Who are you on the jury?
[ultimate_spacer height=»60″ height_on_tabs=»40″ height_on_mob=»40″]
In *The Jury – 12 Sworn Jurors*, we meettwelve different characters. They are forced tomake a fateful decision. How would you react? Which of them is most like you?
“12 Angry Men” is both a 1954 American television drama and a well-known, award-winning 1957 film starring Henry Fonda. Harry Guttormsen believes the story remains just as relevant today.
Binding
– Social media today makes it possible to constantly take a stance on current issues.
We jump on the bandwagon of likes or dislikes, or make strong statements in one direction or the other. Completely without having to take responsibility. “The Jury” is about how a group of people grapple with their own and each other’s prejudices in a situation where they are forced to make a choice. The door is simply locked, and they cannot leave until they have agreed on “guilty or not guilty.” It is a binding stance. At all times, and perhaps especially now, it is very relevant to force each other to truly reflect. What do we stand for?
Why now, of all times?
– Because we are increasingly seeing masses on the move. We see it in the U.S., but also here at home, that more or less populist attitudes are spreading and leading us to take relatively extreme positions on nationalism, on setting boundaries, on punishment—to tie that back to the theme at the heart of *The Jury*. The polarization that is taking place calls for thought and reflection: What is it that makes us so easily adopt extreme positions?
“What is it that makes us so easily adopt extreme positions?”
Harry Guttormsen, judge
ASK ABOUT THE TRUTH
Do you think this polarization is also taking place in today’s courtrooms?
– In this context, the courtroom is merely a metaphor for an arena. What’s interesting are the twelve people. That’s the wonderful thing about the jury system: that, after all, we are to be judged by our peers. Nowadays, in Norway, we’re moving more toward a mix of professional lawyers and laypeople. As a democratic principle, there’s something good and reassuring about the jury system. But the belief that a jury upholds an absolute truth is something this text challenges quite strongly. Because even in such a context, one becomes a victim of the strongest party—the one with the clearest and often the most emotional arguments. It is harder to get through with logical reasoning.
Do you tell the story of *12 Angry Men* differently than it has been told before?
– In the original story, there were only men—“peers.” In our story, that would be completely odd. Because gender is a natural part of the diverse picture we want to portray of society—just like cultural background. We’ve included elements of both. The interesting work is delving into the characters who are anonymized to the extent that they appear only as numbers on the jury, says Harry Guttormsen, who at the time of the interview is still in the middle of the rehearsal process and the work of shaping the characters in the play. – The actors must find the personality that underlies the arguments presented in the text. It’s very exciting,” he explains.
The Director's Choice
How do you adapt the text from the original?
– I’ve translated the script, and I decide who plays the female roles and who plays the male roles. Even at that stage, I had to deviate from the original.I’m alsothe one who does most of the casting; I choose the actor I think has the qualities that fit the character. Then I meet these actors, who also have their own lives, their own drive, and their own thoughts. As they delve deeper and deeper
into the text, new constellations and new connections emerge. Because the actors are searching for a kind of truth in each character. For me as a director, this is incredibly invigorating, because a lot of things surprise me and turn out differently than I had imagined beforehand.
You say you’re surprised by the process yourself. Do you think the final result will surprise the audience as well?
– Some people will naturally think of that 1957 film starring Henry Fonda. If you do that, it’s clear that this will be different. We’re bringing our social democratic context into this text, which was actually written in the wake of the McCarthy era, when communism and Black rights were very much on the agenda. But we’re planting this in our social democratic reality, so it becomes different. And hopefully more relevant. What’s interesting for the audience is, of course, recognizing themselves in one of the characters. Am I really a romantic idealist, or a cynical opportunist, or am I a realistic pragmatist? How do I come across? When you enter into such a demanding process as this, you inevitably reveal aspects of yourself. Hopefully, the audience will recognize themselves in that. And that the meaning of staging this play in 2017 lies in each individual’s perception of the content, says Harry Guttormsen, who also reveals that the play talks a lot about “them”: “They always lie.” “They’re out to get us.”
– I hope the audience at Kilden who “they” are. Who are these people in our society in 2017?
Number 1
The jury chair, a cohabiting partner, was born and raised on a farm. She teaches at the local elementary school and serves as an assistant coach for the women’s soccer team. She is very particular about everything being done properly. She rides motocross and repairs her own car. (Ann Ingrid Fuglestveit-Mortensen)
Number 2
Auditor, married, with a 14-year-old son. She loves the bank where she has worked for twenty years. She is results-oriented and values order and structure. She considers it an honor to serve on the jury, but at the same time feels uncomfortable due to her lack of experience and knowledge regarding the task. (Hege O. Enger)
Number 3
He owns a courier company. He is married and the father of a son he hasn’t seen in two years. He himself grew up with a domineering and absent father. He despises weakness. The discussions in the jury room resonate with his own life. He comes across as one of the least empathetic people in the room, but perhaps he is the most sensitive of them all. (Even Rasmussen)
Number 4
Stockbroker, happily married. His job is to move money and make as much profit as possible. Ethics are of secondary importance. The trial is almost predictably dull, but becomes exciting when someone actually puts forward sound arguments. Logical and analytical to the core. (Ulrik Waarli Grimstad)
Number 5
Technology consultant, unmarried. Grew up in public housing with an abusive father and no mother. Struggles to remain objective when his own past constantly resurfaces. Almost fanatically obsessed with cleanliness. Does everything he can to hide his true origins. His facade crumbles when he is forced to choose sides. (Steffen Mulder)
Number 6
House painter, married, and expecting his first son. He only speaks when he has to. He’s not afraid to beat up idiots if necessary. Prefers to act responsibly and do what’s right and just. Has watched every season of “Cold Case.” Hates soccer. (Johannes Blåsternes)
Number 7
Saleswoman (making a killing), single, and secretary for the fan club. She looks up to people who dare to stand up and speak their minds. She hates know-it-alls and people who corner her. She fires off comments off the cuff like a sarcastic machine gun. (Nasrin Khusrawi)
Number 8
Architect, living with her partner, two children. She has discussed the case with her lawyer, who believes the question of guilt is crystal clear. This triggers her sense of justice, and she decides that everything must be thoroughly evaluated before the accused boy receives his sentence. He must be given a fair trial , whatever the cost.(Ingrid Klem)
Number 9
Retired, divorced. Empathetic and fearless, with a burning passion. Has previously fought on the front lines for most major causes. She is observant and has a good memory. She longs for a younger body and despises self-absorbed, masculine stupidity. (Kari Onstad)
Number 10
Workshop owner, well-liked by his employees. A man of action who despises weakness. A grumbler who does not take kindly to being contradicted. No faith in logic or psychology. Significant xenophobia. A coarse sense of humor. (Roger Paulsen)
Number 11
A watchmaker, well-established and with a family. He has come to Europe with a dream of democracy, civilization, and a more elevated way of life through his interactions with Westerners, but is very surprised to find petty and ignorant people here as well. (Kadir Talabani)
Number 12
An advertising professional, creative and full of ideas. He has a colorful way with words, but isn’t used to heated discussions. He has traveled extensively and generally thinks well of people, caring little about cultural background or ethnicity. Extremely empathetic, but rarely delves into the depths. (Lars Emil Nielsen)
An award winner
The 1957 American film "12 Angry Men" marked Sidney Lumet's directorial debut and was based on Reginald Rose's 1954 television play. In Norway, the film was released under the title "12 edsvorne menn."
It’s about a juror who tries to convince the other 11 members of the jury to acquit a murder suspect, arguing that the benefit of the doubt should be given to him. The defendant has, by all accounts, killed his own father, and all the jurors, except for one, believe the case is a foregone conclusion. The whole thing escalates into a long and at times heated discussion about the defendant’s guilt. As the intensity rises, it is revealed that several of the jurors have based their opinions on prejudices they hold toward youth with criminal records. As these prejudices come to light, more and more begin to doubt the defendant’s guilt.
The first film won both the Golden Bear and the OCIC Award at the Berlin International Film Festival, as well as a number of other prizes. It was also nominated for three Oscars. It was adapted for the screen again in 1997 and was also produced by NRK Fjernsynsteatret in 1984.
Source: Wikipedia