12 Angry Men: Fairweather Productions LLC.

Reasonable doubt. Perhaps no two words link the world of criminal justice and dramatic arts as strongly as these. When seeking to convict an accused criminal, the jury must be convinced beyond this. When seeking to independently produce a theatrical work, with the requisite time, money, and effort, the average producer will want similar assurances of the return upon their investment.

This piece, adapted by Reginal Rose from a teleplay by the same title, and produced by Fairweather Productions LLC under the direction of Christopher Soucy marks the first dramatic production facilitated by Indigo Arts with verve that settled any doubt abuot their eventual success.

Contemporary American Cultural Policy is largely one of laissez faire when it comes to undertaking independent production. National Endowment and copyright/royalty provisions aside, those who seek to create theatre will operate largely free from government interference and assistance. This new production of 12 Angry Men may very well mark a new chapter of free initiative in Savannah's Theatrical community. To quote JinHi Soucy Rand in a recent interview with SavannahNow.com, "The local performers got together and said this is a play they wanted to see done." Such initiative on the part of performers is highly laudable, and we look forward to seeing Indigo Arts and Fairweather Productions assist even more artists in fulfilling their ambitions.

The piece itself is a classic crimial melodrama about the power of doubt. Though the message, the benefit of critical thought and sound argumentation, is a timely one in this age of political soundbites and Tea Party Rage, Rose's script is not without certain limitations. Closing people in a room, though powerful in terms of Neoclassical unity of place, also denies the audience direct consideration of the evidence. Though the witnesses discussed in the teleplay could be directly seen through flashback and other cinematic techniques, one is left with having to take second hand word from jurors while onstage. Further, aside from occasional demonstrations where jurors "reconstruct" events of the crime based upon their own recollections, the piece is highly static onstage.

The cast, built pursely out of local actors with grit contains notables such as Bill DeYoung, Ryan McCurdy (appearing opening weekend in place of Gabriel Ricard), Phil Keeling, Mark Rand, Al Paderewski, and Walter Magnuson. To pull together disparate elements of Savannah's theatrical community, figures from various artistic "orbits" into a single piece is an accomplishment which has not been rivaled since JinHi Rand's spearheadings of the late lamented Savannah Shakespeare Festival. It goes to prove that there ARE a variety of men in our theatrical community, it just has to be the right project.

Also, a number of the performances come down as particularly high caliber. Walter Magnuson's "Miss Manners" portrayal of Juror 2 gives a clear indication of this character's dedication to form. Al Paderewski, as the recently immigrated Juror 11, has a calm, contemplative manner that inspires a certain reverence for American due process. Mark Rand, as Juror 10, proves his artistic versatility and ability to play unsympathetic characters (see earlier comments regarding Doubt: A Parable) in this depiction of the case's most racially prejudiced juror. The ensemble cast proves itself highly capable of passing focus and limiting interruption.

Though Bill DeYoung capably and earnestly depicts Juror 4, there is a bit too much of Atticus Finch (which he played recently for the City of Savannah's production of To Kill a Mockingbird) in his manner, and some difference would help to demonstrate his range. ALso, John Turner's depiction of Juror 8 comes oddly across as the lovechild of the late Heath Ledger and an emergency alert tone. Having seen Mr. Turner turn in far more energetic performances (Rocky Horror- Bay Street Theatre), one would hope for a slightly more emphatic defense of one's principles. After all, as Juror 8 often repeats "There is a man's life at stake."

Further, it seems that the climactic scene, where Keeling's Juror 3 finds himself isolated in his continued stance of guilty, simply snaps like a damp firecracker and the show packs up as quickly as possible. Partially, the static staging simply leaves the actors to toss some form of platitude at his back, and none of these points seems to gain enough force to precipitate the violence of Keeling's reaction. In true Neoclassical style, the script has torn away all extraneous detail to allow us to focus on the struggle in the room itself (the actual verdict is really immaterial once the spiritual battle in the room is decided), but the staged climax fails to build on this platform and instead fizzles.

At the end of the day, the cast and production company (Fairweather) do well for themselves. This particular advertisment for the CSI Effect treads the boards with dignity and power, and we here at The Savannah Dramaturgy hope to see Fairweather building off its success here and helping to facilitate other artistic ambitions.