REVIEWER - PAUL BACON
INTERVIEWED BY ALAN CLIFFORD

(A.C.)There's classic film drama being brought to life on the stage. It is '12 Angry Men". We heard from the director last week: Jo Stendall came in to tell us more about the play, and it struck me that we hove good contacts in the legal profession here at the BBC. We need them sometimes, frankly. Paul Bacon is one such based in Mansfield and he's not only involved in the legal profession hut in amateur dramatics as well and he's in our Mansfield studio, Hello, Paul.

(P.B.)Good evening. Hi there, Alan.

(A.C.)I thought it would be nice to get you to go along and see what you made of this both from your legal perspective and from your dramatics perspective.

(P.B.)Yes, well, you know, you get asked, occasionally, to review plays; and you go along; and you watch them through; and you think, "what am I going to say? What am I really going to say? These people have worked really hard and they've tried really hard and they've spent a lot of time and done all these rehearsals... You know, I've really got to..."

(A.C.)Because it is an amateur production…

(P.B.)Then you see something like this play and you say to yourself, "I shouldn't compromise when I'm talking about other things. If they are not good enough, we should say so because this is absolutely brilliant. It's the standard by which other amateur productions should measure themselves. I went and sat there absolutely enthralled. And I think it is probably the second best play I've ever seen. So that, I think, is relatively high praise, wouldn't you say?

(A.C.)That is extraordinarily high praise. And you're including in that professional productions?

(P.B.)Professional productions, too. Yes. The one I'd set above that was a professional production and I really, genuinely, mean that. So, very good indeed. Very clever, the way in which you are involved in the production whilst you are silent witnesses to what is going on. If I can just tell you a little bit about it because I know that some people have seen the film and some people won't have done. Basically, a young man has been brought before the Court charged with murder. He's nineteen. And the elected Jury have got to decide his fate. And the play starts with hearing from somewhere outside where we are sat, the Judge, intoning them to come to a decision; reminding them that it is a Capital Offence for which only the electric chair is available as a sentence and he cannot accept any recommendations of mercy. And then you see them all troop into the room. Its clearly a very hot day and they try and switch the fan on in the ceiling and its broken and they're all mopping their brows and come and sit down. Then you're involved in the deliberations. And I say involved because the clever thing they've done is that most of the audience are actually sat around that same room. So they've put chairs around the set so that you are actually on the set. I mean, were in the Old Library Theatre. The setting is not a stage which is raised. The stage… you look down on it, normally, from the tiered seats and the tiered seats are still there. But they have put chairs around that set so there are double rows of chairs and you're actually sitting there; close to the action. Which means, of course, no slip ups and there certainly weren't. We were sat right on the front row: right next to the people who were doing the play. And you feel so much part of it but, at the same time, watching this interaction and the emotional, heart-rendering, on some parts - prejudice on others - looking at these twelve different people, you know, expressing their views: which they are stimulated into doing by Juror No8 who was played spectacularly well by David Savage. Because what happens is the Foreman, again, played brilliantly by Keith Wallace, says, "right, what's the decision? We've got to make a decision." They've been in the room for about thirty seconds. And Adrian Louch, who plays a guy who's anxious to get to the baseball match, says, "come on, let's have a vote on it" and they just say, "right. Come on. Lets vote! And, you know, the young man, nineteen, going to the electric chair… and they count round the room. They go one, two, three, four, guilty, five, six, guilty, seven, eight, guilty, eleven guilty and then there's one not guilty and so... And so he says, you know, "I can't just simply make a decision like this. We've not even discussed the case." And it's that which triggers the debate. And it's just wonderful the way they interact and react and act out, so brilliantly, the whole thing that you completely forget that this is a play: that you are part of it.

(A.C.)Right. Now there are two sides to this 'being close to the action' that struck me as you described it. One is, the cast themselves have to, in effect, ignore the audience; even though they are being breathed down the neck almost. But, also, I know when I've been to see performances of one sort or another when they are on stage, whether they are actors or musicians or whatever, sometimes you quite like the anonymity of being in the dark in the audience so that you can, sort of, look at things going off and not feel that they can see you looking at them. You know, like a one way mirror. That's broken, it sounds like, in this production.

(P.B.)Well… it is and it isn't. I mean, you never, obviously, participate at all. But the fact that you're so close gives you such an opportunity to look at the faces and see the movement and see the tiniest flickers - all of which are used to great effect. I mean... there is one particular point where they decide to have a ballot to see who is voting which way and the vote goes then from eleven to one to ten to two. And, you know, everybody, I'm sure, in the Theatre, focussed on this one particular chap who you were absolutely sure was the man who had changed his vote and it's just tiny flickerings in his face which give the game away and, of course, they all then turn on him. They think its him. In the end its not him, actually, that's changed his vote; but we were all sucked into it. Not because he said a word but simply because you could just measure every little movement that he showed. It was wonderfully well done.

(A.C.)That's interesting as well because it's a technique that film can do. You can get real big close-ups of people on the screen, can't you, which theatre can't ever really do in the traditional sense when you have a big theatre production but this, again, crosses a bit of a boundary from... as you describe it.

(P.B.)It does. I mean… Because it's just a one set piece... Again that doesn't become, you know, very boring and you're stuck there. They actually used a very clever bit of lighting because they have a screen at the back and a doorway into this and a couple of steps up and every so often - you discover part way through that that's the washroom - and every so often a couple of the guys will go off to talk. Go and wash their hands and have a talk; and you get this other bit of a dimension to it all, if you like. And they're talking about what they have been talking about and this sort of thing which they light with big back-lighting which throws that up and you can see people through the gauze screen; and their discussions. And so they used that very effectively in a very small theatre: and you've got these pieces of sounds off, if you like, of what's going off and another dimension to the play.

(A.C.)So that's also very well done. From your legal perspective... I know this is set in America in decades past so this doesn't necessarily have a great deal of relevance but… was it convincing in its portrayal of the Judicial system?

(P.B.)It was. I mean, this particular play is written by Reginald Rose and I understand that he actually wrote the stage play after he'd written the film script. So the film script was done with Henry Fonda then he wrote this as a stage play and its brilliant for stage.

(A.C.)It was based on a real experience?

(P.B.)It was. You are absolutely right. It was based on his own experience. I believe that this… a lot of what we saw there, last night in the play, happens regularly in the Jury Room. I mean… the tension and the anxiety and, in fact, the whole... It's called, "12 Angry Men", of course, and that's exactly what they are - a lot of them are angry a lot of the time. Of course, as you say, it had to be 40 years ago. It would have to be 12 angry people now, wouldn't it? And, of course, you have majority verdicts now so you'd lose part of the plot if you could base it in modern day. But, I'm absolutely sure that jury decisions are often made, effectively, quite often by one or two people who have the abilities, if you like, to think; to make decisions; and do that in their professional or ordinary lives. And they influence others quite a lot and, although David Savage's character, you know, creates this problem in saying, "I'm not pleading... I'm not going to go on with a guilty verdict until we've had a proper debate" it doesn't just stop there. In fact, because it stimulates... all the other characters then get involved in the debate and start picking points and start picking holes in the prosecution case. And there's quite a nice piece of work by Malcolm Seymour, who's one of the character - he plays Juror No9, I think it is - and he, you know, he spots an item in an old guy who's been staggering in and giving evidence and because he can see - he being an older person - he sees things there. He creates that important contribution and gets the debate going. In terms as a lawyer... I looked at it and kept thinking, "this looks like, at the beginning, a completely waterproof case. This man is definitely guilty." And as they take the case apart there aren't any weaknesses… there aren't any bits were you think, "that's a bit unbelievable". You do, you know, you see the argument then you see the counter-argument and you start to think, "now hang on a minute, what about this?" and it does really, really work. Super. Super.

(A.C.)Tm pleased you had a good night out. It's 12 Angry Men at the Old Library in Mansfield and I understand that tickets are pretty hard to come by for Saturday's performance?

(P.B.)I think they're sold out. In fact, I've been telling everybody today I've met, you know, go and see this. My goodness me, go and see it. And my receptionist at the office rang up this afternoon and she's on the waiting list for Saturday so that tells you a bit about it. But Friday and Thursday - Friday and, actually, tonight - there are tickets available so, you know, if you've got nothing to do... If you've got something to do, put it aside… rush off down to The Old Library Theatre and get in there tonight because its certainly worth going to see.

(A.C.)Yes, I know you wouldn't want too many people to go away from their television screens tomorrow evening. At 9 o'clock on BBC1, 'Have I got news for you", featuring, well... one of your offspring.

(P.B.)I'm afraid Richard Bacon is on tomorrow night. Yes, I can't go on... I'd like to go and see this again, actually. I can't go and see this tomorrow night because I've got to stay in. He'll be on the phone as soon as its finished asking me what I thought about it all so...

(A.C.)You might be representing him in Court one way or another!

(P.B.)Well, you know how they take them apart on that programme. I'm actually a bit anxious about what's going to happen.

(A.C.)Ah... so, we can look forward to Richard Bacon on TV tomorrow night. Son of Paul, who's been doing our review of "l2 Angry Men". And, Paul, thank you very much for your time.

(P.B.)My pleasure. It was a pleasure to be asked to go. I'm really glad I went.

(A.C.)Good Thumbs up for "12 Angry Men" at the Old Library in Mansfield and that's being put on by Frontroom Theatre Productions.


Click here for more information about this production