posted
So, I saw this sign promoting a local high school's spring theatrical performance. Twelve Angry Jurors? I checked to make sure, but this was written as "Twelve Angry Men" - and was subsequently turned into a movie called "Twelve Angry Men".
It struck me as odd, and a bit funny, and sent my imagination on to the following:
Person of La Mancha My Fair Person Seven Spouses for Seven Siblings The Music Person etc.
I don't have any problem having mixed-gender casts for plays, or even characters of a differing gender than what's written, but changing the title just seems a bit bizarre, and just struck my funny bone.
Am I alone in this?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In high school its often hard to find males to take part in drama class. It would also be a bit rude and insensitive to put together the only play of the year, or semester, with only males. Sorry ladies, your not allowed.
So probably they cast several of the parts with high school ladies (is "girls" an appropriate description here?) instead of high school men. The young ladies probably didn't want to perform as men, and thought that people would laugh at them if they were in a play called "12 Angry Men".
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was a joke on Will and Grace that Grace's mother was in The Music Person.
But really this one makes sense to me, there is little enough context that one or two of the jurors could be played by a girl.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw a high school production of Fiddler on the Roof. They had a male playing Fyedka, but all the generic Russian men were actually females, presumably because there weren't enough guys in drama class. The bar dance scene had a lot more, er, bounce than I had seen in any other version...
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a problem with mixing up the cast at all, as Dan says it's often hard to get young men involved in high school dramas. I wouldn't have changed the name though. That just feels wrong to me. I would have kept it the same, had the play with the mixed gender class and never said a word. I bet no one in the audience would laugh.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A former director of mine saw a production of "My Fair Laddie". It was being performed at a seminary, and all they did was make the females into males...and they didn't seem to realize what the audience thought was so funny.
This could have just been a joke that he told us, but I believed him.
That aside, I directed a production of "Incident at Vichy" last year for my college. The play is written for 20 white men, but I cast multicultural men and women. And I think it worked very well.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I understand the difficulties of finding male actors in high school, even in plays where male characters are in the minority. To stage a play that calls for a 90% male cast will absolutely call for female actors to fill many of the roles.
I just think it's bizarre to change the name. They could have advertised "Twelve Angry Men" all over, then have a small disclaimer in the program saying that many of the parts will be played by women. In fact, they don't even need to have the disclaimer - I don't think anyone would bat an eye, especially in north/central New Jersey.
Changing the name to Twelve Angry Jurors takes away from the play's identity, to me. Kind of like "People and Dolls" instead of "Guys and Dolls", or "Little People" instead of "Little Women".
I don't care who's playing the parts, but changing the name just feels funny. Like calling it "Andrew's Game" - though technically not incorrect, just doesn't have the same identity.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't object to the name change because of some idea of purity, but I don't like it because it isn't as snappy as the original title. The rhythm and the consonants are all wrong - too many vascillating and rough r's instead of decisive and smooth m's and n's.
I'm fine with changing the name if the new name is as good as the first. This one isn't, sadly. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always wanted to be in Twelve Angry Men/Jurors/People/Individuals/Whatever. I love that play Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
I agree with katharina, that it's not so much name purity, but that the new name just doesn't have the same ring to it. It's off somehow that makes my brain itch. It doesn't have the power or the punch of the original title.
It's strange to me that people would rather go with an altered name with less umph than to just leave the name and cast women anyway. In their effort to have the name accurately portray what's on stage, they lost the strength of the original title. The gestalt is less, somehow.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I were going to mess with the title, why not go for "A Jury of his Peers." Which is a whole different title. And it still has the "his" in there.
The other option is to cast only women on the Jury and make it 12 Angry (wo)Men. Of course, someone will probably complain about the exclusion of males. Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had a female law professor who was also an accomplished actress. She once got to be in 12 Angry Men (and she never mentioned the title being changed). What I thought was coolest was that she was Juror #3. I would explain what that means, but I would hate to spoil the play/movie for any who haven't seen it.
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I'm okay with 12 Angry Women - probably because it still plays with the same sounds, and is a change that still holds close to the original title's sound.
12 Angry Jurors, 12 Angry People, 12 Angry Persons, 12 Angry Humans... they just don't work well. They should contrived, I guess.
As a totally random aside, take "Romeo and Juliet". If you wanted to cast two male actors, I could see "Romeo and Julius" or "Romeo and Julian" but not "Romeo and Frank". The original title has a certain resonance, and if you deviate too far from it, the result is dissonant somehow.
(As an even more ludicrous aside, if you wanted to mix Shakespearean love and zombies... it would just sound better to have "Romero and Juliet" instead of "Zombies and Juliet" )
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Flying Cow--I'd prefer in the zombie version "Romeo Who Julie Ate".
mmmmm, Brainnnnns.
One thing the origional title emphasisies is that these people who hold the life of this individual in the palm of their hands are just average people--men. Changing it to "Jurors" does change that emphasis. From Jurors we expect more, demand more, than we do from just men or women.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
)
