Boyd Gaines
Audiences weaned on Law & Order and Court TV are about to be taken where cameras and spectators rarely go: the jury room. Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men is an intimate look at one such room in New York City on a hot day in 1954, where 12 men set about to decide the fate of a teenager accused of murder. Only Juror #8 feels that there is a "reasonable doubt" in the case--to the frustration of his 11 colleagues. The multitalented Boyd Gaines is stepping into big shoes in his role as Juror #8, the part made famous by Henry Fonda in the film version. Known for his incredible versatility, Gaines is probably the only three-time Tony winner The Heidi Chronicles, She Loves Me, Contact who also had a hand in the mainstream culture of the 1980s with his performances in the movies The Sure Thing, Porky's, Fame and on TV's One Day at a Time. Gaines took time out from the hectic preview period to chat with Broadway.com about the play, the justice system and a gang of amazing New York actors.
How have previews been for you so far?
Well, we're certainly enjoying ourselves, and the audiences have been generally responsive. Of course, we're trying not to count any chickens before they're hatched. We're hoping the play will have a good run, and we're glad that the audiences have been very attentive and seem to be involved in the play, which is the most you can ask for.
I was surprised to learn that this is the Broadway debut of Twelve Angry Men. Did you know the history of the play before taking the part?
I was surprised, too. I was not even sure how often it had been done in the city, or if it had an off-Broadway run. I'm usually much more aware of these things. I really learned the whole history of the piece after we started--or since it was offered to me. I actually thought it was a play first, and I didn't know it was a teleplay. I just thought it was a movie. Because of the claustrophobic nature of the movie, I had assumed it was a play.
I can see why you thought it was a play.
Right. I thought, "Oh, gosh. Twelve guys in a room? That's a play."
Is it intimidating to play a part that is so closely associated with Henry Fonda, who starred as Juror #8 in the movie version?
Yes. I'd seen the film, obviously, but I consciously avoided it after getting the part. I just think he's such a wonderful actor. He's so persuasive, I thought that he would influence me too greatly; I wouldn't be able to get him out of my head. Even though I didn't go back and look at the movie, there were times when I would think, "Oh, I bet Henry Fonda could make this work."
How do you think you've made your performance different from his?
I remember him being quite quiet and very pensive, and though there are moments when that happens for me in the play, it's quite different when you don't get close-ups. The movie is really focused on him, but the play is a free-for-all for 12 people.
With that in mind, what were some of the ways that the actors directed the conversation? I feel like the audience is completely focused exactly where it should be.
[Director] Scott [Ellis] really allowed us a lot of freedom, so the rehearsals had an improvisational feel to them. And as we went along, he focused the story. In other words, it was a matter of saying, "OK, I need some movement from you, so that my eye will be drawn to you." The most obvious way to do that would be to stand up and speak, but there are other ways, of course. He's constantly shifting the focus to who is speaking.
Is it a challenge to play a role that is given so little detail in terms of character?
Yes, the only personal information for almost all of us is occupation. You find out that I'm an architect and that I have two kids and that's it.
Did you make up a story to fill in the details?
Oh, yeah. In some plays, you don't do that, though I often do. But in this play, I thought it was necessary. We did a lot of research into the period, and Scott provided us with a lot of background material. I went back and looked at a couple of documentaries. Kevin Geer [who plays Juror #2] was great. He likes to do a lot of research, so he sort of became our archivist.
What were some of the things you looked at in your research?
Reginald Rose was influenced apparently by the Army-McCarthy hearings, and that had been some part of the impetus to write the teleplay. So we went back and looked at Point of Order!, which is a documentary about that time. I also looked at Ken Burns' documentary, especially the part that focused on Robert Moses--because my character was an architect, and the city was changing so much at that time. We also read a book that Kevin and Scott found called A Trial by Jury by D. Graham Burnett. I found it relevant to our play in terms of seeing how the burden of proof can be really high. Hence, my character's credo is reasonable doubt. That's the sacred safeguard.
Did your research include sitting on a jury?
No, unfortunately. I've never been a part of one. I've done jury duty, but I've never been picked. I've done voir dire any number of times. Honestly, there have been times where I was hoping that I would get picked because I think it's incredibly important. It is a kind of sacred duty.
It's interesting that you've used the word "sacred." Do you think there's a spiritual aspect to the play?
There absolutely is. It goes back to, "It's so if I say it's so." The whole get up on the stand and swear thing. And then it has to be true! I think that's one of the most important reasons of keeping it in the period: the belief that swearing something makes us believe it's true. It's a very patriotic play but not from the point that the government is always right. It's from the point of view that the system demands an incredibly high standard of proof. The play deals with a group of people who try to act with moral certainty, and in fact, are greatly resistant to the idea of doubt--that there are many ways of looking at a situation.
Are you finding that there's a new resonance for audiences?
They probably do not have the same faith in the system as they might have in the '50s. That became much clearer to us when we started playing it in front of an audience. I think, especially in New York, where you have a more liberally minded audience, they are especially wary of acting with moral certainty. We've just been led into a war where the administration is acting with absolute moral authority, and then they turn out to be wrong. There's a line in the play that goes, "Sometimes the facts that are staring you in the face are wrong."
Do you think your character especially seems to be able to see the facts clearly?
I don't think my character is an angel or a saint. I just think he's a guy who is having a really tough time making a decision about this trial.
Why do you think you're so versatile as an actor? You've been successful in all different types of parts and shows.
What I really am more than anything is really lucky. I'm lucky that people have asked me to do a wide variety of not only characters but also genres and styles. When I'm doing musicals, I never refer to them as musicals, I refer to them as plays because they are plays. If they're any good, they're plays. And in some plays you have to sing, and in some plays you have to dance and sometimes you have to do both. But they're all plays, and they're all characters, and they all have problems and needs. You go about them the same way. It's no different to me than if you had to fence or do stage fighting. You often have to learn special skills--an accent, how to juggle--there are any number of things that you may be asked to do. I think that singing and dancing are just two of those. Now, obviously, there are people who juggle really well and there are people who sing and dance incredibly well, especially in this city. So, I just feel really lucky that I've gotten to be onstage with people who can really sing and really dance. I'm often the person who doesn't have to sing all that well--and certainly doesn't have to dance well. If you saw Contact, you know I'm not a dancer. I've done so many more plays than musicals, but that's because that's what I've been asked to. Even though I have been--dare I say--embraced by the community of people who do musicals, I'm just an honorary member.
It's so nice to see an ensemble of New York stage actors. Tell me a little bit about rehearsing with them.
They really are these wonderful New York actors. You know, you don't always enjoy going to work, but this is different. The room was quite jocular, as you can imagine, but also quite passionate. As we were taking the script apart and working on it, we would have heated discussions--which were all very friendly, of course--about what we thought about the show. If you turned the sound down, it would have looked just like the play.
