The “Twelve Angry Men” or “12 Jurors” by Reginald Rose is a complex piece of dramatic art which examines what lies beneath a open-and shut murder case. On another level it explores social and economic factors that form human consciousness and it is the consciousness of judges and jurors that colours their judgement in a given criminal case. Widely performed, the play’s film version was made in 1957. What makes this play so popular is the strength of its dramatic dialogue and the context in which they are delivered and the diabolically conflicting views about crime and punishment. Earlier, we have two productions of this play in Hindi translation on the Delhi stage. Mumbai-based group Rage presented the play as “12 Angry Jurors” at Kamani auditorium recently. Directed by Nadir Khan, who has introduced some innovative elements into his production thereby making it intensely engaging.
The discerning audience of Delhi continue to remember Ranjit Kapoor’s adaptation of the play in Hindi as “Ek Ruka Hua Faisla”. It was directed by Ranjit himself for Dishantar in 1981 and presented at the basement theatre of Shri Ram Centre evoking tremendous response from the audience. A momentous event in the theatre landscape of Delhi, the production is remembered for excellent direction and superb acting by the top stage and film actors like Pankaj Kapoor, M. K. Raina, K. K. Raina, Annu Kapoor, Amitabh Shrivastava and S. M. Zaheer. The vibrant voice-over by veteran stage director Mohan Maharishi set the emotionally charged tone of the production punctuated with polemics. This was indeed a landmark production of theatrical art and the show was taken to Kolkata and Mumbai. Again, the Hindi script with screenplay by Ranjit was made into a film which was directed by Basu Chatterjee with the entire cast of the stage production featuring in the film. A few years ago, Kirti Jain directed it for the students of National School of Drama at Bahumukh theatre introducing female performers. In fact, in the original play as well as in the Ranjit’s production all the dramatis personae are male.
The production under review is set in a room in which 12 jurors have assembled. There are five women and seven men. They are stranger to one another. The room is locked from outside. The atmosphere of the room is tense. The jurors are asked to decide about the fate of young man who is alleged to have killed his own father. The jury should deliver its verdict in a brief and terse sentence – guilty or not guilty. It should be unanimous. In case of dissenting opinion the verdict will be treated as null and void.
As the jurors start arguing the homicide case, they feel that there is nothing to discuss, from the facts of the case and the statements of eye witnesses and the background of the young man, a product of broken home; it is obvious that he is the killer and hence guilty. In the opening of the debate itself, voting takes place. Only one member says not guilty. Now a fierce debate ensues. In combative postures they try to prove that the young man is a killer. Throughout their night-long debate the jurors do not try to get acquainted with one another and remain nameless. The issue is put to vote several times, with each voting the number of not guilty increases. Towards the climax only one juror vehemently defends his stand that the boy is guilty. He is juror number 3 who is fully convinced that the boy has killed his own father.
The core issue is an old man found murdered in his apartment. He has a criminal background. He treats his son cruelly and abuses him. Living in an environment which breeds anti-social elements, the son joins the ranks of criminals. The young man’s father is killed with a stab wound on his chest. There are witnesses to the act of killing by the son.
In the course of combative interactions between jurors, class bias is reflected. One juror says the population of slum-dwellers is multiplying, posing danger to the ruling elite. To stop this menace, the boy should be declared guilty. Another Juror violently protests against this remark who claims to have come from the slums.
Using box set, a screen is projected upstage centre which is visible only when special lighting effects are used. Through this screen we watch some of the jurors exchanging their views when they go to washroom. In the previous two productions of the play a long table was placed on the centre stage. In the production under review only a small table is placed centre stage for a lady who conducts the proceedings.
Members are sitting on chairs scattered in different spaces, including some upstage on the raised platform.
This device makes viewing effective for the audience in the proscenium theatre. (The two previous productions in Hindi staged in an intimate theatre.) However, a water dispenser is placed downstage right where members are frequently going to drink water. This tends to be a distraction, interrupting the tense rhythm of the production.
Two performers stand out for special mention. Rajit Kapur as Juror Number 8 who dissects the prosecutor’s case, exposing loopholes and finally convincing his fellow jurors that the young man is not guilty. Deven Khote as Juror Number 3 leaves the audience stunned in the climactic scene.
His Juror breaks down, revealing his bitter relationship with his own son, rouge, empathising with the old man alleged to have killed by his son. He really lives his character. Such powerful performance is rarely seen on the Delhi stage these days.
