Twelve angry men have revisited Delhi after an interval of two-and-a-half decades. They appeared at Bahumukh auditorium of National School of Drama this past week. But this time their number is ten including three young angry women. However, one woman is not as angry as others; she is persuasive, logical and is able to convince other jurors to agree with her point of view about a sensational murder of an aged man in a slum area.
Adapted by Ranjeet Kapoor from Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men as “Ek Ruka Hua Faisla”, the latest version was presented by second year students of NSD under the direction of Kirti Jain. Her previous plays severely indicted communal elements which unleash communal violence, American aggression of Iraq and the dispossession of farmers of their land as a result of neo liberal economic policy of the government. Not a carbon copy of earlier production by Ranjeet Kapoor, Kirti's production is innovative and provides insight into conflicting outlook of different men shaped by the class they belong. At another level it dissects the functioning of judiciary in deciding the fate of an alleged murderer on the basis of surface evidence.
Clash of views
As we enter the auditorium we are shown a video film, projecting a slum area which has become a breeding ground for crime. This sets the tone for the production presented in the Bahumukh. Though we do not have jury system any more, what comes to the fore is not the system of jury but the necessity of the objectivity to pass judgment on crime and punishment. At the outset, the boy, who is alleged to have killed his father, appears guilty beyond doubt, and deserves capital punishment.
The action takes place in a room where ten jurors are asked to arrive at a unanimous decision about the fate of boy. The room is locked from outside. Nine declare the boy guilty and one voice says not guilty. This leads to the clash of conflicting views on punishment. Expressing her doubt the lone and courageous voice questions the genuineness of witnesses and the casual manner in which the defence lawyer cross examined them. It is possible that some important questions remain unanswered in the course of trial.
The clash of jurors having contrasting views creates tense moments. What is most gripping is the clash between two hot-headed jurors (one despises slums, branding its inhabitants criminals) and another, who is born and brought up in the slums, condemns her biased opinion about slum and its inhabitants. The sequence in which two jurors display the way a murderer uses his knife to attack his victim evokes a sense of terror.
The sets are designed in a way that has its own novelty. On a rectangular platform a special table designed in a cross form is placed on the platform and at the corners are placed chairs. This kind of placement of chairs projects all the vital scenes to the audience affectively. Huge mirrors are hanged on each wall of the rectangular hall. This device served two purposes – sharp focus on all angles of action and allegorical manifestation that what an eye perceives is not the totality of a given situation, some vital elements remain hidden. The director displays remarkable finesse in dealing with the denouement after hot debate. Silence descends on the stage, deep and disturbing. The complex rhythm of the production sustained throughout with amusing moments at places.
The entire cast of Kirti's production deserves praise for imparting their portrayals subtle and intricate touches and their skill to act admiringly in the realistic style to which the play lends itself.
