Runaway Jury
Is it possible to predict how good or bad a film will be before you have seen it, free from the influencial marketing campaigns that flavour our viewing choices. Well lets do a test on Runaway Jury. It stars John Cusack, Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman
Is it possible to predict how good or bad a film will be before you have seen it, free from the influencial marketing campaigns that flavour our viewing choices. Well lets do a test on Runaway Jury. It stars John Cusack, Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman, Luis Guzman (‘the Latino’ from Soberbergh films), Bill Nunn (‘Radio Raheem’), Rachel Weisz and Jennifer Beals. Not so bad so far, not great, not bad. Its crew includes Cinematographer Robert Elswit (among many other films Paul Thomas Anderson’s chosen cinematographer), Editor William Steinkamp (‘Scent of A woman’ ‘Tootsie’ and ‘The Client’). Still swinging both ways, could be worth a watch. Now we start to climb the hill. It has 4 writers. This is usually a sign that the film has already been dilluted between a number of different interpretations, being pulled in one direction by one writer, then in another by the next one. Interestingly during the late 1940’s The Italian’s were making films with 6 or more writers, each one concentrating on a different levels of the script (Dialogue, Scenario, Politics, Humour, Religion etc) and these films have influenced many of our favourite film makers and will continue to do so in the future after they have secured their DVD releases sometime in the near future.
In Hollywood in the 2000’s, a number of script writers is usually a good sign it will be pretty poor as a film and at best shallow as a movie or piece of entertainment. Anyway, maybe this will be one such film that disproves the rule. So the Director, what is his pedegree. What director should be chosen to take the helm of these talented actors and film technicians, probable iffy script and XXX million dollars? “I know” an excited Producer said “lets try the Director of The Imposter, Don’t Say a Word, Kiss The Girls and Things To Do In Denver When You’re Dead, he’s free and excited about the project”. All films that had promise but were not anything special. Just ordinary movies that were similar and inferior to many others of a similar ilk.
Now what of Runaway Jury? It’s just an ordinary movie that’s inferior to many of a similar ilk. I think a match has been found. Your decision to rent or buy this DVD could have been made by being armed with a memory of the director’s previous work, as this movie definitely matches the character of his previous work. Not in every case could you choose like this, it is not a fool proof method. How would any first time director ever get his films watched if this method of selection was the favoured measure of audience choice? But think of the ups and down of Coppolla and Scorsese. But when they are up they are definitely up and when they are down you wait for the next one in anticipation and even if its one of the downs its better than many other films floating around out there.
Anyway, where does this injustice for Runaway Jury come from? The movie centres on a Jury chosen to adjudicate on the Trail of a gun company. The implications of the case means that if the gun company loses the case the flood gates would open and all gun companies would be bankrupt very fast by similar claimants and that the gun industry could be virtually eliminated. The film is about everyone’s attempt to influence the opinions of the Jury members and control their verdict.
What we are left with is a good looking high budget thriller that is rather short on story and with a diluted interpretation of another John Grisham book. One thing in favour of Grishams characters in his books is that nothing is ever black and white, they usually have a complex duality to their make up. However, as films favour black and white characters, such as clear definitions of the good guy and bad guy who lack any form of ambiguity, this film departs from one of the major page turning devices he uses in most of his books. Hoffman is the morally good guy and Hackman is, yes, the bad guy. What a surprise. Hoffman’s performance is one of his unmemorable ones, where he vanishes into the background without having his acting skills challenged. Hackman turns in another adequate bad guy but without any depth. Cusack turns up and does his job. During the director’s commentary, Gary Fleder lauds Cusack’s performance, informing us that he is playing against his “jokey goofball” character that he usually plays, suggesting that Cusack in real life is a “pretty political guy” and very “serious” when he is not in front of the camera. The director believes that this is a small victory for himself and his film because it will surprise the audience when they see his performance. Again the problem is that he has no depth in his character, so all elements of surprise fizzle out during the shear ordinariness of the unfolding film.
On the plus side the DVD has many extras:
- 2 Deleted Scenes-with or without commentary. These are hit and miss. If you liked the film they will be of vague interest, if not you won’t be wasting your time.
- Exploring The Scene-Hackman and Hoffman together. This is relatively interesting. It is the two heavy weights discussing the one scene that they have together in the movie. This is the first time they have appeared together in the same film and this extra delves into the scenes creation and execution. We are told that this scene was only created after the fact because they both wanted to do a scene together. So much for a tight script. It has interviews with both actors and on set footage, including bloopers.14 mins
- Off The Cuff-Hackman and Hoffman. This interview with both stars has them seated in the same frame, discussing their past history as friends and their acting careers. They are both amusing enough and the talk is interesting, particularly when they start to talk about Coppolla’s ‘The Conversation’. 9 mins
- The Ensemble-On Acting. Electronic Press Kit footage of the actors talking about how much they all love each others work…4 mins
- The Making of Runaway Jury. This is basically a blow by blow account of the story (as if we didn’t understand in the first place). We even see one of O.J. Simpson’s lawyer informing us of the films authenticity, even though this is definitely a work of Hollywood fiction and has no semblance of reality. Again this is just EPK footage re-edited together. Calling this “The Making Of…” is a little off the mark. Maybe “Idiots Guide” would be more suited.12 mins
- Shadow and Light-Cinematography. This is an interesting interview with Cinematographer Robert Elswit who discusses a few basic lighting concepts, illustrated with brief clips of the movie. It is such a shame that this man’s expertise should be wasted on a film with such a shallow depth, so much so that his play on Shadow and Light to enhance the film and characters moods is relatively redundant. He does though allude to the first court film to use a 4 camera set up (Hitchcock’s Paradigm Case) and gives us an informed explanation. Too short. 6 mins.
- A Vision of New Orleans-Production Design. Nelson Coates appears to be an annoying camp little man who enjoys being in front of the camera. He does though provide a good commentary on the unseen elements that make up the court room décor. An issue of much pain for most Production Designers, I am sure. We are also shown the set’s construction that allows for head matches when the camera is moving around such a small space. Interesting but again too short. 5 mins.
- Rhythm-The Craft of Editing. Editor William Steinkamp provides a few short soundbites that allude to the role of the editor. When discussing certain moments the clip shown underneath the words are themselves edited down sequences taken from the film itself. Not exactly in depth. Much too short to be a masterclass.5 mins.
- Selected Scene Commentary-Hoffman and Hackman. The screen splits in two and we can see each actor discussing (through an interview) one scene each, lasting less than 2 minutes a piece. Not really as advertised, more a soundbite.
- Directors Commentary. We are assurred from the start of the directors own entry in the world of film geeks. Not necessarily a bad thing if the director had a decent film under their belt. As this one does not, it was difficult to listen too intently to his words without thinking about all the other raw film making talent lying in their beds at home depressed, without enough money to meet their next rent bill, on the verge of suicide, wishing for that one opportunity to take on a project such as this. We are informed of homages to "The Godfather", "Pyscho" and many more. All quality films. As he continues to pitch the film to us, he appears to be justifying the film to the viewer. The problem is a lot of what he thinks are good scenes are flat and nothing worthy of study. He is amazed that no reviewer has pointed out that the violence in the first scene is all emotional violence (i.e. we don’t see it, it is implied). I think he needs to understand that films only receive an in depth break down of the story with the passage of time, after it is realised that the film is worthy of an in depth analysis. This is one film that will never be held up as an example of quality, either in general or as an example of a fantastic court room film.
This is no "12 Angry Men", a film that mainly takes place in one room, on a very minimal budget, with a fantastic script and superb character acting. Although this film maybe a Sunday afternoon film to some, it does wash over you with ease, even while you are watching. It looks good, the sound is good etc, etc, as you would expect from so much money flying around. The two fatal flaws are bad script and bad directing. The basis of the theme and the story are sound in principle but I recall a line from "The French Connection 2", when Gene Hackman, after being tipped off, warns someone that if they are lying he will find them "and knock their dick stiff", a feat that this film fails to achieve in virtually every respect.
This page has been read:
2158
times