Twelve Angry Jurors preparation, fall 2013

    For my 7th and final production at Sheridan High School (for the time being), I will be directing “Twelve Angry Jurors,” an adaptation of the classic TV Movie “Twelve Angry Men.”  We’re presenting this play as “Jurors,” mainly since it’s fairly inconceivable to have a jury made up strictly of men in this time, as opposed to 1954 when it was originally written.

    But, that’s not the only production choice that is non-traditional.  As you may have seen from previous entries I’ve written, we will not be using the auditorium in its traditional format, having the audience sit in the orchestra and watching all the events unfold onstage.  The play will be presented “in the round,” rather the audience will be on the stage with the performers, often so close they can reach out and touch the performers.

    It gets better.  After the audience buys their tickets, they will not be entering the auditorium through the main doors.  Instead, they will be ushered through the door of a jury deliberation room and seated inside, with nothing but a blank table and twelve chairs as a setting.  Overall, the intent is to make the audience experience the events of the play more thoroughly, giving them the “fly on the wall” feeling.

    So, why am I doing all this?

    In a recently published foreword to the original play, playwright David Mamet praises trial law as being the pinnacle of democracy; twelve Americans of potentially vastly different backgrounds and biases are brought into a room to determine truth.  These people go into deliberation allowing their particular biases guide their judgment, and ideally, through the application of reason, are able to overcome these biases.  Overall, Mamet states that juries in trial law perfectly exemplify American Democracy.

    Beyond that, Mamet claims that when extreme political and/or religious beliefs are stripped away, the average American’s default social outlook is one of unity.  The trial law jury exemplifies this as well:  a group of people can hear the same information delivered in the same way, and despite having swayed opinions on the matter this way or that, these twelve vastly different people can reach the same conclusion.

    I have to admit that trying to come up with a directorial core concept for a courtroom drama is particularly difficult.  It’s almost impossible to avoid admitting an opinion on American Justice or suggesting a reformation of the legal system.  I want to assure you, my potential audience, that I’ll do my best to avoid such soapboxing.

    What I will do is present to you a great story.  It’s the least I can do.  You’ve been a pretty great audience so far.  And, I’d like to do it in such a way that makes you, the audience connect with the material much deeper than anticipated.

    I hope to see you onstage with us as we present “Twelve Angry Jurors” November 14, 15, 16, and 17 at Sheridan High School.

    I’ll see you at intermission.