[FLAMENCO GUITAR] 12 Angry Men was originally a teleplay
written by Reginald Rose, and was broadcast on CBS in 1954
as part of the Studio One series. It was later rewritten for film in 1957 and was nominated for Best Picture,
Best Director, and Best Screenplay. Today, it stands as the number five
most highly-rated film of all time on IMDb. Here are seven screenwriting secrets in 12 Angry Men. [MUSIC] 12 Angry Men is a unique courtroom drama in that
we never actually see the courtroom drama itself. The story starts at the end of the trial
as the jurors retire to the jury room. So it’s important that they set up the rules of the game
so we understand exactly what’s at stake. Judge: If there's a reasonable doubt in your
minds as to the guilt of the accused then you must bring me a verdict of not guilty. One man is dead. Another man's life is at stake. However you decide, your verdict must be unanimous. Once the jurors are in the jury room,
we’re further reminded of the rules. You know that we have
a first-degree murder charge here, and if we vote the accused guilty,
we've got to send him to the chair. Just remember that this has to be
twelve to nothing either way. That's the law. And there’s one added detail that
sets the stage for delicious conflict. I called the Weather Bureau this morning.
This is going to be the hottest day of the year. Make sure you establish the rules
of the game early in the story, so the audience can then enjoy the story itself. [MUSIC] The entire story of 12 Angry Men
takes place in a single room. We essentially have one gigantic scene. But there are clear plot points in the story,
broken down into sequences. Each sequence begins with
a new direction in the action. A new objective. Let’s take a look. The first sequence is the end of the court session. It’s the only time we see the defendant. Here’s the new objective that pushes us
into the next sequence. It's now your duty to sit down and try
and separate the facts from the fancy. The jury will now retire. In the next sequence, the jurors settle in and
figure out their plan by taking a preliminary vote. When Juror 8 is the only one to vote not-guilty,
it pushes us into a new objective and a new sequence. So, what do we do now? I guess we talk. Sequence three occurs as the other eleven jurors
try to show Juror #8 that he’s wrong. But then we get a new objective that
pushes us into the following sequence. The knife this fine upright boy admitted buying
the night of the killing. Let's talk about it. All right, let's talk about it.
Let's get it in here and look at it. I'd like to see it again. Mr. Foreman? So, in sequence four, the jurors discuss the knife. This ends in a proposition by Juror #8. I want you eleven men to vote by secret written ballot. If there are eleven votes for guilty,
I won't stand alone. We'll take in a guilty verdict to the judge right now. But, if anyone votes not guilty, we stay here and talk it out. Sure enough, Juror #9 changes his vote
and pushes us into a new sequence of arguing. This ends when the Foreman pushes us
into the following sequence. Juror #4: Shall we continue? Well, I think we ought to take a break. One man's inside
and I think we ought to wait for him. Both the characters and the audience
are given a respite. But it’s an important sequence as we learn
more insights into the jurors’ backgrounds. Sequence seven starts when the break ends, and their objective is now to discuss
the elevated train and the old man. This causes Juror #5 to change his vote to not-guilty. A new objective arises when Juror 11 wants to discuss
the defendant’s actions of the night of the killing. There is a question I would like to ask. Let us assume that the boy
really did commit the murder. If he really had killed his father, why would he
come back home three hours later? Wouldn't he be afraid of being caught? So sequence eight involves him questioning the boy’s
actions, ending with his vote changing to not-guilty. The new objective then emerges as they
discuss the old man running to the door. And pop-ups to fall over base hits wherever we look.
- Hold on a second. Did the old man say he ran to the door? I don't remember what he said, but I don't see
how he could have run to the door. He said he went from his bedroom to the front door.
Now isn't that enough? Mr. Foreman, I'd like to see a diagram of the apartment. The sequence ends with another vote being called,
this time by a surprise juror. In the tenth sequence, we get another break
as the storm settles in. Notice how it’s also the first time the vote is evenly split. The next sequence starts when Juror 8 brings up
the boy’s memory of the movies. Juror 4 has a hard time remembering movies
that he recently saw. Sequence 12 then starts shortly after that
as Juror 2 wants to discuss this. There's something I'd like to say. It's been bothering me a little
and as long as we're stuck... Now the boy was five feet seven inches tall.
His father was six two. It's a very awkward thing to stab down into the chest of
someone who's more than half a foot taller than you are. Juror 5 demonstrates the real way
someone would use a switchblade knife. Juror 7 changes his vote just to be able
to get out of there more quickly. The sequence ends as Juror 8 calls for another vote. In sequence 13, there is a significant shift
in the balance of power, now sitting at 9-3 in favor of not-guilty. So we get Juror 10’s racist tirade. The penultimate sequence begins
as Juror 8 issues this statement. We nine can't understand how
you three are still so sure. - Maybe you can tell us. I'll try. Juror 4 starts this new sequence with a powerful
argument, one for which Juror 8 has no answer. But she got a good look at the boy
in the act of stabbing his father. This is unshakable testimony. What do you think? This is excellent screenwriting. The more Juror 8 accomplishes,
the stronger the antagonistic forces get. The reversal comes as they discuss the woman and
her eyeglasses, pushing us into the final sequence. I have a reasonable doubt now. It's 11-1. Well, what do you want? I say he's guilty. We want to hear your argument. And notice how the finale is with Juror 3,
the most powerful antagonist of the story. Saving the best for last. Sure, you can take all the time
and hobble around the room, but you can't prove it. I'll bet you five thousand dollars
I'd remember the movies I saw. I'm telling you everything
that's going on has been twisted. This business with the glasses? How do you know she didn't have them on? This woman testified in open court. So the lesson here: We all naturally break our stories down
into acts and scenes, but don't overlook sequences. They are vital elements of your screenplay. [MUSIC] There are several moments of
brilliant dialogue in 12 Angry Men. It's an art form that takes dialogue to a higher level. You see this a lot in Billy Wilder’s dialogue as well. Characters say biting, witty comebacks
that leave the other person speechless. You're not gonna tell me that we're supposed
to believe this kid, knowing what he is? Listen, I've lived among them all my life. Listen, what about the woman across the street?
If her testimony don't prove it, nothing does. You don't believe the boy's story.
How come you believe the woman's? She's one of them, too, isn't she? Supposing you were the one that was on
trial. Supposing you talk us all out of this
and the kid really did knife his father? He's a common ignorant slob.
He don't even speak good English. He doesn't even speak good English. I beg pardon.
- "I beg pardon." What are you so polite about? For the same reason you're not.
It's the way it was brought up. I mean anyone in his right mind would blow a stack. He was just trying to bait me. He did an excellent job. The boy is guilty, period. Know what I mean, my friend? Who's got those cough drops? They're all gone, my friend. This is an excellent example of why it’s important
for screenwriters to watch films and read screenplays. You can’t teach this kind of thing in a class. We must constantly expose ourselves to great work,
and it’ll slowly become a part of our own toolbox. [MUSIC] In the film for 12 Angry Men, they make it a point
to not reveal any of the juror’s names. So I checked Reginald Rose’s screenplay,
and sure enough, the characters are simply named by juror number. There’s also a note from the screenwriter himself: The notes on characters are extremely brief, since it is felt that what they are and who they are will be revealed in their dialogue and actions
during the course of the film. So a question suddenly occurred to me. How would you write 12 Angry Men as a spec script? For those that aren’t familiar with the term, a speculation script is an unsolicited screenplay that’s
written with the hopes of getting it sold or optioned. That means that it’s all about conveying
the story through the written word. In the film, they cleverly have everybody
sit in order by juror number, but, in a screenplay, we don’t have
the benefit of seeing the actors. We can quickly distinguish the Foreman
because of his title, and also Juror 8 because he is the only one
that votes for not-guilty in the beginning. But how can we make sure the reader is able
to keep the other characters straight? First, give us some information about their life
outside of the jury room. The screenplay cleverly gives us exposition
on the characters’ occupations. This gives us a little more insight on their background. Oh, I forgot to tell you. I'm the assistant head coach
at the Andrew J. McCorkle High School. I remember I was arguing with a guy I worked
next to at the bank a couple weeks ago. He called me an idiot, so I yelled at him. I run a messenger service.
The Beck and Call Company. The name is my wife's idea. I was only wondering how the market closed. You got a seat on the exchange? I'm a broker. I just finished painting an apartment that
overlooked an el line. I was there for three days. What was it like?
- What do you mean? Noisy?
- Oh, brother. Hit 'em where they live, that's my motto. I made 27 grand last year selling marmalade. Are you a salesman? I'm an architect. You guys can talk the ears right off my head,
you know what I mean? I got three garages of mine going to pot
while you're talking. So let's get done and get out of here. What do you do? I'm a watchmaker. Oh, really? I imagine the finest watchmakers
in the world come from Europe. It's a product I work on at the agency. "The breakfast with a built-in bounce." I wrote that line. Second, make each character sound
unique in their dialogue. Characters should sound like themselves
and not like each other. You should be able to cover up their name
and know who’s speaking that line of dialogue. So let's try it out. Which juror says this? Even without the brilliant acting
performance by Lee J. Cobb, we see the character of Juror 3
revealed through unique dialogue. Here’s another great example. Juror 7 wants to get out of there because
he has tickets to the baseball game in the evening. So look at how much of his dialogue is sports-related. This kid is five-for-oh. You stay in there and pitch. Always blowing your stacks over some guy that fanned. And the Baltimore rooter is heard from again now. And pop-ups are falling for base hits wherever we look. And we go into extra innings here, huh? Here’s another pop quiz. Which juror says this all the time? This allows us to visualize Juror 10 every time
we see him on the written page. And finally, as Reginald Rose declared,
reveal character through words and actions. Despite the fact that we don’t know
any of the jurors’ names, they’re still human beings that have
their own pains and weaknesses. We begin to understand their psyches
and the reasons for their behavior. For example, doesn’t it become clear which juror this is? Which juror is this? Look at these lines of dialogue.
Don’t we know who the bigot is by now? And which juror is the most polite,
shielding his sensitivity of being an immigrant? And which juror says this powerful monologue? In addition to the fact that he’s older
than the other jurors, this gives us a tremendous insight into Juror 9. After the first vote, Juror 8 stands alone
against the other eleven. He says this quite often: We can't decide in five minutes. Supposing we're wrong.
- Supposing we're wrong. Supposing they're wrong. People make mistakes. Could they be wrong? We're just gambling on probabilities.
We may be wrong. So what’s his biggest fear? Well, I don't know you, but I'm betting
you've never been wronger in your life. Supposing you talk us all out of this... and the kid really did knife his father? 12 Angry Men is an important lesson
because it’s an extreme example of the importance of revealing character
through words and actions. [MUSIC] I’m not sure what the correct terminology is
for this in screenwriting, but there's a brilliant phenomenon
that occurs in 12 Angry Men. In moments of conflict, characters defeat
their own arguments. A lot of this occurs as the jurors argue against Juror 8, but end up inadvertently supporting his argument. We can't decide in five minutes. Supposing we're wrong.
- Supposing we're wrong. Supposing this whole building should fall down
on my head. You can suppose anything. That's right. Could they be wrong? Oh, come on. Nobody can know a thing like that.
This isn't an exact science. That's right. It isn't. This happens with Juror 3 several times. When they discuss the unique characteristics
of the switchblade knife, notice how Juror #3’s anger doesn’t help his cause. Juror 4: It's a very unusual knife. I've never seen one like it. Neither had the storekeeper who sold it to the boy. No, I'm just saying it's possible the boy lost his knife and that somebody else stabbed his father
with a similar knife. It's just possible. And I say it's not possible. [KNIFE CLICKS] Maybe there are 10 knives like that. So what? Maybe there are. Notice how he again defeats his own argument
when they discuss the old man running to the door. He said fifteen.
- He said 20 seconds. What are you trying to distort?
- He said fifteen. He was an old man. Half the time he was confused.
How could he be positive about anything? And when they discuss what the old man heard
from the boy, he falls right into the trap. Juror 3: The old man who lived downstairs says
he heard the kid yell out i'm gonna kill you. This phrase. How many times have all of
us used it? Probably thousands. "I could kill you for that, darling." Don't tell me he didn't mean it. Anybody says a thing
like that the way he said it they mean it. You're a sadist. I'll kill him! I'll kill him! You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you? And finally, he gets desperate
as he runs out of arguments. It's not so easy to arrange all the evidence in order. Juror 3: You can throw out all the other evidence.
The woman saw him do it. What else do you want? You're alone. Well, what about all the other evidence? What about
all that stuff? The knife, the whole business? You said we could throw out all the other evidence. 12 Angry Men is brilliant in that characters get
trapped in their own mistakes. Perhaps something to think about in our own writing. [MUSIC] 12 Angry Men breaks quite a few screenwriting rules. I’m sure you’ve heard all of these by now. Don’t have talking heads sitting around a table. Well, what if we had them sitting around a table
and talking for the entire film? Show, don’t Tell. How about a screenplay with almost 100% dialogue? Never introduce too many characters at once. How about twelve characters all at the same time? Make sure character names don’t sound the same. What if we had character names
that are almost identical? This is a blatant disregard for these so-called rules. So why does 12 Angry Men work so well? Why are we so mesmerized by dialogue
from twelve people we don’t know? The bottom line is that it’s a top-notch story. And it nails the one thing that eludes many of us. Conflict. The best, organic conflict comes
from characters having objectives that are in complete opposition to each other. In 12 Angry Men, that can’t be any more true. The characters’ objectives are black and white: a verdict of guilty or not-guilty. So there’s guaranteed conflict
throughout every moment in the film. I honestly think the guy's guilty. Couldn't change my mind if you talked for 100 years. Juror 10: What do you think you're going to accomplish?
You're not going to change anybody's mind. So, if you want to be stubborn
and hang this jury, go ahead. You have sat here and voted guilty with everyone else because there are some baseball tickets
burning a hole in your pocket, Excitable? You bet I'm excitable! We're trying
to put a guilty man in the chair where he belongs! 12 Angry Men proves to us that you don’t need fancy cameras or elaborate set pieces to create a compelling story. What you do need is an outstanding screenplay
with clear and powerful conflict. [MUSIC] There are seven brilliant moments
that directly engage the audience, compelling us to want to know the answer. In 12 Angry Men, it feels like
we’re sitting at the table with the jurors. So when they ask questions to figure out the truth,
they might as well be asking us directly. First, we have the knife. What automatically happens when you hear this? The knife this fine, upright boy admitted
buying the night of the killing. Let's talk about it. All right, let's talk about it. Let's get it in here and look at it.
I'd like to see it again. Mr. Foreman? Don’t you want to see the knife as well? And when Juror 4 says this: Now, suppose we take these facts one at a time. Don’t our brains go into overdrive as we start
putting the pieces together for ourselves? One: the boy admitted going out of the house
at eight o'clock on the night of the murder after being slapped several times by his father. Two: he went directly to a neighborhood
junk shop where he bought one of those... Switch knives.
- Switchblade knives. Three: he met some friends of his in front of a tavern about 8:45. Four: they identified the death weapon
in court as that very same knife. Five: he arrived home at about 10:00. Now what happened to the switch knife? He claims that it fell through a hole in his pocket on the way to the movie sometime between 11:30 and 3:10. Later, as the jury starts discussing the elevated train,
Juror 8 asks this: Has anybody any idea how long it takes an elevated train
going at medium speed to pass a given point? Don’t you naturally start thinking of the answer yourself? So we’re completely engrossed when he says this: Let's take two pieces of testimony
and try to put them together. And how about when Juror 11 starts with this? There is a question I would like to ask. Let us assume that the boy
really did commit the murder. If he really had killed his father, why would he
come back home three hours later? Wouldn't he be afraid of being caught? Juror 11: But, if he knew the knife could be identified,
why did he leave it there in the first place? Don’t we naturally start thinking the same questions? This wonderful sequence involves visual action as well. Hold on a second. Did the old man say he ran to the door? What I'd like to find out if an old man,
who drags one foot when he walks because he had a stroke last year, can get
from his bedroom to his front door in 15 seconds. Mr. Foreman, I'd like to see a diagram of the apartment. Juror 8: The old man was in this bedroom right here. He says he crossed to the door
and walked down the hall, opened the front door just in time to see the boy
running down the stairs. Am I right so far? Juror 10: What are you doing?
- Juror 8: I'm going to try it, see how long it took. Juror 2 brings up something that’s been on his mind. There's something I'd like to say. I mean, it's been bothering me a little,
and as long as we're stuck. Now, the boy was five feet seven inches tall.
His father was six-two. Did you ever see a knife fight? No. You?
- No. Anybody here ever see a knife fight? How do you use a switchblade? Well, he'd never use it like this: When they discuss the boy’s memory
of what movies he saw, look at how we’re engaged through this entire exchange: Putting yourself in the boy's place,
you think you could remember details after an upsetting experience such as
being slapped in the face by your father? I'd like to ask you a personal question. Go ahead.
- Where were you last night? My wife and I went to the movies.
- What did you see? The Scarlet Circle. What was the second feature? Juror 4: The, uh... Who was in The Amazing Mrs. Bainbridge? Barbara Long, I think it was. Who else? And finally, in this powerful sequence, don’t you
naturally wonder why Juror 9 is asking about this? I'm sure you'll pardon me for this, but I was wondering why you rub
your nose like that. The woman who testified that she saw the
killing had those same marks on the sides of her
nose. Juror 9: No glasses. Women do that. See if you can get the mental picture of her. iDo you wear glasses when you go to bed? No. I don't. No one wears eyeglasses to bed. And she herself testified the killing took place
just as she looked out. The lights went off a split second later.
She couldn't have had time to put them on then. When you engage the audience
with questions that must be answered, you essentially have them hooked until
those answers are provided. Do this enough, and they'll be along for
the entire ride of your screenplay. So, what other films would you like to
see me cover for screenwriting? Let me know in the comments below. A sincere thank-you to my wonderful patrons
for supporting me on Patreon. Also, be sure to subscribe and tap the bell
to be notified of upcoming videos. More great content is on the way. Thank you so much for watching.
