I don't usually review tours, but I must say a few good words about the current national tour of the Roundabout's production of "12 Angry Men" -- which I missed when it was on Broadway.
To be frank, the show is not one of my favorites. With a plot straight out of an episode of "Matlock" and enough manufactured melodrama to fill three seasons of "Dynasty," I've never really understood its appeal. But a good production is a good production.
Naturally, the promotional materials have focused on the two best-known stars in the production: Richard Thomas and George Wendt. It's a little ironic, however, that theirs are the two least interesting characters in the show. Wendt's affable foreman and Thomas' crusading Juror #8, the sole unwavering dissenting voice in the group, are little more than catalysts for the other stock characters on the jury. This isn't the fault of either actor, however, as both do well in their roles.
As for the other characters -- the baseball-loving tough guy, the blue collar guy with all the common sense, the blustering bigot, the wise old man and so on -- none of the actors seem to be direct imports from central casting. I won't single anyone out, but all brought a little personal flair to the characters so that even though I knew every single thing that was going to happen, I was still engaged enough to pay attention. Combined with some excellent direction -- pacing was spot-on, as was the blocking -- I really enjoyed it.
It's funny how much New York has spoiled me as far as theatre-going, however. Every time I go to one of these regional houses, like Houston's Hobby Center for the Performing Arts, it feels so cavernous. The sound system makes the dialogue echo, or in the case of a recent production of "West Side Story" that I saw there, sound canned.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Just curious; from a playwriting point of view, just how would you have 12 distinct characters on stage without making them a bit stereotypical? Dickens couldn't do it; all the minor characters are stereotypes.
In fact, they all almost start out as stereotypes, even Pip and Estella, and the more face time they get, the more fully their personas are fleshed out. Doesn't 12 Angry Men work the same way? Doesn't Our Town (another show with a lot of characters) work the same way? Chorus Line? How else could it work?
Good point -- and I'm not an experience playwright by any means -- but my previous experiences with this show, and the effect I get just by reading the script, offers none of that fleshing out. There's no Pip or Estella, no Emily Webb, no Cassie or Paul to speak of in it.
We know absolutely nothing about our heroic Juror #8 other than that he's an architect. He's never developed as anything more than just a pragmatic do-gooder.
I guess the closest thing to fleshing out would be Juror #3 and perhaps Juror #5, who at least get to develop some sort of back story. Even then, it's not much.
But despite all that, I was pleased to find that this show can be quite compelling with the right directors and the right actors. It's making me rethink my initial negative opinions of it.
I still blame it for giving us Pauly Shore in "Jury Duty," however!
Post a Comment