MOVIE REVIEW

Runaway Jury  (2003)

Starring: John Cusack, Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman, Rachel Weisz, Bruce Davison, Bruce McGill, Jeremy Piven
Director: Gary Fleder

Rating: PG-13

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Release Date: 10.17.03

Review Posted: 12.15.03

Spoilers: Minor

By Gregory L. Amato

On Why Trials Are Too Important Not to Be Decided By Juries

Should the manufacturer of a gun that was used to murder a New Orleans businessman be held accountable for the shooter’s actions? That’s the question Runaway Jury seems to be addressing in the early part of the film, but the story grows as time goes on, and things get a bit more interesting.

Opening with the office shooting that claims the life of the businessman (an uncredited Dylan McDermott), the film quickly cuts to the near future, and the businessman’s widow is filing a civil suit against the maker of the gun used in the shooting. Wendell Rohr (Dustin Hoffman) has taken her case; we find that his main opposition is not another lawyer, but Rankin Fitch (Gene Hackman), a “jury consultant” whose real work only begins once the jury has been chosen. Soon we find that the efforts of both men are complicated by juror Nicholas Easter (John Cusack) and Marlee (Rachel Weisz), who offer to swing the jury either way for a measly $10 million.

Despite Runaway Jury’s distinctly political overtones, politics is not nearly all it has to offer. Cusack and Weisz play well in their own right, but the real stars are Hoffman and Hackman. As Rohr and Fitch square off, it becomes clear that this contest is not as much a battle of politics as it is a battle of philosophies. Rohr believes in his case, argues passionately, and keeps his fight within the law. Fitch manipulates juries using any dirty trick he can, and only sells his services to the highest bidder. After a key witness does not show up to testify, Rohr confronts Fitch in perhaps the most telling scene of the film. Rohr is humbled, yet is still fighting - his mixture of disbelief and outrage help show the depth of his character. Hackman also does his part by playing Fitch in exactly the opposite way. Fitch is a contemptuous, shallow man who has no desire but money, and he laughs at Rohr’s suggestion that anyone might act out of principle rather than greed.

As a morality tale, the story is larger than just the issue of firearms (in the novel by John Grisham, it’s a tobacco lawsuit). It is aimed squarely at the way many large corporations do business and practice law, not at gun manufacturers in particular. The corporation on the defense isn’t trying to argue its right to manufacture or sell guns, it’s trying to cover up its business practices (distributing weapons to the black market and posting ads that will appeal to criminals) and eliminate anyone who might tell the truth. When the heads of several gun manufacturers ask Fitch and his Big-Brotherly organization to deliver them a verdict by any means necessary, it’s clear that the film isn’t about the second amendment or frivolous lawsuits. It’s about Everyman versus the culture of corporate warfare, and whether justice really is merely a matter of money.

That said, Runaway Jury’s political stance is pretty obvious from early on in the film, and the end is overly preachy and convenient. A few plot devices don’t quite work or don’t go smoothly, most notably our introduction to Rankin Fitch as he guesses what is happening in his taxi driver’s life from a few items in the cab. For all his supposed mastery of reading people, Fitch doesn’t do too well when he okays Easter as a juror, and doesn’t even show the same insight into Marlee’s character that Rohr does. The scene with Fitch in the cab seems forced, and yet later on when that kind of analysis is exactly what we expect, we see Fitch relying on printouts and general information instead of any kind of special insight.

Political aspects of the film may be a bit too unpalatable for some conservative viewers, but the ambition and care that went into taking on such a controversial topic deserves at least some credit. It may be intentional that the film seems ready to inspire heated debate between its viewers, and I think that’s a good thing. In any case, the performances of Hackman and Hoffman alone are worth seeing. Moreover, director Gary Fleder raises a serious issue with this portrayal of how the legal system does not need to be bought outright for it to be abused at the expense of the average citizen, an issue that both liberals and conservatives ought to be concerned with.

Rating: êêê1/2  (out of 5)

TOP