The Jury

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.

STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs

Kudos to ITV for the good idea of this six-parter series,which shows we can do it and that it's not just Hollywood that can make this kind of thing work.

In Britain (and certain other countries) it's considered every working citizens duty to perform 'jury service'.That is,twelve people (men and women usually these days) from completely different walks of life and with presumably no previous experience of the judicial system must come together to decide the fate of a defendant on trial for a crime.In this case,a 15/16 year old Pakistani student has been accused of hacking his classmate to death in a field.It is a very high profile case which has ignited racial hatred between the White/Asian community,and the series cleverly examines not only the opinions of the jurors,but also how this alien and stressful experience affects their lives outside work.

The acting is pretty good stuff.Veteran Derek Jackobi is lively,spirited and ingenuitive as the defence barrister.Plus Anthony Sher is suitably cold and uncompromising as the prosecution.The people on the jury impressively convey the uncertainty and fear that overrides them all.Jack Shepherd is a good character actor,here playing the murdered boy's father,but is given little to do except sit in the courtroom looking tense and agitated.Also,Tim Healy gets to spread his wings and fly in something that isn't another annoying Uno advert.

The ending is something of a cop-out ,with a few unexplained matters not being resolved.But it's all acted with such sincerity and dash,with engaging pace and dialogue to match,that you feel compelled to watch it to the end if only to support British big/small screen productions.***

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.

Having now seen parts of this twice, I think that what makes this really great, and gripping, is the character development and the acting. I especially liked the recovering alcoholic and Rose, but all the characters were well developed and real (except, perhaps, the judge, the lawyers, and the defendant - but this is about the JURY).

I am as much against political correctness as the next person, but I don't think that was what this was about. That was part of the background, but not the story. The story was about the people.

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.