The ‘12 Angry Jurors’ directed by Nadir Khan and presented by Bombay Rage Productions at the Aadhyam festival, is a play based on the Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose.
The ‘12 Angry Jurors’ directed by Nadir Khan and presented by Bombay Rage Productions at the Aadhyam festival, is a play based on the Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose. It depicts the people whose minds are clouded by subjectivism and are called to objectively judge persons who have been committed to jail.
12 Angry Jurors was initially adapted in Hindi as Twelve Angry Men and it was staged by Ranjeet Capoor in the S.R.C. Small Theatre. Twelve actors of different ages play the roles. The main actors were K.K. Raina who played number 8 as did Rajit Kapur in the production under review. Pankaj Kapur played number two who was one of the two dissenters at the end of the jury meeting. These two insist that the culprit be guilty as charged, while the remaining jury had come around to a not guilty decision. Other members of the old cast included Vinod Nagpal, Aziz Quereshi and S.M. Zaheer. Vinod Nagpal played number 10, the protagonist of the production. Deven Khote was number three, while number 10 was played by Perna Chawla.
The play is about a jury of 12 people locked in a room and they have to come out with a single judgement about an 28-year-old boy from a slum, on a trial for the murder of his abusive father.
All evidences are against the boy and a guilty verdict will send him to his death. The verdict must be unanimous. Even before they begin the discussion it is apparent that most of the jurors are certain that the boy is guilty. When they take a vote on guilty or not guilty only one member says that he is not guilty. As the jurors go on to discuss the facts on the one hand and open their mind to the possibilities that could exist outside them and disclose the kind of person they actually are, most of the members by the end of discussion are convinced that the boy is not guilty.
Even though the jury trial system no longer exists in India, it did till the 1960s after which it was abolished following the result of K.M Naravati case. The script is still relevant and examines the many themes of justice, equality and social justice in the current circumstances. At its core it is an examination of human mind that is just too quick to accept explanations handed to it. The status quo, the party line, popular sentiments and trials by media aren’t to be just accepted, especially when reputation, freedom and lives are at stake. Too often public stances are shaped by personal prejudice, personal experience and personal agenda.
So it is that the poor boy from a slum is judged by his living conditions and lack of education and unemployment. That they don’t get the upper hand, it is entirely up to juror number eight Rajit Kapur’s careful examination of the case that the other jury members are convinced of the boy being innocent. Rohit Malkani as juror number 7 gives in a lively performance as do Shivani Tanksale and Shivani Sawant. There is something to be said about the director who gave away lines meant for number two to number 10 making Deven Khote a hero. The last lines about his son who leaves him, never to return, were lines given to number two originally and gifted by the director to number 10. Sorab Ardeshir who was juror number 11 has in the past played some important roles in the English Theatre, but in this play his talents were overshadowed.
The director Nadir Shah did not think it was necessary to place the jurors around a table like it was done by Ranjeet Capoor. The cast was spread over the room and the area outside near the toilets shown on video at the back. This spreading of people and ad hoc positioning of the actors left the audience less tense, a tension that Ranjeet Kapoor managed with a stage setting of the characters in close proximity to each other.
Mahatma Gandhi said, “There are higher courts than courts of justice and that is the court of conscience it supersedes all other courts”. The Twelve Angry Men is a brilliantly written play with subtle nuances and terrifying perception, it forces us to look at ourselves in the light of the conflict on stage. Would we declare the boy not guilty after attending the court where he was almost pronounced guilty Would we be unprejudiced by his background and obvious lack of proper bringing up Would we be persuaded by an honest man’s rigorous fight against prejudice minds who think a boy of this sort has to be guilty These are some of the questions raised in the play, which is still relevant today. Aadhyam did a great job by bringing the play to Delhi.
