Showcase’s 12 Angry Jurors; A Review

By: Shaharazad McGee '27

The story of 12 Angry Jurors comes from the 1957 film 12 Angry Men. While a narrative like this remains timeless, heavily grounded in foundational questions of food for thought such as: How quick are we to condemn people? How do we let past prejudice and poor experiences influence our lives and the choices we make in the present moment? The answer to both is unclear, for the audience and for the characters as well. That’s one of the most interesting aspects of the show, the conflict that these questions present and how they’re showcased and staged through 12 jury members, riddled with friction. This cast does an excellent job of highlighting that. 

Upon walking into the theater, I was struck with a moment of confusion. A growing curiosity as to how that intricate set may play into the story. A dingy basement is certainly a great leap from the basic court conference room of the movie. But there is something about the confinement of this area and the set’s extra edge that somehow enhances the tension of the cast. While watching the confrontational peaks and valleys of the show, they appear to be heightened by the set, and as an audience member, it puts you on edge.

While the show's set is nothing short of fantastic, it’s the energy between the cast that breathes life into the show. Every interaction they have is raw and real. Each cast member possesses comfort with the stage and with each other. This allows the play to flow in a way that feels so natural. As a member of the audience, it’s so easy to get immersed in the story immediately. It truly feels that, for a couple of hours, you're peering into the window of one of the most riveting discussions you may ever experience. After Tatnall’s Playbill production, Mamma Mia, my expectations for many of these students were set high. I’m very happy to say that they were certainly fulfilled.

Perhaps my expectations had been set the highest in the previous show by Kitty Schropp '25. Those were also the ones I deemed to be the farthest surpassed. Schropp was given the challenge of portraying Juror Number 3. After watching the movie, while I realized all the roles were challenging in some way or another, I thought Juror Number 3 might be the most difficult. This character, throughout the play, struggles in an internal battle with herself. You can see that, through the thick veil of rage and anger presented to the other members of the jury, is someone in pain. A character whose strife emanates from the subjective ties of morality. One whose own principles have, throughout the course of time, worked against their goals.

This character faces the most intense internal struggle of any character, and Schropp portrays this exceedingly well. Even from the start of the show, as she treats the rest of the cast with a vicious attitude, it’s obvious to any audience member that there’s something more boiling beneath the surface. While her unyielding perception can bring frustration, ultimately, you know that it originates from somewhere meaningful. Schropp’s visceral screams are the perfect purveyor of this exact sentiment. That is to say, if she ever wants to, she’d be great in a horror film. While she’s a master at large, loud outbursts, she’s equally talented at quiet and intimate moments, like the show’s end. She manages to take the essence of the original character and spin it into something entirely her own. Certainly a unique talent and the mark of a great actress.

Similarly, James Smyth '25, also had to capture a challenging character, Juror Number 8. This character probably has the majority of intensely cinematic moments throughout the movie. Luckily for all members of the audience, Smyth was able to expertly adapt that feeling to the stage. His performance leaves you with more questions than answers, which, in my opinion, is the purpose of his character. Juror Number 8 serves to force the other characters, as well as the audience, to question everything. Question the system, question their own values, and question what perceptions are causing their strong gut instincts. Smyth perfectly represents this idea. Every choice in movement and tone that comes from him feels rooted deeply in this pure honesty of the character. Furthermore, a more specific talent of this actor is his ability to make a direct interaction between him and another character feel like it’s only them, as well as constantly moving around, but never turning his back to the audience.

I thought the seating arrangement for most of the show was interesting, as it wasn’t numerical like the movie, but made more sense anyway. Characters who tend to be more peaceful and pensive about their approaches to the discussion are at one table, while those who are a bit more apprehensive or easily excitable are seated at the other.

In the center of it all is Jack McConnel '25. His character is the foreman, who assumes the role of mediator throughout the show. Although he’s in the midst of a constant effort to be the voice of reason, he often gets swept away into the heated discussions of the jury. McConnel does a wonderful job at carefully portraying a character who tries to maintain his responsibilities to his fellow jurors by keeping the peace, while allowing his own emotions to fester without ever being fully heard or expressed. In the midst of all the surrounding conflict and fighting, if no one else is, he must be the one to stay as calm as possible, no matter what. 

On the left sits another, Ella Simmons '27. I must admit that in the movie her character, Juror Number 9, was my favorite. The seemingly all-knowing old man, whose opinions work to ground the rest of the group. Simmons brought this to the stage perfectly. Her words were powered with a graceful and age-old strength, and somehow, her silence was able to echo just the same. Her speech grew with a quiet but strong defiance that was exemplified in her monologue. Each word of infinite wisdom was delivered with the cadence of someone who’s experienced enough to know what they’re talking about, making it quite the full performance.

On the same side sat Chloe Abel '25, who played Juror Number 4. In my initial watch of the movie, there was a certain quality to this character, this pure trust in logic over all else. Abel embodied this to a tee and reshaped it as well. The way Abel portrays this character is with an added level of open-mindedness and the tiniest bit of humility. This change, although seemingly small, made the character infinitely more enjoyable to watch and much easier to understand. Her performance is filled with the perfect mix of poise, class, and the slightest bit of tolerance, which adds layers beyond layers to this character that, on paper, feels almost entirely one-dimensional. She makes you hang on to each word with complete trust that it’s the most correct thing that anyone could say. Abel has the ability to fully understand a character to the extent that she knows just the right little touches to add to make watching her as enthralling as possible. 

Continuing on that side of the stage is Jack Morgan ‘26, playing Juror Number 11. This character holds a mirror to the prejudice that is repeated, solidified, and attached to the case by other characters in the show. Morgan, with yet another quality accent, does an extraordinary job at projecting the empathy that other members of the jury seem to lack. Additionally, he perfectly shows the internal conflict between wanting to tell people off for absolute and utter disrespect vs. knowing that all blowing up will do is make things worse. Juror Number 5, played by Alexa Najera ‘27, serves a similar purpose in the show, one that is fulfilled just as masterfully. Her attitude towards the frustratingly ignorant remarks of her fellow jurors exudes across the stage and is impossible to ignore. Whether just a simple eye roll or a scoff, she perfectly represents the knee-jerk reaction to these unfortunately common annoyances.

The final member of the jury seated on that side of the stage is Jamie Fellman '27, who plays Juror Number 6. Although she doesn’t have the most lines, she makes the absolute most of her stage time in every reaction and movement. She perfectly encompasses the balance of genuine sweetness and optimism mixed with the slow growth of irritation by her peers. It’s a difficult equilibrium to keep, but she does it with grace. 

Moving to the other side of the stage, alongside Schropp, is Henry Kirtley '25; Gavin Conlan '28, who plays Juror Number 7; Logan Neidig '28, who plays Juror Number 10; and Vin Gesty '27, who plays Juror Number 12.

Kirtley’s character tries to stay under the radar for the majority of the show, though Kirtley transforms this introverted nature into an awkwardness and discomfort that is extremely endearing. For many dramatic moments, he helps to lighten the mood, not merely through comedy but simply through the contrast his character has to most of the jurors and the intense tone of the show as a whole.

Conlan plays a character who is the living embodiment of the phrase “willfully ignorant.” He playfully balances both comedy and an empty-headedness that is about as frustrating as originally intended by the writer. Next to him is Neidig, who falls under the same category of willful ignorance but does so in a more intense and anger-charged way. His outbursts easily build frustration in both the other jurors as well as those in the audience. Finally, Gesty portrays a character who lives in a world of their own and chooses not to care for the difficulties at hand, and they do it well.

All in all, the show had a fresh take on the original story that was mainly shown within the set and the highly creative use of lighting. And while that is true, the real reason the show had so much life in it was the cast and their ability to mesh with each other so fluidly and so naturally. It’s an amazing thing to experience, and I recommend that everyone does.