Twelve Angry Men – The Garrick Theatre
Why would you wish to see this very faithful production of a classic film? Partly, of course, for the bravura ensemble acting, but also, in this cynical age, for its statement of faith in the American (and hence the British) legal system and the implicit trust and belief in the democratic system. The play, an undoubted minor masterpiece by Reginald Rose, a journeyman 1950s TV writer, is a beautifully crafted story of a jury’s deliberations on the guilt or otherwise of an 18 year-old accused of killing his father in a fit of rage and impotence.
For those of us, who have been fortunate enough to have been jurymen (or women) in interesting cases, there will be references, which relate to our own experiences. Some of us may even have felt that we played the part of Juror 8, played exquisitely at the West End’s Garrick Theatre by Martin Shaw and in the film by Henry Fonda. For me Fonda’s film character comes over as a rather pompous, almost saintly figure. Shaw is a much more convincing and far less sanctified and hence a more human character.
The play is, of course, dated. There are no women or ethnic minorities in the jury. The closest approximation is an Eastern European, probably a Jewish emigrant from 1930s fascism, who is both a vehicle for the most explicit pro-democracy speeches and the butt of the most virulently bigoted and prejudiced comments from the “know-nothing”, hard-liner “hang ’em and flog ’em” brigade.
The dominance of white men expresses a truth about the time. Rose wrote the play following his own experience in a 1954 New York jury. But in his play, originally called Thunder on Sycamore Street, the story was about a black family. However, to appease the powers that were on 1950s Broadway, it was changed to what I guess was meant to be a Puerto Rican family (the play is not explicit on this point).
The scene is set in the sweltering heat of a New York summer afternoon. The claustrophobic atmosphere is heightened by the coming storm, after which the play was first named.A big baseball game is dues to start in a couple of hours. At least one juryman has a ticket and so there are time pressures to add to the climatic ones.
The action unfolds with the bigotry and indolence of some jurors, plus a fair amount of apathy, slowly but surely losing out to the voice of reason expressed by others “led” by the Shaw/Fonda character. But it is a close struggle. The message is not exactly hidden, or perhaps even subtle, but it is a peaon of praise for democratic values, whilst at the same time sharply observing how dependent they are upon the importance of “taking part”, of standing up for individual rights and for defending individual liberties. It should be compulsory viewing for anyone intending to take part in political or civil processes – my fellow councillors (not to mention MPs), please take note and go.
Rose is rightly dismissive of one juror, who wants a quick decision so that he can get to the game, and of another, who gets bored with the argument and will go whichever way brings a quick result regardless of whether an innocent man gets sent to the electric chair or a murderer goes free. Rose is not, however, without compassion for the troubled juror 3, who has covered up his own inadequate parenting, by holding out to the last for a guilty verdict. And, for my money, Lee J Cobb in the film and Jeff Fahey at the Garrick take the acting prize. In towering performances they display arrogant prejudice, gradually collapsing and leading to personal, political and moral disintegration.
Finally, it was interesting to note that this classic film, known and seen by millions, had by West End standards a relatively young audience, who gave it a storming curtain call. Rose clearly has a message which many of today’s audience believe still to be highly relevant. And they are right.
30/12/13
Tony Belton
Tony Belton 