|
Twelve Angry Men Just last week audiences were watching on live television the courtroom verdict of the man who was accused of beating to death a children's hockey coach while the coach's own two sons watched in horror as their father bled to death. What is it about the courtroom and its legal process that turns us into such fanatics? There is something in that legal process of having twelve of your peers judge and make a decision on your very life that holds our interest so dearly. Films, TV, books, and other media formats focus on the drama of a courtroom and its inner workings like a hungry wolf on a quest for food. In Twelve Angry Men, the crime and trial is this: a young delinquent is on trial for the murder of his father. The judge has directed the jury to find the boy guilty if there is no reasonable doubt. Eleven of the jurors declare there is no reasonable doubt, but one of them, while far from convinced of the boy's innocence, feels that some of the evidence against him has been ambiguous. And that is where the major problem lies in Sherman Sergel's script, which he adapted from the 1954 television show that was written by Reginald Rose, and which is currently receiving a mounting at ICT Mainstage. The crime in Twelve Angry Men may have sent shocks through its audience in the '50s, but today's society has been exposed to much more horrific and violent acts of crime. While the play's third does deal with an issue that is still a major problem within our society today, it's the process of going through the clues and imperfections of the case that hardly holds little interest in today's world of DNA, ultra violent rays, computers, etc. to identify the perpetrator of a crime. ICT's Mainstage production has no true set to speak of. The spare stage holds a long wooden table and chairs, a water cooler, and a coat rack. Surrounding this are black curtains, boxing in the cast. Even the lighting (designed with precision by Robin Stephens) contributes to the boxing in of the skeletal set. The set needs walls, window treatments, maybe some light fixtures hanging above the long wooden table for better effect. It was quite symbolistic of Stephens to design a light effect for the first image the audience sees as the play begins, a small pool of light hitting a glass that contains pencils. Costume designer Amy Seals succeeds again with her actors dressed in various period suits and ties (both long and bow). Special kudos to Sound Designer Karen Siddall's admirable use of sound effects and providing of appropriate music to begin and close scenes. Director Rex Bierko achieves interesting blocking patterns and "window pictures" for various moments of intensity as the production unfolds. Bierko keeps his company of men moving with purpose and reason around the confined jury room. The cast of thirteen actors (12 jurors and one guard, played by Tom Ortiz) do provide some impressive work, but there are some problematic performances as well. The pace for the production is extremely slow. A couple of the actors simply take too much time between their own lines, at times going at a snail's pace. This is not helped by a couple of the actors stumbling over their lines. When the men get into heated arguments, their intensity and pace is not helped when one a colleague takes an unwanted pause, thus killing the momentum, energy, and acting intensity that the others are creating. While this is an ensemble piece, there are some roles that seem to fall under "principal." In these roles you have Jim Cox and Kevin Bode. Cox gives a sober and dignified performance as the man (Juror #8) who is the hold out vote. Cox truly makes you feel this man's strong beliefs in the theory of "guilty without a reasonable doubt." Cox's crisp, clean diction helps in understanding the evidence and his theories on why he feels this 19 year old teen might not be the one who killed his own father. Cox does need though to grasp his lines stronger; off and on throughout the evening his pace and line dropping hurts his otherwise wonderful acting work. Kevin Bode (Juror #3) is splendid in his portrayal of a man who may have deeper reasons on why he feels this teen is guilty of murder. Bode's character does have one of the best arces written into his role, and Bode glides on that arc with grandiloquent energy and intense emotion. What makes this actor stand out is that he does not allow the character to stay in this mode throughout the evening; he gives the character various shades, thus achieving a great payoff for the emotional end of his character's arc. Daniel Camilo (Juror #5) provides another winning performance in the company. As one of two minorities in the cast, Camilo thankfully portrays the role with not even the slightest hint of stereotyping. Camilo instead gives a superlative performance as the youngest juror who actually has a lot in common with the accused, but does not let the others know just how much. Camilo may not have much to say, but the strongest actors are the ones who know what subtext is, and this actor does hands down. Keith Cole as Juror # 9 is first class all the way with his moving performance as the oldest juror in the room. Cole is the only actor who should be allowed to speak in a slow speech pattern because it fits the role. Cole's facial expressions show his sincere emotions in reaction to what is happening around him. Juror #12 is an advertising executive played to perfection by Dan Ramsey. From the moment Ramsey walks onto the stage he reminds the other jurors that he is an Ad Man and continues to bring up examples from his world to fit the proceedings within the jury room. In what could easily be a one tone role, Ramsey gives the character much better grounding and understanding. Ramsey handles his character's transition with ease as well. Also delivering exceptional performances are Gordon Smyth (Juror #7), whose slight New Jersey dialect and body language gives the character shades of one of the goombas on The Sopranos, and Jerry Brown as the only immigrant in the pool of jurors. Brown delivers a touching performance as a man from another nation whose laws are not as fair as those of this country. Rudy Seppy, as the Jury Foreman, is also exceptional. Gene Joell is quite good as the only African American on the jury, but I am floored that the character was not written in much greater detail, particularly when the third act deals with racism. But Joell does what he can with the role. Jeffrey Ashlock is given the role of Juror #10, a man whose true emotions on why he feels the teen is guilty explode in act three. His reason? The color of the teen's skin. Sergel's never names the race of the teen, so you are left to imagine whatever minority you think he might be. Alas, Ashlock does not achieve the emotional impact that his character is due. Ashlock has his character show major overtones of anger, mistrust, and bitterness right at the top of act one. He goes full throttle in act one and two scene, so much so that, when he has his character's arc explode in the third act, it falls short and anti-climactic. This really hurts the emotional impact of this act, when the actor needs to really pull back and as the evening progresses let that intensity rise and use the subtext much more. Jim Harmuth (Juror #2) and Stan Ratliff (Juror #4) have the most problems with pace and line delivery. Ratliff's delivery is incredibly slow and monotone, and Harmuth tends to take unneeded pauses between lines, both from other actors' cues as well as his own lines. Twelve Angry Men's script just does not hold up in the current thirst for courtroom dramas. Even the crime is too "paint by numbers." While this production does have a lot going for it, the antediluvian script hinders it deeply. Twelve Angry Men plays at the Dupree Theater, Irving Arts Center, 3333 N. MacArthur Blvd, through February 2. Tickets: Thurs $8 & $10, Fri – Sun $12 & $14. Box Office: 972/252-2787. Twelve Angry Men Director................................Rex Bierko CAST GUARD...................................Tom Ortiz |
