12 Angry men 1957
Discussion
Was the defendant actually guilty?
I can agree that it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities I'd say he did it.
If it was a real trial and I was in the jury (ignoring the fact that some of the issues that came up would have been discussed before the jury started their deliberations) I think I would have gone for not guilty, but only just.
I can agree that it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities I'd say he did it.
If it was a real trial and I was in the jury (ignoring the fact that some of the issues that came up would have been discussed before the jury started their deliberations) I think I would have gone for not guilty, but only just.
12 angry men.
One of my all time favourite films.
If you're reading Dr Jekyll's thread out of curiosity and haven't seen it, then I urge you to watch it - it's a masterpiece of character study.
Seems I'm not alone in loving it, too - https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1000013-12_angry_...
One of my all time favourite films.
If you're reading Dr Jekyll's thread out of curiosity and haven't seen it, then I urge you to watch it - it's a masterpiece of character study.
Seems I'm not alone in loving it, too - https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1000013-12_angry_...
JONSCZ said:
12 angry men.
One of my all time favourite films.
If you're reading Dr Jekyll's thread out of curiosity and haven't seen it, then I urge you to watch it - it's a masterpiece of character study.
Seems I'm not alone in loving it, too - https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1000013-12_angry_...
I’d say it’s my favourite ‘single location’ film. (Technically you could argue it’s not a single location, but it is in my head.)One of my all time favourite films.
If you're reading Dr Jekyll's thread out of curiosity and haven't seen it, then I urge you to watch it - it's a masterpiece of character study.
Seems I'm not alone in loving it, too - https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1000013-12_angry_...
Based on the evidence presented, I would say the defendant was guilty. But It’s not beyond reasonable doubt. I’m not sure how I would have voted if I was actually on that jury. Very probably I would have voted guilty then been pursued by the force of Henry Fonda’s argument. That probably says something unpleasant about me.
PS. I don’t get the Magna Carta reference.
SpudLink said:
I’d say it’s my favourite ‘single location’ film. (Technically you could argue it’s not a single location, but it is in my head.)
Based on the evidence presented, I would say the defendant was guilty. But It’s not beyond reasonable doubt. I’m not sure how I would have voted if I was actually on that jury. Very probably I would have voted guilty then been pursued by the force of Henry Fonda’s argument. That probably says something unpleasant about me.
PS. I don’t get the Magna Carta reference.
I assumed it was originally a stage play given that almost everything happens in one location, but apparently it was a TV film before it was remade as a cinema release.Based on the evidence presented, I would say the defendant was guilty. But It’s not beyond reasonable doubt. I’m not sure how I would have voted if I was actually on that jury. Very probably I would have voted guilty then been pursued by the force of Henry Fonda’s argument. That probably says something unpleasant about me.
PS. I don’t get the Magna Carta reference.
Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ4mxOluXY4
Dr Jekyll said:
Was the defendant actually guilty?
I can agree that it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities I'd say he did it.
If it was a real trial and I was in the jury (ignoring the fact that some of the issues that came up would have been discussed before the jury started their deliberations) I think I would have gone for not guilty, but only just.
Not sure if this is still the case, but when I went on jury service we were advised to only consider the facts and that "this isn't the set of 12 Angry men"I can agree that it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities I'd say he did it.
If it was a real trial and I was in the jury (ignoring the fact that some of the issues that came up would have been discussed before the jury started their deliberations) I think I would have gone for not guilty, but only just.
I suspect nowadays most people wouldn't get the reference
SpudLink said:
JONSCZ said:
12 angry men.
One of my all time favourite films.
If you're reading Dr Jekyll's thread out of curiosity and haven't seen it, then I urge you to watch it - it's a masterpiece of character study.
Seems I'm not alone in loving it, too - https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1000013-12_angry_...
I’d say it’s my favourite ‘single location’ film. (Technically you could argue it’s not a single location, but it is in my head.)One of my all time favourite films.
If you're reading Dr Jekyll's thread out of curiosity and haven't seen it, then I urge you to watch it - it's a masterpiece of character study.
Seems I'm not alone in loving it, too - https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1000013-12_angry_...
Based on the evidence presented, I would say the defendant was guilty. But It’s not beyond reasonable doubt. I’m not sure how I would have voted if I was actually on that jury. Very probably I would have voted guilty then been pursued by the force of Henry Fonda’s argument. That probably says something unpleasant about me.
PS. I don’t get the Magna Carta reference.
one episode is based on 12 angry Men. Hancock, who was a pompous know-all took over the jury and played the Henry fonda part. During one of his rambling speeches to the others , full of mis-quotes and mis-facts he said something like " have you forgotten Magna Carta?" " Did she die in vain?"
There were others, something bout Joan f Arc and the battle of Hastings, that sort of thing. I'm sure you'll find it on Youtube. You have to remember it was very much of its time. But funny , all the same. I loved Hancock.
Johnspex said:
Too young for Tony Hancock?
one episode is based on 12 angry Men. Hancock, who was a pompous know-all took over the jury and played the Henry fonda part. During one of his rambling speeches to the others , full of mis-quotes and mis-facts he said something like " have you forgotten Magna Carta?" " Did she die in vain?"
There were others, something bout Joan f Arc and the battle of Hastings, that sort of thing. I'm sure you'll find it on Youtube. You have to remember it was very much of its time. But funny , all the same. I loved Hancock.
Yep, too young. It’s not often I get to say that these days. one episode is based on 12 angry Men. Hancock, who was a pompous know-all took over the jury and played the Henry fonda part. During one of his rambling speeches to the others , full of mis-quotes and mis-facts he said something like " have you forgotten Magna Carta?" " Did she die in vain?"
There were others, something bout Joan f Arc and the battle of Hastings, that sort of thing. I'm sure you'll find it on Youtube. You have to remember it was very much of its time. But funny , all the same. I loved Hancock.
I’ve seen and heard some of his stuff (blood donor etc) but he was definitely before my time. I will look for the full Hancock 12 Angry Men sketch.
sociopath said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Was the defendant actually guilty?
I can agree that it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities I'd say he did it.
If it was a real trial and I was in the jury (ignoring the fact that some of the issues that came up would have been discussed before the jury started their deliberations) I think I would have gone for not guilty, but only just.
Not sure if this is still the case, but when I went on jury service we were advised to only consider the facts and that "this isn't the set of 12 Angry men"I can agree that it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities I'd say he did it.
If it was a real trial and I was in the jury (ignoring the fact that some of the issues that came up would have been discussed before the jury started their deliberations) I think I would have gone for not guilty, but only just.
I suspect nowadays most people wouldn't get the reference
motco said:
sociopath said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Was the defendant actually guilty?
I can agree that it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities I'd say he did it.
If it was a real trial and I was in the jury (ignoring the fact that some of the issues that came up would have been discussed before the jury started their deliberations) I think I would have gone for not guilty, but only just.
Not sure if this is still the case, but when I went on jury service we were advised to only consider the facts and that "this isn't the set of 12 Angry men"I can agree that it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities I'd say he did it.
If it was a real trial and I was in the jury (ignoring the fact that some of the issues that came up would have been discussed before the jury started their deliberations) I think I would have gone for not guilty, but only just.
I suspect nowadays most people wouldn't get the reference
Johnspex said:
motco said:
sociopath said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Was the defendant actually guilty?
I can agree that it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities I'd say he did it.
If it was a real trial and I was in the jury (ignoring the fact that some of the issues that came up would have been discussed before the jury started their deliberations) I think I would have gone for not guilty, but only just.
Not sure if this is still the case, but when I went on jury service we were advised to only consider the facts and that "this isn't the set of 12 Angry men"I can agree that it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities I'd say he did it.
If it was a real trial and I was in the jury (ignoring the fact that some of the issues that came up would have been discussed before the jury started their deliberations) I think I would have gone for not guilty, but only just.
I suspect nowadays most people wouldn't get the reference
motco said:
Johnspex said:
motco said:
sociopath said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Was the defendant actually guilty?
I can agree that it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities I'd say he did it.
If it was a real trial and I was in the jury (ignoring the fact that some of the issues that came up would have been discussed before the jury started their deliberations) I think I would have gone for not guilty, but only just.
Not sure if this is still the case, but when I went on jury service we were advised to only consider the facts and that "this isn't the set of 12 Angry men"I can agree that it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities I'd say he did it.
If it was a real trial and I was in the jury (ignoring the fact that some of the issues that came up would have been discussed before the jury started their deliberations) I think I would have gone for not guilty, but only just.
I suspect nowadays most people wouldn't get the reference
It's hugely successful in highlighting the jurors' job of processing evidence that not only indicates
guilt but evidence that indicates a reasonable doubt about guilt.
But I have to say it strains credulity for the Fonda character to actually persuade all the
other jurors of a reasonable doubt and a Not Guilty verdict.
I think it would have been more realistic for a couple of the jurors to remain staunchly convinced of guilt.
The film is based on a TV play and as such I suppose it had to have the uncomplicated
denouement of complete turnaround and a unanimous verdict.
guilt but evidence that indicates a reasonable doubt about guilt.
But I have to say it strains credulity for the Fonda character to actually persuade all the
other jurors of a reasonable doubt and a Not Guilty verdict.
I think it would have been more realistic for a couple of the jurors to remain staunchly convinced of guilt.
The film is based on a TV play and as such I suppose it had to have the uncomplicated
denouement of complete turnaround and a unanimous verdict.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff