Home > Theater Reviews > Archives > 2007 > January > 03 > Entry
‘Twelve Angry Men’ @ The Fox
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
THEATER REVIEW. Grade: B -
“Boy, oh, boy, there’s always one,” says an irritated juror in the courtroom drama “Twelve Angry Men.” He’s just heard that a fellow panelist favors a not guilty verdict in what everyone thought would be an open-and-shut murder case.
Of course, the naysaying ninny would be played by Richard Thomas, the actor who will forever be known as purple-prosed pollyanna John-Boy, nucleus of the caricaturishly wholesome ’70s TV series “The Waltons.” Thomas leads the road version of the Reginald Rose relic from the 1950s, which made its belated Broadway debut two years ago, courtesy of New York’s Roundabout Theatre Company.
While Thomas acquits himself admirably in the Broadway Across America—Atlanta production that opened Tuesday at the Fox Theatre, his Juror Eight is but one in a sturdy ensemble of character actors that also includes “Cheers” star George Wendt and Alan Mandell, an old Beckett crony who has recently appeared in the films of John Cameron Mitchell.
Director Scott Ellis’s straightforward approach to the creaky script, made into a 1957 film starring Henry Fonda as Juror Eight, doesn’t even try to disguise the datedness of the loud-mouth stock types. It’s a wise choice that accentuates the humor and the timelessness of the social critique.
The faceless 16-year-old boy accused of murdering his father is a symbol of the endless continuum of defendants who become trapped in a legal quagmire because they are too poor to get a fair trial. So much for the beauty of the Constitution: Except for Juror Eight, these guys want to fry the kid and get on with the baseball game.
While Allen Moyer’s set is a perfect facsimile of a sweaty mid-century jury room, Paul Palazzo’s lighting is such that you can’t always see the performers’ emoting faces— until a crucial rainstorm scene in which the lights get switched on. With all eyes focused on Thomas’s Juror Eight as he picks the case apart, this is too bad. But a few performances are so superb that they generate their own electricity.
As the captainlike Juror One, the Humpty Dumpty-size Wendt is first-rate. And Randle Mell, as the angriest man standing, makes for a superb bully. In exposing his personal demons, it’s gratifying to see this Juror Three find a kind of 11th-hour grace.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By s
January 5, 2007 1:53 AM | Link to this
Not to be too harsh, but it appears this reporter entirely misunderstood this wonderful play.
By Say What?
January 6, 2007 9:20 AM | Link to this
What are you talking about? I think he pretty much hit the nail on the head. Did you read something else, or do we just need to explain the big words to you?
By opieandy
January 6, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this
Brief review to a wonderful play. But the boy was obviously guilty. When it becomes acceptable to cast doubt on unbiased witnesses’ testimony under oath, this country is in a lot of trouble. Oh wait, we already acquitted O.J. Never mind.
By Gary
January 6, 2007 10:23 PM | Link to this
I’m really disappointed in the quality of comments so far. “S” says the reviewer misuderstood the play but doesn’t say why. “Say What” says the reviewer understood the play but then chooses to insult “S” rather than contribute a meaningful comment. An “opieandy” says its not ok to cast doubt on witnesses even when there is good reason to. I was first exposed to this play in a high school literature class and then later used the 1957 classic starring Henry Fonda as a tool in Business Law classes I taught. This play is both a wonderful character study in the foibles of everyday people as well as a reminder of how important it is to take our civic duty as a juror seriously. It bothers me to see it compared to “If it doesn’t fit you must aquit.”
By bjwilson
January 7, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this
I agree with Gary. This play has been around for many years and still applies today. People are quick to make judgements based on their own experiences and prejudices. This story gives incite to human character and human error. I would find it amusing, however, to see the first few commentors on the same jury.
By s
January 7, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this
Ok, I guess I should have elaborated on my comment. The main issue I took with this review was its failure to mention (minus the final line, which is in reference only to one character) one of the most important and central themes of the play - that our judgments and interactions are informed more by our personal histories than we realize. What seems a black and white issue becomes gray when we examine the social context of both the issue and ourselves as judges. Maybe its my own biases that lead me to understand the play this way, but I thought that the unfolding of this principle over the course of those two hours was one of its most brilliant and important aspects.
The writer says only this about the play’s content: “The faceless 16-year-old boy accused of murdering his father is a symbol of the endless continuum of defendants who become trapped in a legal quagmire because they are too poor to get a fair trial. So much for the beauty of the Constitution: Except for Juror Eight, these guys want to fry the kid and get on with the baseball game.”
Is this a real problem with the legal system? Of course. It’s also an issue dealt with by the play. But it’s not what drives the play, or what attracts people to see it, or what should be included as the exclusive mention of content in a review of this play.
I know these reviews have to be short and to the point (unlike this post). But I guess my own point is that the reviewer’s efforts would be better spent describing the elements that contribute to the long-time allure of this play, and less on stringing together long-winded descriptions of people and things.
In a short review like this, the reader should get a sense of the play’s plot, important themes, and an assessment of the performance. It was on these terms that I felt this review fell short.
Who knows? Maybe space limitations required great stuff to get cut at the last second, and for some reason paragraphs like #2 stayed in.
And, lastly, I’m wondering why, in a nearly all positive review, the show received a B- ?
By Kirby
January 7, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this
I saw this in Boston about a month ago - great performances all around.
By A1derbean
January 7, 2007 10:54 PM | Link to this
To the person who said the unseen character is obviously guilty: Did you not think that the original author intended us to be just as biased as the jurors? Did he not want us to see how our own prejudices and experiences color our interpretations, as well as those of the characters?
I also think that it is a testament to the truth that a play like this has stood the test of time so far and is still relevant. I thought the performances were excellent. When an entire audience gasps in fear when a character stumbles on stage, that is great acting. OJ is a bad example. Some of those jurors wanted to be famous if only for 15 minutes.
By william
January 8, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this
One key element of this play that has failed to receive mention in any of the above comments is the importance of “group think” within an organization-in this case a jury. I was first exposed to this play several years ago in Graduate Business School in an organizational behavior class. One of the key class discussion points on this play was how individuals oftentimes rely on a group’s apparent stance on an issue rather than think independently-the ol’ go along to get along view. How often do we in our lives fall into this trap? In business and in life numerous decisions are made as result of a single “leader” suggesting an outcome without a single person standing up to question-How dangerous. A second item for thought is how people “vote/decide” when others are watching versus private decisions-Remember how the jury private paper vote changed things. This is truly a classic movie that is deeper than many of the posts suggest.