Today’s movie is considered to be a bonafide classic and it’s one that I had hoped I would get the chance to watch when starting this Podcast. Much like Harakiri, this film packed a heavy punch that I did not see coming. I knew of this movie’s reputation, but I truly was not expecting to be hit as hard by the concepts that this film brings up. For example, this film masterfully displays just how easily we can persuaded to see something through a specific narrative by way of mere connivence or popular opinion, even if what we’re being persuaded into leads to the death of a possible innocent person.

The film I’m talking about is the 1957 courtroom drama, 12 Angry Men, produced and also staring Henry Fonda.

The film takes place almost entirely in a single jury room, where 12 men are deciding the fate of a young defendant accused of murder. If found guilty, he faces the death penalty. Initially, 11 jurors are ready to convict based on the seemingly clear evidence presented during the trial. However, Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) votes "not guilty," not because he’s convinced of the boy’s innocence, but because he believes they owe the accused a thorough discussion before deciding his fate.

As the debate unfolds, the jurors confront their own biases, prejudices, and assumptions about the case. Juror #8’s insistence on rational examination forces the group to re-evaluate the evidence and consider the possibility of reasonable doubt.

Now the question is, what did your three hosts think of this movie? Well, sit back, relax, open that window and grab yourself some popcorn and a drink because today we’re deep diving into this 1957 classic, 12 Angry Men.

Send us a text

You can reach out to us via Social Media:
Click Here