the story of the old movie (12 angry men)
12 Angry Men is a 1957 American legal drama film directed by Sidney Lumet, adapted from the 1954 television play of the same name by Reginald Rose.
The film tells the story of a jury of 12 men as they deliberate whether to convict or acquit a teenager accused of murder on the basis of reasonable doubt;
The disagreement and conflict between them forces jurors to question their morals and values.
Starring Henry Fonda (who also produced the film with Reginald Rose), Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley, E. J. Marshall, and Jack Warden.
12 Angry Men received critical acclaim, despite a lukewarm performance at the box office.
At the 30th Academy Awards, it was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Screenplay.
It is considered by many to be one of the greatest films ever made. In 2007, it was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant."
Additionally, it was selected as the second best courtroom drama of all time (after 1962's To Kill a Mockingbird) by the American Film Institute for its AFI Top 10 Films list.
In a sweltering jury room in a New York district court, a jury prepares to deliberate the case of an impoverished 18-year-old accused of stabbing his abusive father to death. The judge orders them that if there is any reasonable doubt, the jury shall return a verdict of not guilty;
If proven guilty, the accused will be sentenced to mandatory death via the electric chair. The ruling must be unanimous.
At first the issue seems clear. A neighbor testified that she saw the defendant stab his father from her window through the windows of a passing elevated train. Another neighbor testified that he heard the defendant threatening to kill his father,
and the father's body hit the ground. Then, when he ran to his door, he saw the defendant running down the stairs.
The boy has a violent past. He had recently purchased a keyblade of the same type that was found scanned with fingerprints at the crime scene, but claimed to have lost it.
In the initial vote, all jurors voted "guilty" except for the eighth juror, who believed some discussion should take place before sentencing. He says he cannot vote "guilty" because there is reasonable doubt.
With his first few arguments failing to convince any of the other jurors, Juror 8 proposes a secret ballot in which he abstains;
If all the other jurors still vote guilty, he will acquiesce. The ballot reveals one "not guilty" vote. Juror 9 reveals that he changed his vote
. He respects Juror No. 8's motives, and agrees further discussions are necessary.
ANSWER OF THE FIRST QUESTION : 1453690785201421365475
Juror 8 argues that the noise of the passing train would have drowned out everything the second witness claimed to have heard.
Juror 5 changes his vote, as does Juror 11. Jurors 5, 6, and 8 also question the story of the second witness, wondering if the death threat was figurative speech
. After looking at a diagram of the witness's apartment and conducting an experiment, the jury decided that it was impossible for the disabled witness to get to the door in time.
Juror 3, enraged, argues with Juror 8 and attempts to attack him, with 5, 6, and 7 jumping in to incapacitate him, screaming death threats. Jurors 2 and 6 change their votes; The jury is now evenly divided.
Juror 4 doubts the defendant's alibi based on the boy's inability to remember specific details. Juror 8 tests Juror 4's memory to prove a point.
Jurors 2 and 5 point out that it is unlikely that the boy made a downward stabbing, because he was shorter than his father.
Juror No. 7 changed his vote out of impatience rather than conviction, angering Juror No. 11. After another vote, Jurors 12 and 1 also changed their sides, leaving only three "guilty" votes left.
Juror #10 continues his intolerant rant, prompting Juror #4 to ban him from speaking for the rest of the deliberations.
When the fourth juror is pressed as to why he continues to insist on his guilty vote, he declares that the woman who saw the murder across the street stands as strong evidence. Juror No. 12 returns to vote guilty.
After watching Juror 4 remove his glasses and rub the impressions they had made on his nose, Juror 9 realized that the first witness was constantly rubbing similar impressions on her nose, indicating that she was also a habitual wearer of glasses.
It is also noted that she always dresses more befitting a younger woman, and therefore does not wear glasses to court.
Jury 8 points out that the witness, who was trying to sleep when she witnessed the murder, did not have glasses or the time to put them on, making her story questionable. Jurors 12, 10, and 4 all change their votes, leaving Juror 3 as the only dissenter.
Juror 3 desperately and desperately tries to convince the others, until he finally realizes that his strained relationship with his son makes him wish the defendant was guilty. He broke down in tears and changed his voice to "not guilty." As the others leave, Juror 8 gently helps Juror 3 into his coat.
The defendant was acquitted off-screen, and the jurors left the courtroom.
Jurors 8 and 9 pause to learn each other's names (Davis and McArdle, respectively), before parting ways.
UCLA School of Law professor emeritus Michael Asimov referred to the film as "a tribute to the common man standing firm against mob mentality.
" Gavin Smith's Film Review called the film "a definitive refutation of McCarthy-era mob hysteria."
Business academic Phil Rosenzweig described the jury in 12 Angry Men, made up entirely of white men, as “particularly important,” writing: “Many of the 12 would look around the room, see other white men, and assume they had more in the room.” .
“They should be able to reach a judgment without difficulty. However, when they become intentional, fault lines begin to appear — by age, education, national origin, socioeconomic level, values, and temperament.”
Reginald Rose's screenplay for 12 Angry Men was initially produced for television (starring Robert Cummings as Juror 8), and was broadcast live on CBS's Studio One in September 1954. A complete scene of this performance, which had been missing for years and was On display
ANSWER OF THE SECOND QUESTION : 102364753259812032654789
. Fear of Losing, was discovered in 2003. It was put on display at Chelsea Studios in New York City.
The success of the television production led to a film adaptation. Sidney Lumet, whose previous directorial credits include television production dramas such as The Alcoa Hour and Studio One, was enlisted by Henry Fonda and Rose to direct
. 12 Angry Men was the feature film debut of Lumet, the sole producer of Fonda and Rose (under their production company Orion-Nova Productions). Fonda later stated that he would never produce a film again.
The film was shot in New York and was completed after a short but rigorous rehearsal schedule
, in less than three weeks, on a budget of $337,000 (equivalent to $3,511,000 in 2022). Rose and Fonda received salary deferrals.
At the beginning of the film, the cameras are positioned above eye level and mounted with wide-angle lenses, to give the appearance of greater depth between subjects, but as the film progresses, the focal length of the lenses gradually increases. By the end of the film, almost everyone is shown in close-ups,
using telephoto lenses from a lower angle, reducing or "shortening" the depth of field. Lumet has stated that his goal in using these techniques with cinematographer Boris Kaufman was to create an almost palpable claustrophobia.
On its first release, 12 Angry Men received critical acclaim. A. H. Weiler of The New York Times wrote: "She creates a taut, entertaining and compelling drama that reaches far beyond the close confines of the jury room setting." His observation of the twelve men was that "their dramas are powerful and provocative enough to keep the viewer spellbound.
" Variety called it an "absorbing drama" with acting that was "perhaps the best recently seen in any single film." Scheuer of the Los Angeles Times declared it "a tour de force of filmmaking", the Monthly Film Bulletin called it "a compelling and extremely well-handled drama", and John McCarten
. of The New Yorker called it "a rather major addition to the celluloid scene."
The film was a disappointment at the US box office but did better internationally.
The advent of color and widescreen productions may have contributed to the film's disappointing box office performance.[20] The film did not find its audience until after it was first broadcast on television
The film is viewed as a highly regarded classic from both a critical and popular standpoint: Roger Ebert has listed it as one of his "great films".
The American Film Institute named Joror 8, played by Henry Fonda, 28th on its list of the 50 Greatest Movie Heroes of the 20th Century.
The AFI also ranked 12 Angry Men as the 42nd most inspiring film, the 88th most heartwarming film, and the 87th best film of the past 100 years.
The film was also nominated for the 100 Films list in 1998.[24] In 2011, the film was one of the top 20 films shown in secondary schools in the United Kingdom.
As of March 2023, the film has an approval rating of 100% on Rotten Tomatoes based on 61 reviews, with a weighted average of 9.10/10. The site's consensus reads: "Sidney Lumet's debut feature is a beautifully written and hugely effective courtroom thriller that is truly a modern classic."
Speaking at a screening of the film during the 2010 Fordham University School of Law Film Festival, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that seeing 12 Angry Men while in college influenced her decision to pursue a career in law.
I was particularly inspired by Immigrant Juror No. 11's monologue about his reverence for the American justice system.
She also told the audience of law students that, as a trial court judge, she would sometimes ask jurors not to follow the movie's example, because most jurors' conclusions were based on speculation, not facts
. Sotomayor noted that events such as the introduction of Juror No. 8 with a similar knife into the proceeding;
Conduct external research into the subject matter of the case in the first place;
Ultimately, the jury as a whole would not be permitted to make broad and broad assumptions beyond the scope of reasonable doubt (such as inferences about the woman wearing glasses) about the jury's factual position that would have in fact resulted. Mistrial(assuming, of course, that applicable law permits disclosure of the content of jury deliberations).
In 2007, Michael Asimov said that the jury in the 12 Angry Men case reached an incorrect verdict, writing that the amount of circumstantial evidence against the defendant should have been sufficient to convict him, even if the testimony of the two eyewitnesses had been ignored.
In 2012, Mike D'Angelo of The A.V. The A.V. Club also questioned the jury's verdict in the film, writing: "What guarantees the child's guilt for practical purposes, [...] is the absolute possibility that all the evidence will be wrong.
It should be the jurisprudential opposite of a National Lottery winner who will encounter so many coincidences and misunderstandings." Apparently. Or you'll have to be framed, which Johnnie Cochran was eventually forced to discuss - not just because of the DNA evidence,
but because there was no other plausible explanation for it. Why all the details point to O. J. Simpson's guilt, but there is no reason. Presented in 12 Angry Men, why, for example, the police would plant electric blades.
There have been a number of adaptations of 12 Angry Men due to its popularity and legacy.
A 1963 German television production, Die zwölf Geschworenen, directed by Günter Gräwert, a 1973 Spanish production,
Doce hombres sin Piedad, was made for television 22 years before Spain allowed jury trials, while Kōki Mitani's 1991 tribute,
Juninin no Yasashii Nihonjin ("12 Nice Japanese People"), depicts Japan with a jury system and depicts a group of Japanese people grappling with their responsibility in the face of Japanese cultural norms.
A 1970 episode of the television series The Odd Couple (also co-starring Jack Klugman) titled
"The Jury's Story" is reminiscent of 12 Angry Men, as it tells in flashback the circumstances behind the meeting of roommates Oscar Madison and Felix Unger. Klugman (Madison) plays a juror on a panel during a supposedly open-and-shut case.
ANSWER OF THE THIRD QUESTION : 10324782361481532945
Co-star Tony Randall (Unger) portrays the lone holdout who votes not guilty, eventually convincing the other eleven jurors.
The 1978 Happy Days episode "Fonzie for the Defense" contains a similar situation to 12 Angry Men when Howard Cunningham and Fonzie find themselves the only two members of the jury unwilling to convict the defendant simply because he rides a motorcycle.
A 1986 episode of Murder, She Wrote entitled "Trial by Mistake" pays tribute to 12 Angry Men.
The major twists are originally 10 jurors voting "not guilty" due to self-defense, Jessica voting "not sure" and another juror voting "guilty".
Jessica and other jurors remember the evidence, as more and more jurors shift from "not guilty by reason of self-defense" and come to the realization of what really happened the night of the murder.
The 1987 Hindi film Ek Roka Hua Vaisla ("A Suspended Decision") and the 2012 Kannada film Dashammukha ("Ten Faces") are Hindi remakes of the film, with an almost identical story.
Season 1, Episode 17A of the Nickelodeon cartoon series Hey Arnold! (1996) is a parody of 12 Angry Men.
In the episode titled "False Alarm," Eugene is suspected and accused of pulling the fire alarm, and a student jury is assembled to vote on the verdict, but Arnold is the only one who believes Eugene is innocent. He has to convince the rest of his colleagues that Eugene is not guilty of the crime.
In this adaptation, it is proven that Eugene is not the criminal. In fact, the student "jury" member is the actual culprit.
