MovieChat Forums > 12 Angry Men (1957) Discussion > "I'm gonna lay you out"

"I'm gonna lay you out"


Why didn't Cobb respond, "Go ahead, tough guy" to that?

reply

It think they were going with the bullies tend to back down when confronted concept. He was more bark than his bite.

User Error Please Try Again

reply

But why would he be intimidated by that old fart?

reply

# 6 is actually younger than him (at least the actor is). Also, #6 is pretty big - according to IMDB - he is also taller. #3 could just be a big bully who is afraid to fight when confronted.

User Error Please Try Again

reply

I don't know, I think I'd put my money on #3 in that fight.

reply

I thought the intent of the scene was clear. It's irony. Juror 3 earlier says how disgusted he was when his son ran away from a fight ("I nearly threw up."). Here he is a few minutes later running away when challenged to a fight, just like his son.

reply

Well said, excellent.

User Error Please Try Again

reply

The juror played by Edward Binns was a manual worker, doing hard physical work on a daily basis and building up plenty of muscle and strength and also a strong silent type. He would have flattened the juror played by Lee J Cobb who was an office worker running a messenger service.

reply

...this has brought back a lot of memories for me . While I was in boarding school , in my last year, we did 12 angry men in the school play competition. It was the only time I have ever acted on stage, I was juror number 7 . But I do remember this scene quite clearly, because the young chap who was playing number 6 was considerably smaller ( and 2 years below at school ) than the guy playing juror number 3 , needless to say the delivery wasn't very convincing or believable , all the way through rehearsals, or on the night of the performance where it drew a laugh from the audience. Still to this day , I remember most lines from my dialogue , good memories , and still one of my favourite films , though I only saw it years after performing in the play.

reply

Yes that might have been the intent. Juror 3 was yelling at the old man and Juror 6 stood up to defend him. As I recall Juror 6 said ''Why are you talking to him like that for? A guy talks like that to an old man really ought to get stepped on, you know? You ought to have more respect mister!'' The look on Juror 3's face when he hears that. I think he understood his excitement got the better of him when he treated the old man disrespectfully. He didn't run away from a fight. There was no point to fight or argue. He understood he was wrong.

reply

It could be the classic "a confronted bully backs down" motivation.

But I think jimbo-dem1992 brings up another possibility. Juror #6 reminds #3 to respect his elders. It might give #3 pause because his big life tragedy is that he feels his son didn't respect him.

It might be that he is getting a taste of his own medicine, and that gets to him.

It still seems a bit out of character to me, since #3 is otherwise presented as someone who never wavers from his intense condemnation of the defendant, until the very end.

reply

Because he was a bully, and bullies are really cowards. I think also because that other juror sounded like he meant it, which made Cobb back down.

reply

...because the intention was to show how actually "weak" he ("#3") was.

It though was a sloppy scene, in the sense that considering realism, it failed : they presented us with a character that was supposedly tough (and not a "bully", as some others stated), played by some actor that his appearance fit the role. That said, everybody expected #3 to AT LEAST respond in talk-back-threats, or better yet, swearing. Which does not happen. Had the actor's physique been different or had the scene developed otherwise (e.g. #3 responding back / #6 trying to take the challenge / the others getting hold of them in order to end it there), it would have been more plausible. Plus the actor for #6 wasn't "convincing enough" for what he was supposed to be : an avenger (considering looks anyway).
Making #3 simply shut it up, doesn't cut it.

(IMDb signature)
Memory is a wonderful thing if you don't have to deal with the past

reply

It though was a sloppy scene, in the sense that considering realism, it failed : they presented us with a character that was supposedly tough (and not a "bully", as some others stated)

#3 did lots of tough talk, but nothing in the film suggested that he was in fact tough, ie he could walk the walk.

That said, everybody expected #3 to AT LEAST respond in talk-back-threats, or better yet, swearing. Which does not happen.

No, everybody did not expect #3 to AT LEAST respond, your opinion is not EVERYBODY. Many (most??) viewers of the film, see #3 as a more talk than action kind of guy, someone who when confronted by a younger, more physically imposing man, would back down.

Had the actor's physique been different or had the scene developed otherwise (e.g. #3 responding back / #6 trying to take the challenge / the others getting hold of them in order to end it there), it would have been more plausible.

That might have been the scene you would have preferred to see, but it does not make it more plausible. As already stated, #6 was younger, bigger, stronger (manual labor type occupation). #3 was an older, weaker, office worker, him backing off was certainly plausible.

Plus the actor for #6 wasn't "convincing enough" for what he was supposed to be : an avenger (considering looks anyway) Making #3 simply shut it up, doesn't cut it.
see above

reply

Because Cobb knew he was wrong. He was not stupid. He was a hothead, who blew up occasionally. But not someone who was constantly picking fights.

reply

Because, idiot, the younger guy would know him out cold with one punch and nobody would give a *beep* because it was the 50's when men were men.

reply