THE JURY

REVIEWED BY CHARITY BISHOP

Our rating: 3 out of 5

Because of: violence, language, nudity, thematic elements

Rated:

Anyone who has ever been summoned to sit for a jury knows what it's like. Endless hours of waiting, the hope that you won't be chosen, wondering what's going on at home, and if you'll take a pay cut while serving your civic duty. But what if you wanted to get on the jury? What if the case was of supreme interest to you? What it was so controversial that the entire world was waiting on the edge of their seats to find out what you, as a juror, would decide? It might be something like the plight of The Jury, one of the most fascinating trail films I've ever seen. The case is controversial. The evidence is insufficient. The public want answers.

An official envelope arrives in the mailbox of twelve people. Each of them has a different history, a different story to tell. There is the single mom struggling to work through family problems. The embittered Jew bulldozed by his prejudiced father-in-law. The recovering alcoholic just out of rehab. The unhappy housewife felt imprisoned by her overly possessive husband. The Catholic seminary student not quite sure he wants to be a priest. They are brought together to determine the fate of an unhappy defendant. When an English schoolboy is found murdered on the local heath, the victim of a violent attack with an Islamic jihad sword, authorities arrest the nearest and most likely suspect, sixteen year old Duvinder Singh (Sonnell Dadral), who was seen with the sword prior to the crime, and whose behavior was suspicious after the event occurred. There are no actual witnesses to the assault, but the general public are convinced that Singh is responsible for the slaying of the white boy, who was known to bully and torment him at their elite prep school, where Singh was a straight-A student.

The Prosecution (George Cording) has built up a solid case against him. The missing knapsack with his clothes in it has not been found, presumably covered in blood. He had the means, motive, and opportunity. His behavior that morning is highly suspect. There may even be a witness who saw him fleeing down the street with blood staining his shirt... or was it his red scholastic tie, flapping in the wind? The wounds were delivered by an apt hand. Singh has just such a hand... but could he have done such damage with an arm formerly pulled out of its socket? Back and forth the argument goes, first the Prosecution, and then the Defense (Derek Jacobi, in a compelling role), leaving the audience and the jurors reeling. Did he do it? Did he not do it? What about the other violent man on the heath that morning? What about Singh's history of irrational and sporadic behavior? Soon all the jurors (Gerard Butler, Darren Boyd, Isabel Brooke, Stuart Bunce, Richard Buss, Matthew Thomas Davies) are forced to make a controversial, and even dangerous decision.

Sub-plots involve a handful of these character's personal problems. One of them is a former businessman who invested everything in a get-rich-quick scheme and had the rug torn out from under him. Seeing his former "business partner" in the court, he tentatively thinks about another scheme. There's the black woman whom racists target, attempting to coerce her into voting guilty toward the boy that murdered their friend. And there's the former alcoholic unknowingly pursuing a married woman, nearly at the cost of his life. What makes this movie good is that the audience is put in the position of the jury. We don't know for sure if Singh did it or not. Both sides of the case are presented, two different scenarios. He could be innocent, he could be guilty. We will never know for certain. It's the equivalent of being in a high-profile murder case, complete with heckling, threats, and racism to the extreme. Some viewers have remarked on how one-sided this film is: the Arabs are sympathetic, the white men are racist. This is not entirely true. All of the characters are equally flawed and while racism is brought up by the Defendant as part of his argument, I never felt the film was striving to be politically correct.

There are a number of factors that simply don't add up. Maybe the British trial system is different than the United States, but in a case of such controversy, the jury would be sequestered, both to avoid outside influence and prevent them from being harmed. There's no possible way they would let them return home. After the trial, the jurors would also be under surveillance for awhile, for their own protection. Instead, after rendering a sentence, they're left to go out into the raging streets alone. Also, in our trial system, one heckle from the gallery would get you banned, whereas the white boys can scream insults repetitively and are unquestioningly allowed back in the following day. It's simply not plausible, nor does it always cast the judicial system in a good light. A guard at the prison is paid off to punch Singh in the stomach, "for the family of the murdered boy." There's also some questionable moral ethics and issues of faith. One character is a would-be-priest who attempts to find his former girlfriend because he's not sure if he's called to the church. A older priest reminds him that very few people are truly called; they make a choice to serve God.

A woman trapped in a mentally abusive relationship switches her wedding ring to the other hand and entertains the attentions of a fellow juror. They never go beyond a kiss, but her new boyfriend tells his mentor that he wants to sleep with her. His mentor reminds him that alcoholics are prohibited from having sex for a year after leaving rehab. There's some related sexual innuendo and jokes. Pointless backside nudity is shown of a man showering. There are some brutal flashbacks to the murder; a boy being hacked with a sword, his body covered in blood, gruesome autopsy pictures, a woman being beaten almost to death with a stick, and a man taking after a juror with a baseball bat. Windows are smashed and dead ferrets sent through the mail, along with threatening messages. There are Arab racist slurs, and a shocking amount of profanity. Jesus' name is abused a half dozen times, and the f-word is used twice.

I would have liked less traversing into the personal lives of the jurors, instead just focusing on the courtroom drama. I found Derek Jacobi's defense much more interesting than get-rich-quick schemes. The two best storylines are the trial itself, and the Jew whose priorities change and allow him to look objectively at the case. The language was also unforgivable, but for those searching for an intense, thought-provoking glimpse into the trial system, The Jury is a good place to start.