By SHARON EBERSON
The evidence is stacked against the accused. That much we know courtesy of 12 jurors, deliberating with the death penalty on the line. We also know that the unseen, unnamed defendant is 19, grew up in a tenement, and his troubled past includes knife fights. He is charged with stabbing to death the father who beat him throughout his life.
It is hot and claustrophobic in the room where 12 men will decide the fate of one of “those people.” The jurors all want to vote “guilty” and get on with their lives.
All except one.
Twelve Angry Men was written in 1954 by Reginald Rose as an Emmy-winning teleplay, then reimagined as an Oscar-nominated film in 1957, and adapted into a stage play by Sherman L. Sergel.
The play opened on May 2, 2025, at the New Hazlett Theater, in a Prime Stage production that sears with the tension of individuals, representing a dozen backgrounds and perspectives, having to come to a unanimous verdict or declare a hung jury.
The play turns the Constitutional right to a jury of one’s peers on its head, with each man – Juror No. 1, Juror No. 2, and so one to 12 – not so much the “angry” of the title, but a type. That said, an alternate title could be “Twelve Angry White Men,” underscore “White” and “Men,” each with his own take on guilt, innocence and reasonable doubt, circa the 1950s.
Juror No. 8 (Everett Lowe) is the initial lone holdout, standing for decency and logic, and seemingly without emotional baggage or biases. Central to the deliberations, he is a defense lawyer’s dream, refusing to vote guilty without at least a discussion.
He has his doubts, and he wants to explore if they are reasonable.
As you go deeper into his conclusions, you can’t help but wonder about the competency of the defense, which starts to gnaw at other jurors as well. Juror No. 8 becomes the de facto attorney in the jury room.
Twelve Angry Men is an idea tailor-made for a dramatic procedural, with the jury room as ripe a topic for exploration as ever it was. It’s the part of law and order you never see on Law & Order.
Lowe’s No. 8 mostly keeps his cool in the emotionally charged room. He is a towering presence physically, but we know little about his background, while others, such as Juror No. 12 (Marc Duchin), reveals himself right away as a slick “Ad Man,” who seems to be easily manipulated by others.
Closer to the age of the defendant is Juror No. 5 (Sam Lander), who admits he has grown up under similar circumstances and gains courage to stand up to his elders, egged on by his anger at the narrow-mindedness across the table from him.
The angled table on the thrust stage puts only certain jurors always facing front, among them, the most opinionated.
Johnny Patalano, so good as a soft-hearted bar owner in Andy Warhol‘s Tomato for PICT, has the juiciest role as Juror No. 3, and makes the most of it. He’s a coil of barely contained, pent up anger, and by far the most angry of the 12 jurors. He vows that nothing can change his mind.
“Everybody deserves a fair trial. That’s the system,” he says, then adds, “Listen, I’m the last one to say anything against it, but I’m telling you sometimes I think we’d be better off if we took these tough kids and slapped ’em down before they make trouble, y’know?”
Also on his side of the table are Juror No. 10 (Paul Anderson), whose overt prejudices are gasp-worthy, and Juror No. 7 (Luke Hancock), who has Yankees tickets and is eager to get to the game. They are chastised by a righteous “European immigrant,” Juror No. 11 (David Hackman).
I have an appreciation for the New York accents among this group, which ground the action in the city of my childhood.
A surprisingly staunch “guilty” proponent is Juror No. 4 (Keith Zagorski), a self-made man in an expensive tailored suit, who keeps his cool throughout. Others look to him for guidance, because he articulates the case for guilt with eloquence.
Rounding out the deliberators are Mark Spondike as the no-nonsense foreman and Juror No. 1; Matthew J. Bush as Juror No. 2, a nervous Nelly who may be destined to show some backbone; John Dolphin as Juror No. 6, who is easily swayed by the others; and Jason X. Fernandez as Juror No. 9, whose age plays into insights he is able to offer as deliberations continue.
That this group could ever agree on anything is a stretch. Yet in 90 swift minutes with no intermission, a final decision is made, tied up in a bow that is somewhat neat, yet gives each character a chance to make his case, for better and for worse, sometimes in anger and at others, in resignation.
Twelve Angry Men is led by Shane Valenzi, a litigator with the firm Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellot and a former child actor with Prime Stage, making his directorial debut and harnessing the individuality of 12 characters.
Even if you are familiar with the outcome, the tense atmosphere permeates the full 90 minutes, with the sense of anticipation heightened by the possibility of a violent outburst at any moment.
Seeing Twelve Angry Men in 2025 is a reminder that the checks and balances of the American judicial system have lately been under attack. With Juror No. 8 leading the charge to think about the possible holes in testimony that others think is solid, Twelve Angry Men is a reminder of
how our judicial system is meant to work, what it looks like when it doesn’t, and how one person standing up for what they believe in can be a matter of life and death.
TICKETS AND DETAILS
The Prime Stage production of Twelve Angry Men is at the New Hazlett Theater, 6 Allegheny Square E., North Side, through May 11, 2025. Tickets: Visit https://primestage.com/productions/twelve_angry_men/ .
Leave a Reply Cancel reply