← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 10606 | Posts: 5 | Started: 2003-10-19
2003-10-19 20:11 | User Profile
New anti-Gun film "Runaway Jury"
[QUOTE]Courtroom Thriller Runaway Jury Packs All-Star Cast - Voice of America - Oct 18, 2003
American film icons Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman co-star in the new courtroom thriller based on a best seller by lawyer-turned-novelist John Grisham. Alan Silverman has a look at Runaway Jury.
In high profile American court trials, especially those with huge business interests at stake, the jury consultant has taken on increasing importance. These experts use psychological profiles and background investigations in an attempt to craft a jury that will favor the client paying them.
In Runaway Jury, Gene Hackman plays Rankin Fitch, a ruthless expert hired by gun manufacturers when the widow of a shooting spree victim files suit claiming the companies are liable for the damages caused by their firearms. It's an important departure from the 1996 John Grisham novel in which the liability trial involved cigarette manufacturers; but director Gary Fleder contends the core remains unchanged.
"I made a movie about jury tampering, n-o-t about gun control," he explains. "I did feel that the case in the film should make sense, but the case is only the backdrop for the bigger story about jury tampering, surveillance and privacy issues. As a filmmaker you always want to say that you've captured the essence of the book and I think we did. I like the book a lot and I think we got the sense of it being smart and conspiratorial, but also with surprising turns like the book. I think we've captured that."
...
url: [url]http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=A7362CFD-05AF-4A01-B540FA5204F7BCF2[/url]
RUNAWAY JURY ENTER SITE, You must have flash 6 to view this site. Get Flash. VIEW TRAILER.
[url]www.runawayjurymovie.com/[/url]
The Runaway Jury(bbok) by John Grisham
Book Description He has waited for this moment. He has planned his every move. He has made it onto the jury in the most explosive trial of the century. Now the verdict belongs to him. . . .
They are at the center of a multimillion dollar legal hurricane: twelve men and women who have been investigated, watched, manipulated, and harassed by high-priced lawyers and consultants who will stop at nothing to secure a verdict. Now that the jury must make a decision in the most explosive trial of the century, a precedent-setting lawsuit against a giant tobacco company. But only a handful of people know the truth: that this jury has a leader, and the verdict belongs to him...
He is known only as Juror #2. But he has a name, a past, and he has planned his every move with the help of a beautiful woman on the outside. Now, while a corporate empire hands in the balance, while a grieving family waits, and while lawyers are plunged into a battle for their careers, the truth about Juror #2 is about to explode, in a cross fire of greed and corruption--and with justice fighting for its life...
GREAT BOOK THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE MOVIE, October 18, 2003 Reviewer: A reader from Plainsboro, NJ USA Okay, I decided to read this book before I went to see the movie today. I just finished the book up a couple days ago and, as usual, this is an excellent book from John Grisham. Now, I won't give away too much, but I love the way he chose the tobacco industry as the villian. It's both relevant and in tune with what's happening in the real world with the lawsuits against big tobacco. And the two main characters in this book are easy to relate to. Grisham makes you feel like you are a part of the story and of their lives. You really feel bad for what the tobacco industry lawyers consultant does to these people. Anyways, before I give away too much. The movie basically takes out the tobacco industry and replaces it with the gun industry. And as usual the movie takes some liberties, but is still good. I definitely suggest reading the book first to get the full scope of what really goes on.
[url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0440221471/002-1014662-7845661?v=glance[/url] [/QUOTE]
2003-10-20 00:34 | User Profile
And Holloywood keeps insisting that their movies are not propaganda. Puleeze, give me a break
2003-10-21 21:28 | User Profile
I saw the movie, primarily because I like Gene Hackman. This movie, contrary to what Grisham thinks, is only incidentally about jury tampering and surveillance. They were simply backdrops. It was about gun control, plain and simple. And it incorporated all of the conservative stereotypes we've been exposed to for decades to deliver the relentless message, that gun manufacturers are evil people and must go the way of the tobacco companies. The good guys, led by Dustin Hoffman, are courageous, naive and very moral, while the demons are big government and right wingers who thrive on greed. Tell your friends to stay away from this movie. Leftist propaganda from start to finish.
2003-10-21 21:38 | User Profile
The smirking jewish reviewer from Slate.com cannot contain his glee at the drubbing those debbil gunmakers get in the movie:
[url]http://slate.msn.com/id/2089980/[/url]
Johnny Got His Gun Grisham's Runaway Jury puts arms makers on trial. By David Edelstein Updated Friday, October 17, 2003, at 10:44 AM PT
Interesting deliberations
In spite of its cheesy plot twists, thoroughly second-rate direction, and criminally wasted ensemble, Runaway Jury (20th Century Fox) adds up to a nice little gotcha! courtroom melodrama. The target of the John Grisham novel was the tobacco industry, but I'm certain that Grisham—who once called for the prosecution of Oliver Stone after a killing spree inspired by his grotesque Natural Born Killers (1994)—had no problems with the substitution of one unscrupulous death merchant for another. Grisham's overriding message is unchanged: that the legal system is routinely manipulated (if not gutted) by mendacious corporations; and that the best hope for justice is for righteous individuals to learn even dirtier tricks than their better-funded adversaries.
The book (and the movie) is also a moneyed trial lawyer's sick comedy, brimming with contempt for the common juror. The joke—not a new one, but endlessly topical—is that what's said in the courtroom hardly matters, that the case is virtually decided via jury selection. In Runaway Jury, teams of dark-suited industry henchmen in a shadowy warehouse scan banks of video screens, scrutinizing everyone in the potential jury pool (even before they've reported to the court) for clues about their politics and prejudices. The movie's Dark Lord is Rankin Fitch, played—with dry, witty precision—by Gene Hackman with a sleek little beard and a look of sour omniscience. Hackman is the Sherlock Holmes of evil underworld jury consultants. He studies glossies and confidential records, combs his beard, and issues intermittent heh-heh-hehs. He knows that fat women have chips on their shoulders and will vote against the little guy, that Latino vets will fight for the constitutional right to bear arms, and that everyone else can be bribed, extorted, or blackmailed.
What throws him in this case—it's a suit against the manufacturer of guns used in a workplace mass murder, brought by a victim's widow—is juror No. 9, Nick Easter (John Cusack), who appears to have an agenda of his own. Easter and his girlfriend, Marlee (Rachel Weisz), approach both sides: For $10 million, they say, they can deliver the jury either way. Strengthening their hand is that the jurors are a dull-witted bunch of stereotypes, indeed—despite being played by interesting actors like Luis Guzmán, Nora Dunn, Gerry Bamman, and Jennifer Beals. A punky juror is named Lydia Deets (Winona Ryder's character in Beetlejuice [1988])—too in an in-joke for me.
Whose side are we supposed to be on? It's not much of a contest. The attorney for the plaintiff is a saintly, virtuous little guy played by Dustin Hoffman: He believes fiercely in his cause and, more important, in the American judicial system. He's not presented as a clueless dupe, but a man of principle and faith. Hoffman doesn't rise above this flat conception: He falls back on fidgety mannerisms and a Southern mumble that muzzles his own, prickly personality. If this were a play, I'd love to see him and Hackman (who were flatmates in their youth and share but one brief scene here) switch roles every night—but then, I can't imagine anyone wanting to perform material this tawdry on the stage.
As I said, though, I enjoyed Runaway Jury. The director, Gary Fleder, is too shallow to linger on the morality-play dialogue—he cracks the whip. And while I find Grisham's view that justice needs a little "help" just as repugnant coming from a liberal as from reactionaries like Clint Eastwood or John Milius, I had a pretty good time watching the filmmakers stick it to gun manufacturers on Rupert Murdoch's dime. No pinko, Jewish-owned entertainment conglomerate to blame this one on!
2003-11-03 18:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Lewis Wetzel]No pinko, Jewish-owned entertainment conglomerate to blame this one on![/QUOTE]
Not so fast, Jew. A "Southerner" like John Grisham fits the Howell Raines mold perfectly: a Gentile man of the South with a bit of a drawl who bows before all liberal ideas, and thus is worth far more than a whiny Jew from Brooklyn who does the same to the overall Jewish strategy. See MacDonald on Gentile frontmen for more on this.
Runaway Jury was Runaway Propaganda. Jury tampering, indeed. For a while, I thought the Cusack character might have been tantalizingly unprincipled, and just out to play both sides. THAT would have been a good plot. But no. Turns out he and his girly are anti-gun crusaders, and yes, gun companies are big, evil things willing to break the law but ultimately losers in the end. Actually, anti-gunnism is one of the handier anti-White themes for the Jews: by attaching the blame for most of the gun violence on "White men" who manufacture, sell and own these guns, attention is diverted from the negroes who do the firing. What we get in the end is 1) White unable to own guns and defend themselves and their families, 2) Image of White men as evil, violent, rich and corrupt, 3) Blacks dipping their monkey toes in the tort winnings got by the Jewish plaintiff's attorney. OK people, that's a wrap! Wonder how many NRA'ers are on to this. From what I can tell, not enough.
If there's a theme to be salvaged for our purposes, it's this: tweaking the system is OK if your cause is righteous enough. Trust me: our cause is more righteous than banning guns, stopping abortions or even freeing slaves.