Murray Ross

Angry Men: Stage vs Screen

I confess I had doubts about doing this show--and for good reason.  Almost always we begin with plays, actual plays.  Twelve Angry Men was not originally a play at all, but a television script.  And then it was a movie, and a very good movie too.  We have a great cast in our production, and my hat is off to the all twelve of them. But would I say they stack up man to man, head to head, with the cast of the 1957 movie starring Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley and nine other all stars? As good as our team is, It's no shame to say that would be a stretch. 

So the question is, why bother doing this play when the celebrated movie is only a netflix click away in the comfort of your own home?  A question to be asked.

I got an answer I liked when talking to a man I had met after our opening night performance. He was a lawyer himself, and went to law school with the Honorable Lindsey Fischer, who is the voice giving instructions to our jury.  This guy seemed to me a fine man, an intelligent man, a knowledgable man. He told me he had seen the movie four times--and loved it--but he liked our production even more. Even more!!!

Which provokes the further question--why? The best answer I can come up with comes from my own experience watching the play opening night, because I could see why too.  Because our show is in a theater.  In comes to you live. Because you share the jury room with the jurors, twelve men (there is something rare and wonderful about watching twelve men who are not discussing girls, cars,football or money). And also because your eye and mind are free to roam at will up and down the long table, from face to face, in a way your simply cannot do on film.  The theatre version is a collective version, a team effort and a true jury experience. And in David McLendon's fluent, crisp staging it has a rhythm every bit as strong and involving as the film.  You take in more of the play, more immediately, than you do when you see it piece by piece on a flat screen.

And oh yeah, our guys are pretty darn good too:  Live, 3-D,and in full color. They are, in fact, real.

And so here we have our jury

The deliberations begin tonight.  Twelve guys in a hot room.

 
Who is the protagonist?  Who the antagonist?  Guess.

 
 
Think!

 
Speak!

 
Listen!

Seethe!
 

Ponder!
 

Suffer!
  

Debate!

 
Think a storm's coming in?

 

 Most likely.

Jurors 11 and 12

JUROR #11 (Bruce Carter). There's very little variation in color on this American jury of 1957.  But there is one "foreigner"---an immigrant citizen, who might even be a Jew, though this is never stated. He's a very serious man, and like most immigrants he is most appreciative of the rights, principles and virtues of his adopted country. Though often quiet and deferential, he can stand up himself---he rebukes Juror #7 for not taking the trial more seriously.  His own experience contributes to the general understanding-- he wonders if the old man could have recognized the defendant in the dimly lit tenement building. He also asks why a son who had just murdered his dad would come back home at 3:00 am in the morning. Another guy you hope is sitting in jury rooms across our and his land.

JUROR #12 (Mark Hennessy)  Good looking fella. Works in an ad agency. Has a lttle style, crunches numbers, knows the score, cruises with power, very self regarding, yet ultimately a timid follower. Not quite an empty suit but just about. His idea of solving problems is to chip a few balls up on the green and see which ones get close to the hole.  That's the way the big shots do it. He's a little shot and a big shot wannabe. These days you might find him down the hall in one of the smaller offices at the Sterling Cooper agency, wishing he was Jon Hamm, having a three martini lunch and then bending over a few of those nifty secretaries. It might happen one day.  But I doubt it.

Jurors 9 and 10

JUROR #9 (Steve Wallace). He's an old man and not a driving force in any room. Juror #9 is not in a hurry, and in a jury trial that is a good thing. He's the first to join Juror #8 in a not guilty vote, saying he'd like to see a fuller discussion of the evidence before he decides.  This is a man whose life has been of no particular consequence, and because of that he's able to provide a plausible hypothesis of why another old man might have lied in his testimony: it was his one chance to be recognized as important. Juror #9 may have a stooped back but he's not a dim bulb. He has a sharp eye-- it's his observation during the final discussion that provides the crucial missing piece in establishing a verdict of reasonable doubt.  This is exactly the kind of insignificant fellow you'd want on a jury---and thankfully, there are a still a few of them around.

JUROR #10 (Tom Paradise). Not Mr. Popularity on this jury, and for good reason.  He's a good old fashioned American bigot. He's plenty smart, decisive and forceful, and he makes a strong argument for a guilty verdict.  He also knows a thing or two about "those people" from the slums.  He knows they drink, they lie and they fight all the time.  They're not quite human.  The more he takes about these people--and he does so at great length at the play's end--the more we understand his intelligence is slave to his bitter prejudice.  The jury notices and they are repelled.  He's the only juror who is told to shut up--and about time too.

Jurors 7 and 8

JUROR #7 (Jesse Wilson).  Here's a man with a plan: let's get this done and get the hell out of here. He has tickets to a ballgame.  He's a nice guy, fun guy, a salesman. He's got this cheerful positive forward motion.  He's a guy on the go. His knees are jiggling, his fingers snapping.  He's got the city in him; he's only at home when he's on the move, caught up in something.  A trial would not be that something.  The defendent is clearly guilty.  He makes no serious contribution to the examination of evidence and opts for a hung jury because that will spring him from this hot tedious room. Juror #7 is potentially the guy who most threatens the idea of our democratic system, not because he is the most prejudiced or the most aggressive, but because he'd rather not be there.  He just doesn't care enough to get to the bottom of anything.  There are a lot of him out there.

JUROR #8 (Brian Taylor).  Thank your lucky stars.  In a room too full of the bigoted, the restless, the aggressive, the heartless and the feeble, we have one man who fits the perfect juror profile.  I like that he's an architect--a quiet pleasant man with a sense of structure, clarity, and patience for the long haul.  He's not the foreman, but he's a natural project leader. Very calmly and intelligently he persuades the jury to examine all the evidence.  He is the champion of reasonable doubt-- still a difficult concept.  The defendant may indeed be guilty, and you might think him so. But Juror #8 reminds us that if there are other plausible explanations for the crime, and if some of the evidence is suspect, then a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt must be entertained.  Juror #8 is almost always contained; he remains purposeful but rational; he gives others room for their own questions and interpretations.  But he is a passionate man--he breaks up a round of tic-tac-toe saying "this is not a game!"  And when he confronts Juror #3, his principal antagonist, calling him a sadist in one of his rare face-offs, you sense the steel in his temper.  Quiet as he is, Juror #8 is a kind of jury chamber superhero--he's almost too good to be true.  Without him, justice would not have been done. This is not a comforting thought.

Jurors 5 & 6

Juror #5 (Andy Mello): He's the youngest guy on the jury. He's a little intimidated by his elders, some of whom are pretty intimidating.  He's not a slum kid, but he grew up there. He knows the territory. He's a good kid.  He takes his responsibility seriously.  And perhaps because of his background he is one of the first to sympathize with the defendant.  He also knows a thing or two about using switchblades, and that turns out to be useful. I say no more.

Juror #6 (Marc Bonenfant).  This guy paints houses. He doesn't talk much or match wits with contestants on NPR radio quizzes.  I don' tthink he would listen to public radio even if there had been such a thing in his time. He wouln't stand out in a crowd, and he doesn't really want to.  You wouldn't ask him to be a graduation speaker. But he's a fine listener, and without many chips on his shoulders.  He's alert, and pays attention.  Kind of like a forest animal. He can hold his ground when he needs to. 

 

Jurors #3 and #4

JUROR #3 (Christopher Lowell):  Adorable guy, as you can see.  In another life, it might have been different; he might even have been as lovable as Ben Franklin.  But in this jury room he's a man with a problem, a big problem he has with his ungrateful son.  He's also a bully. He's a dreadful yet all too plausible example of how personal experience and strong feelings can spill over and contaminate life---and threaten another person's welfare. Not the first person you'd choose to put on a jury if you were acting for the defense (where WAS that public defender, anyway?).  Juror #3 is human---all too human, fierce and mortally wounded. And so very dangerous.

JUROR #4 (Kaleb Kohart):  Very competent fellow.  Extremely cool.  Does well on tests. Best memory in the room, and the most organized intelligence.  In another life he might have been an ace gambler, Sky Masterson, maybe.  But not in this one.  Unlike his previously mentioned neighbor, he will not allow emotions to intrude on his judgement-- one wonders at times if he even has emotions.  His judgement can be surgical and severe. He's a natural skeptic, and his skepticism extends to the defendant's story---which admittedly is shaky, thin and not convincing.  Once he has marshalled his facts, and rationally assessed them, his opinion stays firm; he holds his course--and this course doesn't bode well for the young man on trial.

Two Angry Men

Forthcoming in our theater:  Twelve Angry Men.  They are sequestered in a hot room to determine the fate of a young man accused of murdering his father. Lets meet them two by two:

Here's Juror #1--played by Danny Bristol. OK guy, sometimes, like Danny. Not extra bright-- like Danny.  That was a joke.  Not too dumb, either. Can assert himself when necessary. Not a natural leader of men,though he's impressed with the petty brief authority invested in him as the foreman of the jury.  A bit sulky at times when he doesn't get his way. Has a good understanding of doorknobs.

 

Juror #2 (Michael Augenstein): Kind of a mild fellow, and not very tall (which turns out to be the source of his most important contribution to the proceedings). Looks a bit like George Will or Wally Cox without the bow tie or the smarts. A bit of a deer in the headlights.  You may have seen him before in those focus goups featuring independent voters who are still dithering after three years of intense campaigning.  There used to be a lot of them out there. Now everyone is just fed up.