The Verdict is in on LMP's "12 Angry Jurors"

SHOW INFORMATION: 12 Angry Jurors runs through 2/3/2008 at Laurel Mill Playhouse.  Performances are Fridays and Saturdays at 8PM, with performances on Thursday 1/24 at 8PM, and Sunday 1/27 and 2/3 at 2PM.  Tickets are $13 general/$10 students and seniors.  Call 301-617-9906 or www.laurelmillplayhouse.org for more information. 

1 hours, 20 minutes, no intermission.  Adult language and themes.

◊◊ out of five.

I have to admit that when I first found out about Laurel Mill Playhouse's production of Twelve Angry Jurors, which opened last night that my first thought was they couldn't get enough men to do the original version, Twelve Angry Men.  And when I read the program notes, and found that this was a contemporary version, meant to show the timelessness of the story through a multi-ethnic, mixed-gender filter, I thought, " Interesting."  And it's been re-worked by that master word-smith David Mamet and the original author, Reginald Rose.  OK.  This should be good.

On paper, it is good; in practice, yes and no, though most of the "no" has to do with this particular production.  First of all, the inclusion of women updates the original by about 15 years.  But not much has been done to give these women a particularly female point of view, but rather just assigned them the same lines some guy had in the original.  Perhaps which roles are given to the women is up to the casting people of any given production.  If that's the case, while it proves women can play like men, it also destroys any chance to give the play a distinct point of view separate from the original. If not, then the four roles here assigned to women have been de-gendered.  Still, as far as this production goes, the four females are the best of the cast by far and good for them.

As far as the multi-ethnic aspect of this production, there is only one obviously non-white actor on the stage, the Foreperson, played by an African-American actress, Natalie Tucker – a two-for-one deal: a female head of the jury and an ethnic twist.  But, again, Ms. Tucker's role offers nothing for her femininity to contribute, and aside from getting really pissed off (and rightly so) when another character goes off on a tangent about that most heinous of groups – the poor, slum-living criminals known in the play only as "them" – little of her role has to do with her being African-American.  Actually, it ruins one of the great conceits/plot twists of this courtroom drama.  In the original, the race of the defendant is never revealed, and shame on the audience for assuming he is of a non-white ethnicity.  By casting an African-American in a role where the jurors come to physical violence over it, we are basically told that the defendant is black.  That puts us back a few years.

Of course, little is done to make this contemporary version contemporary.  Aside from a picture of President Bush and (I think) Vice President Cheney and the use of a cell phone (verboten in criminal trial jury rooms, by the way), literally nothing else tells us it is 2008.  The costumes range from 60's thrift shop finds to late 90's office attire.  There is no indication of modern conveniences on director/set designer Donald Neal's set, either – no ceiling fan, no vents to indicate air conditioning or heat – just a window and a dozen people complaining about the heat, yet inexplicably only one actor has visible sweat, and more than half the cast leaves on suit jackets.  (No costume designer is listed, so there is no one to point the finger at.  But a note: gentlemen, PLEASE wear undershirts.) Perhaps the most telling thing about the lack of "contemporary" is that in this day and age of CSI, Law and Order, and any number of procedural dramas,  jurors are way more focused on evidence and the minute details which become a gigantic factor in this play.  Whole books have been written about juries being influenced by TV and movies which glamorize forensics and how savvy they've become with criminology terms (even though TV is giving modern juries unrealistic ideas) and analyzing timelines.  Here, the characters act like they've never heard of recreating the scene of the crime.

But the most disheartening thing about this production is that they have committed the one unforgivable crime in theatre: they do not know their lines.  A slip up here or there on opening night is to be forgiven, surely, but in a play where every line is a clue and revelation, messing up this much is deadly.  As might be expected, the first 15 minutes or so flew by with precision and some mostly decent acting.  Then, Juror #8 (Craig Miller), the pivotal role of the guy who has the courage to stand up and say, "I have reasonable doubt," flubbed a line or two, and the look of panic in his eyes could be seen from miles away.  But, they recovered, and things went on for another few minutes as planned.  Then it happened again, and this time the sense of panic was palpable from the entire cast.  Some kept their mouths shut, others tried to ad-lib and give the struggling cast hints to the next lines, still others tried to stay in character by doing a caricature of their own character, mugging and "humph"ing, etc.  Lines were repeated, others were so mangled they made no sense, particularly in the uncomfortable minutes during which Juror # 8, explains why the defendant and a witness are both "smart and dumb."  I felt bad for them, I really did.  But there is no excuse for not knowing your lines or not knowing the play well enough to cover mistakes – not at $13 a person admission.

Even through all of that misery – and the audience, myself included, was pulling for them the whole time – there are some bright spots.  First of all, at least in the beginning, Donald Neal's direction is smooth and very realistic.  Characters moved about the cramped room with good reason, and none of the blocking seemed forced.  Those actors who sat with their backs to us cheated out like pros, and many times their side comments were dead on and all of their accents (the whole range of New Yorkers) are impeccable.  They also maintained character-driven stage business, a detail often over looked in local productions.  The two "fight scenes" are also very well staged.

On the down side, a few of the actors registered so little that I'm not entirely sure which actor played which juror in some cases.  Ms. Tucker, as the foreperson, remained cool-headed throughout, and her low key approach makes her a good choice for the part.  Frank O'Donnell as Juror #2, plays skittish like a cartoon character, often getting laughs when he shouldn't be.  Juror # 3 ultimately has the most interesting material to work with, and Stuart Rick plays every angle quite well, with great moderation and levels of bluster.  Jeff Murray's take on Juror #4 is that he takes charge, overlooking the foreperson as a leader.  It mostly works because he has a firm command of his lines, and even managed to complete the play with a cut finger that probably needed stitches.  Of course, it begs the question of how many times did they actually rehearse with the switchblade props?

Tracy Dye, as Juror # 5, does an excellent job developing a character with not a ton of lines, but making the most of those she has.  Her accent is the best in the cast, and she realizes that even when she is not the focus of the scene that she must react and stay in character the whole time, which she did, even when things around her were falling apart.  Juror #7, Gregory Mangiapane, starts out great – he's the impatient one who wants out fast to get to his first Yankees-Red Sox game (I know that kind of passion personally).  But later, he is subjugated to the back burner, and I wonder if some of his part was swallowed up in the panic.

Mr. Miller, as Juror #8, has the most to live up to, I guess, what with his role given iconic status by Henry Fonda.  But every line reading, and I am including the lines he knows, is given a "I've read the script once" kind of take, and his insecurity pervades any sense of character he does show.  Any man willing to stand alone in disagreement with an "open and shut" case would surely have more confidence.

Jurors 10, 11 and 12 played by Ann Marie Feild, Doug Silverman and Hillary Stishan respectively make the greatest impression.  Ms. Feild is particularly in charge of her character, with such stage business as knitting and eating, and wrestling with a very convincing cold, and then to top it off with the most explosive speech of the evening.  She is a woman Archie Bunker, full of opinions and sass, and she plays the role superbly.  Mr. Silverman plays an immigrant, proud of his American citizenship.  He plays the role with a low key, but powerful, sense of wisdom, a nice balance to the rest of the uptight characters.  Finally, Ms. Stishan plays the "modern working woman" very well, with the requisite woman with balls attitude that continues to make women successful in the business world.  Her role alone speaks to the contemporary woman – one where she must still act like one of the boys to play with the boys.  Kudos to her for recognizing it and playing it so well.

So, what of jurors 6 and 9, played by Philip Shamin and Greg Coale?  Assuming I have everyone above correct, I still couldn't tell you which of the two characters is played by which of the two actors.  And that includes not being able to tell which was "uncertain" and which was "experienced" (there are "helpful" adjectives next to each juror number in the program.  One of them has taken the term"quirky" and run amok with it to the point where his character is so annoying and so odd that I think the rest of the jury would eventually feed on him like piranhas.  The other character so bland, he blends in with the Government Issue gray paint on the walls of the jury room.

With a decided lack of pacing due to serious line errors, there are only brief flashes of tension, rather than a building of it.  And despite the best efforts of about half the cast, the production has fallen hard on its face.  This is particularly disappointing given the relative ease of producing this play – a crowd-pleaser, but hardly O'Neill or Williams.  And it is also kind of sad, because until now, what I've seen from Laurel Mill Playhouse has been far better than that dreaded label "community theatre."  Not this time, I'm afraid.