Andrea Calabrese - ACTING CRITIQUE: Voir Dire

ACTING CRITIQUE








written by
Andrea Calabrese
04/23/2007









Intermediate Acting
Dan Green
LACC Theatre Academy
Spring 2007










On Saturday, April 21st, 2007, I attended the Pulitzer Prize-Nominated courtroom drama, Voir Dire. Voir Dire was written by Joe Sutton, directed by Al Rossi, and performed at the Camino Theatre on LACC Campus.

The first character I’ve chosen to write about is Michael, played by Benjamin Clark. Michael is the only male juror out of the six jurors summoned to serve verdict on this jury. He is a financial consultant and friends with many attorneys. In his spare time he enjoys reading and playing cards. The first objective for Michael is finding the truth. He wants to see and show all of the facts. His obstacle is the other jurors and their arguments against him. The tactics Michael uses to find and determine the truth are asking questions and demanding to see all of the evidence. The others (that try to prove the man on trial, Lester Carmichael, is innocent before he is proven guilty) argue with Michael as they try to defend why Carmichael should be acquitted. Michael constantly questions the other juror’s presumptions of Carmichael’s innocence. Michael says, “If the evidence was planted on Lester Carmichael, then why did he not start screaming bloody murder when he was arrested? Why did he not start yelling, ‘They planted these drugs on me!’” Michael doesn’t believe there is a conspiracy surrounding Carmichael’s arrest. He believes in the innocence of the arresting officers: Cooney, DeMarco, and Borgia. Michael points out that 25 drug sales were witnessed by these officers between the hours of 2-4pm on the day of Carmichael’s arrest. Michael trusts in the oath of honor that the officers testified to. A second objective of Michael’s is to obey what the judge has told the jurors to do. The judge has told them to listen to each other when deciding a verdict, to harmonize, and to make an honest decision based on the facts. Michael wants to “listen to the judge,” and make a decision based on integrity. When deciding the fate of Lester Carmichael, it is very important to Michael to make sure that he and the other jurors are all on “the same wave-length.” He believes Carmichael is guilty and does not want to acquit him because that would mean Lester Carmichael would keep his job as a principal and continue influencing a negative fate for the children that know him as “father.” Michael’s obstacles to reaching this harmonization, and making a judgment based on facts, are the other jurors and their continued efforts to rant about other possible solutions (conspiracies and contradictions) to finding Carmichael guilty. Debra raises the issues of racism, while Gloria distracts from the truth by making comparisons to the statistics of the entire city. Michael uses many tactics to stay on track. He insists at looking at only the facts of the case, and continues to defend the arresting officers. Michael says of Borgia—the arresting officer, who is constantly ridiculed by the other jurors, “She was doing the job she was trained to do.” Michael sticks to the facts and restates the crime scene over and over again. He continuously reinstates, “The facts are that Lester Carmichael approached Simon Brown, and was witnessed to have purchased vials of crack-cocaine.”

The second character I chose to critique is the character of Debra, played by Lesa Jacks. Debra is a native New Yorker and is a counselor who works with teenage girls. She also acts as a spokeswoman for the six jurors—writing the notes to the judge and then passing them off to Michael who delivers them to the bailiff. She also likes to read. She turned down a request to hang out with the other jurors at the hotel they were put up at, because she had brought a book with her to read. She also stated in her monologue that she had "received a B.A. and a Masters Degree," but felt strongly that she had trouble with people believing in her throughout her past because she is a Black-American. She felt that this disbelief in her was due to discrimination against her because of her nationality. This contributes to her level of personal experience and to her knowledge of racism in America. One of Debra’s main objective’s is to determine whether or not Lester Carmichael is guilty or innocent. She wants very badly to prove that Carmichael is innocent, specifically because he is African-American. Debra feels special interest and personal obligation to defend Carmichael because she is the only black juror. She wants to give the black man “more,” and feels that it is up to her to prove his innocence. Her obstacles are the other juror’s arguments and complaints. The majority of the other jurors repeatedly try to say that it is not a matter of racism, or because of a specific hatred against blacks. The tactics that Debra uses to question the idea of racism against Carmichael is in questioning the validity of the other juror’s ability to make sound judgments, and their abilities of having a clear understanding of what it means to be discriminated against. Debra complains that Faith, played by Darcy Weinberger, cannot possibly understand the meaning of racism because Faith comes from Nebraska where there “are no blacks.” Debra says that Faith couldn’t possibly understand what it means, or even know how to have a relationship with a black person. Therefore, according to Debra, Faith is incapable of understanding or defending a black man’s perspective. I felt that Debra’s objective evolved throughout the play from simply wanting to know the truth to a definite objective of “reasonable doubt.” Debra does not think the facts are against Carmichael. She does believe “beyond reasonable doubt” that Carmichael is not guilty. Her obstacle is that the other jurors believe he is guilty, and they argue to prove so (“beyond reasonable doubt” that Carmichael did purchase the crack-cocaine). Debra uses many tactics to prove her “reasonable doubt.” She says she has seen Simon Brown (the accused seller of the drugs) on the street, and knows how he acts as a tough criminal/gangster in front of everyone. Debra again defends Carmichael by suggesting to the jurors the idea of a possible set up by Brown or the police. Debra does not believe that the police who arrested Carmichael: Borgia, Cooney, and DeMarco are being honest, and she states that when she herself looked through the binoculars from where Borgia was standing on the roof, she could not see anything. Debra does everything in her power to try to convince the other jurors of Carmichael’s innocence. Debra feels that if she convicts Carmichael, that every black man in Staten Island will see her as a “trader.” Debra defends her tactics by reminding the jurors of the character witnesses that defended Lester Carmichael on the stand before the judge. She beseeches with the other jurors to consider the testimonies of the character witnesses that “testified under oath” in favor of Carmichael vowing that he was a “fine man.” Lesa Jacks gives an unforgettable performance on the stage as she pleads with the jurors to acquit Lester Carmichael, offering that it would be enough punishment for him to lose his dignity, as well as his job as a principal. Debra also states very clearly that there is no possible way that Borgia’s accusation of Carmichael could be an honest one, pointing out that Carmichael was writing notes in the courtroom with his right hand, but there was nothing seen in his right hand. Debra also insists that Borgia said Carmichael placed the vials in a pocket that didn’t even appear to exist on the photo of the jacket that Carmichael wore that day.

Throughout the majority of the play, all of the actors sat together discussing the case at a long executive-style cherry wood board-room table, on the stage in front of the audience. Since the audience was on the stage with the actors it was easier for the audience members to see the evidence and the details of the staged “exhibit 18” which depicted the scene of the arrest. What I found most interesting was that all of the actors seemed to keep their notebooks open and on-hand (on the table) with personal notes and reminders available, if needed. I think all of the actors did an excellent job of using their notebooks as props, and not making it obvious but rather questionable as to whether or not they were using their notebooks just as mere props, or as cue cards for their lines. Their monologues were impressive and I honestly walked away inspired to be as good of an actor as all of the actors who performed in Voir Dire.

Overall, I thought the play was well composed and performed with excellence in acting. All of the actors did a terrific job. It was apparent that all of the actors in Voir Dire shared a common objective. The common goal amongst the six jurors (determining the fate of Lester Carmichael) was to be fair in their pre-judgments, to be fair in their verdicts, and to be fair in considering the facts.