On stage is a perfect representation of a jury room, complete with a long wooden table, stiff upright chairs, sunlight beating in from behind government-issued window shades, and the yellowing walls specific to an aging building. In walk the men with whom the audience will spend the next 90 minutes with.
The task of these men is to determine the fate of a 16-year-old boy accused of premeditated murder; the victim was his own father. The boy, if convicted, will receive the death penalty.
There is a fair amount of star power surrounding Roundabout Theater Company's adaptation of Sidney Lumet's 1957 film, "12 Angry Men." Director Scott Ellis has received numerous awards and Tony nominations, most recently for his 1998 revival of "1776." Also, George Wendt who plays the beloved Norm on "Cheers," plays the foreman of the jury. Richard Thomas, who plays the leading conscience of the jury, delivers a most notable performance, snapping between being bitingly witty and solicitously inquisitive to demonstrate to his fellow jurors how dangerous our assumptions about others can be.
In fact, the level of experience that the actors bring to this play make for a riveting show that displays the wonderful precision theater can achieve.
While the jurors blend into one another physically, their individual backgrounds contribute to their views on this court case. These backgrounds crystallize beautifully over the course of the show. Conflict stems from the jurors' different classes, personalities and levels of faith in the judicial system. While they all are wearing the same '50s-style suits and most are of a similar age group, one man works as an advertising representative, while another is a simple construction worker; one man believes in the validity of every piece of evidence, while another is willing to consider the natural flaws of the prosecution's case.
There is a lot of listening and interplay going on between these actors. How could an ensemble cast of twelve people manage to stay on stage without descending into complete chaos if there wasn't?
At tense moments, the director did a brilliant job of highlighting which conflicts made specific jurors more uncomfortable than others. In particular, when Juror #9 begins a vicious rant condemning the crime of the lower classes, some jurors physically rise against this man; at the same time, you can see the emotional damage on other jurors' faces indicating that they personally have faced years of this kind of hatred.
Also, every cast member seemed persistently aware of the unease of not being allowed to return to the comforts of one's home without first making the judgment on someone else's life.
Despite this gravity, there is, of course, comic relief. It is undeniable that the men of the jury are in a tough situation, and yet some of the conflicts between these men as they grapple for truth can lead to humorous outcomes. Juror #9, perhaps a bit unrealistically, leads the others into examinations of every bit of evidence by manipulating other's words, physically displaying holes in the prosecution's evidence and, at one point, role-playing as the aged eyewitness with a limp. One by one, the jurors change their perception of the boy on trial and the evidence that could kill him.
While the conclusion of the show may seem predictable from the beginning, there are surprises specific to the legal system and, more importantly, human nature that make this show stimulating to watch. For instance, legally, what is the scope of "reasonable doubt"? Why do we so easily condemn others by placing them into stereotypical categories? Could eyewitnesses or even jurors be marking a man based on their preconceived notions?
And if man's opinions can be so malleable, can a courtroom ever satisfy its objective for truth?
