The Runaway Jury Essay Example

be anything obvious, and this is confusing to the viewer.

Grisham writes best-selling books, many of which have been made into movies. It is safe to say that the fans of his books want also to be fans of his movies, and that would be difficult when major plot deviations are staring you directly in the face. Although there may not be any obvious answers as to why the filmmakers chose to make this change, some possibilities do come to mind. The first has to do with, as stated earlier, movie length. The tobacco case as presented in the novel required all kinds of expert witnesses to testify, which meant long tedious hours in the courtroom.

The filmmakers focused more on all the other events that happened around the trial rather than during the trial, and changing the subject of the trial likely made that more possible. There obviously wouldn’t have to be medical experts present to tell anyone that guns can kill. Thus it left the plaintiff with only one witness, Kigler, the man from the inside, who is conveniently made to disappear by Fitch before getting a chance to testify, effectively eliminating the large part of the story which the plaintiff’s case takes up. This allowed more time for thrilling chase and fight scenes to be added, all of which were not present in the book.

Another possible reason is the glamour of the subject. Not only are guns a more inherently exciting topic than cigarettes, but there were other factors at the time this movie was made that compounded this even further. The first was another movie, The Insider (Paramount, 1999), which recounts the true

story of a man who worked for the tobacco industry and eventually came forward to expose all their dirty little secrets. It is possible that the filmmakers did not want to repeat this theme. The second factor was the Columbine school shootings that also took place in 1999.

While the movie was made several years later, public feeling regarding gun violence has been forever heightened since that day. It is possible the filmmakers thought they might connect more strongly to the audience in this way. More major differences arise when you take a close look at some of the story’s main characters, namely Nicholas Easter, Marlee, Rankin Fitch and Wendall Rohr. All four are portrayed by excellent actors, but changes to the plot leave the viewer feeling as though they are not at all the same characters he knew in the book.

In the novel we watched Easter masterfully manipulate the jury at his every whim, his unassuming nature leaving those around him none the wiser. This aspect of Easter’s character is largely missing from the movie; we never really see how he gains influence over the jury members until they are deliberating. By then it is too little, too late. One of the novel’s major strengths was the bi-play between Easter and Fitch, Easter’s subtle manipulations pitted against Fitch’s overt machinations. The movie lacks this, and suffers for it. Marlee and Fitch are both characters whose personalities define them and make them memorable.

Marlee is cold and calculating, allowing no emotion or personal issues to get in the way of her ultimate goal. Fitch is fiery, short-tempered, ever angry, never avoiding obstacles but smashing through them. These

aspects are somewhat lost in the movie. Marlee frequently expresses apprehensions and fears in the movie and the additional focus on her relationship with Easter (for added drama), emphasizes this even more. Fitch is far too deferential, not nearly so explosive as the man in the novel. In the book he is the man heading up the defense, in charge of the lawyers, jury consultants, witnesses, everybody.

Even the CEOs of the tobacco companies, for the purposes of the trial, answer to him. However, in the movie, he is portrayed as just another player in the game. With less authority, he has less presence as a personality, and no matter how brilliantly Gene Hackman acts, there is no making up for these flaws in direction and writing. Wendall Rohr is another character whose unique personality makes him memorable. He is eccentric, gregarious, loud: a showman. In the novel he is what he is, a successful trial lawyer who sees and pounces on an opportunity to become a legal legend and to make a tremendous amount of money in the process.

He knows how to look and act the compassionate soul, helping a poor woman in her time of mourning and distress, and he knows how to excite those same feelings in others. If he has an edge on the lawyers that oppose him, it is because he creates it; he connects with the people that matter in any way necessary, from his manner of dress to his manner of speech. But there is never any secret to what it is that motivates this man, and that is his ambition. He is a man who is not afraid

to get his hands dirty if the situation calls for it.

This character is not the same as the Wendall Rohr in the movie, who only retains the eccentricity of the man in the book. It would seem the filmmakers want us to believe Rohr to be genuinely passionate about the issue of gun violence, a man whose integrity in its impeccable state stands in stark contrast to his dirty shirt. In short, he needed to fit the good guy vs. bad guy mold that Hollywood so often requires, lest anybody should attempt to create anything mildly original. To be fair, John Grisham is not exactly known for writing literary masterpieces, and that doesn’t change with this book.

But it’s a fast-paced, easy read that keeps the reader’s attention for most of the book. The movie, despite its faults, is relatively entertaining and benefits greatly from some wonderful acting from stars like Hackman, Rachel Weisz, John Cusack and Dustin Hoffman. The contrast between book and movie is also an excellent example of what typically happens to novels that are adapted into screenplays, of the rigid and poor standards something must conform to in order to “qualify” for Hollywood. It stands to show that I have never in my life seen a movie based on a novel that I enjoyed more than the novel itself.