12 Angry Men (1957)
12 Angry Men (1957) is an American legal drama film directed by Sidney Lumet, adapted from a 1954 teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose. On a hot summer day in the New York County Courthouse, a jury prepares to deliberate the case of an impoverished 18-year-old boy accused of killing his abusive father. The judge instructs them that if there is any reasonable doubt, they must return a verdict of ‘not guilty’. Otherwise, the defendant will face a mandatory death sentence via the electric chair. The verdict must be unanimous. Initially, the evidence seems straightforward. One witness claims to have seen the defendant stab his father from her window as a train passed by. Another neighbor heard the defendant make threats and then heard what sounded like a body hitting the floor before seeing him run away.
The boy had recently acquired a switchblade of the same make found at the murder scene, with no fingerprints present. He claimed to have lost it. In an initial tally, all jurors voted ‘guilty’ except Juror 8, who believed that there should be further deliberation before a verdict was reached. He stated that he could not convict solely based on reasonable doubt. Despite presenting evidence such as a similar knife purchased around the time of the murder, Juror 8’s arguments did not sway his peers. As a compromise, he proposed a confidential vote, in which he would abstain. The results showed one ‘not guilty’ vote. Juror 9 then admitted to changing their vote due to Juror 8’s reasoning and agreed that more discussion was necessary.
Date of download: 2015-11-11T17:22:34+00:00
Cast:  Henry FondaJuror 8  Martin BalsamJuror 1  Lee J. CobbJuror 3  Ed BegleyJuror 10  E.G. MarshallJuror 4  Jack WardenJuror 7  Joseph SweeneyJuror 9  Jack KlugmanJuror 5  Robert WebberJuror 12  John FiedlerJuror 2  George VoskovecJuror 11  Ed BinnsJuror 6 |
12 Angry Men (1957) is an American legal drama film directed by Sidney Lumet, adapted from a 1954 teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose. On a hot summer day in the New York County Courthouse, a jury prepares to deliberate the case of an impoverished 18-year-old boy accused of killing his abusive father. The judge instructs them that if there is any reasonable doubt, they must return a verdict of ‘not guilty’. Otherwise, the defendant will face a mandatory death sentence via the electric chair. The verdict must be unanimous. Initially, the evidence seems straightforward. One witness claims to have seen the defendant stab his father from her window as a train passed by. Another neighbor heard the defendant make threats and then heard what sounded like a body hitting the floor before seeing him run away.
The boy had recently acquired a switchblade of the same make found at the murder scene, with no fingerprints present. He claimed to have lost it. In an initial tally, all jurors voted ‘guilty’ except Juror 8, who believed that there should be further deliberation before a verdict was reached. He stated that he could not convict solely based on reasonable doubt. Despite presenting evidence such as a similar knife purchased around the time of the murder, Juror 8’s arguments did not sway his peers. As a compromise, he proposed a confidential vote, in which he would abstain. The results showed one ‘not guilty’ vote. Juror 9 then admitted to changing their vote due to Juror 8’s reasoning and agreed that more discussion was necessary.
