“12 Angry Jurors” at the Ring Theater was a moving drama that brought raw intensity to a classic story. The cast’s chemistry and powerful performances made the confined setting feel electric. It was an unforgettable production that pulled the audience straight into the jury room.
The story of “12 Angry Jurors” comes from the 1957 film “12 Angry Men.” Known as a timeless story that broke several rules of filmmaking, the film just shows 12 characters talking in a room to come to a verdict for a murder trial.
The film and play present questions like: Can we ever be truly unbiased? Does majority opinion really lead to the best outcome? How do our prejudices influence choices we make in the present? The cast of this play did a fantastic job of highlighting the uncertainty of these answers.
The play follows 12 jurors tasked with deciding the fate of a 19-year old accused of murdering his father. The case at first appears straightforward, but biases are uncovered as the jurors confront evidence and their own morals.
The setup was deceptively simple — twelve jurors, one table, a water dispenser, and a case that seemed open and shut. But as the story unfolded, minimalism became its greatest strength. There is something about the confinement of this space that really enhanced the tension between the cast.
Unlike the film, which used clever camera shots to hold the audience’s attention, “12 Angry Jurors” relied on the actors’ subtle movements and forced the audience to hang onto every word.
Watching people talking for 80 minutes in one room should have been boring, but instead I was fascinated by each juror. Without flashy camera cuts or cinematic tricks, the actors had to carry the full weight of the story — and they did, beautifully.
Even though the characters have no names, I walked away remembering each of them. The actors’ reveal their character’s personality with small choices — where they sat, their facial expressions, even what they did with their hands.
From watching the film, I knew each role would be challenging in its own way, with Juror #3 being the most difficult. The character’s internal battle from a broken parent-child relationship causes her rage to slowly build throughout the show, a complex emotional arc for any actor to pull off. But from the second she walked in, Jordan Tisdale (Juror #3) immediately set herself apart from the rest, treating the fellow jurors with a vicious, biting attitude.
I found myself picking one actor and observing them at different moments, and each time they impressed me with new details that made them unique.
Gabby Parker as Juror #7 was all snarky expressions and restless gestures, chewing gum and twirling her hair while Neri Frank as Juror #2 captured awkward energy with nervous quirks. No one broke character.
Every juror contributes to the sense of conflict, making it clear who is the protagonist, antagonist, or something in between. The lighting choices make this even more powerful.
At the climax, the stage glows red on Tisdale, while green light shines over the rest. It truly is a visually striking moment.
Tisdale’s large, loud outbursts of anger are a perfect portrayal of the original character. During confrontational peaks of the show, her emotion reveals something boiling beneath the surface of Juror #3.
No one could look away when she was in some intense explosion of utter rage. I was absolutely floored by the heat of action, and everyone was on edge during her final moment on stage.
Ari Sussman similarly has to capture a challenging character as Juror #8, who has the majority of intense moments throughout the film. Sussman truly adapts these feelings on stage, beginning as the only juror with any doubt of the defendant’s guilt.
Her character forces the audience and fellow jurors to question everything- the justice system, their own values and their gut instincts. Every choice she made on stage felt true to the character.
Juror #4, played by Ainsley Nelson, put all her trust in logic. Nelson embodied this character, staying true to the facts of the case over feelings. Her character was enjoyable to watch because of her confidence and class in the way she spoke about her reasonings.
I was able to understand her and hang on to each word with certainty, and it was a huge moment in the show when she finally sided with the doubters.
Simon Grogan as Juror #10 was excellent at projecting the prejudice attached to the case. He truly showed an internal conflict between holding in his bias and wanting to blow up on everyone.
His ignorant remarks and frustration with other jurors served as a contrast to the rational deliberations of Juror #4, eventually unifying everyone as his tirades became so extreme that everyone literally turned their backs on him.
That moment was powerful, and showed the group moving toward a more fair discussion of the defendant.
Parker balanced comedy and willful ignorance as Juror #7. Constantly expressing the desire to wrap up the verdict and leave, she was frustrating, yet relatable. The eye rolls were on point.
As Juror #12, Jessi Kaplan’s consistent address of her career in advertising kept the audience laughing. Her superficiality reflected the movie’s portrayal of Juror #12, but with a playful energy that made everyone chuckle.
Neri Frank’s Juror #2 played such a contrasting personality to the other jurors, helping to lighten the mood from dramatic moments not just through comedy but also through his endearing introverted nature.
The actors did an incredible job of not making one point seem better than the other. At different points, the argument for guilt and innocence both felt convincing. The audience had to experience the tension of not knowing for sure, just like the characters.
The verdict: “12 Angry Jurors” had a fresh take on the original film that was shown through intense emotional characterizations and creative lighting choices. This show’s energy had so much life. It was a great experience that you have to see.