Rage Productions' poster for the play

From Judging… to Understanding

If you are called upon to decide on a matter of grave import, especially one in the public domain, how do you ensure you are judging well rather than being judgmental?

A scene from the 1957 Hollywood version of 12 Angry MenThis compelling thought lies at the heart of the all-time classic 12 Angry Men. Penned by Reginald Rose in 1954, the play has been adapted into several formats and languages across the world, and continues to do so 60 years on. I myself have seen a Hollywood movie (the legendary Sidney Lumet’s 1957 version, starring luminaries such as Henry Fonda and Lee Cobb), a Bollywood film (1986’s Ek Ruka Hua Faisla, featuring a who’s-who of theatre and cinema stalwarts – Pankaj Kapur, Annu Kapoor, KK Raina – and directed by another great, Basu Chatterjee), a school play (performed by Standard XII students), and most recently, a contemporised version (by as-if-presciently-named-for-this-play Rage Productions of Mumbai). ‘Contemporised’ because, conscious of the need to be inclusive, the play is now named 12 Angry Jurors and features an almost equal number of women (five) in the cast.

The story though remains the same. An 18-year boy (technically, some would say a man) is accused of murdering his abusive father. The court proceedings over, the 12-member jury (the 12 in the title) now moves to the inner room to decide – and if needed, deliberate – on the boy’s fate. However, there seems to be no need for deliberation, as 11 have decided ‘Guilty’. But wait, as one has decided ‘Not Guilty’, there seems to be need for some discussion. The 11 though are flummoxed: how can one person not believe the boy is guilty when all evidence, witnesses, and as damningly, an overwhelming majority of them are saying so? What starts off as a tiny spark ignited by Juror 8 (the one believing the boy is innocent) leads slowly but surely toward an incendiary climax, as not just thoughts and arguments but accusations and threats are exchanged (the anger in the title). So, do the jurors remain enraged till the end, or do they become placative and reach a unanimous decision one way or the other (the requirement of the court)? In case you haven’t seen the play or any of its avatars, will leave you to discover the denouement for yourself.

An angered Lee Cobb in the 1957 Hollywood version of 12 Angry MenWhat is worth deliberating on however are the themes the play / movie explores. The tendency to evaluate something or someone only through one’s own (coloured) lenses. Juror 10 is unrelenting: the boy is guilty and needs to hang simply because he’s from the slums and “those people” are always like that. Prejudices, it is clear, run deep. And it appears, so do bad experiences, especially if they are close to home. Juror 3 wages the toughest, and roughest, battle against Juror 8. The reason? Juror 3 has had a strained relationship with his son, and having failed to resolve matters with his own kid, wants the accused kid to suffer in a vicious, vicarious form of retribution. And one juror, No. 7, has the flimsiest, whimsiest reason for sticking to his stance: he has tickets for a game and so wants the discussion to wind up asap, especially as all but one of them hold the boy guilty.

Bias, negativity, slapdash judgment… All themes as relevant in today’s social media-fuelled times, when people are quick to ascribe fault and guilt to a situation or a person without bothering to get to the truth. Because that takes time, effort and intellect. All of which seem to be in short supply these days.

A poster for the 1957 Hollywood version of 12 Angry Men, showing a lone white silhouette on one balance and 11 black silhouettes on the otherIt’s not all despairing though. The play urges you to stand up for what you believe is right, even when the world stands against you. Juror 8 fights alone for the longest time. When asked if the boy could really be innocent when the evidence, witness statements, and presently, most jurors are disfavoured to him, his constant response is a simple “It’s possible.” He merely wants to explore the possibility that the boy is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Surely, that’s not too much to ask for, given that his life is at stake? The play also holds that it’s alright to waver, to not be sure. Juror 12 does what looks like a flip-flop in the eyes of the others: now she believes he’s guilty, now she believes he’s not. It’s ok, the play seems to say, to change your viewpoint as you receive more information. After all, it shows you are willing to be flexible, and more importantly, to think.

Not surprisingly, six decades on, 12 Angry Men (Jurors) remains a telling commentary on the way most people think and believe when it comes to others. And the way they truly ought to.

Advertisements
Ad for Ila, play by Patchworks Ensemble

Meview: Ila

As I mentioned in the previous post, as a part of The Hindu Theatre Fest (HTF) 2015 here in Chennai, the day before, I went for what has proved to be my best play of all time. Ila, by Patchworks Ensemble. HTF also has a Citizen Review, whereby readers of the paper and viewers of the play can send in their take on the play in 50-150 words. The best entry wins a dinner for two at The Park, a leading hotel here. Well, below’s my entry. And as it turns out, I won. Yippee. With very few edits. Double yippee.

At the end, find the link to the digital version of the paper’s section where mine and some other reviews appeared. Have also, but of course, posted a couple of pix. And oh, what’s a ‘meview’? Find out here.

Male. Female. Tick a box.

But what if there were more than two boxes? More male; More female; In between… What then of this person, and… stereotypes? Such as ‘Men slap their thighs, women cross theirs’.

Ila dares to examine this gender- and mind-bending question. Through an apt metaphor: the ladies’ compartment of a Mumbai local train, which turns ‘general’ by night – like its protagonist. (Ila draws from the myth of a king who, under a spell, goes between manhood and womanhood with the moon’s waxing and waning.)

It continues pushing the blue/pink envelope: several actors take turns playing the wo/man and, in literally a flicker, swings between Ila’s tragic/magic tale and that of a pregnant train regular. The music yin-yangs too: now actor-like – posing a conundrum, now audience-like – pondering that conundrum. By the end, everyone’s mind is prised open, at least a bit. Ila ticks all the right boxes.

Find mine and other entries here: http://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/theatre/ila-challenges-gender-notions/article7561429.ece

My winning Citizen Review in the offline version of the paper My winning Citizen Review in the online version of the paper

Irfanvertising Logo
Promo pic of The Siddhus of Upper Juhu

Meview: The Siddhus of Upper Juhu

I seem to have entered a poetic, verse, or at least a rhyme phase at present. Here’s my meview of the play, The Siddhus of Upper Juhu (which I watched as a part of The Hindu Theatre Fest 2015, over the weekend), in poetic form.

Life in a metro can get to you,

Is the theme of The Siddhus of Upper Juhu.

So, the Siddhus move into this “Bombay” highrise,

But find in vain, and pain, that it doesn’t suffice…

To keep away the din of the partying “airhostesses”; the neighbour, his kids, his wife;

The barking dog; the construction drill; and other dins of urban life.

To make things worse, Mr Bubbles Siddhu gets the sack,

And slowly begins turning into a cuckooish Jack.

To compensate, his wife, Behroze, takes up a job – and thus joins the grind…

But, as Bubbles seems to get better, she ends up losing her mind!

Rajit Kapur and Shernaz Patel play the afflicted couple to perfection,

And Rahul DaCunha is as astute as ever in his direction.

Do watch this play wherever you get the opportunity –

It’s a humorous lament on the cost of living in a city.

To read a non-poetic review of the play, go here: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/theatre/Theatre-review-The-Siddhus-Of-Upper-Juhu/articleshow/46622780.cms