2:10:49
Like we said, yes, we saw the answer.
2:10:51
We're backwards. And finally, in another
2:10:54
retrospective review, Empire magazine gave it five stars out
2:10:56
of five. William Thomas wrote Sidney
2:10:59
Lumet's dazzling debut delivers a master class in the pure
2:11:02
dynamism of acting. Just sit back and laugh.
2:11:05
A dozen terrific character actors carve up the screen into
2:11:08
a dozen perfect pieces. Nice.
2:11:10
Nice. A dazzling debut.
2:11:12
I mean, you can't argue with that, I don't think.
2:11:13
Absolutely. And a dozen terrific character
2:11:16
actors. I don't think you can argue with
2:11:17
that either. Definitely not.
2:11:19
And on Rotten Tomatoes, 12 Angry Men has a perfect 100% score
2:11:24
from critics. Wow, and 97% from audiences.
2:11:28
And then on IMDb it's rated as 9 out of 10.
2:11:31
This makes it the fifth highest rated film of all time, sitting
2:11:34
one spot above The Return of the King and one below The Godfather
2:11:38
Part 2. Right.
2:11:39
What was that? Fifth highest rated film on IMDb
2:11:42
for a film not made for modern audiences?
2:11:44
You know, that is extraordinary. Yeah.
2:11:46
It really is huge. Especially when it made no
2:11:48
money. Cinema.
2:11:50
Flop. It resonates.
2:11:54
Yeah, it definitely does. Just be honest with yourself and
2:11:56
write something that you're really passionate about and it
2:11:58
will stand the test of time. Lovely sequels and influence.
2:12:07
That's how 12 Angry Men we've received at the time.
2:12:09
What about what followed Though? No sequels?
2:12:12
There's not been a 13 Angry Men from Steven Soderbergh.
2:12:17
It has been remade many times though.
2:12:19
Germany, Norway, India, Japan, Russia, France, China have all
2:12:23
made their own versions over the decades.
2:12:26
Apparently in the Japanese version they all start out
2:12:28
voting not guilty and then reverse the votes to vote
2:12:31
guilty. Right.
2:12:32
So interesting. We were going to save you, but
2:12:34
then we changed our minds. Yeah.
2:12:35
Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's good though.
2:12:36
I like that. I like that premise.
2:12:38
That's really good. Yeah.
2:12:39
Perhaps most notably to Hollywood, though, is the 1997
2:12:42
version that was made as ATV Movie that was directed by
2:12:45
William Friedkin, no less. And Jet Lemon replacing Henry
2:12:49
Fonder as Jura 8 and George C Scott as Jura 3 replacing Lee
2:12:53
Jacob. Yeah, have I seen that?
2:12:56
I've seen it because I love freaking and I love the cast.
2:12:59
I love the ensemble of it. William Peterson's in there.
2:13:04
Love that. Didn't love the film.
2:13:07
It is what it is. It's freaking go on TV, and I
2:13:12
mean, it is made for TV, isn't it?
2:13:13
It's ATV movie, it's good and it's well regarded, but it's
2:13:16
very loose. I think George sees Scott's
2:13:19
rants in there, but it just goes on a little bit too long.
2:13:22
It doesn't hit as hard as it should, honestly.
2:13:24
It feels like a rehearsal. It doesn't have the weight, it
2:13:26
doesn't have the realism. It's just a little bit too TV.
2:13:31
And what I really want is free to come in and make this
2:13:35
cinematic and don't try and do what the Met did.
2:13:38
But I just think there's too much.
2:13:40
It feels like he's had far too many sweets and he doesn't quite
2:13:43
know where to put the camera. He doesn't quite know who what's
2:13:45
going to do what. And it's just it's a bit of a
2:13:47
mess for me. This is just a waste of my time
2:13:49
really. We also feature James
2:13:53
Gandolfini. Golden Feeny's in there, yeah.
2:13:55
It's EUR 6, and I mean freaking films.
2:13:57
It's sticking very closely to Rosa's screenplay.
2:13:59
I mean, the performances are perfectly good.
2:14:01
The tension builds up, freaking works the small space pretty
2:14:04
well. It's probably what this film
2:14:07
should have been. It just makes you realize just
2:14:09
how Lumet did this. I've got no idea.
2:14:11
Yeah, exactly. You just can't replicate what he
2:14:13
did. It's just lightning in a ball.
2:14:15
It absolutely is the problem for me with the new award.
2:14:17
It does feel a bit unnecessary. It doesn't reveal anything new
2:14:20
about the material or justify its existence beyond people
2:14:23
might watch this in colour on TV who haven't seen the first one.
2:14:27
So it is good. But basically a cover version of
2:14:29
like Bohemian Rhapsody? You've got no chance.
2:14:32
It's a tribute band. That's what it is.
2:14:33
Yeah. Yeah.
2:14:35
The themes are updated on the. There's some black members of
2:14:37
the jury in there. The judge is a woman.
2:14:40
It's kind of all the themes that mentioned Tyson and Holyfield at
2:14:43
all points. So like, yeah, you know where
2:14:44
you are, but there's no need for it.
2:14:46
That's the thing, I think, yeah. It's all gravy.
2:14:48
New Yorkshire pudding. I mean, if you're not seen
2:14:50
either, watch the original. For me, if you've seen the
2:14:53
original, this is interesting to see.
2:14:54
Maybe a different take on it, right?
2:14:56
Yeah, yeah. So in terms of influence, 12
2:14:59
Angry Men is still highly thought of, like we said.
2:15:01
But what about his legacy since 1957?
2:15:04
Mike, what do you think of that? Well, I'll tell you what other
2:15:07
film features exactly 12 male characters in a confined
2:15:10
location, full of tension, arguing, no one, trusting anyone
2:15:13
else. The Thing?
2:15:15
The thing has this written all over it.
2:15:17
Yeah, Fonda just needed to bring in a flamethrower at one point
2:15:19
to make his point here. Imagine 3 coming in now it's the
2:15:23
hottest day of the year. No.
2:15:29
I think when you have a film that's best in class, like this
2:15:31
one, it just has such a clear influence.
2:15:33
I mean, every courtroom drama takes a Fonda character and
2:15:36
makes him the heroic lawyer, the launching point for Sidney
2:15:40
Lumet's Cray. Which would last for exactly 50
2:15:43
years because his last film was 2007 and he made a number of
2:15:47
masterpieces along the way, which I'm sure we'll get around
2:15:49
to them all at some point. And lastly, the amount of films
2:15:52
in different genres. But you do tend to get it quite
2:15:54
a lot in horror that if used, let's set this in one confined
2:15:58
location concept. All of them.
2:16:00
Just all. Such a big tip of the hat to
2:16:02
this one. Yeah, absolutely.
2:16:04
I mean, you're right. Every classic home drama from To
2:16:07
Kill a Mockingbird to A Few Good Men.
2:16:09
Beyond that order debt to this, I think.
2:16:11
Yeah, but not just courtroom stuff.
2:16:13
At the time, Hollywood was going big, huge war in Western epics
2:16:16
in Technicolor, and this showed that smaller stories could still
2:16:19
work, I think. And anything that goes with a
2:16:22
single location setting is inspired by this to some level,
2:16:25
surely. Yeah.
2:16:26
Even more modern films like The Breakfast Club or Reservoir
2:16:29
Dogs, they're basically in one room.
2:16:31
I know that John Hughes had The Breakfast Club cast rehearsed
2:16:34
for a few weeks before shooting, just like Lumet did here.
2:16:37
Yeah. Yeah.
2:16:38
I mean, those kind of directors must all surely be looking at
2:16:40
this to see how Lumet did it so well.
2:16:42
Yeah. And Speaking of Lumet, it was
2:16:44
his first feature, so launched his career and he's one of the
2:16:47
greats. So without this, we likely
2:16:49
wouldn't have dogged the afternoon or network mid run.
2:16:52
The Orient Express, all classics.
2:16:54
Yeah. So I agree, I think it's
2:16:56
influence on cinema has been big and pretty wide-ranging and it
2:16:59
still felt today in some ways, yeah.
2:17:01
I think what people have taken from this, I mean, you guys have
2:17:04
covered a lot of it there, but I think it's just the technical
2:17:07
points, the staging, how to have a dialogue sequence and I make
2:17:10
the dialogue make sense, how to have the exposition as dialogue
2:17:13
and make it not boring. People have learned a lot about
2:17:16
piercing from this film. Tarantino has taken so much from
2:17:19
this film. Thanks.
2:17:21
Spielberg got a lot from this as we're going to transition from 1
2:17:23
character to the next in the open tracking shot.
2:17:26
Influential in lots of different ways from lots of different
2:17:29
people, and I honestly think cinema as a whole was a massive
2:17:32
death to 12 Angry Men for what it did.
2:17:34
Yeah, for sure. And it also became one of the
2:17:37
most screen films in law schools in America.
2:17:39
Really. Harvard Law School have held
2:17:41
screenings where prominent law professors lead discussions on
2:17:44
the debating tactics used within the film.
2:17:47
And lots of law professors from Harvard, Cornell and MIT have
2:17:51
written papers talking about how it should inspire the justice
2:17:54
system in America and what we can learn from 12 Angry Men.
2:17:57
Yeah. And bizarrely, Sonia Sotomayor,
2:18:00
the pioneering Supreme Court Justice in the US, she said she
2:18:03
went after a career in law after she saw 12 angry men in college.
2:18:07
Wow, she's Hispanic. And she said she was inspired by
2:18:09
Jura 11's comments as an immigrant about justice.
2:18:12
Yeah, nice. When he's kicking 7's arse,
2:18:14
probably. Beautiful.
2:18:16
So that's the influencer 12 Angry Men remade multiple times,
2:18:19
inspired countless of their films, used in law schools
2:18:22
around the world, and influenced Supreme Court justices.
2:18:25
Not bad for a film that bombed at the box office and barely
2:18:28
filled four row to the cinema. Yeah, exactly.
2:18:31
Did pretty well. All the right movies ranking.
2:18:38
We've been through all the evidence, the story, the cast,
2:18:42
the crew, the making of the legacy.
2:18:44
The case isn't closed just yet, though.
2:18:46
Now it's time for us to give our scores and see what our ATRM
2:18:49
patrons made of 12 Angry men. Yeah, Wesley, you want to kick
2:18:53
us off with your summary and score, please.
2:18:54
I can do. I think it's fairly obvious
2:18:56
where I'm going with this. I think it's been nothing but
2:18:59
praise all the way through. I can't find any real minute
2:19:02
that I dislike about this film. Yeah.
2:19:04
Never mind a scene, I never mind a performance.
2:19:07
Nothing lets it down. Everything.
2:19:08
Like I've said, it's just consistently brilliant from the
2:19:11
opening shot to the closing shot, every single line of
2:19:14
dialogue is not only necessary, it's beautifully played.
2:19:18
Every single camera move is not only necessary, it's brilliantly
2:19:21
played out. It's not just the fact that all
2:19:23
of this needs to come together to work, it's a fact that it
2:19:26
does and so seamless and it looks so simple.
2:19:29
And that's where the best art comes from, where you just look
2:19:32
at something and say that's easy and do that.
2:19:35
Go on, try, try and do that. From the writing, from the
2:19:39
themes, from the performances, from Lumet's career, everything
2:19:43
attached to this film is absolute lightning in the
2:19:45
bottle. And like you said at the top,
2:19:47
John, you recommend this to anybody and they'll always come
2:19:49
back and say thank you. And that's how good this film
2:19:52
is. It's an absolute 10 out of 10
2:19:54
for me. It's a master class.
2:19:55
Technically, it's a master class.
2:19:57
Emotionally, I love it. Beautiful.
2:19:59
Yeah. I mean, like we've been seeing
2:20:00
all along. This is fantastic film making.
2:20:03
The script is brilliant. This could be a dry procedural
2:20:07
regional. Rose turns into this riveting
2:20:09
narrative driven character study exploring themes around age,
2:20:13
race, class. There's more as well.
2:20:15
I mean the cast, all 12 of them, are close to perfect.
2:20:19
Henry Fonda brings the star power and then Joseph Sweeney,
2:20:22
Jack Klugman, Jack Warden, Ed Begley, All brilliant.
2:20:25
And special praise for Lee J Cobb, obviously my favorite.
2:20:28
Yeah, he's amazing. And Sydney Lumets direction.
2:20:31
I think it's sensational. His first film and he's already
2:20:34
at the level of a master. How the visual storytelling with
2:20:38
the lens is getting longer, the camera getting lower, the way
2:20:40
you make repetitive visuals look interesting by mixing them up.
2:20:43
And he did it in 19 days on a tiny budget.
2:20:46
It's unbelievable. Yeah.
2:20:47
But also it has a message and one that I think still feels
2:20:50
important. It's about prejudice, about
2:20:52
justice, the responsibility we all have to society.
2:20:56
I think if we all took on board what they're telling us here and
2:20:58
acted on it, I think the world might be a slightly better
2:21:01
place. Yeah, we have got a
2:21:02
responsibility to each other as well as ourselves.
2:21:05
Exactly. Yeah, I mean, there are films I
2:21:07
love more personally, but in terms of film making craft, in
2:21:10
terms of telling in an engaging story, yeah, I'm not sure
2:21:12
there's such a thing as a perfect film.
2:21:14
But this is as close as there's ever been and probably ever will
2:21:17
be. Yeah, it's a very easy 10
2:21:19
Outward 10 for me. Nice.
2:21:21
And Matt, where are you on 12 Angry Men?
2:21:23
It's one of those films where it's all the potential pitfalls
2:21:26
that the film overcomes, I make that's truly remarkable for me.
2:21:30
Yes, the concept is ideal for television, of course.
2:21:32
It's been making this a movie. One location, all talk, 12
2:21:36
different characters whose names you don't know in 90 minutes.
2:21:39
You've got to get a handle on no way this should work, but it
2:21:42
does. A new Met makes it look easy.
2:21:45
The effortless way you get caught up in this, the way that
2:21:47
every bit of evidence is dissected in a forensic manner
2:21:51
that makes you realize, yes, on first glance, that look cut and
2:21:54
dry, but actually give it a little bit more thought.
2:21:56
None of these arguments hold up. And it's people's prejudices
2:21:59
that are overriding the actual evidence here.
2:22:01
Yeah. But ultimately, I buy everything
2:22:03
this film is selling. Every motivation to vote guilty,
2:22:07
every bit of logical reasoning from Fonda and the rest of them.
2:22:10
And most crucially of all, every change of mind feels honest.
2:22:14
Not one moment of this feels contrived.
2:22:16
We're going. Nah, I wouldn't buy him changing
2:22:18
his mind. Yeah, exactly.
2:22:19
And Lumet turned something potentially very dry in the
2:22:22
something truly cinematic with impeccable performances from
2:22:25
everyone. Yes, it's a bit of a fairy tale
2:22:27
and that if only people were this reasonable and open minded
2:22:30
in real life, but all the same, it's best in class.
2:22:33
If anything is a classic, this one is.
2:22:36
It's a 10 for me. Beautiful.
2:22:38
Right, so we all love it, but what the ACRMP is?
2:22:40
You want to make a 12 Angry men? Let's hear from three of them,
2:22:43
should we? OK, Yeah.
2:22:45
First up, MB King, who said it's in these top fives of all time,
2:22:49
Best screenplay, best directorial debut, best cast,
2:22:53
best singular location film, best cinematography, best ending
2:22:57
and it's number one is the greatest quote from drama of all
2:22:59
time Over The Killer, Mockingbird and The Verdict.
2:23:03
Right. He's.
2:23:03
Not wrong and be king coming in hot.
2:23:05
I mean. Wouldn't disagree particularly
2:23:07
to To Kill a Mockingbird is brilliant as well though.
2:23:10
Yeah, you need a strong argument against all of that.
2:23:12
Really wouldn't. Yeah.
2:23:13
Bridge on the River Kwai, maybe? Next, Matthew Williams says this
2:23:19
works on every level beautifully.
2:23:21
Simple as a concept, but with amazing depth.
2:23:23
Pure drama. I've seen it as a stage player
2:23:25
too, and it transfers so well because of the excellence of the
2:23:28
story and the characters. Yeah, I'd love to see this on
2:23:31
the stage it. Would be amazing on stage, yeah.
2:23:34
Lends itself for that pretty obviously, doesn't it?
2:23:36
Yeah And finally Andrew who has quite the story, says I'm
2:23:40
divorced but it was worth marrying my ex just to be
2:23:43
introduced to this film. A masterpiece and elevates
2:23:46
itself by speaking about such important subject matter. 10
2:23:49
every time. A comfort movie I never get
2:23:51
bored of. A perfect film.
2:23:53
In contention for my fav film ever and the greatest film ever.
2:23:58
Right, high prayers. Yeah, I mean, if I was going to
2:24:01
get one thing out of a marriage, 12 Angry Men isn't too.
2:24:04
Bad, not bad thing to get out of it.
2:24:07
So our patrons give 12 Angry Men an average score of What do you
2:24:10
think? It's got to be there's not one
2:24:13
comment on there that you've said negative you have couldn't
2:24:15
find one, could you? So I think it's.
2:24:18
It was a massive 1063% of voters gave it a 10.
2:24:22
So in total, like he was 12 angry men 40 out of 40.
2:24:26
I mean, to be honest, coming in, I'd have been surprised if it
2:24:28
didn't get that so highly thought of would have just been.
2:24:31
Ludicrous. If it got anything less just
2:24:33
wouldn't have made any sense. And that is that on 12 Angry
2:24:35
Men. Hopefully you don't think
2:24:37
there's been too much yakety yakking going on.
2:24:40
Well, next time out it is a Christmas cracker.
2:24:44
Isn't it? We're leaving the jury room for
2:24:45
Bedford Falls, all four of us, so Matt, Westy, Luke and myself
2:24:50
are getting our wings as we get into Frank Capra, James Stewart,
2:24:55
and It's a Wonderful Life. Indeed.
2:24:57
Yeah, a Christmas classic and could be a tearjerker, right,
2:25:01
Matt? If I get through that one piece,
2:25:03
I'm going to be amazed. Well, as a quick reminder, if
2:25:07
you've enjoyed this episode and want to support what we do, you
2:25:10
can become an ATRM Patreon. Over on Patreon, you get early
2:25:13
access to our archived episodes, bonus episodes.
2:25:16
You can submit questions for us to answer on the show like the
2:25:18
ones you've answered today, forward on future episodes
2:25:21
during the community. Please do follow brilliant movie
2:25:24
fans and you'll get film recommendations and get to be
2:25:26
part of the story. Yeah, yeah, definitely.
2:25:28
So head over to patreon.com/all the Right Movies to sign up.
2:25:33
Yeah, or sign someone else up. A perfect Christmas gift.
2:25:35
Oh. Yes, wonderful idea.
2:25:37
Beautiful. Also you can find this 1X at AT
2:25:39
right movies on YouTube, on Instagram threads, blue sky
2:25:43
TikTok. We've got a Facebook group and
2:25:44
our website is all the right movies.com.
2:25:47
Try and get rid of her. We're all off now, with the
2:25:50
widest lens possible to bask in some glorious fresh air.
2:25:53
Yeah, yeah, might. Might even tell us his real
2:25:56
name. Finally.
2:25:57
I might, I'm going to have a shower first because I'm quite
2:25:59
sweaty. He's not kidding.
2:26:02
I can see that. I'll bring the lens dripping
2:26:04
down my brow. We'll see you again for It's a
2:26:06
Wonderful Life and thanks for tuning in everyone.
2:26:08
Yes. Thank you so much for listening
2:26:10
guys. Take care.
2:26:10
Thanks guys.