July 1, 2025 • 12 mins
⚖️🗳️ In this episode of The Rank Podcast, John revisits a landmark in cinematic history as he reviews the 1957 courtroom classic 12 Angry Men in his Best Picture Rankings series.
Directed by Sidney Lumet and starring Henry Fonda, this powerful legal drama takes place almost entirely in a single jury room, where twelve men must decide the fate of a young defendant accused of murder. What begins as an open-and-shut case quickly spirals into a tense, claustrophobic battle of morals, bias, and justice as one juror dares to challenge the majority.
John breaks down the film's gripping dialogue, tight direction, and timeless relevance. Does 12 Angry Men earn a top spot among the greatest Best Picture nominees—despite famously not winning the Oscar? Tune in to find out!
E-mail your fan questions, comments, and suggestions to TheRankwithJohnandZac@protonmail.com.
Support the show by becoming a patron at Patreon.com/TheRankPodcast.
Check out The Rank's website for up-to-date rankings at TheRankPodcast.com.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Another aside, this movie has always and continues to make me
want to serve on a jury and I never have.
I've only ever gotten 2 summons and both times I just called and
they were like yeah we don't need you now.
They didn't even have me come in.
Feel like nobody ever wants to be on a jury and I'm someone who
does and I never get picked. Go figure.
It's probably for the best. Welcome back to The Rank.
(00:37):
I'm John. And today we're going to be
continuing to rank all the best picture nominees ever and we'll
find out what the best movie foreach year is and all time.
And today I'm starting a new year of best picture nominees.
I'm ranking 12 angry men, the 1957 best picture nominee
starring Henry Fonda, written byReginald Rose and directed by
(00:58):
Sidney Lumet. It was nominated for three
Academy Awards and one none. It was nominated for best
adapted screenplay, best director, and of course, best
picture. Now, if you're enjoying these
rankings and and want to find out what will be the best movie
ever nominated for best picture or even just the best of each
year, please subscribe and or follow.
Please put any of your questions, comments or
(01:18):
suggestions into the comments ore-mail the show directly, which
you know there should be an e-mail down below.
You know, you can let me know what year you'd like me to do
next after 1957. Now if you super duper like it,
consider becoming a patron on patreon.com/the Rank Podcast.
We can get access to all the archived episodes back when this
used to be two hosts. Now, as those of you who have
(01:40):
followed the Rank for a while now, we've been ranking all the
best picture nominees going yearby year, though the years have
been at random. Just sort of we just pick which
everyone we felt like doing. Now we've done 1927 and 28, the
first Academy Awards ever, whichI finished last week.
We've also done 194719731998, 2004, 2007, 20/15/2023, and
(02:02):
2024. That's a lot.
And according to the rank, the Academy got it right in
192719732015 and 2023, which is a little below 50%, so not
fantastic. Today we start 1957.
Will the Academy get this one right?
Let's dive starting with Potent Notables.
Now as always we start the boat notables with the box office
(02:22):
info. And according to a Variety
article from January 8th, 1958, both Angry men made $2,000,000
in rentals worldwide. Now as a reminder, rentals were
essentially profits. So they had $337,000 budget,
which I would assume would make the revenue around two and a
half, $1,000,000. But here's what I find
interesting about the financialsI've seen where it said the film
(02:42):
cost three and a half million dollars to make the movie.
It's officially $337,000, but they may not include the
purchase of the rights of the play.
But Even so, that doesn't account for $3,000,000.
Additionally, Henry Fonda believed in the movie so much
that he deferred his pay and never ended up getting paid for
the movie because it didn't makeany money and yet it reported
$2,000,000 in rentals. Something's not adding up.
(03:04):
I don't know where the truth of this lies, but it feels murky.
Even though he didn't get paid, he still considered this to be
one of the three best films he ever made.
Now, Henry Fonda actually disliked watching himself on
film, so he did not view the whole film in the screening
room. However, before he walked out,
he said quietly to director Sidney Lumet.
Sidney, it's magnificent. It was actually Sidney Lumet's
(03:25):
feature directorial debuts. Henry Fonda personally asked
Lumet to direct the movie adaptation, having been
impressed with his work on the television show Studio 1 and The
Alcoa Hour. Now, when first broadcast as a
teleplay on Studio One on September 20th, 1954, the jurors
were Norman Fell, John Beale, Rancho Tone, Walter Abel, Lee
Phillips, Bart Burns, Paul. Hartman, Robert.
(03:47):
Cummings, Joseph Sweeney, EdwardArnold, George Voscovich and
Larkin Ford, credited as Will W Sweeney and Voscovich were the
only two actors to reprise theirroles for the film.
Henry Fonda was asked by United Artists to make this film, so he
did it as both actor and producer.
He was, however, very frustratedat being a producer and decided
(04:07):
never to do so again. That doesn't sound like it was a
good time. Juror #7 Jack Wharton claims he
made 27 grand last year selling marmalade.
That's not bad. Just pointing the this out.
That would be the equivalent to over $300,000 in in today's
money. So yeah, that's not bad.
Selling marmalade and making 300,000 a year, you could live
(04:27):
off that. So this film is commonly used in
business schools and workshops to illustrate team dynamics and
conflict resolution techniques. And this was selected for
preservation in the National Film Registry by the Library of
Congress in 2007 for being quote, culturally, historically
or aesthetically. So those are the potent
notables. Let's go to the movie overview
(04:47):
now. I'd like to start this one off
by saying that this is one of the few older movies that I have
seen before and it's one of my favorites.
My dad had me watch it and I believe it was the first black
and white movie I ever watched outside of being really little
and watching black and white because we had a black and white
team when I was 2. So I've got a soft spot for this
movie. I attempted to remain unbiased
watching it, but nostalgia, you know, it hits you whether you
(05:09):
want it to or not and I just think this is an amazing.
That sounds pretty biased. All right, so let's move into
the actual movie at this point. The premise here is very simple
and straightforward and teen year old kid is on trial for
murdering his father. He doesn't come for money so
he's got a court appointed lawyer and it doesn't seem like
much of an effort has been made in his defense.
The case isn't what we're seeing.
What we get to watch is the jurydeliberations.
(05:31):
We haven't been tainted by any of the testimony for or against
the defendant. We learn it as the jurors
discuss it. The movie is far more than just
a peek in on jury deliberations.It's psychoanalysis of the types
of people that are on juries. The people that are your peers
are so-called. Anyway since it was entirely
men. Another aside, this movie has
always and continues to make me want to serve on a jury and I
(05:52):
never have. I've only ever gotten 2 summons
and both times I just called andthey were like yeah we don't
need you now. They didn't even have me come
in. Feel like nobody ever wants to
be on a jury and I'm someone whodoes and I never get picked.
Go figure. It's probably for the best.
Not even picked, but invited to potentially be picked.
Maybe they could just sense my eagerness.
I don't know. Anyway, like I was saying, we
delve into the case, but we alsodive into the motivations of all
(06:15):
the men involved. There are a few that are
somewhat passionately neutral, including our protagonist played
by Henry Fonda. There are a couple that aren't
really taking it seriously. One probably, like me, just sort
of is excited to be a part of it.
And there are a couple that haveallowed personal feelings to
cloud their judgement. It's a wonderfully told story
where people listen to each other and take the facts.
(06:36):
Consider others perspectives. Feels very much like a story
that wouldn't exist today, but thankfully it does because it
has already happened. So it does exist today, but I
don't think we'd make it. It does make you wonder if
common ground can be found if you just sit people in a room
together without social media and just like, hear each other
out. Now, maybe it's too late for us,
but I'm still optimistic. And I think people would leave
(06:57):
with a greater understanding of themselves and others.
So it's not so much a story about one person standing
against eleven others, or the beauty of the justice system or
the motivism perspectives of thepeople around you.
I think of this movie as a celebration of decency and
thought that we can be so much greater if we just listen to
each other. It may not be pretty and he may
discover things about yourself that you don't like, but the
(07:18):
beauty is that we can have the discussion.
That is very profound. Enough of that, let's go to the
rank. Oh wank.
So the rank is where I rank the movie based on 10 category,
story, acting, originality, filmcoherence, cinematography,
score, soundtrack, sound, scriptstructure and dialogue,
character relatability, production value.
And my rank, I rank it on a scale of 1 to 10, one being the
(07:40):
worst and 10 being the best. First category is story.
I gave story A10. I think the story is excellent.
There's nothing else to say about it, really.
There were essentially 12 stars of this movie and they all had
uniqueness and depth and yet thestory was ostensibly about a
character that only appears in the movie in the very beginning
and it never says a word, just amasterfully told.
For acting, I gave a nine and a half.
I wanted so badly to give this A10, but there are a few moments
(08:03):
of over acting which can be a staple of the older generation
of movies. It was by no means bad at all,
not even resembling bad, just not quite perfect.
Next category is originality, which I gave you an 8 1/2.
I don't think legal thriller wasreally new ground.
However, focusing on the jury was fascinating and original.
I'm not sure how original though.
It's like I said, I haven't watched a ton of older movies.
(08:24):
I don't know if this type of story had not had been told
previously, but I have a feelingit wasn't super common, so I'm
still confident with 8 1/2. Next category is Film Coherence,
which I gave a 10. Just an expertly crafted movie.
They tell the story so well, they feel like you're on the
jury with them. Every piece of evidence
discussed is clear to the audience and gives you a real
picture of the crime, as if we had sat in court and observed.
(08:46):
They hinted things that will be brought up later.
They never let anyone seem out of character even for a moment.
It's just brilliant. Let's go to cinematography,
which I gave an 8 1/2. Cinematography is great.
Maybe they're a few too many close-ups and indulgences and
and lighting to really push the mood, but I'm I'm definitely OK
with it. Next category score slash
soundtrack slash sound, which I gave an 8.
The score was really good. It definitely placed you in the
(09:08):
moment and helped progress the story.
That being said, I did feel a little bit old.
Basically, for lack of a better word, I just felt a little old.
It didn't have to be much though, and it definitely was
not too much, which I really appreciate.
Let's go to script structure anddialogue, which I also gave a
10. I can't imagine better dialogue.
I may be being a mark with this score, but I just absolutely
(09:30):
love the way this is structured,scripted, and delivered.
When the oldest man on the jury is upset with with the baseball
lover jurist because he walks away from him while he's
talking, juror #8 settles him and says he can't hear you never
will. We're the perfect psychological
viewpoint than anyone who caveats or makes a point of
specificity about something is usually projecting what he wants
(09:50):
people to believe instead of what he really feels like.
The jurist that takes it the most personal of all of them
says I have no personal feelingsabout this unsolicited, he just
says that and I could go on and on.
It's just it's fantastic. Let's go to character
relatability, which I also gave a ten.
Well, with a great script and great acting comes great
relatability, right? They're all fleshed out and
they're all relatable. Even the ones that you don't
(10:12):
want to relate to, you can certainly relate to meeting
someone Like let's go to production value, which I gave a
7. This is a tough one because it's
basically just a room the whole time.
I wouldn't say the production value is super high, but it's
not like I ever didn't believe they were in a, you know, a jury
deliberation. So there's that.
Just because a movie doesn't require high production value
doesn't mean that they don't have it, though.
I wouldn't say this was teeming with production value.
(10:34):
On to the last category, which is my rank and feel like you
probably have a sense of where this is headed, but I gave it a
10. I think it is definitely one of
the best films ever made. I absolutely love this movie and
I think everybody should watch it.
I'd love to see an update and have it be 12 angry people and
so that more people besides white men can relate to the
film, but I don't know that it will do it justice.
(10:57):
Which is kind of funny. And yes I know they were made it
in 1997 with Jack Lemmon and they obligingly put 2 black men
on the jury, but I still think there would be some value in
including the opposite sex and other ethnicities.
So all together that puts 12 angry men at a 91.5 which makes
it an absolute masterpiece. 1957coming out of the gate strong.
(11:18):
This is going to be a tough one to beat.
It's sitting right between Bridge of Spies, which had a 91,
Killers of the Flower Moon, which had a 91.75, making it the
ninth best best, the best picture nominee that I've ranked
and I've ranked 58 so far, so pretty damn good.
So thanks for listening and or watching.
If you'd like to see a list of my updated Best Picture series
rankings, you can do that on ourwebsite at the rankpodcast.com.
(11:39):
Remember to subscribe, review and comment.
Please consider supporting us onour Patreon site at
patreon.com/the Rank podcast, where you can get access to all
of our archived episodes that were a lot longer.
I've reached a unanimous verdict.
I'll say goodbye. Shit, sorry Antonio, I just
(12:09):
realized that I didn't turn the light on.
Another aside, this movie has always and continues to make me
want to serve on a jury and I never have.
I've only ever gotten 2 summons and both times I just called and
they were like yeah we don't need you now.
They didn't even have me come in.
Feel like nobody ever wants to be on a jury and I'm someone who
does and I never get picked. Go figure.
It's probably for the best. Welcome back to The Rank.
(00:37):
I'm John. And today we're going to be
continuing to rank all the best picture nominees ever and we'll
find out what the best movie foreach year is and all time.
And today I'm starting a new year of best picture nominees.
I'm ranking 12 angry men, the 1957 best picture nominee
starring Henry Fonda, written byReginald Rose and directed by
(00:58):
Sidney Lumet. It was nominated for three
Academy Awards and one none. It was nominated for best
adapted screenplay, best director, and of course, best
picture. Now, if you're enjoying these
rankings and and want to find out what will be the best movie
ever nominated for best picture or even just the best of each
year, please subscribe and or follow.
Please put any of your questions, comments or
(01:18):
suggestions into the comments ore-mail the show directly, which
you know there should be an e-mail down below.
You know, you can let me know what year you'd like me to do
next after 1957. Now if you super duper like it,
consider becoming a patron on patreon.com/the Rank Podcast.
We can get access to all the archived episodes back when this
used to be two hosts. Now, as those of you who have
(01:40):
followed the Rank for a while now, we've been ranking all the
best picture nominees going yearby year, though the years have
been at random. Just sort of we just pick which
everyone we felt like doing. Now we've done 1927 and 28, the
first Academy Awards ever, whichI finished last week.
We've also done 194719731998, 2004, 2007, 20/15/2023, and
(02:02):
2024. That's a lot.
And according to the rank, the Academy got it right in
192719732015 and 2023, which is a little below 50%, so not
fantastic. Today we start 1957.
Will the Academy get this one right?
Let's dive starting with Potent Notables.
Now as always we start the boat notables with the box office
(02:22):
info. And according to a Variety
article from January 8th, 1958, both Angry men made $2,000,000
in rentals worldwide. Now as a reminder, rentals were
essentially profits. So they had $337,000 budget,
which I would assume would make the revenue around two and a
half, $1,000,000. But here's what I find
interesting about the financialsI've seen where it said the film
(02:42):
cost three and a half million dollars to make the movie.
It's officially $337,000, but they may not include the
purchase of the rights of the play.
But Even so, that doesn't account for $3,000,000.
Additionally, Henry Fonda believed in the movie so much
that he deferred his pay and never ended up getting paid for
the movie because it didn't makeany money and yet it reported
$2,000,000 in rentals. Something's not adding up.
(03:04):
I don't know where the truth of this lies, but it feels murky.
Even though he didn't get paid, he still considered this to be
one of the three best films he ever made.
Now, Henry Fonda actually disliked watching himself on
film, so he did not view the whole film in the screening
room. However, before he walked out,
he said quietly to director Sidney Lumet.
Sidney, it's magnificent. It was actually Sidney Lumet's
(03:25):
feature directorial debuts. Henry Fonda personally asked
Lumet to direct the movie adaptation, having been
impressed with his work on the television show Studio 1 and The
Alcoa Hour. Now, when first broadcast as a
teleplay on Studio One on September 20th, 1954, the jurors
were Norman Fell, John Beale, Rancho Tone, Walter Abel, Lee
Phillips, Bart Burns, Paul. Hartman, Robert.
(03:47):
Cummings, Joseph Sweeney, EdwardArnold, George Voscovich and
Larkin Ford, credited as Will W Sweeney and Voscovich were the
only two actors to reprise theirroles for the film.
Henry Fonda was asked by United Artists to make this film, so he
did it as both actor and producer.
He was, however, very frustratedat being a producer and decided
(04:07):
never to do so again. That doesn't sound like it was a
good time. Juror #7 Jack Wharton claims he
made 27 grand last year selling marmalade.
That's not bad. Just pointing the this out.
That would be the equivalent to over $300,000 in in today's
money. So yeah, that's not bad.
Selling marmalade and making 300,000 a year, you could live
(04:27):
off that. So this film is commonly used in
business schools and workshops to illustrate team dynamics and
conflict resolution techniques. And this was selected for
preservation in the National Film Registry by the Library of
Congress in 2007 for being quote, culturally, historically
or aesthetically. So those are the potent
notables. Let's go to the movie overview
(04:47):
now. I'd like to start this one off
by saying that this is one of the few older movies that I have
seen before and it's one of my favorites.
My dad had me watch it and I believe it was the first black
and white movie I ever watched outside of being really little
and watching black and white because we had a black and white
team when I was 2. So I've got a soft spot for this
movie. I attempted to remain unbiased
watching it, but nostalgia, you know, it hits you whether you
(05:09):
want it to or not and I just think this is an amazing.
That sounds pretty biased. All right, so let's move into
the actual movie at this point. The premise here is very simple
and straightforward and teen year old kid is on trial for
murdering his father. He doesn't come for money so
he's got a court appointed lawyer and it doesn't seem like
much of an effort has been made in his defense.
The case isn't what we're seeing.
What we get to watch is the jurydeliberations.
(05:31):
We haven't been tainted by any of the testimony for or against
the defendant. We learn it as the jurors
discuss it. The movie is far more than just
a peek in on jury deliberations.It's psychoanalysis of the types
of people that are on juries. The people that are your peers
are so-called. Anyway since it was entirely
men. Another aside, this movie has
always and continues to make me want to serve on a jury and I
(05:52):
never have. I've only ever gotten 2 summons
and both times I just called andthey were like yeah we don't
need you now. They didn't even have me come
in. Feel like nobody ever wants to
be on a jury and I'm someone whodoes and I never get picked.
Go figure. It's probably for the best.
Not even picked, but invited to potentially be picked.
Maybe they could just sense my eagerness.
I don't know. Anyway, like I was saying, we
delve into the case, but we alsodive into the motivations of all
(06:15):
the men involved. There are a few that are
somewhat passionately neutral, including our protagonist played
by Henry Fonda. There are a couple that aren't
really taking it seriously. One probably, like me, just sort
of is excited to be a part of it.
And there are a couple that haveallowed personal feelings to
cloud their judgement. It's a wonderfully told story
where people listen to each other and take the facts.
(06:36):
Consider others perspectives. Feels very much like a story
that wouldn't exist today, but thankfully it does because it
has already happened. So it does exist today, but I
don't think we'd make it. It does make you wonder if
common ground can be found if you just sit people in a room
together without social media and just like, hear each other
out. Now, maybe it's too late for us,
but I'm still optimistic. And I think people would leave
(06:57):
with a greater understanding of themselves and others.
So it's not so much a story about one person standing
against eleven others, or the beauty of the justice system or
the motivism perspectives of thepeople around you.
I think of this movie as a celebration of decency and
thought that we can be so much greater if we just listen to
each other. It may not be pretty and he may
discover things about yourself that you don't like, but the
(07:18):
beauty is that we can have the discussion.
That is very profound. Enough of that, let's go to the
rank. Oh wank.
So the rank is where I rank the movie based on 10 category,
story, acting, originality, filmcoherence, cinematography,
score, soundtrack, sound, scriptstructure and dialogue,
character relatability, production value.
And my rank, I rank it on a scale of 1 to 10, one being the
(07:40):
worst and 10 being the best. First category is story.
I gave story A10. I think the story is excellent.
There's nothing else to say about it, really.
There were essentially 12 stars of this movie and they all had
uniqueness and depth and yet thestory was ostensibly about a
character that only appears in the movie in the very beginning
and it never says a word, just amasterfully told.
For acting, I gave a nine and a half.
I wanted so badly to give this A10, but there are a few moments
(08:03):
of over acting which can be a staple of the older generation
of movies. It was by no means bad at all,
not even resembling bad, just not quite perfect.
Next category is originality, which I gave you an 8 1/2.
I don't think legal thriller wasreally new ground.
However, focusing on the jury was fascinating and original.
I'm not sure how original though.
It's like I said, I haven't watched a ton of older movies.
(08:24):
I don't know if this type of story had not had been told
previously, but I have a feelingit wasn't super common, so I'm
still confident with 8 1/2. Next category is Film Coherence,
which I gave a 10. Just an expertly crafted movie.
They tell the story so well, they feel like you're on the
jury with them. Every piece of evidence
discussed is clear to the audience and gives you a real
picture of the crime, as if we had sat in court and observed.
(08:46):
They hinted things that will be brought up later.
They never let anyone seem out of character even for a moment.
It's just brilliant. Let's go to cinematography,
which I gave an 8 1/2. Cinematography is great.
Maybe they're a few too many close-ups and indulgences and
and lighting to really push the mood, but I'm I'm definitely OK
with it. Next category score slash
soundtrack slash sound, which I gave an 8.
The score was really good. It definitely placed you in the
(09:08):
moment and helped progress the story.
That being said, I did feel a little bit old.
Basically, for lack of a better word, I just felt a little old.
It didn't have to be much though, and it definitely was
not too much, which I really appreciate.
Let's go to script structure anddialogue, which I also gave a
10. I can't imagine better dialogue.
I may be being a mark with this score, but I just absolutely
(09:30):
love the way this is structured,scripted, and delivered.
When the oldest man on the jury is upset with with the baseball
lover jurist because he walks away from him while he's
talking, juror #8 settles him and says he can't hear you never
will. We're the perfect psychological
viewpoint than anyone who caveats or makes a point of
specificity about something is usually projecting what he wants
(09:50):
people to believe instead of what he really feels like.
The jurist that takes it the most personal of all of them
says I have no personal feelingsabout this unsolicited, he just
says that and I could go on and on.
It's just it's fantastic. Let's go to character
relatability, which I also gave a ten.
Well, with a great script and great acting comes great
relatability, right? They're all fleshed out and
they're all relatable. Even the ones that you don't
(10:12):
want to relate to, you can certainly relate to meeting
someone Like let's go to production value, which I gave a
7. This is a tough one because it's
basically just a room the whole time.
I wouldn't say the production value is super high, but it's
not like I ever didn't believe they were in a, you know, a jury
deliberation. So there's that.
Just because a movie doesn't require high production value
doesn't mean that they don't have it, though.
I wouldn't say this was teeming with production value.
(10:34):
On to the last category, which is my rank and feel like you
probably have a sense of where this is headed, but I gave it a
10. I think it is definitely one of
the best films ever made. I absolutely love this movie and
I think everybody should watch it.
I'd love to see an update and have it be 12 angry people and
so that more people besides white men can relate to the
film, but I don't know that it will do it justice.
(10:57):
Which is kind of funny. And yes I know they were made it
in 1997 with Jack Lemmon and they obligingly put 2 black men
on the jury, but I still think there would be some value in
including the opposite sex and other ethnicities.
So all together that puts 12 angry men at a 91.5 which makes
it an absolute masterpiece. 1957coming out of the gate strong.
(11:18):
This is going to be a tough one to beat.
It's sitting right between Bridge of Spies, which had a 91,
Killers of the Flower Moon, which had a 91.75, making it the
ninth best best, the best picture nominee that I've ranked
and I've ranked 58 so far, so pretty damn good.
So thanks for listening and or watching.
If you'd like to see a list of my updated Best Picture series
rankings, you can do that on ourwebsite at the rankpodcast.com.
(11:39):
Remember to subscribe, review and comment.
Please consider supporting us onour Patreon site at
patreon.com/the Rank podcast, where you can get access to all
of our archived episodes that were a lot longer.
I've reached a unanimous verdict.
I'll say goodbye. Shit, sorry Antonio, I just
(12:09):
realized that I didn't turn the light on.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.