There is no substitute for Henry Fonda, but over the course of his two hours on stage, Stephen Ermel does a commendable job in trying to convince us otherwise. This year, the Victoria College Drama Society chose Twelve Angry Men to expose to the university audience. A difficult task, no doubt, but one that the beautiful cast and the director, Patrick Kelly, take on with gusto. Set in the 50s, the play tells the story of a jury comprised of twelve individuals who have nearly unanimously voted on the death penalty for a murderer. Twelve Angry Men is a voyage through the deconstruction of evidence and logic, as Juror Eight attempts to convince the rest of his peers that the suspect is innocent.
Though a wonderful script and riveting story, VCDS’s production is not without its flaws. Ermel proves to be a convincing and highly intriguing Juror Eight, and whether it’s because he is the voice of reason in the play, or because he is a sound actor, the audience inevitably finds itself drawn to him. But the anger inherent in the show is never adequately conveyed on stage. The blame here lies with the intolerant characters of Jurors Three and Ten, played by Robert Bellissimo and Christopher Mastropietro respectively. While Bellissimo is convincing whilst seated and stupefied, his outbreaks of rage seem forced and contrived. Mastropietro, however, seems adequate by comparison. Juror Ten begins with a strong performance, effectively making the audience despise him, but toward his monologue in the second half, Mastropietro trips into the realm of self-conscious acting, portraying strong narrow mindedness with weakness. However, by the play’s climax, it is this softness that saves him; the actor is fully able to portray a man broken down. In the VCDS’s Twelve Angry Men, anger is best conveyed through intonation, and not through the bursts of shouting and the toppling-over of chairs that director Kelly tries to take on.
To a certain extent, the inclusion of women in the cast doesn’t make much of a difference in the production. One wonders whether such a decision was made on the basis of political correctness, rather than artistry; the director could just easily have had men en lieu of Juror Two, Four, Six, Seven, and none of us would have minded. However, this would have prevented the audience from being exposed to Emily Johnson, a riveting figure in black and white, who may very well be the play’s hidden jewel. Her back straight and hair tightly done, Juror Four’s character is uptight and strict, which Miss Johnson conveys with such substance that it would be hard for this reviewer to imagine her any other way, on or off the stage. Janina Kowalski, Juror Seven, however, is a bit less convincing in her portrayal of a roughed-up baseball fanatic. Such a role set in that time period is inevitably that of a man, and in this production the decision to have Miss Kowalski take on the reins of loud gum-chewing is rather forced and unnatural. A shame.
It is impossible to have a perfect view of all the jurors, from any seat in the theatre. This unique, if sometimes crippling, form of staging nonetheless acts as an invisible spotlight, cleverly focusing our eyes on the most important characters. Special mention ought to go to the play’s costume designer. All the pieces are of period and convince us we’re looking in on a jury from the 50s. This reviewer is also happy to note that, while it is not common practice in other university-level productions, the entire cast looks comfortable in their clothes, modifying them naturally as the figurative and natural heat of the room takes hold.
Running at two hours (with an intermission), Twelve Angry Men sometimes feels longer than it ought to. No matter how one looks at it, the play is a success due to its script, and regardless of some of the production’s shortcomings, the show is competent, led by key members of a relatively-talented cast.
