Think a film about 12 men debating the guilt or innocence of a young man on trial for the murder of his father can't be riveting cinema? Think again. The 1957 film was one of the all time great films. Perfectly cast, with Martin Balsam, Robert Webber, Jack Warden, Jack Klugman, Lee J.Cobb and Henry Fonda (who also produced,) among a great cast. Perfectly directed by Sidney Lumet, and astutely written by Reginald Rose. The tension level in the jury room rises to almost unbearable levels, as the jurors from all walks of life impose their emotions and prejudices on this case.
A remake, also written by Mr. Rose, was filmed for Showtime in 1997 and is almost as good. With a racially diverse cast (Courtney B. Vance, Mykelti Williamson, Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott and Edward James Olmos, among others.) The movie and sports references were updated. Otherwise, very little was changed in the way of dialog or plot-there was no need to change, as the basic tensions and feelings between people are a constant. Either version of this story gets my highest recommendation.

I thought the remake was awful, Adam. The original RULES!

As for changes, they made some very BAD ones other than sports and news.

For one thing, Juror #9 was the old man, who was considerably older than the others, and this was an essential aspect of the motif of his character. Joesph Sweeney, who played him in the '57 version (where he was named McCardle, one of only two jurors named) was 21 years older than Henry Fonda, who played #8, and 27 years older than Lee J. Cobb, who played #3, the villain. But Hume Cronyn, who played #10 in the '97 version, was only 14 years older than Jack Lemmon, (#8), and 16 years older than George C. Scott (#3), and the differences in age didn't even look like much.

Fonda's Juror #8 was a confident, upright man, but Jack Lemmon's portrayal of the same character was that of a hapless, somewhat defeated person, which the creators claimed was necessary because of the changed times, and because they felt a 1997 audience wouldn't relate to him. I hated that decision.

This was possibly the worst difference, and I almost found it offensive: The bigot, Juror #10, admitted at the end of the '57 version that he had doubts, and voted not guilty. Mykelti Williamson's '97 version did so simply because he didn't want to fight any more, and just voted to appease the others, defiant and spiteful to the end.

Then there's this moment: Juror #3, the villain of the room, at one point, cites the testimony of the elderly male witness (who we never saw) as a strong point in his argument for voting guilty. But when the pro-not guilty jurors began citing that witness' testimony in their arguments, #3 suddenly dismisses the old man's testimony, saying he was just an old man and couldn't be sure of anything, and then realizes that he just contradicted his own earlier citing of that testimony. In the original version, this is an important point in the debate, and filmed as such. But when George C. Scott does this in the '97 version, the dialogue and filming of the moment is poor and half-hearted.

I also think Armin Mueller Stahl, with his accent, would've been more suited to play the foreigner, #11, (though casting the Latino Edward James Olmos was probably a better choice for this era). Given that Stahl's character, the somewhat bookish, almost Vulcan-like #4, who was obsessed solely with the facts, Stahl's accent got in the way of that character point, as did his age. E.G. Marshall's younger, dark-haired, neatly combed version brought out those essential character traits far better. Stahl is a good actor, but he came across as almost flamboyant by comparison.

The original Was way much better. the remake looked and felt like a Politically Corrected piece of BS.

This program sanitized for your protection.

Oh yeah one other thing MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!

I mentioned in the first paragraph above that Hume Cronyn played #10. I should've said #9.

Another that made no sense that I forgot about was Mykelti Williamson's Juror #10's bizarre bigotry towards Latinos, and his rant that they all do crack and such. Since when do blacks, militant or otherwise, have such a preconception of Latinos?

We watched this film in Civil Liberties class. We had fun with Juror no 3.'s "Whatta do you mean" catchphrase.

LN: I mentioned in the first paragraph above that Hume Cronyn played #10. I should've said #9.

Another that made no sense that I forgot about was Mykelti Williamson's Juror #10's bizarre bigotry towards Latinos, and his rant that they all do crack and such. Since when do blacks, militant or otherwise, have such a preconception of Latinos?

RW: Keep in mind that the Mykelti Williamson character was just one person, and as such, the character's opinions only have to be consistent with what any one such person's opinions might be.

Yeah, but still, it made no sense, and was totally unbelievable. Juror #10 from the original version had a bias against poor people from bad neighborhoods, which we are familiar with. I am totally unfamiliar with any such perceptions as the ones #10 had in the newer version, and could not relate to it.

I've once written an excerpt from the play this movie seems to be based on, but I haven't been able to find the book since. Does anybody know what the original book title is like, and who wrote it?

Thanks for your help.

Here is an excerpt from the library I work at's catalog....

"On the air : a collection of radio and TV plays / edited by Sylvia Z....

Title: On the air : a collection of radio and TV plays / edited by Sylvia Z. Brodkin and Elizabeth J. Pearson.
Publisher: New York : Scribner, c1977.
Description: Book
345 p. : ill. ; 21 cm.
LC Subject(s): Radio plays--United States.
Television plays--United States.
Series: Scribner student paperbacks ; SSP 37
Other Contributors: Brodkin, Sylvia Z.
Pearson, Elizabeth J.

Table of Contents: Bamber, G. Return to dust.
McGill, J. The final hour.
Stockton, F. R. The lady or the tiger?
Doyle, A. C. The speckled band.
Rose, R. Twelve angry men.
McGreevey, J. The foundling.
Serling, R. Back there.
Gerrold, D. The trouble with tribbles."


So, it looks like the movie is based on the play "Twelve Angry Men" by Reginald Rose. In order to have any luck looking for a copy of this, you will probably need to type it as "Twelve Angry Men", which is the name of the play (as well as this board) and not "12 Angry Men", which is the name of the movie.

Its interesting to see David Gerrold's "Trouble with Tribbles" in that list, isn't it?

Okay, I saw the remake last week, and I think this is another great movie! I haven't yet seen the 1957 one, nor read the original play, so the movie on its own seemed very good to me - the closed atmosphere, the personal history and prejudices coming out....

Luigi Novi, Another that made no sense that I forgot about was Mykelti Williamson's Juror #10's bizarre bigotry towards Latinos, and his rant that they all do crack and such. Since when do blacks, militant or otherwise, have such a preconception of Latinos?

I obviously have no experience about african-americans, or the ghettos. But in the review of the X-files ep. kaddish about the golem, the original script was supposed to show african-americans being anti-semitic (which was changed later, so as not offend people), because in real life, those people who are at the low end of society tend not to band together and fight for better life, but to blame other ethnicities and fight among each other.
Also, as far as I have heard, the movie "gangs of new york", which is supposed to be based on historical events, shows the hate between two groups of disadvantaged people.

Historically, its also often the case that people who suffered from prosecution, prejudices, and were disadvantaged, turned just as easily into bigots as those who had experienced it. In other words, suffering doesn't make a person soft and empathic and non-violent per se; just as often, victims of sufferings will cause sufferings to others and become aggressive. This is true not only for individuals, but also for groups and societies.

I thought this point believable, as it didn't use the too-often employed TV/Movie equation black=criminal; instead, the suspect is latino, and the bigot should know better, but doesn't.

BTW, in the 1957 movie, and in the original play, was the suspect also a latino, or a black?

I can't speak for the play, but the suspect in the 1957 (Fonda) version was...well, he looked like he had a little Latino background, but it was quite hard to tell. I think they wanted to make his background purposely ambiguous.

Of interest in that version, the bigot was a white middle-aged businessman. (even bigots were stereotyped then).

I think I enjoyed the 1957 version a good bit more, for several reasons: The cast wasn't staffed so much with older actors. I realize that Scott, Lemmon and Cronyn are excellent and distinguished actors, but still it was a little jarring after watching the old one, in which the sadist, Number Seven, and the elderly gentleman weren't all around the same age.

Lemmon and Fonda are both perfect for the part, Hume Cronyn and the actor playing #9 in the old version are both good, but I think I prefer Lee J. Cobb over Scott as the sadist. Perhaps it's just because Cobb is less familiar to me as an actor, and I don't find myself thinking "Scott's chewing the scenery again." Which Cobb does just as much, though..

I definitely don't miss Tony Danza in the original.

The cinematography was first-rate. The camera draws in closer and closer as the day winds on, and the camera angles almost make you feel like the viewer is a participant.

And a black-and-white format just seems best for this story. It adds a wonderful tension and a bit of detachment that the newer version just couldn't quite match.

D'oh! Scrolling up I find Luigi has already pointed out the age difference quite well.

constanze: In the review of the X-files ep. kaddish about the golem, the original script was supposed to show african-americans being anti-semitic (which was changed later, so as not offend people)….
Luigi Novi: Black anti-semitism, particularly in light of the Crown Heights tragedy, is established, and therefore, something the audience can relate to and believe. But blacks thinking that Latinos all do crack is not something I’ve ever heard of before, I and didn’t find this character trait at all believable.

constanze: Also, as far as I have heard, the movie "gangs of new york", which is supposed to be based on historical events, shows the hate between two groups of disadvantaged people.
Luigi Novi: I’m not debating the existence of hatred between two groups of disadvantaged people in general. I’m arguing that the particular example in this movie does not ring true because it isn’t based on any real-life prejudice that I’ve ever heard of. If the defendant were Jewish, and Juror #10 wanted to vote him guilty because of that, I could buy that, since many militant African Americans are anti-Semitic. But his hatred against Latinos doesn't ring true.

constanze: BTW, in the 1957 movie, and in the original play, was the suspect also a latino, or a black?

Snick: The suspect in the 1957 (Fonda) version was...well, he looked like he had a little Latino background, but it was quite hard to tell. I think they wanted to make his background purposely ambiguous.
Luigi Novi: He appeared white to me. The emphasis that he bigot seemed to place on his seemed to center on the fact that he was poor and lived in a poor neighborhood.

Luigi Novi: I’m not debating the existence of hatred between two groups of disadvantaged people in general. I’m arguing that the particular example in this movie does not ring true because it isn’t based on any real-life prejudice that I’ve ever heard of. If the defendant were Jewish, and Juror #10 wanted to vote him guilty because of that, I could buy that, since many militant African Americans are anti-Semitic. But his hatred against Latinos doesn't ring true.

Oh, now I understand better what you meant. However, to me the bigot's tirade sounded believably because of what he said. He was accusing the defendant with the typical racist remarks white bigots often make about blacks: everybody who grows up in the ghetto learns only crime and violence, does drugs, that nobody reforms or changes, they can't help their natures and to defend himself, these ghetto kids have to be put in prison (or death penalty). Now, the bigot says several times that he is a small businessman. We don't know if he comes from the ghetto originally and is denying it, or if comes already from a middle-class home, but any which way, he would have heard a lot of these prejudices about blacks coming his way from white bigots simply because he is black and although he isn't a criminal, a ghetto kid, doing drugs. So in some kind of denial, he is shifting all that prejudice to the next available group.
The teacher, who admits coming from the ghetto, has less trouble: he knows that ghettos aren't romantic, but he also knows that not everybody in the ghetto is 100% criminal, violent, doing drugs, so he can think about the individual defendent in this case.
The bigot is so angry at hearing prejduices himself, he is in denial and hate, acting like a white bigot who hates everybody else (trying to be more white than the whites). I guess he hates himself a lot, too.

Constanze-

The dialogue itself rings true, just as it did in the 1957 film, when the bigot was white, and the defendant was a vaguely hispanic-looking white man from the "slums" (as the ghetto was called then). Luigi's problem is in the casting.

I can understand the reasoning in casting the jury multi-racially, but perhaps the bigot should have been white, or Asian, and a black actor used for the "logical" juror (#4) or the loud-mouth (#7)

The bigot is so angry at hearing prejduices himself, he is in denial and hate, acting like a white bigot who hates everybody else (trying to be more white than the whites). I guess he hates himself a lot, too.

Even though he was white, Ed Begley (Sr.) made it quite clear in in the 1957 version by the way he broke down, that most of the character's anger was, indeed, misdirected self-loathing.

Check out John Fiedler as Juror #2. He looks almost exactly the same as he did in his Trek episode, "Wolf In The Fold." Or, in his role as Mr. Peterson on The Bob Newhart Show. Mr. Fiedler is still active, doing cartoon voice overs.

I stayed up late last night to watch the original version, and I have to agree that it's certainly better. Although I've now seen both versions only once, which makes it difficult to compare, I'll point out what I liked better in the 1957 version, which were different in the remake as far as I can remember (so disregard if I'm off).

- The black/white certainly seems a better format, because it makes this closed-room drama more classic, lets us concentrate much more on what's going on.

- I think some of the scenes used a better visual than in the remake: esp. the scene when the bigot starts ranting, and one after another, the jurors stand up and turn their backs on him, leaving him in a circle walled in (I wonder if the similar image when in ST:TNG Worf is cast out, and the Klingons one by one turn their back is a reference to this scene, or just because its a general strong visual image?) In the remake, some of the jurors went here and there, some left for the bathroom.
When the doubting juror proves some of his points - the time the old man needed; that the old man may be telling tales; that when someone says "I'm going to kill you", it doesn't prove he did; all the jurors are arranged on one side, in a line, and only the sadist is left standing alone at the other side of the table.

I think the scene in the washroom, when one of the others jurors asks the doubting juror "What if he really is guilty, and we let him go?", I got the impression that the doubting juror had no answer and was pondering the problems. (I think there will never be a morally satisfying answer: it isn't right to condemn an innocent man, and it isn't right to let go a guilty man).

I also like the closing touch, when the doubting juror helps the broken-down sadist into his jacket, to show he hasn't scored a personal victory (he doesn't gloat like the sadist did before), just did his duty and would've liked to avoid the breakdown.

I also could concentrate better on the show itself because I didn't know any of the actors, while in the remake Tony Danza esp. was disturbing (didn't fit in for me).

Why was there a newspaper to read on the table? I thought the jurors shouldn't be influenced from the outside and are therefore not allowed to read newspapers etc.? (And since they should be debating, when would they read the newspaper anyway?)

Of course a lot of the drama comes from revealing and dissecting the evidence bit by bit, and revealing the problems of some of the jurors, I wondered how the process would have turned out if this nitpicking had gone on in the courtroom (by the defense lawyer), or if we had seen the trial and the witnesses before.

And several times - at the beginning, when the jurors want to get it over with; when two of them start to play tic-tac-toe; when the sports fan just thinks of his game; - I thougt again that this is the reason I don't think a jury system a good idea.

constanze: it isn't right to condemn an innocent man, and it isn't right to let go a guilty man

Ben Franklin once said, "Better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished". This is the foundation of American jurisprudence. Alas, we've gone quite a bit away from that ideal.

Yes, I certainly agree with that idea. (It's also one of the many reasons against death penalty: if evidence of innocence comes to light in later years, a man sentenced to long-term can be released from prison; but he cannot be resurrected from the dead.)

I just meant that the knowledge that you may have let a guilty man free on the streets isn't an easy knowledge; it's a difficult moral decision between two evils, not between good and evil. After all, juror #6 (is that the doubting juror) says several times that he isn't convinced of the innocence of the youth - he just has "reasonable doubt" to his guilt, but it will mean total freedom for the accused.

The person who brought the newspaper may have been reading it while on the bus, while waiting for the sessio to start, etc.

The only thing I dislike about the original version is the epilogue, where Numbers 8 and 9 meet outside the courthouse and introduce themselves before abruptly parting. Why did we need that dialogue? The characters were so distinct they really didn't need to be named. I certainly would have been satisfied if Number 9 had been left out of the ending entirely, and we simply saw Number 8's departure into the rain-dampened city.

BTW, in that last shot, as 8 descends the stairs in front of the courthouse, is that 3 slouching down the stairs on the other side of the railing?

Who is Number One?

You are Number Six.

I am not a number! I'm a Free Man!

Yes, Snick, I assumed that it was #3.

In that last shot, as 8 descends the stairs in front of the courthouse, is that 3 slouching down the stairs on the other side of the railing?

Yes.

Twelve Angry Men is now playing on Broadway. It stars Boyd Gaines (remember him from One Day At A Time?) as the holdout (Juror No. 8), and veteran character actor Philip Bosco (now playing Judge Terhune on Law & Order - SVU) as the obstinate Juror No. 3.

BTW, my little sisters, about half my age, absolutely love the original version of this movie. There's hope for the younger generation yet. :-)

Jack Warden has passed away at the age of 85. This leaves Jack Klugman as the last survivor of the original 12 Angry Men.

I may have commented on this in some other thread, but after rewatching the original and the remake, here's my take on the juror casting. In general, my problem with the remake is not the caliber of actors (they are all excellent), it is just the occasional miscasting and acting styles that fail.

#1 Martin Balsam vs. Courtney B. Vance: This is something of a thankless role that both men do well. Vance has more of the quiet, insecure strength; Balsam more of the prickly sensitivity.

#2 John Fiedler vs. Ossie Davis: Both are fine. Fiedler's nebbish juror is something of an iconic figure, I guess. I kind of wish Davis had played against type as the #10 bigot.

#3 Lee J. Cobb vs. George C. Scott: At one point, I'm sure George C. Scott could have done great in this role. The problem is the casting. Cobb's juror is great because you meet people like him a lot--a loudmouth confident in his positions who enjoys belittling others when they don't agree with him but is actually quite unhappy internally. While at times Cobb is a bit theatrical in his role, it works very well playing off of Fonda. The problem with Scott is that he is too old for the role--he needs to be able to convincingly bully the older juror and to come off as a middle-aged man who has not seen his recently adult son in a few years. This does not ring true with Scott.

#4 E.G. Marshall vs. Armin Mueller-Stahl. Another poor casting choice. Stahl does his best--he's a great actor and I really like the way he nails the "don't open your filthy mouth again" line. That said, his accent and "foreignness" clog up the character a bit. Because none of the characters have names (until the end) and their backgrounds are murky, they become necessary stereotypes. E.G. Marshall nailed that intelligent, slightly arrogant, professorial type; with Stahl, I could see him like that with some work and I don't think in a film like this you should need to do that work.

#5 Jack Klugman vs. Dorian Harewood. This is probably one of the few casting areas that improved on the original a bit. Klugman is great (he nails all of his major scenes), but he is not quite believable as a slum denizen with expertise in knife fights. That said, I do like the way the original inserts his character almost as a surprise--you assume, like everyone else, that he is of middle class background.

#6 Edward Binns vs. James Gandolfini. This is another difficult role to play--a relatively unintelligent, good-natured personality. Both men do it pretty well, I guess.

#7 Jack Warden vs. Tony Danza. I liked the casting in the remake--putting in someone noted for his likeable roles, it was one of the few times where I felt creative casting worked. The Warden character is almost repellent from the beginning; I feel like the Danza character becomes more annoying as the film wears on. Warden really nails his major scenes.

#8 Henry Fonda vs. Jack Lemmon: Again, Lemmon would probably have been fine in this role as a younger man, but he's just a bit too old here and as Luigi mentioned, his passive acting style seems like an odd directorial choice. You are really struck watching the original by Fonda's steady, inquisitive confidence--his occasional bouts of anger combined with his intelligent, calm nature.

#9 Joseph Sweeney vs. Hume Cronyn: Sweeney's character has always annoyed me a bit, just because I feel like when he talks, I feel like it's a character talking more than the others. He's not bad, I guess, but I preferred Cronyn (who is hampered by the decision to cast older actors in a lot of the other major roles).

#10 Ed Begley vs. Mykelti Williamson: This is one of the creative decisions that just out and out failed. I feel for Williamson, who is a good actor, but his character here is kind of moronic and really lowers the credibility of the film. The Begley character was great--an arrogant blowhard who has deep racism lingering beneath his facade, but combined with a pathetic insecurity (he and #3 also do that thing I see a lot of people do, where they utter a vicious insult and when the other person gets mad, they joke about it). Williamson's character is just something of a cartoon. I understood the attempt to try a character of a black bigot, but the Begley character seemed to be someone who didn't regard himself as a racist per se, but had a class insecurity (i.e., he was semi middle class and really distrusted those slum people who were one level below him). Like the Williamson character is the equivalent of making the Begley character a card-carrying KKK member--it just doesn't seem real.

#11 George Voskovec vs. Edward James Olmos: I've come to enjoy Voskovec's work a lot more. He nails the sort of good-natured idealism of the character, which translates into anger at one point. Olmos does well in the part too, although this part is something of a relic of the 1950s.

#12 Robert Webber vs. William L. Petersen: This is a tricky part to play--especially at the beginning, #12 is doing a lot but none of it is important. Petersen certainly isn't bad, but Webber has that hail-fellow obnoxiousness bit down so pat, he becomes the character.