[1]Justice delayed is justice denied” is an age old maxim which even brings the ever conflicting legal fraternity into agreement, but Reginald Rose in his drama, Twelve Angry Men, has thrown light on the issue of justice, which if granted in a dash, with preconceived ideas could in fact be a murder of innocence. Rose in his work has highlighted the fact that “judgment in haste is in fact judgment in waste.”
12 Angry Jurors, an Indianised version of Rose’s play, was recently staged by the Theatrecian group at the American Centre, Kolkata. Set at a time when India followed the jury system, the 12 jury members sit to decide the fate of a boy who is being tried for the murder of his father.
It seems like an apparent open-and-shut case against the accused. And then the unpredictable turn of events is unfolded because of one man’s belief of a “reasonable doubt”. It slowly gives rise to speculation and further contemplation.
Director Tathagata Chowdhury brings an eclectic mix of young and old to present the desi jurors. Most hail from different backgrounds. As the play begins it is apparent, the jurors are in no mood to invest much time on the subject. In fact, they are on the verge of writing an almost collective death warrant for the boy.
Just then, armed with his courage of conviction (very convincingly enacted by Abhishek Chakraborty), this lone man stands in isolation against the unified tide of “yea sayers.” Naturally, his deviation is not appreciated by those who are eager to pronounce the guilty verdict. He faces ridicule and is even physically attacked by the aggressive and agitated set of jurors. The less volatile ones also express their irritation at this spoiler of consensus.
Somewhere in the process each jury member’s anger and inner angst comes to the surface. Although concealed, it’s very obvious each carry a story that weighs on their mind and reflects on their decision.
Like the original, the “veto maker” raises doubt on the authenticity of the witness’ version, keeping in mind the condition of her eye-sight and the distance between her and the crime scene.
Just when it seemed he is fighting a lost battle, a feeble and hesitant voice of support emerges. Brilliantly portrayed by Shafique Rehman, this is a senior citizen who finds logic in the first man’s argument. Now he too insists that there is a possibility of a second thought. The murder scene is re-enacted, the distance measured, the time factor calculated and words are decoded and analysed.
Amidst the heated argument and voice of restraint, gradually, the open-and-shut case turns into a doubtful one for the rest of them.
One by one, they begin to ponder over their initial decision, the middle-aged woman who is a refugee from East Pakistan (played by Anurima Mitra), the Anglo-Indian lady (Alisha), the Muslim woman (portrayed by Prerona Sanyal), who initially seemed much convinced about his crime, the Bengali bhadralok (Amlan Guha) and four other men now seemed unsure about the “whodunit” factor. The tables have turned and now there is only a single man (acted by Apratim Chatterjee) who remains convinced about the boy committing the murder.
While staying true to the original, the director often flashes his creativity.
Each of the characters is distinct and well-defined. The other actors, Zahid Hossain, Kaibalya Mohanty, Amlan Guha, Nandita Gangwal, Suvendu Mukhopadhyay and Sanjukta Deb, etch out their own space and bring an element of versatility. They all stand out on their individual merit. A well-written role and a fine performance makes sure the faces are not lost in the crowd of 12.
In the play, live kathak and mime is used to depict various moments and emotion and the actors don’t use physical properties.
Links:
[1] http://archive.asianage.com/thpl3jpg-962