This blog's been dormant too. Third year's keeping me busy, but I'm not feeling very motivated right now. At the time of writing, I haven't had any work back, so I don't know whether or not I've made the jump from second to third year.
Anyway, while procrastinating, I found on YouTube a stage production of one of my favourite films: 12 Angry Men. Initially a teleplay written in 1954 by Reginald Rose, this story about a jury deliberating over a murder trial was adapted into film in 1957 by Sidney Lumet. The production I saw was from 2012.
The story is largely untouched. The defendant is a teenage boy from a New York City slum who is on trial for allegedly stabbing his father to death and facing the electric chair for first degree murder. Most of the jurors are eager to bring back a guilty verdict then and there, except for Juror #8, who votes 'Not Guilty' because he believes there needs to be a discussion to rule out reasonable doubt.
Of course, because this an adaptation to another medium (stage to screen), some changes have to be made to accommodate this. Some changes pay off. Others...not so much.
One notable example of this occurs near the end of the story: When all of the evidence has been called into question, all the jurors are now in favour of acquittal except for Juror #3, who has been the most passionate advocate for a guilty verdict. He rants about "twisted facts" as it becomes increasingly clear that he's mainly motivated by bitterness over the strained relationship with his own son (building on an earlier scene where he discussed it). In the film, he tears up a photo of him and his son before breaking into tears and changing his vote. Of course, that requires some cinematography you wouldn't have on stage. Instead, he has his rant, and then cries by the window. Juror #8 simply says "He's not your boy. He's someone else." Juror #4 - who had been one of the more rational advocates for a guilty verdict - adds "Let him live." It's still powerful, and it still works.
One change I didn't agree with occurred just before that: Juror #4 explains that he's still voting 'Guilty' because an eyewitness stands as solid evidence, until they bring her eyesight into question. In the film, Juror #9 - the first juror to support Juror #8 - notices Juror #4 rubbing his nose and points out that the witness had the same impressions on her nose as Juror #4, from his glasses. This indicates that the witness also wore glasses, but didn't wear them to court out of vanity. Fair enough, that would require close-ups. In the play, #4 puts on his glasses as he struggles to view the clock, which Juror #8 points out. It's then stated that the witness was wearing glasses in court. I just can't help but feel that would have been called into question during the trial, and feels lazy. I was also disappointed that it's Juror #8 rather than Juror #9 who points this out, which was one of his best moments in the film. It all felt a little rushed.
One thing I did like was that they tried to expand on some elements not covered in the film. For example, they discuss why the defendant had bought the knife which was seen as the murder weapon. They also discuss other people who may have had a motive for murdering the victim.
I also like some the humour they injected into it. In what leads what leads up to a pivotal moment, Juror #2 brings up why the defendant would stab downwards into somebody taller than him. Juror #3 offers a demonstration and asks for a volunteer, which prompts Juror #2 to immediately sit down.
As for the characterisation, I felt like Juror #8 felt a little whiny in this version. Henry Fonda was always calm and collected in the film. The stage version sounded a little timid. I mean, fair enough, it does convey the daunting side of standing alone against the opinion of others. But if they were going for that, they could have made him sound more confident as the story went on. He sounds too much like Juror #2, who is characterised as being timid and easily dominated.
Before I go, there is one last thing I'm ambivalent about, and that's the decision to keep the story in the 1950s rather than updating the setting, which also means all the characters are played by white men. Although I haven't seen it yet, I'd compare this with 1997 remake of the film, which has some of the jurors being played by black actors (albeit still all male). Even Juror #5 - who was raised in a slum similar to the defendant's - is played by a white actor. I suppose they wanted to focus on the class differences rather than race. But I do realise that modernising the story also reduces the stakes unless they change the setting; the defendant is facing a death sentence, but the state of New York formally abolished the death sentence in 2007. There's also an Iron Curtain element with Juror #11, an immigrant from an unspecified European country (In the film, he's played by the Czechoslovakian Georges Voskovec, while in the play he has a German accent). The character exhibits pride in the American legal system and takes his duty very seriously, suggesting he was originally from a Soviet nation in Eastern Europe. That said, I do quite like how the stage version calls people out a lot more.
All-in-all, it was a mixed bag. But it was still nice to see an alternative version of one of my favourite stories.
