1957's Sharpest Knife In The Drawer

It's 12 Angry Men, But Let's Call It Twelve

I’ve got a sock new ending for Twelve Angry Men that re-makers may feel free to use. The jurors are coming down the courthouse steps, having done the right and conscience-salving thing, then all of a sudden the sweet-faced kid they acquitted comes skipping behind them to announce, “Hey you chumps, thanks for turning me loose --- and by the way, I killed that old man and glad as hell I did!” Now that would turn the makers’ righteous intent on its head, righteous being right/proper label for much of what was grafted off anthology TV for movies wanting to swing a progressive 50’s stick. Crowds who got fun out of a precode era knew the court system was for most part a rigged parlay, juries there to be fixed or listened in on. The Code would sap joy in myriad and subtle ways. A Lawyer Man or The Mouthpiece could not have been made in 1957, nor anything so defaming our system of justice, mockery the better term for what fun films once had with this sort of content. Had Hollywood completely lost a sense of humor by the 50’s? Twelve Angry Men was not of west coast origin, but born/bred of New York sensibility and independent filming. The story had been written (by Reginald Rose) and performed for live television in 1954. Critics fell over selves to tell how enlightened it was. For stone-age TV, Twelve Angry Men was the goods, proving tubes could be more than mere place for Milton Berle to cavort. We’re blessed to have Kinescope evidence of Twelve Angry Men done live for 9/20/54 home-sitters, it being an extra on Criterion’s Blu-Ray along with the feature film.

The vid version has Robert Cummings in the Fonda role, Franchot Tone in for Lee J. Cobb, Edward Arnold taking the Ed Begley part. We could debate who was better or more appropriate for respective roles, or maybe it’s well enough to note that Cummings by 1957 would not have been trusted, in terms of boxoffice, with a drama slot like this, however good he was for the broadcast. A lot of wonderful players lost movie bids this way. Studios casted less on ability than name value. What bank would have floated loans to make Twelve Angry Men for theatres with Robert Cummings and Franchot Tone as leads? And yet they did for Henry Fonda, him no sure bet for headlining but three features so far in the 50’s. Was Fonda star enough to pull Twelve Angry Men into profit? Humphrey Bogart, who had worked with Fonda in a 1955 TV adapt of The Petrified Forest, put it bluntly that, no, he was not. An interview with writer Tad Mosel for the Television Academy Foundation quoted Bogart on the Forest set as he addressed himself re Fonda (as in, saying it directly to Fonda): “There are no really big stars left in the world. When I say stars, I mean a name that you say at the loneliest crossroad in the world, and they’ll know who it is. There’s Gable and there’s me. Hank here, he’s no star.” Mosel referred to this as “loving needling,” but it sounds pretty tactless to me, however accurate Bogart's observation was.

United Artists Applies a Sharp Knife Edge to Promotion For The L.A. Fox Wilshire Open

For many, it would be a movie-as-TV experience, this no grim prospect, as hadn’t Dragnet been a smash? (yes), and didn’t Marty ring bells way beyond a modest cost? Success of Marty for United Artists was probably what got them behind Twelve Angry Men, plus Henry Fonda and Reginald Rose willingness to defer salaries. Fonda and Rose had been on the project from late 1955, Twelve Angry Men among three scripts the actor was developing (Variety, 1/5/56). Orion-Nova was the independent shingle Fonda and Rose hung over Twelve Angry Men, set for NY filming in June, 1956. New York had not been such a hotbed for filmmaking since silent days. Variety meanwhile noted “the rush to picturize TV properties, none of which looks like the boxoffice success that Marty proved.” Were trades already putting the Indian sign on Twelve Angry Men and others from TV? Early switch of the title (6/56) went from Twelve Angry Men to 12 Angry Men; was the numeral figured to lend more impact, or, trades asked, was it effort to avoid confusion with two-years-previous Seven Angry Men? Hollywood claimed picture-making ran smoother amidst their clime than Gotham’s, but Angry production supervisor George Justin said no, “it is cheaper to film pictures in Manhattan than on the coast.” H’wood now faced two opponents, it seemed, Euro location and NY lensing, both burs in union saddles particularly.

Variety’s 2/27/57 review of Twelve Angry Men admitted this was a “small” picture, from which “good, if not socko returns should result.” Debate arose over how best to showcase Twelve Angry Men. Fonda felt it should start in art houses and have opportunity to build. UA saw things different and opened at the Capitol on Broadway, a spot antithetical to all things art, seating 5230. Fonda’s “as told to” book in 1981 recalled Twelve Angry Men lasting but a week at the Capitol (not so) and said only a first four or five rows were filled. UA, however, was for plenty of seats in L.A. as well, 1900 at the Fox Wilshire, where Twelve Angry Men had “a slow $7,000” for its first week. Similar product from UA, The Bachelor Party, was at the same time running at a more congenial L.A. address, the Fine Arts, and did better as result. Expecting “wheelbarrows” of cash at ticket windows, UA stuck with large venues for Twelve Angry Men despite Fonda misgivings. As the distributor had supplied financing, according to Fonda in memoirs, it was their call to make, strategy being to follow NY-LA dates with 44 key openings around the country (Motion Picture Daily). The star canvassed all points to promote, something he shrank from on former occasions as actor-for-hire. Now he had a personal stake, and so played ball. Returns varied, Men “rugged” (as in good) at Omaha, stellar in Boston, but “dull” in Chicago. Both coast runs were branded disappointments, maybe due to big barn opens, as Fonda predicted (“close to fair” at the Capitol for a first week, as faint praise as Variety could devise). Funny thing though, Twelve Angry Men picked up for the Capitol’s second frame, so word-of-mouth must have been good. Reception was overall spotty, however, according to Variety’s 5/1/57 tally for the Easter month, Twelve Angry Men “having some difficulty in getting started.”

Again The Knife Art For Purpose of First-Run Exploitation

It seemed Twelve Angry Men was a two-edged sword, or “switch-knife,” a prop emphasized in UA selling. Overheard by Variety (5/1/57) was this exchange between moviegoers: “There’s a good movie at the Capitol, 12 Angry Men,” said one, to which response, “I don’t want to see that. I remember seeing it on television.” Receipts at the Capitol had sagged to a “dull” $13K for a third and last frame, Twelve Angry Men ceding to Metro’s The Little Hut. Army Archerd waggishly suggested a double feature of 12 Angry Men and Three Violent Men: “Better keep an ambulance at the door.” By Fall of 1957, Twelve Angry Men was being sub-run as a combo with The Bachelor Party, both awash with awards from oversea fests as well as multiple placement on Ten Best lists, Twelve Angry Men lauded as “The Film Best Serving The National Interest” by at least one presenter. Such plaudits were well and good, but UA had to spike punch to fill paying seats, and this meant selling Twelve Angry Men on excitement basis, a threat of violence there, if not actually depicted on screen. The switch-knife as crucial to narrative became more so for merchandising the film, an enlarged image of the weapon used in most of promotional art. “Angry” words in copy also played a part: “Life In Their Hands, Death On Their Minds” --- “No Motion Picture Ever Stabbed So Deep” --- “It Explodes Like Twelve Sticks Of Dynamite.”

Ads Trumpet Twelve Angry Men Arrival To Los Angeles Television

Few films from 1957 are so revered as Twelve Angry Men. There was, oddly, not a network run, the film going into first-run syndication as part of UA’s “A-OK Package,” announced to TV in June, 1961, and sold afterward to “over 39 markets.” Much of 28 titles in the group were along horror/sci-fi cheapie lines, plus Paths Of Glory for prestige company. So was Twelve Angry Men a commercial bust as most writers since 1957 contend? Answer is an emphatic No --- it did fine. In fact, better than fine, thanks to costs kept way down on the negative. Twelve Angry Men was made for $358,000. Domestic rentals were $1,342,244.88. Foreign took an even better $2,273,920.04. Total worldwide rentals were $3,616,164.92. There were 14,744 domestic bookings, 26,469 foreign bookings. As of 2/24/90, Twelve Angry Men had earned $3.849 million in profit. This then, was a considerable hit. Henry Fonda’s view would persist, however; he'd call Twelve Angry Men a “failure” in his 1981 book. Had this producing partner been misled by UA bookkeepers? It would not be the first time a star was so ill-used. Actor/producers had to smarten up quick to play a numbers game. Maybe that’s a reason Fonda pledged never to produce another movie after Twelve Angry Men.