‘12 Angry Jurors’ explores democracy in action

The 1957 film “Twelve Angry Men” ranks as the sixthgreatest film of all time on the Internet Movie Database. That’s pretty impressive. The 1997 remake also ranks high, although not high enough to make the top 250.

The play has been popular, as well; even the Nobel laureate Harold Pinter directed a version for the stage in 1996.

There is a new rendition, retitled “12 Angry Jurors,” adapted by Sherman L. Sergel and currently being performed at Aux Dog Theatre of Nob Hill. The chief difference between the two scripts is that “12 Angry Jurors” employs a mix of men and women among the jurors.

What makes this play so compelling is the chance to get inside that most private of rooms, the jury room, and eavesdrop as the 12 jurors deliberate the case; we see how the defendant’s life is in the hands of these men and women.

It’s a chance to see democracy in action, both its flaws and its virtues.

The virtues are demonstrated in the seriousness and conscience that Juror No. 8 brings to the process; he realizes how serious his responsibility is: an innocent man could go to the electric chair if he votes the wrong way. Likewise, a murderer might be freed to walk the streets if he fails in his responsibility.

In this play, the flaws in democracy are much more apparent than the virtues. One juror wants to get the vote over with so she can make a Broadway show; another is a sadist and derives pleasure from the thought of the man frying; and many of them are just too lazy or too stupid to give the matter any serious thought — that is, until Juror No. 8 awakens them to the complexity of the crime scenario and the gravity of their responsibility.

One of the strengths of the play is the variation in character of the 12 jurors; these people have greatly different backgrounds and temperaments, and so the play is rich in characterization.

Unfortunately, this is the great weakness of Joann Danella’s production. Most of the actors on the stage have not invested enough in their characters; I did not believe them.

For instance, one of the jurors speaks poor English, saying things like, “He’s gotta be guilty; he’s a common, ignorant slob. He don’t even speak good English.”

Yet these words were not believable coming out of this particular actor’s mouth. Likewise, I did not believe Juror No. 3 was a sadist or that Juror No. 5 grew up in a slum. I did believe Jaime Pardo’s Juror No. 11, an immigrant who truly appreciates how lucky we are to live in a democratic country.

Another exception was Angela Littleton as Juror No. 7. She was wonderful, completely invested in her carefully crafted character.

She seethed with anger not because a guilty man might walk free, but because she might miss that evening’s performance of “The Book of Mormon,” although she would never admit to that. (In “12 Angry Men,” it was a ballgame that the juror feared he might miss.)

It’s unfortunate that Danella could not coax performances as rich and compelling as Littleton’s from the other actors. “12 Angry Jurors” is playing through June 26. Go to auxdog.com or call 254-7716 for reservations.