The stage is dark. A 19-year-old boy has just stood trial for premeditated patricide—in layman’s terms, the first-degree murder of his father. To decide the fate of this inner-city teenager, the court has summoned 12 jurors to a bleak jury room set up in the Patricelli ’92 Theater. The show played each night at 7 p.m. from Feb. 8 through Feb. 10.

“It is now your duty to sit down to try and separate the facts from the fancy,” the judge (Executive Assistant to the Vice President for Communications Evelyn Bozeman) declares offstage. “One man is dead. The life of another is at stake.”

Thus the deliberation begins and heated debates ensue, just as they do in Reginald Rose’s American classic “12 Angry Men.” Except there were no men on stage. Inspired by the adaptation by Sherman L. Sergel and directed by CJ Joseph ’25, the new SHADES production of “12 Angry Men” reimagines the acclaimed courtroom drama by featuring a non-male cast. In an email to The Argus, Joseph explained that working with a non-male cast allowed her to explore how society portrays and evaluates anger.

“[F]or women, we strive to cultivate solidarity, ignoring our differences and the weight within [these differences],” Joseph wrote. “The societal biases towards White female vulnerability [often] lead toward unwarranted benevolence.”

Beyond this theatrical lens, Joseph added that her gender-based casting choice came out of her personal experience with toxic male fury.

“In a cast of all non-men, we agreed that the inclusion of the male body would evoke uncomfortable emotions, both as a participant and an audience member, given the history behind that power dynamic,” Joseph wrote. “If a man yelled at me as Juror #10, Juror #3, or Juror #4, I would not feel as safe in that environment. My female actors would not feel safe in that environment. It’s essential to look at whose anger we process normally and whose anger we must pay more attention to.”

What is presented to the 12 jurors seems like a straightforward, open-and-shut case: the boy is clearly guilty to all but one juror. 

“This is A, B, C,” Juror #12 (Oluchi Chukwuemeka ’26) insists. 

The 11 jurors who have voted “guilty” speak with certainty, and all wish to go home quickly so as not to miss their Christmas dinner. Their accordance of more importance to Christmas dinner than to the boy’s life cunningly satirizes the jurors’ lack of accountability.

“I never saw a guiltier man in my life,” Juror #3 (Sophie Taubman ’25) says.

But the verdict must be unanimous, and Juror #8, played by Joseph, disagrees. In the next hour, Joseph’s powerful performance as Juror #8 forces every member of the jury to conduct their duties diligently, destabilizing evidence that seemed conclusive and exposing the deep-seated prejudices of every character. Both the jury members and the audience begin to see how seemingly objective facts are colored by individual experiences and attitudes, a critique that Joseph hoped to highlight with her iteration.

“This classic show delves into the complexities of emotional vulnerability and courtroom bias,” Joseph wrote. “[It] portrays how personal histories influence perceptions, often evading legal scrutiny (in other words, how we are inherently complex beings that are stuffed to the brim with unchecked biases).”

The foreign-born Juror #11, played by Oleksandra Volakova ’27, reminds the audience of the fundamental value of fairness in American democracy.

“We have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict,” Juror #11 says. “We should not make it a personal thing.”

But as the play goes on, it becomes clear that the jurors’ positions are personal. For instance, through Taubman’s nuanced delivery, the audience learns about Juror #3’s personal history with her own son, which clouds her judgment and aggravates her short temper during the trial. As Joseph pointed out, lawyers do not always explore biases associated with personal history during jury selection, but each person must acknowledge how their past affects their perspective.

Through “12 Angry Men,” Joseph wished to explore bias in nuanced, intersectional ways, beyond simply identifying choices and statements as biased. Her production sought to highlight the interconnected power dynamics and systems of oppression at play in a courtroom.

“My involvement aimed to highlight the subtle perpetuation of racial bias by White Women, leveraging vulnerability to justify discriminatory behavior (i.e. White women’s tears),” Joseph wrote. “That hint of elitism, Thatcher-esque feminism, and racial blindness should resonate with Wesleyan’s campus specifically, shedding light on the overlooked impact of privileged actions on women of color.”

With these concerns in mind, the production team took great care with complex racial dynamics, both on and off the stage. In the play, effective performances—such as those of Juror #10 (Liv Snow ’25) and Juror #5 (Nya Santeliz ’25)—develop a contrast between entitled, ignorant White female jurors and those with lived experiences on the margins of society, whose personal struggles have allowed them to be more empathetic towards others. During the rehearsal process, the production team’s acknowledgment that the cast was predominantly white strengthened their will to tell the story thoughtfully.

“While the absence of male actors alleviated certain [tensions,] we were still left to address the predominant whiteness in the rehearsal room, highlighting the importance of racial dynamics above all else,” Joseph wrote. “The difference between this version and the all-male version is the care that had to be weaved into the process, unpacking complex racial dynamics and keeping in mind the stories that must be told.”

As the scene grows tense, the audience remains on the edge of their seats. One by one, the jury members change their votes from guilty to not guilty as they gradually agree that the evidence leaves room for reasonable doubt. From an initial vote 11–1 in favor of convicting the boy, the jury ends up voting unanimously for his acquittal. Joseph expressed her gratitude for support throughout the process from her cast and crew.

“The dual responsibilities of a director and an actor posed a considerable challenge throughout the staging process,” Joseph wrote. “With the departure of our original assistant director, my stage manager, Kay Perkins [’24], stepped in admirably, tackling both Stage Managing and AD-ing at the same time (and then we got Skye [Figueroa ’26], but the groundwork was Kay)! I prioritized my director work for most of the process because I had to give detailed actor notes to 11–12 people while blocking a show with at least 12 bodies on stage at all times.”

Volakova, whose appearance in “12 Angry Men” was her first time acting at the University, was also grateful for the dedicated team that worked on the show. 

“[Joseph] was a great person, not just [as] a director, but as a friend,” Volakova said. “She helped me a lot in terms of my acting skills because I’m not an experienced actor. She was helping, but she was not trying to make me do something. When she explained to me the character, she was trying to show me in what direction I can move, but not just that ‘You should act like this.’”

Joseph’s advice on understanding her character and acting more naturally helped with Volakova’s effort to bring Juror #11 closer to the audience.

“I have my grandparents who are from the USSR,” Volakova said. “I can approximately understand how they would act and how they [would] react to everything [Juror] #11 faces.” 

Volakova added that she enjoyed working with the rest of the cast so much that they inspired her to try out more roles at auditions and do more productions in the new year.

“I think our cast was just perfect,” Volakova said. “Honestly, they gave me goosebumps. Even though we had several rehearsals every day, and I knew almost by heart all the lines they were going to say, every time they acted…[it] felt real…. I really hope to act more like this [because] I really enjoyed the production that we’ve had. I honestly think that this might be the best production I’ve ever been to because it was just such a wholesome crew. And I’m just really grateful to everyone who made it possible for me to participate in this show.”

Joseph echoed Volakova’s sentiment, saying that although she was glad to see the team’s hard work come to fruition, she was disappointed to see the show end. 

This production of “12 Angry Men,” which was sponsored by the Embodying Anti-Racism Initiative (EAI) fellowship at the Center for the Arts (CFA), also started the new season for a newly rejuvenated SHADES, a student collective that supports creative expression by people of color (POC).

“While primarily facilitated through the CFA (which funds EAI), I intentionally sought external support through SHADES to get the club back on the map,” Joseph wrote. “POC theater needs to be uplifted at this school.”

This mission is particularly important for Joseph, who observed that, in performing arts spaces on campus, race has not been dealt with in a constructive and honest way. 

“Let’s ask ourselves, why do we need a BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, and People of Color] arts collective in the first place?” Joseph wrote. “I want more BIPOC artists at this school. You can see my peers’ passion, imagination, and intersectional approach from miles away. BIPOC artists at this school don’t have a proper support system. Now, with SHADES back, LUCID Colors is returning, and you can see a new future on this campus that I hope never dies.”

The next production by the SHADES Theater Collective is “What Comes Next?” a staged reading of a new play written by Senica Slaton ’26, which will be performed on Saturday, Feb. 24 at 2 p.m. in Russell House. Following that, SHADES will produce “Mojada: A Medea in Los Angeles,” a play written by Luis Alfaro and directed by By Martinez-Castañeda ’24. It will take place on Friday, May 3 at 7 p.m. and Saturday, May 4 at 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. in the Patricelli ’92 Theater. Both events are free for the public to attend.

 

Sida Chu can be reached at schu@wesleyan.edu.