John Fiedler Juror 2 as Juror 2. Marshall Juror 4 as Juror 4. Jack Klugman Juror 5 as Juror 5. Edward Binns Juror 6 as Juror 6. Jack Warden Juror 7 as Juror 7. Joseph Sweeney Juror 9 as Juror 9. Ed Begley Juror 10 as Juror George Voskovec Juror 11 as Juror Robert Webber Juror 12 as Juror Rudy Bond Judge as Judge uncredited.
Tom Gorman Stenographer as Stenographer uncredited. James Kelly Guard as Guard uncredited. Sidney Lumet. Reginald Rose story screenplay. More like this. Watch options. Storyline Edit. The defense and the prosecution have rested, and the jury is filing into the jury room to decide if a young man is guilty or innocent of murdering his father. What begins as an open-and-shut case of murder soon becomes a detective story that presents a succession of clues creating doubt, and a mini-drama of each of the jurors' prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused, AND each other.
Based on the play, all of the action takes place on the stage of the jury room. Did you know Edit. Trivia At the beginning of the film, the cameras are all positioned above eye level and mounted with wide-angle lenses to give the appearance of greater distance between the subjects.
As the film progresses the cameras slip down to eye level. By the end of the film, nearly all of it is shot below eye level, in close-up and with telephoto lenses to increase the encroaching sense of claustrophobia. Goofs Within the last half hour of the movie, the clock on the wall in the jury room can be seen indicating Several minutes later, E. Marshall states that it is "a quarter after six". Several minutes after that, the wall clock is seen again, but still shows Still later, when Lee J.
Cobb leans over the table after he tears up the snapshot from his wallet, his watch can be seen indicating Quotes Juror 8 : Let me ask you this: Do you really think the boy'd shout out a thing like that so the whole neighborhood could hear him? Crazy credits At the end of the film, the actors are billed in order of their juror numbers; thus Henry Fonda , although the star of the film, appears 8th.
User reviews 1. The facts of the case were clear and the jury was given a choice of three verdicts by the judge: Guilty of Manslaughter; Guilty of First Degree Assault; or Not Guilty. In the jury room we agreed immediately that the defendant was guilty.
And the battle began. Was he guilty of manslaughter or assault? Should he serve 20 years in prison or only three to five years? We argued bitterly for eight high-decibel hours before we brought in a unanimous verdict of First Degree Assault, whereupon the judge told us what we were not allowed to know during the trial, that any conviction, since it would be the defendant's fourth felony conviction, would automatically carry a sentence of life imprisonment.
The violent arguments in the jury room hadn't mattered at all. But I had participated in what clearly was a powerful situation on which to base a television play which became a film and then a play for the stage. I called it Twelve Angry Men. His television credits include the 's series The Man from U. When this production opened Sarah Hemming in the Financial Times explained that, "in Christopher Haydon's admirably deft revival, it proves as powerfully riveting as ever The piece is also well directed by Christopher Haydon and shrewdly designed by Michael Pavelka.
It's satisfying but never surprising, especially as Christopher Haydon's decent production takes obvious choices - the liberals reason, the bigots bluster Haydon can't match the film's claustrophobia What begins as an open-and-shut case of murder soon becomes a detective story that presents a succession of clues creating doubt, and a mini-drama of each of the jurors' prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused, AND each other. Based on the play, all of the action takes place on the stage of the jury room.
When a young Puerto Rican boy is on trial for the alleged murder of his father, 11 of the 12 jurors are quick to vote that he is guilty in an ostensibly straightforward case. The remaining juror seems skeptical about the evidence at hand, and demands a thorough deliberation of the facts from each juror before sentencing the boy to death: prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The verdict of a seemingly open and shut case lies in the hands of twelve Jury members, the verdict is obvious, guilty. But to one, there's more than meets the eye. What else might be hiding in the details of the case? Will an innocent man be put to death? Or will a guilty man be spared? In need of a unanimous, cut-and-dried guilty verdict by the end of the session, twelve jurors crammed in a small New York City jury room during one scorching hot day have the fate of an impecunious eighteen-year-old man in their hands.
However, in what seems like an open-and-shut case of first-degree murder, one man, Juror 8, harbours reasonable doubt about the young defendant's guilt, having a hunch that there is a lot more to it than meets the eye.
After all, a man is innocent until proven guilty. Can concerned Juror 8 overcome the obstinate prejudices of the other eleven members of the jury and let truth shine?
0コメント