Twelve Angry Jurors
at Jenkintown MS/HS

Reviewed on March 8, 2018

Emily Serpico
Interboro High School
Submitted for publication to Philadelphia Inquirer - 1

A powerful and gripping drama that covers the harsh reality of biases, stereotypes, and branding within society, "12 Angry Jurors" was performed by Jenkintown High School March 8-10, 2018.

Originally written by Reginald Rose in 1954 as a television play, "Twelve Angry Men" went on to ultimately have a stage version by Sherman L. Sergel in 1955. The plot follows a jury as they determine the fate of a young man standing trial for murder. It is through this debate that reason and prejudice meet head on, notably through Juror #8 and Juror #3 respectively.

A remarkable aspect of Jenkintown's performance of "12 Angry Jurors" was that it was student directed by Emily Dubin who had a remarkable eye for detail in not only casting but in her stage movements. There was not a single moment without a realistic element of life as those cast as jurors would bring aspects of everyday life into their every action. Be it getting water or asking a question to the person seated beside them, the actors under Dubin's guidance brought their characters to life with some admittedly repetitive but necessary movements.

Juror #8, played by William Carter II, acted as the voice of reason and the protagonist of the play. While almost one-dimensional at times, Carter truly played the part of the outsider with incredible composure and moments of controlled emotion. Charlie Mangan, who played Juror #3, acted with intense passion that left the audience silent on multiple occasions. He was easily understood and seemed to have the emotional build-up and background of his character down perfectly. Caitlin Frazee portrayed the wealthy Juror #4 with grace as well as clarity; her actions were elegant and she acted as the buffer between the aforementioned characters with certainty.

The set, designed by Charlie Mangan, was simple and streamlined. While it did not draw attention from the jurors and the drama unfolding on stage, it felt as if there was no space for the actors to move around easily. However, the suspending windows and overall layout were functional and understated in that they provided the needed background but were not overwhelming.

Marielle Zakrzwski paid amazing attention to the varying intricacies of the actors/characters of "12 Angry Jurors" through her costume design. Along with her sophisticated style and individual notes of each juror's personality, Zakrzwski used small changes in each actor's appearance to display the overbearing heat of the summer day along with the stress and frustration of deliberation.

Jenkintown High School's powerful performance of "12 Angry Jurors" explored multiple facets of society, but it had multiple areas of character development and connection in regards to the actors. All characters were very well executed, although a few jurors seemed to fade into the background at times. Overall, it was a poignant production and a fantastic job by all involved!

Sarah Eckstein Indik
Jack M Barrack Hebrew Academy
Submitted for publication to Philadelphia Inquirer - 2

A locked room, blistering heat, and passionate yelling? Sounds like a nightmare. But, in Jenkintown High School's performance of "12 Angry Jurors," directed by Emily Dubin, the audience was on the edge of their seats begging for more.

Written in by Reginald Rose, the story of twelve jurors from a murder trial deliberation unfolds. The decision of sending a young teenager to a death sentence seems obvious to eleven jurors, but one juror, Juror #8, stands against them. Eagerly attempting to reach a unanimous vote, the jurors complain in the heat desperately trying to reach a consensus, even though prejudice and different beliefs divide them.

The performance was anchored by the amazing chemistry between the cast and the realism depicted by each individual juror.

Juror #8 (William Carter II), the naysayer, consistently portrayed the emotions his character was experiencing. By utilizing body movements and facial expressions, he allowed the audience to gain an understanding of his position. Despite disliking his character's argument, the audience was drawn to the passion and anger that Juror #3 (Charlie Mangan), the antagonist, emanated. Mangan's performance convinced the audience, with his portrayal of a range of emotions, and at times despite the drama, brought laughter.

As a whole, the group of jurors were charming; constantly fidgeting and walking around, they accurately showed the reality of a jury room. However, three stand-out performances were that of Juror #7 (Mattie McNamara), Juror #4 (Caitlin Frazee), and Juror #2 (Sophie Pettit). In keeping with the sassiness of her character, McNamara chewed gum throughout the entire performance, capturing her character's essence. Caitlin Frazee and Sophie Pettit served as buffers between the madness of the other jurors; in their own individual styles, they conveyed different ways humans deal with hard situations. At times, actors had difficulty with their lines because of nerves, but they persevered. Some actors appeared monotone in their acting, but the overall chemistry in the group made up for this.

The set, designed by Charlie Mangan, was simplistic -- two big brown windows, a water station, and a large table with chairs -- but it was nicely and creatively executed. Even though the actors did not use microphones, they could be heard easily. The costumes, designed by Marielle Zakrzwski, were consistent in representing each character in everyday attire.

Jenkintown High School was successful in tackling the difficult themes of prejudice, justice, and speaking up for what is right. As the lights faded, the audience questioned how they can make a difference and speak up for what they believe in. Perceptions of others are merely perceptions, and Jenkintown High School's production reiterated that fact.

Anji Cooper
Academy of the New Church
Submitted for publication to Duck Soup

The tension in the air is palpable as twelve jurors argue what exactly constitutes "reasonable doubt" when a life is at stake in the courtroom. Some are entirely convinced by the evidence, while others remain unsure. Shouting and anger erupt as the jurors contemplate the case through their own personal biases. Jenkintown High School presents relevant issues in their thought-provoking rendition of "Twelve Angry Jurors."

First seen on television as "Twelve Angry Men," "Twelve Angry Jurors" follows a jury who, after an arduous, hot trial must decide on a verdict: guilty or innocent. A 19-year-old boy from the slums is accused of murdering his abusive father. American law states the decision must be unanimous, so tempers rise when one of the twelve votes innocent. Yet, after a reexamination of the situation, the jurors discover new uncertainties, causing some to reconsider their own votes.

"Twelve Angry Jurors" is difficult to produce, for all of the main cast must remain on stage for the entirety of the show. Still, the Jenkintown High School actors managed to stay in character, even when the spotlight was not on them, and their impassioned performances brought new life to the courtroom thriller.

Charlie Mangan played the vehement Juror 3, always quick to anger and furious in arguing for the boy's guilt. He consistently delivered a fervent passion that made his performance stand out. Meanwhile, William Carter II portrayed the impassive Juror 8, the only one to believe the boy innocent. He provided a good foil for Mangan's character, constantly arguing with calm, yet intensely delivered lines, standing firm in his belief despite the fact that it drew his peers' ire.

The ensemble's performances kept the audience fully immersed in the atmosphere of the story, through little actions such as fanning themselves from the hot day. Juror 4 (Caitlin Frazee) provided the rational argument for the boy's guilt, keeping a level head while those around her reached points of high emotion. Sophie Pettit portrayed the nervous Juror 2, who caught the audience's attention with her sweet, slightly awkward behavior.

The production was directed by student Emily Dubin. Her creative decision to keep the cast dynamically moving about, with trips to the window and small conversations in the background, conveyed the frantic feeling that comes with bearing the responsibility for someone's future. Though this could be distracting at times, it also caused the show and its characters to seem even more realistic and relatable to those viewing the play. The production's costumes did well to exhibit each character's personality even before they had spoken a single word.

Jenkintown High School brought "Twelve Angry Jurors" to life with passionate performances that caused its audience to reflect on their own biases and consider what "reasonable doubt" really means when a life is on the line.

Olivia Shuman
Friends Select School
Submitted for publication to GPC Website Review 4

The students of Jenkintown High School took the themes of representation, standing alone, and prejudice in their production of "Twelve Angry Jurors", written by Reginald Rose and adapted by Sherman L. Sergel.

A very tense situation is introduced at the beginning of the play. Set in 1954, a jury of 12 sits around a table, reviewing a case of a man who is suspected to have murdered his father. Only one, Juror #8, believes he is innocent. He butts heads with Juror #3, who firmly believes the man is guilty. Over time, Juror #8 must convince the jury that the man should not be put to death.

The show was superb in all facets of production. The set was simple and useful, the costumes made sense, and it was hard to believe the acting was done by high school students.

The play focused around two male leads: Jurors #3 and #8. The push and pull of the characters was very effective. Juror #8 (William Carter II) was advocating for the freedom of the defendant. As difficult as it is to play the "good guy," Carter was endearing and persuasive. Juror #3 (Charlie Mangan) struggled internally by making the case personal to his paternal problems. Mangan was incredible in this role, using anger and sadness very believably to make the audience understand him.

The supporting cast complemented the play, and the differences among the characters were immediately clear. Juror #10 (Laura Dibble) was striking as a racist woman who took a long time to choose "not guilty." Juror #5 (Maggie Farr) was a woman who had grown up in the slums, and her personal experience was portrayed very well. Lastly, the body language of #9 (Yusra Ali) as an old woman stood out and was very consistent. Overall, the ensemble of the jury was unfaltering in character and each character was notably distinct.

Although plain, the tech aspects of the show were impressive. Mainly, the set was chairs and a table. There were also two windows, used as a symbol of possibility, and two working doors. Lastly, there was a water dispenser, which served as an impetus for the characters moving around the stage. The costumes were also admirable in their specificity to the characters and their relevance to the time period.

The cast and crew of Jenkintown High showed that they can handle a mature play and still stand out as a vibrant, memorable, and talented group.