1) I wanted to ask if anyone had a chance to see the original version of 12 Angry Men which was aired in 1954 as one of the "Studio One" episodes? the popular 1957 film is based on it and Juror 9 reprised his role in Lumet's film.
Is it at all possible to watch this version today?
Heres the IMDB link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0122737/

2)After watching it 12 angry times, I must say that I do have one problem with Lumet's film : the foreman.
Every other juror says "something" about his opinion. The foreman, AKA Juror 1, says nothing. He votes 'guilty' 3/4 of the movie, and then votes "not guilty" near the end of the film. Did I miss something, and if not, how come we never get to hear from him about his opinion like we do from all the others? its just makes no sense to me that Lumet wasnt aware of that.

3) Question to SC - You said : "it has an added bonus for us "Godfather" fans at the end. The courthouse steps which end the movie are the same steps on which Barzini took his tumble."

Just wondering, did you read this info somewhere, or did you recognize the steps?--if so, is there anything unique about them that made you realize they're the same? Im asking, because I've seen other movies which have similar steps, so it would be interesting to know if they are also "related" to the GF....

The foreman doesn't necessarily have to give his opinions in order for his mind to be changed from 'guilty' to 'not guilty'. It's simply that he's been listening to the arguments and eventually decides to change his vote.

There's no mistaking those lower Manhattan courthouse steps. If you've seen them even once you will recognize them in any film.

Incidentally...George Voskovek (Juror #11) also reprises his role in the film.

Apple

I saw the original on "Studio One" in 1954, but I don't remember much of it. The film made a bigger impression on me, but I was older and appreciated it better.
I don't believed that the Studio One "12 Angry Men" episode is available on home video. But you might be able to view it if you visited the Museums of Television and Radio. They have extensive video archives. There are two: Beverley Hills (310-786-1000), and New York (212-621-6600). You can call ahead and ask if they have it.
The jury foreman was deliberately made to look like a wimp to set the stage for Henry Fonda, an "ordinary juror" (hence a "common man") to step to the front. But in real life, a jury foreman has no special powers and is not expected to take a leadership role in jury deliberations other than to more or less keep the ball rolling by calling for votes and other administrative stuff.

In the movie (one of my favorites) I always get a kick out of the way the foreman (Martin Balsam) sheepishly raises his hand almost apologetically when he finally does change his vote to 'Not Guilty'.

I also enjoy that brief 'personal' interaction between the two (Balsam/Fonda) when their standing at the window looking out at the pouring rain. In that exchange, they are just two regular guys not jurors and it is Balsam doing all the talking.

Apple

The steps are recognizable. When Henry Fonda is walking down those steps its easy to see he's walking into Foley Square (where the courthouse is located).

I had a summer job in 1968 working for the NYC Dept. of Corrections in the Criminal Courts Building just two blocks away. I passed those steps every day and I'm 100% sure they're the same ones used to film Barzini's death scene.

BTW - The film was re-made a few years back as a tv special movie. Its not nearly as good as the original but its appealing to see a fairly good cast - Jack Lemmon, Ossie Davis, George C. Scott and even James Gandolfini!

Back when I was a kid, we regularly went to the theater which showed older movies, double features. I was probably about 10/11 maybe. Anyway, that movie was showing as the second feature. I was too young to appreciate it and found it so boring at the time.

As an adult, that's the kind of movie that I find really interesting. I only saw part of a more recent remake, and never have seen the original again, but would like to.

TIS

Also: Tony Danza, Hume Cronyn, and a few others I can't think of right now. I believe it was a 'Showtime' special. Lemmon had the Henry Fonda role.

I remember so looking forward to the Showtime version because I loved the movie even then and figured with a cast like that it would be fabulous! But it was SO incredibly slow moving I could barely make it through to the end. The Fonda movie has you riveted almost from start to finish and to this day I can't figure out how the two, both having such stellar casts...could be so different.

Must've been the direction.

Apple

it's also interesting that Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott also appear in the 99 remake of "Inherit the Wind" - another classic courtroom drama.

- and dont forget Scott's great performance in "Anatomy of a murder", yet another courtroom classic which Plawrence recommended

thanks for your help guys.

Appleonya - I dont see your point. Yes, the foreman doesnt need to give his opinion. In fact, nobody has to. They can all just vote 'guily' and 'not guilty' and the movie will end after 5 minutes.

But when you have 11 jurors expressing some personal opinion, its sort of disspointing to me not to hear what the missing one has to say....besides talking about the rain / football...

What makes the story compelling is the fact that all but one juror votes what appears to be the obvious verdict, and that lone juror, literally one by one, winds up getting all the rest to change their votes by forcing the group to talk about it. What makes the story even more compelling is the different personalities, dynamics in the room, and the various motives some have for casting their votes. What makes it still more compelling are the reasons why some jurors finally do change their votes.

If all vote 'guilty' or 'not guilty', then there is no story at all, let alone five minutes worth.

Not to me, nor apparently to 99 percent of those who have seen the story, either in play, film, or tv form. I think SC explained sufficiently how & why the foreman is specifically presented as a 'wimp'...although I would've probably used the term 'neutral'. His role was an administrative one, to keep things both moving and in order, count votes as well as casting his own. I appreciate the moment when he calls for a break because one of the jurors has exited to the men's room and discussion should cease when all 12 are not present.

Apple

Thats what I said, why is the foreman's opinion not importnat then? because he needs to be a wimp?- thats hardly a reason. Juror 2 was more of a wimp than anyone else, 10 times 'wimper' than the foreman, and he still gave his opinion regarding the case. The foreman wouldnt be a bigger protagonist than Fonda if he said why he thinks the kid is guily or not.

-and being a foreman, the 'admin', doesnt take away the fact that hes also Juror 1, and entitled to speak and state his opinion like everyone else - he can do that and still take care of the voting process. Theres no need, and there shouldnt be a need to be neutral here. Its a jury and every juror counts a great deal. Thats a kid's life at stake. Discussing it is their job.

Its funny you say that...cos we are discussing 12 Angry Men - a movie were 11/12 ppl voted guilty, more than 90 percent, and they all changed their minds later on.

Im not saying that I will change your mind Appleonya, but how can you use the "majority argument" against my opinion?
didnt you learn anything from the film?

--just kiddin with ya Appleonya

Sure, he's entitled. But he doesn't. That's the way his character was written.

But tell you what, Debra...we have lots of amateur writers here, several of whom are trying to create a GFIV. Why don't you go ahead and create a sequel to 12 AM and finally give the foreman his lost voice.

You can call it:
'11 ANGRY MEN AND ONE REALLY ANGRY FOREMAN'.

Best,
Apple