Middlesex News, Friday, March 20, 1996

'12 Angry Men’ rises to the occasion

Stanley B production does justice to this courtroom drama

By Michael Rausch

The judicial process dominates our lives. Think about it. From the 0.J. Simpson add Louise Woodward murder trials, to the bombing trials of Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols and Theodore Kaczynski, to Kenneth Starr's Whitewater grand jury investigating fraudulent land deals and allegations of presidential sexual impropriety, life seems to be one, seemingly endless lesson in jurisprudence. But the closest we ever get to the proceedings is the grandstanding of Johnny Cochran, Barry Scheck and that unconscionable media-flirt, Allan Dershowitz.

However, stepping inside the very chamber in which life and death decisions regarding real people are made is verboten. In the debate, which fills Reginald Rose's "12 Angry Men," the clash that erupts from such decisions makes for a compelling and provocative theatrical work.

"12 Angry' Men" is one of the most dynamic plays m theatrical history. With its exploration and examination of numerous social issues ranging from capital punishment to racism to the American judicial system, the play brims with the issue-oriented, confrontational style that informed so much of the Group Theatre of the 1930s and 1940s. Rose, in a brilliant twist on the traditional courtroom drama, took the question of the death penalty out of the hands of high-priced mouthpieces and into hands of the average guy on the street - the everyday Joe who is more concerned with the Yankees latest acquisition than he is the most recent Supreme Court ruling. After all, "Joe" is the one who is really making law, with his determination on the relative guilt or innocence of the person on trial. By giving us a mirror reflection of Juries as a microcosm of society, Rose sets the stage for a riveting human drama that explores who we are as a nation, a people and a race.

The current production of "12 Angry Men" at the Stanley B Theatre in Dedham, while moderately flawed, lives up to the play's venerable history and influences. A lack of tension and pacing in Act One is overcome by a powerful Act Two, and several stellar performances salvage what was in danger of being a dull two hours at the theater.

The setting is a jury room, a long table, around which 12 men sit and debate the outcome of a murder trial A teen-ager has been charged with murdering his father, and all the circumstantial evidence points to an easy guilty verdict. When they first arrive, the men take a vote and appear headed to a quick and certain judgment of sending the boy to the electric chair. One lone stand-out, however, blocks the necessary unanimous vote. He declares that he doesn't necessarily believe the boy is innocent. He just, has questions he wants answered before his conscience will allow him to put the boy to death.

The other members of the jury are at first outraged by his holding out. certain in their own minds by the evidence presented that the boy is guilty. Yet, as the lone juror systematically presents his case for "reasonable doubt," the other jurors slowly come to realize that not all may be what it seems, leaving not only the jurors, but the audience as well, to question their own beliefs and humanity.

Dennis Sean Strahan brings a nobility to the role of the lone stand- out, Juror No. 8. Outfitted in the same trademark white suit that Henry Fonda wore in the film of the same name, he projects a Christ-like dignity and clarity that evades the other men collected around the table. Indeed, like Christ, Juror No. 8 faces the daunting task of convincing others to re-examine what they perceive to be the truth. Strahan is the voice of reason .within the proceedings, and he does so with conviction and compassion.

Bruce-Robert Serafin gives an explosive performance as Juror No. 3, refusing at every turn to consider the questions and doubts raised by Strahan. Serafin barks and bellows his allegiance to the plight of the slain father all the while masking an inner hatred of his own dad. It is a portrayal that is earmarked by equal parts unsympathetic executioner and tormented son.

Other fine performances are turned in by Jerome Sims as the jury foreman, George MacDonald as the guy who just wants to get to an evening ball game, Andrew James Cooney as an investment broker whose coolheaded adherence to the facts plays perfect counterpoint to Strahan’s re-examination, and Franklin Worthington Taylor, as the first to break ranks and recognize the credibility of Strahan’s doubts.

Less effective is Ed Sorrell as Juror No. 10. Sorrell’s work is too mannered often drawing attention away from and upstaging his fellow actors. His portrayal, while admittedly scripted as such, strikes one note - belligerence overdrive. His work is so one-noted for so much of the performance that when he attempts to take things to another level, it comes across as being over-theatrical and way over the top.

Jonathan English's direction is commendable, starting things out at a relatively even-keel pace, then swirling them into a frenzied exposition and resolution. English, rightly so, allows the brilliance and simplicity of Rose's script to speak for itself and gives his actors free rein within the confines of the jury room to explore their characters' individual sensibilities.

A modified arena theater setting adds to the spectacle nature that seems such a part of the judicial process today. Bleachers where the audience sits are on all four sides of the jury table, and the effect is like being a spectator at a sporting match, a fitting analogy given the celebrity status attained of late - not just by those high-priced mouthpieces, but also several of the people deciding the fates of their fellow human beings.

"12 Angry Men" is a haunting, forceful and intense exploration of our collective social conscience, and the Stanley B’s production lives up to every bit of the play’s laudable reputation.