Runaway Jury is a courtroom thriller that faces many of the challenges and uses similar methods of characterisation that Shakespeare did in “Macbeth”. Rankin Fitch (Gene Hackman) is the ruthless, ambition driven jury consultant out to fix the next big, possibly world changing gun trial in America. Nick Easter (John Cusack) and Marlee (Rachel Weisz) have plans of their own for jury fixing. Wendell Rohr (Dustin Hoffman) is Fitch’s adversary and lead council for the prosecution.
In many ways, and as one would expect, it is obvious from the out that this is an adaptation of a John Grisham thriller and not a presentation that, holistically, stands much chance of rivalling old Will. And yet, much of what is admirable comes from an updating, a reviewing and a renewing of his invention. Essentially, it is the excellence in characterisation that pulls the film through its often dubious attachment to the realities of the justice system and the star saturated, slow moving jury scenes.
In the most obvious point of comparison, the character roles are mirrored neatly. That isn’t to say that Runaway Jury has all of those roles played by separate characters. In many ways the plot reveals itself to be denser in terms of main character usage than Macbeth. If Fitch is the protagonist then dropping the “Jury for Sale” note to him was certainly an act akin to the witches’ prediction of future events. The confirmation of Marlee’s “are you feeling patriotic” is as alike to gaining another dukedom as Fitch’s reaction is to Macbeth’s ; a slow, inevitable gaining of trust climaxing in the downfall of a man overly faithful in forces he knew bore no loyalty to him.
Fitch bears familiar marks of intelligence and articulation; with a vocabulary than spans as far as “dilettante” he surpasses most of his fellow characters. The name of Rankin Fitch carries a heavy weight, generating the nervous “I know who he is”, not unlike the better known and more violent “brave Macbeth”. The comparison can be carried further by looking at the arrogance and ambition that brings him to his inevitable end. In the film, as in the play time of expiration is referred to but inferred to be very far away, the only difference being that in the 21st century, it is the drama of the end of a career not a life. And so “killed by a man not of natural birth” becomes, “Maybe not today but someday”. Fitch develops into, if he wasn't already, a man convinced that he is invincible, as is clear from the toilet scene. And, as he approaches and reaches his end he remains defiant, shouting after Marlee and Nick that they can’t just walk away from this episode because if they did “What would you have? Nothing. Nothing!”. Nick Easter’s simple “Gardiner, Indiana” is similar to when Macbeth learnt of the birth by caesarean section of his foe.
Though this scene in the toilet is important for another reason; it marks out the efforts of Fitch as being tied to ambition for ambitions sake. This draws on similar ideas of the educated’s societal dominance that existed in Renaissance England; the modernisation being that today, it is a self inforced ignorance “sit in his barker lounger and let the cable T.V. wash over him”. It remains nonetheless, a doorway for those with the will power and tendency to evil to manipulate people or, as Fitch does, to excuse this manipulation by categorising the ignorant as being second class citizens.
Many critics have argued that the movie is mostly thrills with very little philosophical attack on the gun industry, which they claim was promised in the trailers. But, given that the movie focuses heavily on the characterisation of Fitch this does not seem to be a major problem. Macbeth is one of the few tragedies in which there is an evident lack of philosophical ponderings- it is purely tragic. In the same way Runaway Jury was never intended to be an outright attack or examination of the gun laws of America. It was, as any good movie should be, an admirable endeavour at the embodiment of emotion, in this case that of ambition. Though, it fell down where it obviously strayed from this and half heartedly gave nods to gun reformists everywhere. If it is to be condemned for failing anywhere it should be for the inclusion of such altercation over gun law at all, not lack of it.
Got something to say about Shakespeare in film? Or want to review a Shakespearian film that you have seen recently? Email us at skypirate_6@yahoo.co.uk with your articles