12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men (1957)

5 mistakes - chronological order

(16 votes)

Visible crew/equipment: When Juror 8 is approaching Juror 4 following the revelation of the witness across the street's eyesight being put under question, as the camera moves in, its shadow is seen moving across the back of Juror 3. (01:28:55)

RVDDP2501

Deliberate mistake: When Henry Fonda decides to recreate the old witness' ability to get to the door in 15 seconds, he asks another juror to time his walk. The scene never cuts away, but the juror who times it says it took 41 seconds when in reality it takes exactly 31 seconds, you can time it.

Visible crew/equipment: In the scene where Henry Fonda is recreating the testimony of the old man getting out of bed & walking down a hall, you can clearly see a shadow of the camera on the floor.

Factual error: When the jury first enters the deliberation room, there's a newspaper on the table that at least two of the jurors look through. Jurors are not allowed newspapers during deliberations.

Continuity mistake: Early in the film, Henry Fonda and another juror are in the men's room. When the other juror exits, the door is a swinging door. From the jury room the door is a regular door with a door knob. You can hear the door close when Henry Fonda exits and closes the door.

Juror #5: Boy oh boy, it's really hot, huh? Pardon me, but don't you ever sweat?
Juror #4: No, I don't.

More quotes from 12 Angry Men

Trivia: This was the only film ever produced by Henry Fonda. The work of both acting and producing was so demanding that he said afterwards that he would never produce another film.

More trivia for 12 Angry Men

Question: Did they ever look at the hole in his pocket that the knife supposedly slipped out of?

Answer: If you're referring to the jurors, no. We see the entirety of their deliberations. If you're referring to the prosecution or defense, that is unknown. Given, however, that none of the jurors brought up the question, it's likely there was at least a check of his clothes to verify he had a hole in his pocket.

Given how easy it would be to simply tear a hole as an excuse, even if it was there, it wouldn't be much in the way of corroboration.

LorgSkyegon

Answer: We have to assume that there was a hole in his pocket; we don't see it, but if the jurors are talking about it as a given fact, then it is likely that they checked it during the trial. However, it does not prove anything. It is easy to rip a hole in a pocket to produce an alibi. Also, it does not lower the extreme unlikeliness that someone else with another but similar looking knife stepped into the boy's apartment at around the same time he lost it. "One in a million," one juror said, and it was not really disputed. No. 8 gave his typical but meaningless "it is possible." Still, they went for an acquittal with these high odds against the boy.

More questions & answers from 12 Angry Men