Studio One (TV Series) Twelve Angry Men (1954) User Reviews

live TV version which came before the famous film

[didi-5 · 8/10 · 19 November 2008]

This production of 'Twelve Angry Men', written especially for Studio One, is shorter than the film version and leaves a few twists and turns of plot undeveloped, but it is fifty minutes of class nevertheless.

Before we saw Henry Fonda and Lee J Cobb as Jurors 8 and 3, the roles were taken for television by Robert Cummings and Franchot Tone, and both are excellent. Alongside them are Edward Arnold, Walter Abel, and others including Joseph Sweeney who also appeared in the same role in the film version.

Performed live in a claustrophobic set, this version of Reginald Rose's play manages to create tension even within its short running time, although it isn't yet the case that the air conditioning isn't working, or the downpour of rain making one juror suddenly decide he wants to stay and not go to his ball game after all (here, the tickets are for a theatre outing to the Seven Year Itch).

Rediscovered after years of being feared lost, this superior TV drama suffers from a slightly poorer print and soundtrack than its contemporaries from the same series, but is still a fascinating comparison to the later screen version (and the 90s TV version).

1954 vs. 1957

[schappe1 · 8/10 · 28 November 2008]

The Archive of American Television has finally come out with a DVD version of the original Studio One teleplay, "12 Angry Men" by Reginald Rose, directed by Franklyn J. Schaffner, who did many Studio Ones and much later was the director of "Patton". I can now compare it to the famous movie version, starring Henry Fonda, which was directly by Sidney Lumet three years later. A lot of the things Lumet gets credited for in some of these reviews are already present in Schaffner's staging, including starting with the high camera angle and ending with the close-ups.

A key difference is that the TV version is only and hour long, (actually only 50 minutes due to commercials), while the film uses 96 minutes to tell its story. Some of the lesser characters suffer as a result. In the film Robert Webber's nice-guy businessman wants so much to go along with anybody else that he changes his vote simply to be part of the majority when the tide turns. In the Teleplay, we never learn why Will West changes his mind. Edward Binns as juror #6, is very protective of "the old man", Juror #9, (played by Joseph Sweeney in both versions), in the movie. He clearly sees him as a similar to his own elderly but beloved father. In the teleplay, Bart Burns is little more than a spectator, except for one key moment that has nothing to do with the old man.

But the big difference is in the lead actor, Robert Cummings, (He was "Bob" in a comedy, "Robert in a drama"), vs. Henry Fonda in the film. Fonda is, of course, an actor of much greater repute but Cummings was much underrated. He was a thoughtful actor in dramas, carefully weighing his words and inviting the audience to think along with him. As Juror#8, Cummings portrays a man who is not sure of himself as the beginning but wants to answer some key questions before he makes a decision. In the film, Fonda seems like a man who has already decided to vote "not guilty" from the beginning and is trying to figure out how to loosen up his fellow jurors from their stances so he can draw them over to his view of things. A key point is that fact that the lady who "saw" the murder through the windows of the train wore glasses. In the film, Fonda divines this by noting how E.G. Marshall, as juror #4 rubs his nose to deal with the irritation the glasses cause. It's the final piece to the mosaic Fonda is trying to create. In the teleplay, it is Burns' juror #6 who makes this point after watching juror #2 and this seems to be the final piece of the puzzle for Cummings who for the first time, has become firm in his decision to vote not guilty.

His two antagonists are jurors #3 and #10. #10 is Edward Arnold in the teleplay, Ed Begley in the film. Both are good. The scene where #10 is ranting on about "people like that" is more effective in the film. It's just a matter of timing. On TV, the jurors get up and begin to walk away as soon as he starts talking. In the movie they do so more slowly, each one making the decision on his own. Franchot Tone, another underrated actor, (he started out playing charming men about town and wound up playing garrulous old timers), is just as strong and forceful as Lee J. Cobb. His true motivation, his resentment of his own son, is hinted at early but is not part of his breakdown at the end. In fact, he doesn't break down at all. He simply surrenders. He doesn't become Cobb's "shell of a man".

As to the other jurors, Martin Balsam has more to do than Norman Fell as juror #1, the foreman. Martin's a nice guy who just wants everybody to get along. We don't' know that much about Norman. John Beal's role as juror #2 just calls for him to use his watch to time Cummings' performance as the old man walking and to wipe his glasses clean at the right time. Marshall came through a little stronger than Abel as a relentless "logic machine" who can't think outside the box. Burns has little to do besides noting the significance of Beal's glasses. Paul Hartman is OK as the guy who wants to leave early, (he has tickets to the theater, not a ballgame). Much of the additional dialog in the movie goes to Jack Warden's version of this character. Sweeney and George Voskovic are the only two actors in both versions and both are fine, with Voskovic underlining the significance of this procedure to someone who came here to experience freedom. Missing though, is his empathy for the defendant as an outsider like him, which is emphasized in the film. West, as indicated, is a non-entity in the teleplay.

On the whole, I'll take the movie over the TV original but it's a close thing. But the TV version, which was "missing" for many years, is certain worth seeing.

Not quite up to the quality of the later wonderful film but still a terrific piece of television history.

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 5 December 2010]

I would argue that the movie version of "12 Angry Men" is one of the very best movies of the 1950s--if not among the best. It's a wonderful example of terrific writing and excellent acting by an ensemble cast. It also proves that less is more--as the film was set 99% of the time in a single room! Yet, it remains riveting today.

Only recently was the original version of "12 Angry Men" discovered. Before the movie, it was a live teleplay broadcast on the long-running "Studio One" television show. Incredible as it might seem today, this sort of huge production was rather routine in the 1950s--live original plays created several times a week! Fortunately, a kinescope copy was made of the show for re-broadcast on the West Coast (due to the time zone difference).

The story is very similar to the movie but abbreviated. Because it was only about an hour long, many of the best sequences in the movie were either abbreviated or missing (such as the wonderful scene where the man realizes he hates the defendant because he reminds him of his own rebellious son). This is not really a strong criticism--the show simply didn't have a chance to hash it out further. Still, the writing is great and the acting exceptional--and fans of the movie will no doubt love to see its genesis.

Taut and Compelling Premiere of the Classic Play

[l_rawjalaurence · 8/10 · 23 March 2016]

There's a great temptation to make comparisons between Reginald Rose's first version of the classic play, premiered in CBS's STUDIO ONE anthology series and Sidney Lumet's film released three years later. Other reviewers have made detailed studies of the two films, so it would be repetitive of me to do so here.

Directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, a veteran of STUDIO ONE who would subsequently carve out a film career, this TWELVE ANGRY MEN brings out the claustrophobic surroundings of the jury-room. All twelve jurors are cooped up in a confined space on a hot evening, unable to escape until they have made a decision. They do not know one another, but they are expected to work as a team to reach a unanimous verdict. The sheer strain of reaching consensus proves too much for them; through an intelligent use of closeups focusing on the jurors' expressions, Schaffner makes us aware of just how stressed they actually are. Hence it comes as no surprise to find them continually moving around the confined space - sitting down, standing up, walking around in circles, moving towards and away from the camera, and finding a brief refuge at the back of the room near the door. Schaffner's camera tracks them; it's clear that he will never give the actors any respite from its penetrating lens.

The play as a whole has distinct religious echoes, with the twelve disciples of justice sitting round a long wooden table pronouncing judgment. For juror #3, excellently played by Franchot Tone, anyone voting against the decision is a Judas, as they have willfully ignored what would appear to be clear evidence to the contrary. However Juror #8, played in low-key fashion by Robert Cummings, refuses to accept the majority's will; he does not appear entirely sure of himself on occasions, but he is prepared to weigh up the evidence in a careful manner that contrasts starkly with Tone's impetuosity. The religious echoes are here used to remind us about the importance of considering all people good until they are proved guilty "beyond reasonable doubt." To do otherwise is simply unchristian.

The drama unfolds as a series of movements, each punctuated by a commercial break, and rises to a climax as Juror #3 is finally left isolated. Tone's performance is a memorable one, as he clasps and unclasps his hands, hangs on to the back of a chair and pretends to draw the switchblade knife on Juror #8 before leaving the room. It's clear he shares the same pathological tendencies as the boy he sought to commit to the electric chair.

When first broadcast, TWELVE ANGRY MEN had such a powerful effect that it resulted in a rethinking of the American justice system. Over six decades later it still has the power to command our attention as a brilliantly staged piece of drama.

Not What You Expect, But Just As Great

[boblipton · 10/10 · 24 October 2018]

Sidney Lumet's big-screen version of TWELVE ANGRY is a classic, consistently in the top ten most highly rated movies on the IMDb. It was based on a TV play written for Studio One. I just looked at the TV version, which dates from three years earlier.

There are numerous differences. It was directed by by Franklin Schaffner, who would direct PATTON, PAPILLON and YES, GIORGIO. It was 60 minutes in length, instead of the movie's hour and a half. Also the cast is almost entirely different, with Robert Cummings taking the role best known for being played by Henry Fonda.

Fonda uses his all-wise persona in the movie, while Cummings gives a performance that is for me more interesting -- perhaps I'm just too used to Fonda. Fonda seemed in little doubt from the beginning, while Cummings is full of doubt, even as he pulls knives out of the air and spins theories. Neither is he the only star: there's Edward Arnold, Franchot Tone, John Beal and Walter Abel from the A list, and the rest are all solid performers. Norman Fell's role as the foreman is very quiet. Vincent Gardenia is the bailiff.

The camerawork is just as jittery and dazzling as the big-screen version. Schaffner and his uncredited cameraman keep the camera moving around the cramped set, just as Lumet would.

My only complaint after having sat on several juries is people don't fight like that. Every jury I've been on, including one that went on for four months, has been a heartening exercise in twelve man and women taking their job and their fellow jurors very seriously.

As the first production, considering the time alloted, this version is a worthy precursor to the film.

[hjls · 7/10 · 2 May 2010]

This 'Studio One' production, long thought lost forever, was found among the personal effects of famed defense attorney Sam Liebowitz. It differs from the 1957 film in a number of ways. At a length of about 50 minutes, it cannot approach the depth of detail or character development that the film does. That said, this production contains a number of good things. First, the performance of Robert Cummings as juror #8. 'Love That Bob' aside, this was a much underrated dramatic actor. His sensitive portrayal depicts a man less sure of his feelings than Henry Fonda in the film. Second, Franchot Tone as juror #3. Also an underrated thespian, Tone lacks the explosive, force of nature personality brought to the big screen by Lee J. Cobb in the same role. Still, Tone's performance is totally believable. Joseph Sweeney and George Voskovic perform the same roles (and quite well) in both versions.

A classic piece of 50's live television

[Woodyanders · 9/10 · 28 July 2015]

Twelve jurors furiously argue over the possible guilt or innocence of a teenager who's been charged with murder. Director Franklin J. Schaffner keeps the gripping story moving along at a brisk pace and generates a lot of claustrophobic tension. Reginald Rose's literate and intelligent script smartly addresses such pertinent issues as the need for deliberation, giving someone the benefit of reasonable doubt, and how opinions can be easily swayed. Moreover, the fine acting by the ensemble cast provides plenty of extra kick, with especially stand-out contributions from Robert Cumming as the token dissenter (in a neat contrast from the famous 1957 film, Cummings initially seems rather hesitant in comparison to Henry Fonda's more assertive take on the character), Franchot Tone as the most bitter and adamant juror, Walter Abel as the intellectual, George Voskovec as a proud immigrant, Joseph Sweeney as the old man, Lee Philips as a man from the slums, and Edward Arnold as a despicable bigot (another interesting departure from the movie, as evident in the way Arnold uses his immense bulk along with his huffy attitude to force his hateful views on the other jurors). While the characters don't have the same depth as they do in the landmark 1957 film, they nonetheless are still compelling and believable human beings. Performed live, with extremely precise blocking and ace cinematography, it possesses a raw electricity that's genuinely riveting and exciting to watch.

Hold's your interest

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 27 May 2013]

It is indeed fortunate that a kinescope of the original Studio One production of Twelve Angry Men was found an preserved. The film version expanded quite a bit and we got more rounded characterizations of the jurors in the big screen film. Nevertheless this version can hold its own in terms of drama.

Only George Voskovec and Joseph Sweeney repeated their roles for the big screen and it was interesting to see a different interpretation of the parts. The main roles on the screen were done by Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb and Ed Begley. Those same parts are essayed by Robert Cummings, Franchot Tone, and Edward Arnold. There was certainly a different emphasis on certain characters placed on the big screen. Whole parts are added in the big screen version, most notably Jack Warden's desire to get to Yankee Stadium to see the debut of a new pitcher that the team had called up.

Cummings was far more diffident and unsure of himself than Henry Fonda was. Still he's quite the impassioned advocate for reasoning out the evidence than just taking a perfunctory vote.

I could never give the big screen film a higher rating because of what I consider a fatal flaw in the story. The same flaw is here. The second that Bob Cummings produced that knife, someone should have hollered for a mistrial and gotten it. One cannot develop independent evidence in a jury trial. By bringing that identical switchblade into court that's what Cummings did. I learned here that we have this kinescope courtesy of the estate of Samuel L. Leibowitz. That man certainly would have known about developing independent evidence.

Still this is a fine drama that will hold your interest every bit as much as the movie did.

INCREDIBLE LIVE PERFORMANCE

[cbmd-37352 · 9/10 · 12 March 2023]

YES , the movie version was a stronger production, but it would not have happened without this early TV masterpiece. Not only did they have only half the time to develop the characters, it was performed live- no retakes. Being on that set would have been just like being locked in the jury room, only worse, having to deal with the cameras and cables. It has always bothered me that this was an all male jury, till i found out what Reginald Rose was trying to avoid-a romance between a male and female jury member. The original play by a Hungarian playwright Ladislas Bird-Fekte, 12 IN A BOX. It was reworked and produced on Broadway as Ladies and Gentlemen by Hecht and MacArthur, starring Helen Hayes. The critics loved her, the play not so much. The 1950 film Perfect Strangers was a third attempt, mostly boring misbehavior by the sequestered jury. The actual jury room sequence was the the best part. There is one other film that had good jury room sequences, Ladies of the Jury starring Edna Mae Oliver. The film is a delightful farce , but Edna Maes character was just as logical as any male is figuring out the real guilty party. Reginald Rose had been on a jury once and was fascinated by the process. His first effort in recreating it was THE REMARKABLE INCIDENT AT CARSON CORNERS where children are prosecutor and jury. They are more rational and less biased that the adult juries in these shows, and they find there is plenty of guilt to go around.

Fair Enough Drama But The 1957 Cinema Version Was Superior Know What I Mean ?

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 9 June 2013]

I had the privilege of rewatching Sidney Lumet's 1957 version of 12 ANGRY MEN recently which is now rated as the 7th greatest film on this website . Not bad for a film that is rather uncinematic in its genesis . Two things make it so well regarded

1 ) The powerhouse performances of its cast

2 ) The political subtext

In short 12 ANGRY MEN is a critique on McCarthyism where people who slightly leftist leanings found themselves come under suspicion for publicly stating democracy involves not only saying what you want but listening what you don't want to hear - who else but a filthy dirty red would defend any liberal leaning ? If someone found themselves up in court for unAmerican leanings , who else but a filthy communist fifth columnist would state that being in front of a committee doesn't necessarily mean you're a traitor to American democracy ? It's interesting that in the film version two of the three jurors holding out for a guilty verdict are portrayed as right wing reactionaries . Even the sensible , coldly logical juror number 4 played by EG Marshall does make a statement early in the film slums are a breeding ground for violence . You can see in the film that it's liberal intelligent thought versus right wing reactionary prejudice . If there's a flaw to the film it's that it'd very unlikely Fonda's lone juror would be able to change anyone's mind in real life . The problem with this original 60 minute teleplay is that this flaw is much more compounded by its running length

You might not be convinced by the arguments put forward by juror number 8 in the film but you can understand the arguments . Having Henry Fonda in the role helps greatly being one of classic Hollywood's good guys . Robert Cummings in the role is in a different and sadly inferior league and it's difficult to believe he'd be able to persuade anyone that the defendant could be innocent . That said the characterization is much inferior to that of the film version over all . So much so that you'll be puzzled why people have changed their vote from guilty to not guilty since there's very little dramatic build up to individuals changing their votes . Likewise the jury too quickly dismiss juror number 10 as being a bigot when he's not continually emphasised many bigoted views compared to the Ed Bagley film version . It's also noticeable that juror 10 is also missing the catchphrase of " know what I mean ? "

Being a live TV transmission future Oscar winning director Franklin J Schaffner doesn't have the luxury of doing a retake if things go wrong and there are a couple of noticeable goofs . One is Cummings getting a line mixed up where he confuses the boy with the defence attorney and in one scene one of the TV cameras comes in to and reverses out of frame

In summary watching the original version of 12 ANGRY MEN you're struck that it's not close to being the definitive version in any way since the 1957 version is superior in every respect . That said if we didn't have this TV original it's unlikely we would have got the film in the first place so let's be thankful Reginald Rose wrote something that Henry Fonda and Sidney Lumet could improve on

Twelve Angry Men: Live

[safenoe · 8/10 · 10 August 2021]

It's hard to believe this debuted in 1954, nearly 70 years ago. It stands the test of time, and was produced at a time when TV productions were often presented live. Definitely catch it because it shows the craft of acting in front of an audience of millions with no second takes allowed.

Twelve Angry Men

[Michael_Elliott · 15 May 2016]

Studio One in Hollywood: Twelve Angry Men (1954)

Studio One was one of the most important shows in television history and they were the first to bring this classic play to the screen. This episode has pretty much been forgotten over the years due to Sidney Lumet's masterpiece film with Henry Fonda but this episode is certainly worth watching.

I will freely admit that there's nothing here that comes close to the movie. To me the movie is one of the greatest ever made and it features some of the greatest performances ever captured on film. This television version does feature the same compelling story and there's no question that director Franklin J. Schaffner handles the material quite well. The performances here are all quite good and fans of the film will see Joseph Sweeney and George Voskovec would appear in the movie in the same roles. You've also got Edward Arnold and Franchot Tone, both great character actors, and Normal Fell who would become well-known for Three's Company.

Episode: B+

Great Model for The Hollywood Treatment - Twelve Angry Men

[arthur_tafero · 7/10 · 15 June 2021]

I have seen three versions of this play (it is essentially a play in one room) that was originally aired on Studio One with Robert Cummings miscast as the social conscience of the jury; Henry Fonda was much better in the Hollywood version. However, the TV version came first and was great for its script and plot development. There were also some good actors involved in the original as well (Franchet Tone and Edward Arnold. However, Tone was in the twilight of his acting career and compared to the heavyweights in the Hollywood production, these fellows were lightweights. Ed Begley, Henry Fonda and Lee J Cobb easily outclassed the TV cast. But once again, we must remember it was the script and the writer that made this play and film great, not the actors. Good viewing.

I Call it 12 Angry Men 'Lite'

[Leafman · 5/10 · 28 December 2010]

By watching the Studio One version of "12 Angry Men," I knew I would be viewing an historic curio. This is 50 minutes of television unearthed from a "time capsule" (so to speak) and I believe it should be viewed from that perspective.

Comparing it to the 1957 feature film (or even the 1997 remake) would be unfair, since this Studio One installment clearly shows the limitations of time and budget, to say nothing of the primitive constraints of live TV in 1954.

Reginald Rose's essence of the story (teleplay turned screenplay then stage play then teleplay again) featured 12 men slowly -- and sometimes frighteningly -- analyzing a court case where a young man who murdered his father is finally found to be innocent of the crime. The 1957 motion picture showcased this with top-flight actors cramped in the ambiance of a one-set jury room, complete with distinctive character nuances and a heartfelt epiphany by someone at the end.

Studio One brought us Robert Cummings (noble juror #8) and Franchot Tone (hostile juror #3) as the two leads, both of which seemed like one-note TV performers that lacked the psychological complexities Rose wanted in his tableau.

Though the story is more or less identical in the TV version, I found the rapid-fire pace of the dialogue (perhaps unique to a live hour of television back then) negated many of the story's crucial dramatic moments. Tone's and Cummings' scripted lines often seemed rushed to me, and Tone's frequent twitchy arm-waving for emphasis did not help either.

Edward Arnold, as strident racist juror #10, provided a marginally reasonable antagonist (though also somewhat one-note and cardboardish to me), but Paul Hartman's high-octave portrayal of juror #7 quickly became tiresome and provided little contrast to Tone, for example, who offered a similarly shrill presence.

Contrast was also non-existent for the talented Walter Abel, who could only play juror #4 with some vague hint of smarts, not at all like the thoughtful intellectual offered by E.G. Marshall three years later. Again, given the time limit, Rose could not write this juror with the complete, multi-dimensional scripted material.

The rest of the jurors lacked any sort of distinctiveness, except for Joseph Sweeney as old man juror #9 and George Voskovec's foreign-accented juror #11. Since both graduated to their same roles in the 1957 big-screen classic, they perhaps reminded us that this Studio One version was Reginald Rose's "rough draft"; the perfected work would be coming soon.

SPOILER: Imperfection (to put it mildly) is all-too-evident in the teleplay's flimsy and abrupt conclusion, which had Franchot Tone simply throwing up his hands in exasperation as he relinquished his "holdout" status as the lone guilty vote. With virtually no emotional or dramatic payoff at all, the ending is what I would call an EXTREME letdown.

Under the limitations it had to face, Studio One's "12 Angry Men" is still worthwhile as a piece of history. But it dates pretty badly 56 years later, and suffers even worse from the superior incarnations that would follow.

The Art of Negotiation

[wesley-98576 · 8/10 · 5 April 2019]

In the movie, "12 Angry Men", an 18-year-old boy from the slums is accused of stabbing his father to death. His fate is to be decided by 12 male jurors, and the odds are initially stacked against him 11-1. Yet, by the end of the movie, we see the entire jury swayed in the opposite direction, unanimously passing a "not guilty" verdict, a result of Juror 8's heroics. With reference to the book "Getting to Yes", I will discuss 5 issues regarding negotiation that surfaced in Jury Room 208A that saw Juror 8's crusade in getting to "not guilty".

The first issue worth highlighting was the task of separating people from the problem. This suggestion in "Getting to Yes" predicates on the idea that every negotiator holds dual interests: in the substance and in the relationship. As much as Fisher, Ury & Patton (2011) stress the importance of establishing a working relationship, such a notion seems impractical in Jury Room 208A where 12 complete strangers embark on a onetime task to reach a consensus on a verdict. Without the sentiment of previous acquaintance or the incentive of future relations, it made sense for the jurors to enmesh people with the problem by tackling them both at once. Fisher, Ury & Patton (2011) posit that such a conflation could lead to the perception of objective statements as personal attacks. In light of Juror 8's comment on his unease to vote 'guilty' so hastily, Juror 7 reacts defensively, asking "who says it's easy for me?". Clearly, Juror 7 had cast Juror 8's comment in a self-righteous light, hence perceiving his comments as a personal attack on his questionable conscience. Juror 7, as a result, was polarized from the "not guilty" position for an extended period of time due to the entrenchment of his emotions with their position. Hence, due to the lack of motivation to establish a working relationship in the given context, separating people from the problem became a challenge, and wounded feelings even from the beginning due to the misinterpretation of intentions, stifling the negotiations.

However, despite the improbability of separating people from the problem in such a context, Juror 8 deals directly with the people problem adeptly. Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011) claim that if parties are disengaged with the process, they are less inclined to support the outcome. In light of that, Juror 8 conscientiously involves the other jurors in reenactments, inviting their opinions on issues raised during the adjudication process. This gradually wins the other jurors over, especially those who had no strong reason to vote "guilty", converting their position to "not guilty" and conferring them a reason to consolidate their position. Hence, Juror 8 masterfully tackles the people problem before the substance of the problem by aligning their perceptions with his.

The next issue worth highlighting was the task of focusing on interests, not positions. "12 Angry Men", filmed in monochrome, seemingly parallels the black-and- white dynamics of the decision the jury has to make: guilty or not guilty-there is no privilege of compromise. However, Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011) suggest that interests are what motivate people to form positions. Beneath the façade of this steely dichotomy lies a multitude of interests held by the 12 jurors, be it the interests of time, justice, peer pressure or for Juror 3, a vendetta.

In an earlier scene in the movie, Juror 3 reveals that he has an estranged son as a result of the former's harsh treatment. He struggles to come to terms with his failure as a parent and owing to the estranged nature of the relationship, closure seems to be out of his control. In the ending of the 1957 film version of "12 Angry Men", Juror 3 collapses in tears, ripping a photograph of his son apart after he fails to convict the defendant. This suggests that Juror 3 sought to attain closure by punishing the defendant as an atoning sacrifice, since he matched the profile of his son. This attempt to take control of his life is claimed by Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011) to be one of the basic human needs, hence forming powerful interests. However, the jury had failed to look beyond his positions and take into account his interests, dismissing Juror 3's brief soliloquy, saying "we're missing the point here", and choosing to focus on positions instead as they were in the midst of stating their "guilty/not guilty" votes. Should Juror 3's interests have been addressed much earlier, it could have led to a better understanding of his obstinance and could have fostered a stronger mutual understanding, in turn reduced the observed polarization. Thus, even though Juror 3 held the strongest position, it was undergirded by equally powerful interests that if addressed, would have expedited the negotiation.

Another issue pertaining to negotiation was inventing possibilities. Jury Room 208A is locked as the jury weighs in on the case, seemingly suffocating, and further stifling creative energy. However, Juror 8 notably zones out while looking out the window before he is beckoned to sit at the table when the discussion begins, foreshadowing his ability to think outside the box. Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011) note the importance of inventing options due to the propensity for deadlocks to occur when two opposing positions square off. There are theoretically no options other than "guilty" or "not guilty" but Juror 8 transcends the assumptions of a fixed by inventing options in the understanding of how the alleged murder had unfolded. Jury Room 208A is symbolically unlocked only twice during the discussion, both times when evidence is brought in to be reviewed. Both times, in the case of the switch knife and the elderly witness' statement, Juror 8 managed to widen the considerations of the jury by inventing possibilities, such as the duplicity of the knife and the speed of the elderly man. Juror 8 did not necessarily change their mind, but invented possibilities for them to move toward reasonable doubt. As a result, Juror 8 was able to ease the rest of the jury into casting reasonable doubt over their "guilty" verdict, and eventually swayed the jury due to his invention of possibilities.

Insisting on an objective standard is also a central issue regarding negotiation. Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011) argue that insisting on objective criterion allow negotiators to make decisions based on principle, rather than pressure. In an enclosed room of 12 jurors, emotions are high, and tensions can rise- the pressure is palpable and can move one to decide on a verdict based on the personalities around them. However, to the credit of the jury, as soon as they established the positions of those in the room, everyone agreed to adjudicate on the facts as proposed by Juror 4. While this seems like an objective standard, facts are highly open to interpretation, and interpretations are highly subjective (Scheppele, 1990). For example, a highly contentious subject was that of the direction of the knife's thrust into the victim's chest. While it was practical to some, even after reenactment, those who had handled a switch knife before thought it was impractical. While such subjectivity leaves loose ends, another imposed objective criterion is noteworthy: that is the notion of reasonable doubt. Juries are tasked to pass a "guilty" verdict only when it is beyond reasonable doubt, placing the burden of proof on the prosecution, and hence protecting the defendant (Sheppard, 2003). By invoking such an objective standard that they had implicitly agreed upon due to its constitutionality, though Juror 8 does not propose answers as to who commits the crime or how the victim died, he manages to sway the jury into a "not guilty" vote by casting reasonable doubt over the defendant's guilt.

The last issue pertaining to negotiation worth highlighting are the dirty tricks employed by Juror 8. Although Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011) suggest that dirty tricks are unethical, the charismatic Juror 8 uses them with much elegance, and though he compromises principles at times, I argue that his poetic maneuvers played a psychological role in winning others to his side. According to Elster (1996), emotions influence decision-making more than rationality due to its direct influence on human satisfaction. Thus, I make the case that Juror 8's poetry buttressed his principled negotiation. Juror 8 employs lock-in tactics when he asks for the second vote to be made, saying that if the 11 other jurors voted "guilty", he would not stand in their way. On principle, Juror 8 had left the defendant's fate up to a gamble, yet poetically, by applying positional pressure, this raised the bar for the other jurors, having them make sure they were absolutely certain before voting "guilty". Also, in one of the most memorable scenes in "12 Angry Men", Juror 8 deals a coup de grâce to Juror 3 by turning Juror 3's impulsive death threat against him, as the latter had earlier on incriminated the defendant based on a similar statement. This is contrary to Fisher, Ury and Patton's (2011) claim that drawing on the past might be counterproductive. However, Juror 8 silences the opposition with this move and cements a personal victory. Thus, Juror 8 demonstrates that dirty tricks are not adversary to principled negotiations but can complement them instead.

In conclusion, Jury Room 208A portrays a microcosm of the negotiations "Getting to Yes" illustrates, while Juror 8 largely embodies the principles put forth by Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011). Juror 8 invokes several ideas posited in "Getting to Yes" in his crusade toward a unanimous "not guilty" vote by the jury, displaying level-headed rationality and creativity in his negotiation. However, although he is principled to a large extent, the theatrics of Juror 8 were integral to swaying the jury. All in all, "12 Angry Men" shows us that negotiation can be poetic as much as it is technical, engaging both the heart and the head.

Early Franklin Schaffner's gem

[searchanddestroy-1 · 8/10 · 11 October 2022]

Of course this early Franklin Schaffner(s work will not make you forget Sidney Lumet's first and most notorious picture. But this little film made for TV remains very interesting, just imagine yourself a mid fifties audience, at home, sitting in your sofa. I did not check but I am sure that is one of the earliest play of TWELVE ANGRY MEN. Camera work is a bit hard to follow and you may feel uncomfortable to watch because of this. But keep in mind it was made in live broadcast, so this explains that. No, forget Sidney Lumet's work for one hour and keep focused on this very one, it is really worthwhile.

A "Work in Progress"

[Cue-ball · 6/10 · 24 April 2013]

The 1957 movie *Twelve Angry Men* is one of the most popular and critically acclaimed movies of all time -- a masterpiece in acting, directing, writing, and cinematography. This 1954 made-for-television version suffers in comparison, but then practically any movie would, and the producers of the later film had the benefit of this version to make adjustments and changes. I watched this version with that in mind, and also to learn more about early '50s television.

The plot is familiar if you have seen the theatrical version. A jury is "charged" with determining the guilt or innocence of a defendant in a murder trial. They then retire to a jury room, and most of the jurors appear to believe the case is simple; two eyewitnesses and damning circumstantial evidence compel the conclusion that the defendant murdered his father. After an initial vote, however, one juror votes not guilty so he can discuss the case more deeply and see if there is room for doubt. The other jurors' reaction ranges from civilized debate to anger, ridicule, and disbelief. A discussion of the testimony and facts ensue, and the jury reaches its decision.

This made for television version is limited by the medium and its time restraints. I'm pretty sure this is a tape of a live broadcast. After time is made for commercials, it clocks in at just over 50 minutes, or about half the length of the theatrical version (itself not a long film). There are not as many subplots, and most of the characters are not developed. Is this a fair criticism for an hour-long TV movie? Or an unfair comparison to a later, more developed version? Mostly the latter, but it did seem that many of the jurors had little to do.

The cast consists of solid character actors, many born in the 19th century and raised in film before television. I thought the best cast was Edward Arnold as Juror #10, the bigot. Franchot Tone as Juror #3 and Robert Cummings as Juror #8 were not as effective even though they were the chief antagonist and protagonist, respectively. But then again, who knew they would have to live up to the likes of Lee J. Cobb and Henry Fonda in the remake? Two actors in this version reprised their roles in the movie (Joseph Sweeney as #9 and George Voskovec as #11).

The atmosphere in this jury room is pretty angry, with the jury ready to come to blows several times. It is not just less subtle than the remake, but less gradated. We don't have time to find out each of the juror's occupations.

The picture is not clear, but that is a symptom of age and the peculiar chance of finding a copy only recently. On the whole, the picture reflected that television was eager to create serious art for its broadcasts, especially when it came to dramatic features. Still, I doubt I would have seen this had it not been for the fact that it was an early form of an idea that became one of the great works of art of our time. It is worth seeing in that context.

Deserving one star for each juror.

[mark.waltz · 10/10 · 6 June 2020]

Superb in every way, the TV version of the successful Broadway play (filmed just a few years later with more detail), this is less about the actual court case but the differences between each of the 12 men. There's one younger, one older, and men of all ages in between. The cast, led by Robert Cummings, Francot Tone, Edward Arnold and Paul Hartman, is universally superb, and a few of these cast members went on to appear in the movie.

While Robert Cummings, appearing here in the role that Henry Fonda would play on screen, is not the foreman, he basically makes a point at the beginning of jury deliberation that he finds the defendant innocent, simply because he has doubts. Each of the men on the jury expresses their feelings as why they find the defendant guilty, and after a time, a few of them switch over to a non guilty verdict. Cummings even steps out of the voting at one point to see if there are any other non guilty votes and that's where the debate starts.

While some of the men start off as arrogant and overly proud, they begin to see the light and their true hidden personalities come out, some for the better, some for the worse. By the time it gets to the final scene, there is one juror that everybody seems to hate and it is obvious that the theme has changed from guilty or not guilty about the defendant, but good or bad for the people who need to decide the defendant's fate. That's what makes this film for television so tense and memorable, because even in it's truncated version, it truly expresses realities about human beings that are often difficult to face or express.

this movie taught me the principles needed for an effective negotiation

[chiazw · 9/10 · 5 April 2019]

In this review, I will be using this movie to make references to the book "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In", where author Roger Fisher talks about the principles needed for an effective negotiation.

In a particular scene from this movie, when Juror 2 and Juror 6 were questioned for their reasons for voting "guilty", they were unable to give concrete reasoning for their decision. They gave poorly substantiated answers such as "because I think he is" or "I do not know". As such, their inability to provide sound reasoning for their decisions led the others to question their credibility. Juror 8, on the other hand, was able to explain and demonstrate his argument well. For instance, he questioned the credibility of the testimony of the old man living downstairs, finding it hard to believe that the old man was able to reach the door in 15 seconds as claimed. To further substantiate his point, he even did a real-life demonstration by recreating the floor plan of the apartment and recording the time he took as he retraced the steps of the old man. Ultimately, they realized that the actual time taken was close to 30 seconds, far from the 15 seconds the old man had claimed, thus proving to and convincing the other jurors that the old man's claim was false while strengthening his stand that the boy was not guilty. The reason why Juror 8 was able to successfully convince the others is because according to Author Roger Fisher, he asserts that it is crucial to communicate our standpoints by providing concrete reasoning and explanation for our arguments in order to make them credible and convincing. Clearly explaining our interests adds significant impact to our reasoning, making our arguments more legitimate. Therefore, like what Juror 8 has done, providing substantiation for our arguments helps others understand where we are coming from and gives them strong reasons to concur with us.

Excellent movie to learn about negotiations

[amelinegoh · 9/10 · 23 March 2019]

This was the first time I have watched 12 Angry Men and I watched the 1954 version rather than the 1957 version. While many shared that the 1957 movie was much more substantial, I still felt that 12 Angry Men is really a classic movie to discover how to lead and succeed in difficult negotiations. While this negotiation process may not be the most ideal form of principled negotiation, it was interesting to see how the high stakes of the jurors' decision led to the revelations of their bad habits and how they ultimately moved past their differences to arrive at a conclusion. 12 Angry Men also provides insights to the challenges of community leaders given that the jury were selected to be a general representation of the community. The movie emphasises the importance for community leaders to employ principled negotiation to understand the underlying interests of the respective stakeholders. This will then increase the likelihood of good intentions translating into good outcomes when leaders are well-informed. All in all, with its powerful dialogue, finely etched characters and carefully worked plot, 12 Angry Men is highly recommended to realise the effectiveness and importance of employing principled negotiation, particularly in the community setting.

Don't even bother

[gregorycanfield · 1/10 · 27 May 2021]

The 1957 film version (by Sidney Lumet) is absolutely superlative. This TV version is horrible. Robert Cummings and Franchot Tone deserve most of the credit for how bad this really is. Two of the actors from the film version also appear here. They are Joseph Sweeney and George Voskovic. Even these fine actors couldn't help this terrible TV version. Please watch the film instead.