Great cast brings story to life
Tension built from the mix of characters
Cue Theatre’s production of 12 Angry Jurors Written by Reginald Rose Directed by Warren Bates. Reviewed by Ilona Hanne ..
CThe tension doesn’t come from action as such, but rather the dialogue, and the moments of silence, the body language and the overall physicality of the actors on stage.
.. .. .. .. harged with the murder of his father, a teenager’s fate lies in the hands of 12 men and women, the jurors who must decide if he is guilty or not. The evidence against him seems strong, right down to the flick-knife found in the body - an identical knife to one the child had bought just hours before the murder.
An open and shut case? Eleven jurors think so, but one doesn’t. And so it begins. Twelve people, from a mix of backgrounds and ages, each putting their own personal angle on the case in front of them, and as the discussion becomes more heated, so the audience becomes more and more immersed in the drama unfolding.
Reginald Rose’s script is not new. First written in 1954 as a teleplay, it has undergone some tweaks over the years representing the changes in society. Originally it featured an all-white, all-male jury, which may have been realistic then, but would have jarred a New Zealand audience today.
While those changes reflect how far society has come, the sterotypical characters and scenarios the play captures remind us how far we yet have to go. From the overlooked, ignored older woman, to the immigrant constantly being “othered”, the bigot and the sexist, each juror serves to remind us of the flaws in our world.
The actors charged with bringing these flaws to life do an incredible job in keeping their characters real, relatable and authentic, even as they spew hatred or emphasise their differences. Under Warren Bates’ nuanced and thoughtful direction, they manage to avoid becoming caricatures despite some leaning within the script towards that potential.
As juror number 11, an immigrant watchmaker from Europe, Josh McKee is a standout performer in this space. A clear, defined accent sets his character’s background clearly, while his precise movements and expression clearly show the audience his character’s feelings and stance. This juror respects his new country’s laws and democratic values and Josh shows, not just tells, his audience this throughout, whether he is speaking or not.
Harsh Negi, as juror number 5, brings a beautiful emotion to his role. Again not just when he speaks but in every movement and facial expression when he is on stage. His character arc is convincing thanks to Harsh’s ability to bring out the layers of the role throughout.
As juror number 9, an older woman struggling with the limitations of ageing, Jamie Fenton faced a clear challenge - her stage age is not at pensioner level! That said, Jamie took up the challenge well, with some great physicality (and makeup and wardrobe) helping her build her character nicely, convincing the audience of her supposed age and disability just as softly yet strongly as she convinces some of her fellow jurors of flaws in the prosecution’s case.
Those prosecutorial flaws are first raised by the calmly spoken, thoughtful and holdout juror number 8, Martin Quicke, who votes not guilty when 11 others vote guilty. Martin is absolutely perfectly cast in this role. Despite effectively playing the conscience of the group, Martin doesn’t lean into a holier than thou type of persona however which a lesser actor, especially if teamed with a less experienced director, could easily fall into the trap of.
Some of the best moments in the play come when Martin’s character clashes with some of the angrier members of the jury, especially Kent Robinson’s juror number 3 and Keegan Pulman’s juror number 10. The talented cast use everything they have, space, physicality and sound - or silence - to draw out the tension of these clashes to a beautiful level of high drama, that really does put you on the edge of your seat at times.
Juror number 3 is well played by Kent. The most passionate advocate of a guilty verdict, juror number 3 is hot tempered, angry and has some personal demons to deal with regarding his relationship with own son. The role demands plenty of shouting, but Kent ensures his words are still heard clearly, not lost in the volume. His character arc is perhaps the most dramatic of the play, and Kent keeps this convincing, largely thanks to some of his non speaking moments when he is not the centre of attention.
As the bigoted and sexist juror number 10, Keegan does a fantastic job in creating a character who is as convincing as they are unlikable. As he talks about “these people” he draws out winces, not just from his fellow jurors, but audience members as well, as he reminds us of how easily people buy into stereotypes.
A cleverness of the script is that “these people” are never really identified - they could be immigrants, they could be of a particular race or religion, depending where in the world you view this play you will create your own idea of who “these people” are, and as such be able to fully recognise the hatred Keegan’s character spews about them. It makes the audience uncomfortable, and that’s a good thing.
Donna Yeats is another strong actor who knows exactly how to tell a story without words, and as juror number 4 her steely glare, her stern tone and her entire demeanour bring a wonderfully sharp edge to the role. Her conviction and love of logic is the perfect foil to Monique Matthews’ hesitant, meek and nervy juror number 2.
Monique is wonderful to watch in this role, and she brings a lovely bit of snarkiness to some of her later interactions, with facial expressions and body language telling as much of the story as her words. Equally well cast is Sam Mitchell as juror number 12. His character works in advertising - did he mention that - and Sam draws out some great moments throughout the play in his role.
As the jury foreman, juror number 1, Corey Prewett is another actor who understands that stories don’t just get told by words. He shuffles paper, seeks approval from others and is perhaps the most authentic character on stage in a way, the “normal man” so to speak. He doesn’t have a clear backstory that is told in any way, and as such, represents any one of us who could find themselves suddenly called up to determine another person’s fate.
The guard, played by Regan Tate, is on stage less than the others, but that doesn’t stop him making his time on stage count. His muttered “doesn’t stand a chance” at the start sets the scene well, as does the stage itself - wonderfully simple yet effective.
Matthew Ridgewell-Lang is juror number 6, the house painter who seems mild mannered until others become verbally abusive to each other. He is another actor who is clearly aware there is no hiding in this play, and whether the spotlight is on him or not, he shines in the role, staying authentic throughout.
As juror number 7, who would rather be at the game than in the jury room, Jesse Pearson is great fun to watch. Throughout the play, as he moves and positions himself around the room, sitting anywhere but a chair, he brings a clear energy and focus to his role that makes his character’s voting decisions as convincing as they are annoying to his fellow jurors.
This is very much an ensemble piece - the drama works because of the mix of actors around that table. The tension doesn’t come from action as such, but rather the dialogue, and the moments of silence, the body language and the overall physicality of the actors on stage. Under Warren’s direction, this becomes an excellent piece of theatre, despite some limitations from the script itself.
On opening night, there were some teething problems - a missed lighting cue and some sound issues, but that didn’t get in the way of what is, ultimately, ensemble acting at its finest.