PHOTOS
Alicia Grega-Pikul
Written in the early '50s after the second red scare had notoriously perverted American justice, the classic drama
12 Angry Men boasts universal themes and characters that give it a remarkable staying power. We know more than ever about involuntary susceptibility to prejudice and the fragility of our legal system, and Reginald Rose's artful script continues to support the latest scientific and sociological experiments.
It's likely you've already seen the acclaimed 1957 Henry Fonda film
12 Angry Men if not a live version of the play. I took in both last weekend when The Bracken Theatre Company presented an engaging production of Sherman Sergel's stage adaptation under the direction of Greg Korin at The Temple B'Nai B'rith in Kingston.
While the temple does house a more formal stage, the company presents the show on the floor with a semi-circle of audience chairs surrounding the purported jury room. We are not spectators so much as silent conspirators in the deliberation. This decision is key in maintaining our investment in the plot - essentially 12 men obligated to sit around a table and agree on the fate of the young delinquent charged with murdering his father.
Fortunately for the drama - though not necessarily our faith in the American justice system - Juror No. 8 (David Giordano) has seen enough holes in the prosecution's case to present his own case for reasonable doubt.
The fact that the characters are known only by number emphasizes their archetypal familiarity. These men could be your neighbors; they could be your jury. Likewise, the racially ambiguous accused is looked upon as one who has grown up desperate in impoverished conditions. It makes the shockingly bigoted speech about "them," given by blue-collar Juror No. 10 (Lew Strunk) at the heart of the play's climax, all the more profound. As European immigrant Juror No. 11, and notably not one of "them," Warren Rosengrant's performance provides humorous interludes. IIvin Nieves performs quite effectively as Juror No. 5, a young man who grew up in the slum and identifies himself with "them," though the other jurors don't seem to identify him that way.
Bracken's cast brings as many non-actors to the stage as it does more experienced performers. Yet, the show is so well-cast and understood by its players that it's no real disappointment. Each character, with the exception of Juror No. 6 (Joe Soprano) perhaps, gets his moment in the sun and each actor takes his turn quite seriously - Chas Beleski as wealthy Juror No. 4, for example, performs with the flair of a good trial lawyer.
But Billy Joe Herbert, as stubbornly belligerent Juror No. 3, is the disgruntled father who refuses to question his preliminary convictions. Herbert's portrayal is dynamic and compelling overall, but flies too high at some points, missing some of his character's more subtle inner-conflict.
Bracken makes enough minor changes to the script that comparisons to the film should be avoided. The most glaring difference is in the play's final scene and it is important, if only because Korin's staging, while bold, feels contrived and leaves us with a twinge of disappointment.
The play runs a neatly paced 90 minutes with no intermission.