Writer: Reginald Rose
Director: Christopher Haydon
Receiving a unanimous standing ovation, this gripping courtroom drama carries a clear verdict. With a highly skilful cast, effective design and strong staging, the classic tale of 12 Angry Men comes to life in this electrifying performance. The time flies by for the audience, considerably faster than it does for the jurors, as we watch them agonising over the details of a murder trial.
At the very start, we are introduced to the gravity of the situation by the booming voice of an unseen judge presiding over the case of a 16-year-old man who stands accused of fatally stabbing his father. If found guilty, the death penalty will be served as the state law dictates it as mandatory. From the shadows, the jury retires to a locked room to deliberate their verdict. The set effectively creates the space of a rather worn-out courthouse in 1950s New York. An adjoining room with sinks acts as an important break-out area, but the only way off-stage for the cast is through the door to the men’s room. Staging, lighting and sound make the most of the space, while occasional weather effects delight, contributing to the fluctuations in emotional pressure in the deliberation room. It’s hot, close, and tensions are running high.
As the title suggests, the men of the jury engage in heated exchanges, frequently interrupting and goading one another. For some of the jurors, it seems this is their main method of communication. There are those who are highly reactive and would rather shout down reason than engage where they might not ‘win’. All this testosterone-fuelled tussling might not sound like your idea of a fun night out at the theatre. It’s certainly much more unusual now to see 13 men exclusively occupy a stage. However, far from being an exhausting experience, this tale still has a great deal to offer despite having originally been written as a teleplay in 1954. It demonstrates how these men are trapped within a system that wounds them. The political subtext is undeniable and parallels can be drawn between recent high-profile court cases, racial injustice and power battles the world over.
The language of sports, work, and asserting paternal authority dominate, in between arguments, but as the play goes on, the case seems to allow some members of the jury to reveal more about their inner worlds. Juror 9, played beautifully by Paul Beech, gives a very moving monologue about loneliness and isolation by recognising it in a witness for the prosecution. We find that empathy makes space for more empathy, but first, it has to get a look in through the highly reactive and attention-seeking behaviour.
What is uplifting about 12 Angry Men is watching as responsibility, logic, and compassion patiently defeat hot-headedness, intolerance, entitlement and noise. Patrick Duffy is utterly compelling as Juror 8, an architect and father whose compassion and empathy lead him to contemplate the accused’s innocence when all the other jurors initially are convinced by the young man’s guilt. Duffy plays the role in a calm but deliberate way. It’s the perfect complement to Juror 8’s unfaltering commitment to accountability and reason.
In contrast, manner-wise, but not quality of performance, Gray O’Brien, Tristan Gemmill and Michael Greco embody the highly reactive Juror 10, Juror 3 and Juror 7 respectively, who cling to their votes of ‘guilty’ in a volatile fashion, taunting those members of the jury who dare to reconsider their own conclusions. Juror 7 (Greco) has a ball game he wants to attend, so pushes for a quick ‘kill’ verdict. Juror 3 (Gemmill) hasn’t seen his son for two years after having physically bullied him into a man. And Juror 10 (O’Brien) holds strong prejudices towards the accused’s race. His comments to such effect culminate in a viciously racist tirade that sends Juror 5, affectingly played by Samarge Hamiltion, and Juror 11 (Kenneth Jay) to retreat to the sink area where washing their hands becomes a heavily loaded activity.
Putting in a stunning performance as Juror 11, is Kenneth Jay, playing a German refugee watchmaker. He delivers perfectly a poignant line when asked by Juror 10 (O’Brien), ”What are you so goddamn polite about?” He replies, ”For the same reason you’re not. It’s the way I was brought up.”
Reginald Rose based 12 Angry Men on his own real-life experiences of serving on a jury, and the characters reflect that slice-of-life feel as they are brought to life splendidly by the whole cast. A high school football coach (Owen Oldroyd), appointed Foreman, tries to rally the disparate bunch of jurymen that includes an anxiously needy advertising man (Ben Nealon), a cold calculating broker (Mark Heenehan), a down-trodden bank worker (Paul Lavers), and a house painter (Gary Webster) protective of the elderly Juror 9 (Beech).
The moment when self-interested salesman Juror 7 (Greco) emphatically repeats that if they have a hung verdict, the next jury to try the case is guaranteed to convict, reflects the feeling that empathy and reflection are rare in this world. It makes Juror Eight seem all the more unique. Compassion, consideration and the courage to speak up may seem in short supply, but are they? The more space they are given, the more voices begin to reveal the qualities needed to combat a toxic culture.
A very powerful moment appears at the end of the play and involves jackets. It’s striking, it stays with you, and it speaks of a profound political subtext to this play. 12 Angry Men suggests if we leave judgement and leadership to the hotheads and the loudmouths, as domineering as they are, we lose ourselves, our humanity, our confidence and our compassion. We lose empathy which is surely the most important thing we have and what ultimately has the power to change us, heal us, and save us from a severe sentencing.
Runs till 25th November 2023.