The Jury

I'm American and have been watching British drama for the past couple of years. I now prefer the more realistic productions than all the glitz and glamour of newer American shows.

We usually have no insight before starting a a series which was the case with The Jury. To keep it short and sweet, the production, the characters and the story were all well done. Each character had a unique story line and the whole series was easy to follow.

But one of the strongest compliments I can give the show was how the ending wrapped things up nice and clean. No uncertain twists that make you question the outcome. WATCH IT.

Never have you seen such as Gerard Butler portraying Johnny in this film "The Jury". You feel a part of what the character is going through, his turmoil and struggle with being a recovering alcoholic. Gerards performance touched you in ways you could not imagine. Your heart felt for this man and his demons. Mr. Butler was captivating when he performed the scene in which he found out his love interest, Rose was married. You where so awe struck by his pain you could not help but cry for him. This was probably one of the best performances I have ever scene an actor do in any film. If this is what we seen what is there coming? I eagerly wait for Mr. Butler to dazzle us all. Butphan

The shame is that the first user comment anyone sees when reviewing The Jury is "Political Correctness (ya-aawwwn)", a review, if it can be called that, that more reflects someone with a beef taking a Political Science course and needing to use all the big words they learned to show how smart they are. While we all have the right to voice our opinion, I strongly feel this right should not prejudice the reader (or stop them, as it will some) before they see reviews that are more valuable. Any review that has one yes against multiple no's should be at the bottom of the review list.

Be that as it may, I have come to the Gerard Butler scene late (January, 2006) and because his acting ability struck me immediately and I'm interested in his progress (and why I hadn't heard of him until now), I've been watching his work. Doing that, I've come across some great movies (and a few that weren't so great). The Jury is in the great category.

I'm not going to describe the film, others have done so but I do want to note that the characters lives were well depicted. The frequent use of closeups made me feel like I was standing right next to each person, seeing what he or she saw, feeling what he or she felt. It was an awesome experience. I only buy a video/DVD if it has meaning and makes me feel something, hence I only have about 75 and this is over the past 20 years. I bought The Jury.

I really enjoyed this 5-part drama.

Not only is it an engrossing and well made drama, it also makes you think about the rights and wrongs of the British jury system.

The story is quite simple: it is about the retrial of a previously-convicted multiple murder, and focuses mainly on the people who have been selected to be the jury, offering up things about some of the jurors that seriously make you think about whether or not random selection from the general public is the best way to go about selecting a jury for such an important case.

The backdrop for the entire series is an ongoing political debate as to whether trial by jury is a good system or should be replaces.

Interesting stuff, and entertaining too.

This was quite an ambitious undertaking; a six part exploration of not only the dynamics of the jury room but also the effects of the criminal trial on the lives of jurors, their families, the victim's family and the accused and his family.

The jury here is almost perversely diverse, with everyone from a young single black mother to a trainee priest. We follow seven of the jurors home during adjournments and realise that strains and stresses of the jury box and room aren't the half of it. One unlucky juror has a father-in law from hell who wants in on the case. Another is a recovering alcoholic who is finding it hard to stay on the straight and narrow, despite his invaluable `personal trainer' Juror Rose (Helen McCrory) is unlucky enough to be married to a control freak (she took on jury service to get away from him) and to then get friendly with the alcoholic. Juror Jeremy, a down and out businessman, is thrown by an accidental encounter with the man whose sure fire deal nearly ruined him. The trainee priest is having doubts about his vocation and the old lady he befriends finds out she is seriously ill.

The courtroom scenes on the other hand run pretty smoothly (though there is a surprise witness). We have top leading counsel of course, Anthony Sher for the prosecution and Derek Jacobi for the defence, but their performances are so glossy and professional as to be almost boring. The judge is almost invisible, despite a lot of noise from the gallery.

This brings me to two irritating aspects. This being a `racial' killing (Sikh boy accused of killing white schoolboy bully with ceremonial sword) there is a demonstration by both sides outside the Old Bailey every morning and afternoon. I can't believe the police would allow the jurors to be routinely intimidated in this way (though most of them did seem to have other things on their minds.) Surely there is a back door (or they could have bussed them out). Secondly, the practice here in Australia is to `sequester' the jury members ie cut them off from family and friends and anyone else who might try to nobble them after they retire to consider their verdict. We copied this practice from the English. Surely they still sequester the jury at the Old Bailey?

Technical grizzles aside this was a very watchable show with some nice acting. There are weaknesses in some of the plotlines and there's rather a ham-fisted attempt to leave things up in the air at the end, but the film reveals the value of the jury as an institution even if individual jurors might be pretty quirky. To some extent majority verdicts (which we don't have in NSW) iron out some of these, though the storyline here suggests such verdicts have problems of their own.

In the end the jurors do their job conscientiously to the best of their ability, despite all the distractions. Whether they are right or wrong is hardly the point; they represent humanity in the administration of justice, which would be mighty cold and austere without them.