Michael Gorey

Juliet and I saw Runaway Jury at the Wangaratta Cinema on Friday. I’m not a film buff; in fact I only go to the movies once or twice a year and rarely watch them on TV.

My main interest in seeing this film was to compare it with John Grisham’s excellent book of the same name, which I read a few months ago.

The movie stars Dustin Hoffman, Gene Hackman, John Cusack and Rachel Weisz in the main roles.

Given my confessed ignorance of cinema I won’t comment on the technical aspects or their acting performances.

I will say that I enjoyed it, but I remain puzzled at the variations from Grisham’s original storyline.

The novel features a courtroom battle where a jury is manipulated to win a verdict against big tobacco companies for causing pain, suffering and death. The manipulation is done to revenge a family tragedy involving lung cancer.

Nicholas Easter gets himself onto the jury and progressively “bumps” other jurors who don’t see things his way, or he persuades the others to his predetermined way of thinking.

While he’s working on the inside the big tobacco companies have a jury consultant working on the outside to sway the verdict by whatever means.

Their paths cross in a fascinating plot that marries conflict with perceived mutual interest.

By contrast, the movie begins with a startling scene in which a rogue gunman murders several people. The court case then features a battle against big gun companies, trying to hold them liable for the shooting.

Nicholas Easter only causes one other juror to be removed in the film, saving blind foreman Herman Grimes from a poisoning attack he suffered in the novel.

I can understand why much of the detail was condensed. Movie makers simply don’t have time to tell the full story.

That’s why I’m surprised the film includes a long dialogue between lawyer Wendall Rohr (Hoffman) and jury stacker Rankin Fitch (Hackman). It bordered on boring and didn’t add to the film’s drama.

I also can’t understand why the tobacco industry was switched for guns, except that gun control is a topical issue in the United States.

I’ve read some online reviews and that aspect has offended some people who consider the film is trying to moralise and threaten people’s constitutional rights, so the change might have backfired. I’ll keep looking for an explanation from the director or producer.

I’m not going to be pompous and say “read the book instead of seeing the film”. The movie was good entertainment. So is the book. Experience both, but don’t expect the experiences to meld.

These articles might be of interest:

• Jury summons
• The Fifth Woman
• Netherlands goes to pot