Twelve Angry Men: Review

Martin Shaw (Inspector George Gently) stars alongside Robert Vaughn (Hustle) in the tense court drama Twelve Angry Men. The play was written by Reginald Rose in 1954, inspired by his own jury service on a similar trial case. It considers an American jury in the 1950s, deciding the verdict for a homicidal case in which a 16 year old boy has been accused of killing his father. What appears to be a clear cut decision turns into an explosion of questions about morality, prejudice and anger.

The play opens with the overpowering sound of thunder of a passing train before the curtain is lifted to reveal the jury. A voice over from the judge is heard explaining that the jurors must only vote guilty if they are convinced ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. This warning forms the basis of the moral dilemma facing the characters. Initially, eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty but much to their annoyance, Martin Shaw’s character votes ‘not guilty’, causing an instant uproar among the jurors who are more concerned with going back to their everyday lives. Shaw’s uncertainty about the trial evidence gives rise to its oral re-examination and with each piece of the prosecution’s case to talk over, a new shadow of doubt is brought to light. Eye witness accounts gradually lead to more jury members changing their vote to not guilty. It is through this re-examination that the roaring train becomes essential ,as the elderly neighbour of the deceased claims that he heard the boy shout, ‘I’m gonna kill you!’ while the train thundered by. The dialogue is intelligent and impressive, and Shaw in his element.

The deafening roar of the train opens the second half, overlaid with the words, ‘I’m gonna kill you!’  This alleged threat of the boy now also reflects a fight between Shaw’s character and another juror, which broke out just before the interval. The tense atmosphere becomes almost tangible as more and more jurors change their votes, leaving just three obstinate men to convince. It becomes clear that personal bias and past experiences have given them a preconception of the boy’s guilt. The second half of the play is far more emotional as the play reaches its tense climax and the final vote is cast.

A striking aspect of the play is that there is only one setting and one set throughout the entire play: the juror’s room. This means that the production relies heavily on dialogue and the actors’ voices. But this static scenery does not leave the play wanting. Instead, it enhances the realist aspect of the play by creating empathy in the audience, who are also trapped in one room with the increasingly agitated and short tempered men, a sense of claustrophobia which adds to the tensions surrounding all of the characters. When certain actors disperse for moments of light relief it draws the audience’s attention to specific conversations between characters downstage, bringing particular stories and surprising developments to light.

The jurors are unnamed yet each juror’s character easily becomes clear through their actions and dialogue. It is obvious that the character Vaughn plays is a cheeky, elderly old man from his quick jokes and dawdled walk. So it’s not all serious, angry debate! Vaughn’s character provides the audience with witty jokes and cheeky winks in his charismatic fashion, which relieves the tension.

The judicial themes and personal prejudices which arise in the play feel manifestly important and are carried well by the cast. Although some may be put off by the heavy dialogue and lack of scenery, the action is thoroughly engrossing. The unravelling intrigue and scrutiny of the characters, as well as the trial itself, all make this a particularly successful intense, legal drama.

Twelve Angry Men is showing at the Garrick Theatre, London until 1 March 2014.