4th Wall Stage Company Auditions: Wednesday, Dec. 21st from 6 PM to 9 PM
at The Sprinkler Factory, 38 Harlow Street, Worcester
Contact: BOTH email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org with at least two preferred time slots or any questions.
Please Come With: A resume, a headshot, 1 to 2 minute prepared monologue.
Contract: AEA and Non-Equity Performers – 4th Wall has operated under a special contract with Actors’ Equity Association. If you are a Union performer, please identify your status by email or when you arrive at the audition.
“12 Angry Jurors” by Reginald Rose;
Directed by Kelly Morgan
Performances: March 2016
After a long trial, a jury must decide whether a 19-year-old man is guilty of murdering his father. In order for this decision to be made final the vote must be unanimous, however one juror stands alone in voting, “not guilty.” It is 11 to 1. As the evidence is re-examined, new uncertainties come to light, forcing everyone to truly question if there is a measure of “reasonable doubt.” Twelve Angry Jurors will keep you on the edge of your seat while exploring how democracy truly works.
Juror #8: He/She votes “not guilty” during the jury’s first vote. Described as thoughtful and gentle, Juror #8 is usually portrayed as the most heroic member of the jury. He/she is devoted to justice, and is initially sympathetic toward the 19-year-old defendant. At the beginning of the play, when every other juror has voted guilty he/she is the only one to vote “not guilty.” Juror #8 spends the rest of the play urging the others to practice patience, and to contemplate the details of the case. A guilty verdict will result in the electric chair; therefore, Juror #8 wants to discuss the relevance of the witness testimony. He/she is convinced that there is reasonable doubt. Eventually he/she persuades the other jurors to acquit the defendant.
Juror #9: Described in the stage notes as a “mild, gentle old person, defeated by life and waiting to die.” Despite this bleak description, he/she is the first to agree with Juror #8, deciding that there is not enough evidence to sentence the young man to death. Also, during Act One, Juror #9 is the first to openly recognize Juror #10′s racist attitude, stating that, “What this man says is very dangerous.”
Juror #5: This young person is nervous about expressing their opinion, especially in front of the elder members of the group. He/she grew up in the slums. He/she has witnessed knife-fights, an experience that will later help other jurors form an opinion of “not guilty.”
Juror #11: As a refugee from Europe, Juror #11 has witnessed great injustices. That is why he/she is intent on administering justice as a jury member. He/she sometimes feels self-conscious about his/her foreign accent. He/she conveys a deep appreciation for democracy and America’s legal system.
Juror #2: He/she is the most timid juror of the group. Just how timid? Juror #2 is easily persuaded by the opinions of others, and cannot explain the roots of his/her opinions.
Juror #6: Described as an “honest but dull-witted person.” He/she is slow to see the good in others, but eventually agrees with Juror #8.
Juror #7: A slick and sometimes obnoxious salesperson, Juror #7 admits during Act One that he/she would have done anything to miss jury duty. He/she represents the many real-life individuals who loath the idea of being on a jury.
Juror #12: He/she is an arrogant and impatient advertising executive. He/she is anxious for the trail to be over so that he/she can get back to his/her career and social life.
Juror #1: Non-confrontational, Juror #1 serves as the foreperson of the jury. He/she is serious about their authoritative role, and wants to be as fair as possible.
Juror #10: The most abhorrent member of the group, Juror #10 is openly bitter and prejudiced. During Act Three he/she unleashes his bigotry to the others in a speech that disturbs the rest of the jury. Most of the jurors, disgusted by #10′s racism, turn their backs on him/her.
Juror #4: A logical, well-spoken stock-broker, Juror #4 urges fellow jurors to avoid emotional arguments and engage in rational discussion. He/she does not change their vote until a witness’s testimony is discredited.
Juror #3: In many ways, he/she is the antagonist to the constantly calm Juror #8. Juror #3 is immediately vocal about the supposed simplicity of the case, and the obvious guilt of the defendant. He/she is quick to lose their temper, and often infuriated when Juror #8 and other members disagree with their opinions. He/she believes that the defendant is absolutely guilty, until the very end of the play. During Act Three, Juror #3′s emotional baggage is revealed. His/her poor relationship with his/her own son/daughter may have biased his views. Only when he/she comes to terms with this can he/she finally vote “not guilty.”