12 Angry Men Review

"I want to kill you!" These five words are often said but, in reality, are seldom acted upon but when you're faced with the death penalty and your fate is in the hands of 12 angry women, these five words could take on real significance!

From the moment the jury is asked to retire and consider their verdict on the actions of a young Spanish-American accused of murdering his father, to the closing lines of 12 Angry Men, the first-night audience at Swindon's Arts Centre climbed aboard a real rollercoaster ride of human beliefs and prejudices.

Ifs, buts and maybes are mingled with truth, fact and fiction and reveal sharply the dilemma we all would face when deliberating a murder case.

And while we think we would make a better job than those sweltering in the American jury room, OTTC's production makes you realise how hopeless we would all feel faced with such a similar task.

Prejudiced arguments

As Juror Number Eight (played nobly by Nancy Heath) attempts to convince her fellow jurors that their 'guilty' charge is flawed, those opposing her arguments reveal how prejudice and assumption have no place in such life-death deliberations.

However, when Juror Number Three stands up to argue how the boy is guilty, you can't help but feel some sympathy with her views - prejudiced as they might be.

Mary Farragher produced a determined and believable Juror Number Three and, since none of us is immune from prejudicial thought, her convincing performance would have left the audience identifying with her arguments, demonstrating that we are only human, after all.

Art of persuasion

This is a play about persuasion and the language we use to persuade others.

With this in mind, Juror Number Eight's tone is considered and thoughtful, while those who oppose her 'not guilty' view are shown as loud mouthed, irrational and sometimes hysterical.

It's tempting at this point to suggest that the performances could have been even more loudmouthed than they were, but that would be missing the point.

Listen to any discussion and there is a natural rise and fall in the way people argue - from quiet, gentle persuasion to strong, forceful debate - and all those on stage managed to keep that rollercoaster on its tracks.

Plausible performances

Other notable performances included Loredana Bianco, who, as Juror Number Five persuasively argues how this boy is being convicted on account of his poor upbringing - something the juror argues she has plenty knowledge of.

Carrie Goddard, as the loud, brash and bitchy Juror Number Ten, introduced some wonderful moments of humour, while at the same time leaving the audience in no doubt just what kind of person the character really is.

Alexandra Praska, who seemed to thoroughly enjoy her role as the been-there-done-that advertising executive (Juror Number Twelve), was also convincing in her portrayal of the twelfth angry woman.

An act of collaboration

It must be said, however, that with this production its success is not dependent on any one single actor.

It is the interplay between all the performers that makes it live or die, and, to be fair, everyone on stage was working hard to make this all-female production plausible.

There were a few first-night nerves and things did take a little time to get into their stride, but once everyone was warmed up there was no stopping them.

Special congratulations to Julian Smith, the play's director, who took Reginald Rose's play and had the inspiration to get twelve talented female actors and make the whole thing work from start to finish.

Our verdict: Guilty of a great production!

©BBC 2003 and used with their kind permission.

Girl power rules in tense drama

Reginald Rose's play is a tense study of the doubts and prejudices of twelve New York city jurors as they deliberate their verdict in the capital murder trial of a young man accused of stabbing his father.

Old Town Theatre Company decided to take the play to a different dimension by using 12 angry woman players, instead of the 12 angry men.

The ladies portrayed their very individual characters with a great deal of thought and understanding of the different backgrounds they came from.

This play is well written, holding the listener with its intricate weaving and changes of mood, which the women carried off, with the help of good direction by Julian Smith.

Nancy Heath, as Juror No.8, the only 'not guilty' verdict at the start, weaved her web of intrigue with a calm, quiet determination as befitted the role she played. Fenella Harrop was just perfect as Juror No.4 and Sue Mowat, Juror No.7, used her comedy lines with style and good timing. Carrie Goddard played a superb bigot.

Mary Farragher had the unenviable task of taking on the most difficult role in this play. She did it admirably; although I felt perhaps this was the only role that didn't transfer to a female player quite as well as all the others.

Women seldom use the kind of anger portrayed by this character. However Mary and the director made it believable.

Not much action or movement meant this play relies on the intriguing script. I was not disappointed. Every woman produced a good performance, and once again the set and attention to detail in costume was well thought out and implemented.

Ros Hollands

©Evening Advertiser 2003 and used with their kind permission.