Insights A Study Guide to the Utah Shakespeare Festival

Twelve Angry Men The articles in this study guide are not meant to mirror or interpret any productions at the Utah Shakespeare Festival. They are meant, instead, to be an educational jumping-off point to understanding and enjoying the plays (in any production at any theatre) a bit more thoroughly. Therefore the stories of the plays and the interpretative articles (and even characters, at times) may differ dramatically from what is ultimately produced on the Festival’s stages. The Study Guide is published by the Utah Shakespeare Festival, 351 West Center Street; Cedar City, UT 84720. Bruce C. Lee, communications director and editor; Phil Hermansen, art director. Copyright © 2008, Utah Shakespeare Festival. Please feel free to download and print The Study Guide, as long as you do not remove any identifying mark of the Utah Shakespeare Festival.

For more information about Festival education programs: Utah Shakespeare Festival 351 West Center Street Cedar City, Utah 84720 435-586-7880 www.bard.org.

Cover photo by Karl Hugh Contents

TwelveInformation Angry on the Playwright Men About the Playwright: Reginald Rose 4

Information on the Play Synopsis 5 Characters 6

Scholarly Articles on the Play Twelve Angry Men: Aftermath of the Storm 7

Utah Shakespeare Festival 3 351 West Center Street • Cedar City, Utah 84720 • 435-586-7880 About the Playwright: Reginald Rose By Barbara Stinson Lee Reginald Rose, playwright of Twelve Angry Men, was born in 1920 and raised in New York City, the son of William (a lawyer) and Alice (Obendorfer) Rose. He drew from New York many of the characters for his stories, screenplays, and stage plays. In fact, he was serving on a jury and sitting in the jury room when he felt the small space would make a riveting setting for a stage play or a screenplay. Rose began writing when he was a teenager, and sold his first piece, The Bus to Nowhere in 1950. He would pen Twelve Angry Men four years later. Rose attended Townsend High School in Manhattan, where his writing skills were fostered. He briefly attended City College (now part of the University of New York). Inspired by Pearl Harbor, Rose registered and served in the Armed Forces (1942–1946) earning the rank of first lieutenant. He was married twice; the first time to Barbara Langbert, with whom he had four children, and then to Ellen McLaughlin, with whom he had two children. Most widely known for work in the early years of television drama, Rose became known for his themes of controversial social and political issues. His realism helped create the slice-of-life televi- sion drama which was influential in the anthology programs of the late 1950s. In fact, Twelve Angry Men was originally written by Rose as a one-hour teleplay for Studio One. The strength of the teleplay led to Heny Fonda co-producing the screenplay with Rose in 1957. The stageplay was first produced in 1964 with revised versions in 1966 and 2004. In 1997 the play was filmed for Showtime. Rose was quoted by the Internet Movie Database about his experience in the New York City courtroom which led to his writing and producing Twelve Angry Men: “It was such an impressive, solemn setting in a great big, wood-paneled courtroom, with a silver-haired judge, it knocked me out. I was overwhelmed. I was on a jury for a manslaughter case, and we got into this terrific, furi- ous, eight-hour argument in the jury room. I was writing one-hour dramas for Studio One then, and I thought, wow, what a setting for a drama.” The movie, produced by Rose and Fonda was a black-and-white film directed by Sidney Lumet. Rose also wrote for all three of the major networks of the 1950-1980 period. He created and wrote for The Defenders, a weekly courtroom drama based on one of Rose’s Studio One episodes. The Defenders would go one to win two Emmy awards for Rose’s dramatic writing. Twelve Angry Men was remade for television in 1997. In that version of the play, the judge was a woman and four of the jurors were black, but most of the action and dialogue was retained. The play was once also produced with an all-female cast. Over the years, Juror #8, an architect and the protagonist, has been played by Robert Cummings, Henry Fonda, Jack Lemmon, Boyd Gaines, Richard Thomas, and Bob Bowersox. Juror #3, the antagonist, opinionated and stubborn, has been played by Franchot Tone, Lee J. Cobb, George C. Scott, Philip Bosco, Robert Foxworth, Randle Mell, and Tom Murtha. In addition to being a playwright, Rose was a screenwriter, beginning with Crime in the Streets in 1956, an adaptation of his 1955 teleplay for The Elgin Hour. He made four movies with British producer Euan Lloyd: The Wild Geese, The Sea Wolf, Who Dares Wins, and Wild Geese II. His plays include (among others) The Porcelain Year (1950), Twelve Angry Men (1954), Black Monday (1962), Dear Friends (1968), and This Agony, This Triumph (1972). Rose’s teleplay The Incredible World of Horace Ford was the basis for an episode of The Twilight Zone produced in 1963. The episode was broadcast April 18, 1963, on CBS as episode fifteen of season four. The theme of this teleplay was how the past is glorified due to the repression and self- censorship of the negative aspects of our lives. We remember the good and forget the bad. It had

4 Utah Shakespeare Festival 351 West Center Street • Cedar City, Utah 84720 • 435-586-7880 originally showed as a Studio One episode in 1955. Film historian Andrew (Drew) Casper said in his commentary for Twelve Angry Men that Reginald Rose is known for both his ensemble work and his realism. Rose paid attention to the small things, like the fact that elderly people, like some members of the jury, went to the bathroom a lot. Rose wrote only for interior settings; he wanted his characters to mirror life, and his best work came from his own experiences. Among Rose’s other awards garnered him Writers Guild of America awads and three Mystery Writers of America awards. Rose won three Emmy awards for television and was nominated for an Oscar for the feature-length film of Twelve Angry Men. Reginald Rose died in 2002 at the age of 82.

Synopsis It is 1957, and twelve men have been led into a jury room of a New York City court of law. They are given final instructions about determining the verdict in a murder case whose defendant faces the death penalty if found guilty. Before deliberations begin, the men take a short break after filing into the hot and stuffy room. They gather around a long table to begin discussions about the case. The defendant, a young man, is accused of killing his father; and, after a preliminary vote, all but one of the jurors presume he is guilty. Juror #8 is the only one who feels differently. Because they must come to a unanimous deci- sion, debates begin. Most of the men are upset and very vocal about the dissenting vote. It is agreed to go around the table and have each man explain why he believes the young man is guilty, in hopes of convincing Juror #8 to change his mind. They heatedly discuss the known facts of the case; and little by little the personalities, opinions, and biases of each juror become evident. Subsequent votes are taken, and each time there are less and less who still believe the defendant is guilty. Eventually Juror #3 is the only one left who maintains his original “guilty” vote. He is deter- mined to holdout and make it a hung jury. Will this last juror obstinately stand his ground or can the others convince him otherwise?

Utah Shakespeare Festival 5 351 West Center Street • Cedar City, Utah 84720 • 435-586-7880 Characters Foreman of the Jury: A small, petty man, the Foreman is impressed with the authority he has and handles himself quite formally. He is not overly bright but is determined. Juror #2: A meek, hesitant man who finds it difficult to maintain any opinions of his own, Juror #2 is easily swayed and usually adopts the opinion of the last person he has spo- ken to. Juror #3: A very strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man within whom can be detected a streak of sadism, Juror #3 is also a humorless man who is intolerant of opin- ions other than his own and is accustomed to forcing his wishes and views upon others. Juror #4: A man of wealth and position, and a practiced speaker who presents himself well at all times, Juror #4 seems to think himself a little bit better than the rest of the jurors. His only concern is with the facts in this case and he is appalled with the behavior of the others. Juror #5: A frightened young man, Juror #5 takes his obligations in this case very seriously but finds it difficult to speak up when his elders have the floor. Juror #6: An honest but dull-witted man who comes upon his decisions slowly and care- fully, Juror #6 is a man who finds it difficult to create positive opinions, but who must listen to, digest, and accept those opinions offered by others which appeal to him most. Juror #7: A loud, flashy, glad-handed salesman type who thinks he has more important things to do than to sit on a jury, Juror #7 is quick to show temper and equally quick to form opinions on things he knows nothing about. He is a bully and, of course, a cow- ard. Juror #8: A quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, Juror #8 sees all sides of every question and con- stantly seeks the truth. He is a man of strength tempered with compassion. Above all, he is a man who wants justice to be done and will fight to see that it is. Juror #9: A mild, gently old man, long since defeated by life, and now merely waiting to die, Juror #9 recognizes himself for what he is and mourns the days when it would have been possible to be courageous. Juror #10: An angry, bitter man who antagonizes almost at sight, Juror #10 is also a bigot who places no values on any human life except his own. He is a man who has been nowhere and is going nowhere, and he knows it deep within him. Juror #11: A refugee from Europe, Juror #11 speaks with an accent and is ashamed, hum- ble, almost subservient to the people around him. He will honestly seek justice because he has suffered through so much injustice. Juror #12: A slick, bright advertising man who things of human beings in terms of percent- ages, graphs and polls, Juror #12 has no real understanding of people. He is a superficial snob, but trying to be a good fellow. Guard Judge Clerk

6 Utah Shakespeare Festival 351 West Center Street • Cedar City, Utah 84720 • 435-586-7880 Twelve Angry Men: Aftermath of the Storm By Lawrence Henley “Reasonable doubt” and “presumed innocent until proven guilty.” These phrases are second nature to most Americans. Our judiciary tells us that we must be completely certain of guilt before we, as a jury, convict or acquit. But does this hard, fast tenant of our legal system really help us to make certain that we will make the correct decision? How easily can jurors be dissuaded from the truth or, conversely, led to it? Courtroom dramas in stage, film, and television are a longstanding tradition. As a kid in the 1960s, I can still recall the classic black-and-white “whodunit” series Perry Mason. It seemed as if every episode ended in a wood-paneled courtroom with either a surprise revelation from a witness, or the “real killer” breaking down and confessing under duress on the witness stand. The tradition continued with shows and films like L.A. Law, Boston Legal, Law and Order, The Verdict and countless others. Typically, courtroom scripts remind us that our system of justice is fair and even-handed: as good as it gets on this planet. And, in the end, screen bad guys and bad gals generally get what’s coming to them. In contrast, the courthouse classic Twelve Angry Men deals us a very different, behind- the-scenes examination of the inner-workings of a jury. It’s a revealing peek inside the jury sequester, revealing that even the most firmly planted individual can be dissuaded from an opinion. While deliberations begin with an all-but-certain outcome, this jury takes a gradual, 180-degree turn. By the play’s conclusion, we’re relieved by the realization that eleven diverse jurors with very different perspectives have set aside their own biases in order to reverse what was a foregone conclusion. The evidence that had seemed so implacable is utterly dismantled by the observations of a lone jurist. Still, following that moment of relief from the stifling tension of this play, can we be certain that justice was actually attained? Was an innocent young man exonerated, or has a bad guy gone free? For those unfamiliar with Twelve Angry Men, it’s enlightening to browse lists of the “Hundred Greatest Hollywood Films.” You might be surprised to discover Reginald Rose’s 1950s courtroom-noir masterpiece is listed far closer to the top of these lists than the bottom. The original script has been adapted, re-adapted, and is still being adapted today for a fourth generation of audiences. Rose originally created Twelve Angry Men as an hour-long 1954 television play, spotlighting an all male, all Caucasian jury hailing from diverse backgrounds and occupations. The following year, his script was lengthened into a stage production. At the urging of star actor Henry Fonda, film director Sidney Lumet (Network, Equus) requested that Rose adapt it for the big screen; and his 1957 feature film is a classic. Lumet harvested a SAG Hall of Fame cast, starring Fonda (pivotal Juror #8), along with fifties-era stalwarts such as Lee J. Cobb (angry Juror #3), E.G. Marshall (businesslike Juror #4), Jack Klugman (quiet Juror #5), Jack Warden (cocky Juror #7), Ed Begley (bigoted Juror #10), and Martin Balsam (the impartial Jury Foreman). Produced again in London in 1964, the show didn’t actually make it to Broadway until fifty years after the television premiere. The Roundabout Theatre Company production at the American Airlines Theatre ran for a solid 328 performances. An updated (1997) television film was directed by William Friedkin (The Exorcist, The French Connection) and starred all-time greats such as Jack Lemmon, Hume Cronyn, and George C. Scott, along with contemporary stars James Gandolfini, Tony Danza, and Edward James Olmos.

Utah Shakespeare Festival 7 351 West Center Street • Cedar City, Utah 84720 • 435-586-7880 This version featured a diverse, multi-racial jury, and a female judge. For modern audiences, the work has been re-titled in various ways (Twelve Angry Jurors, Twelve Angry Citizens, Twelve Angry Women) and often features gender and color- blind casting. No matter how it is re-packaged, the show still possesses a hard-hitting impact that stimulates debate about our legal system. While there are a number of raw themes in Twelve Angry Men, none is more prominent than the question of reliability as applied to the concept of reasonable doubt. Does the reasonable doubt premise result in a correct verdict more often than it fails? Other overtones in the play seem to question the ability of individuals to exercise impartiality. Do we truly have the will to suspend our emotions and personal biases in order to interpret evidence with cold accuracy? The accused in this case is a physically abused sixteen-year-old boy, hailing from a tough neighborhood. A substantial body of evidence points directly to him: an obvious threat made to his slain stepfather, a switchblade knife found at the scene, a plausible timeline and motive, and a porous alibi. All signs indicate that his fate will be death in the electric chair. The setting is a hot, steamy afternoon in a dank, non-air conditioned jury room of a New York courthouse. It’s “the hottest day of the year,” with the windows thrown open because an old ceiling fan isn’t working. Excessive humidity increases the pressure as a huge and highly metaphorical thunderstorm is imminent. Swathed in a cloud of cigarette smoke, the twelve jurors agree to be seated around an old conference table in numerical order. A flurry of impatient statements and quick tempers indicate that this jury is determined to rush into a hurried consensus and head for the subways. The sheer brashness of Jurors 3, 6, 7, and 10 intimidates the less assertive jurors (2, 5, 9, and 11). The Foreman’s initial polling is eleven votes to convict, with a single vote to acquit. Juror #8 stands in opposition to everyone else in the room. With his cool, firm presence, he confronts the more abrasive personalities in the room. He holds fast to the belief that no person, regardless of how the facts may appear, nor how lowly born, deserves to be sentenced to death without at least a cursory discussion of the case. One at a time, Juror #8 sifts through each damning exhibit and witness statement. He asks the others to temporarily suspend their disbelief in order to see that circumstances aren’t always what they might appear. The haughty responses he receives from the more domineering panelists indicate that each has a propensity for allowing personal biases, bigotry, or learned beliefs sway their thinking. Juror #3 has clearly allowed a disjointed relationship with his estranged son to influence his vote, while Juror #10 freely tosses out his poisoned, prejudiced ideas. Juror #7 is a loudmouth, whose biggest concern is that he’ll be late for a ballgame at Yankee Stadium. Undaunted, Juror #8 displays a keen ability to reinterpret the facts. With pinpoint logic and uncommon powers of observation, he obliterates previously held views of the evidence, dissecting the case with impressive acumen. One by one, the quieter jurors begin to reverse their votes: first Juror #9, then 5, 11, 2, and 6. As a torrential cloudburst inundates the thirsty streets, stunningly the vote stands six for acquittal and six against. As the rain abates, we sense the stubborn will of each juror holding out for conviction retreating, one at a time. Juror #8 proves to Juror #4 that it is entirely possible to misremember the most recent events. Juror #10 begins to see that his opinion was influenced by his own stereotypical, bigoted thoughts. And, most shocking of all, Juror #3 breaks down when confronted by the stark reality of his own responsibility for the alienation of his only son. In the final moments, all resistance is vanquished. By the conclusion of Twelve Angry Men, we’re led to see Juror #8 has thoroughly

8 Utah Shakespeare Festival 351 West Center Street • Cedar City, Utah 84720 • 435-586-7880 established that reasonable doubt exists, and, more importantly, so do his colleagues. But, puzzlingly, there remains a nagging doubt in the minds of the viewing audience. What actually happened in this court case? Rose’s play serves to underscore the point that, even in a court of law, the system is fallible. Ultimately, we have no guarantees that justice will truly be served.

Utah Shakespeare Festival 9 351 West Center Street • Cedar City, Utah 84720 • 435-586-7880