MovieChat Forums > Runaway Jury (2003) Discussion > A plotline i didn't understand......

A plotline i didn't understand......


I maybe missing something obvious, but I'm tired so take it easy on me.

When they are trying to set up the deal they offer the jury to both hackman and hoffman - now the end shows why they wanted hackman to pay but why were they asking hoffman - he was on their side and they were always going to swing the jury to a guilty.

I reckon this was thrown in to keep us believing that they were just con artists but i'd be happy if someone would put me straight as i enjoyed the film apart from this apparent plothole.

reply

I suppose they couldn't risk Fitch finding out that he was the only one that got an offer because it would blow their cover. After all they knew him and his methods already. Remember, Fitch and Rohr saw each other getting an identical 'jury for sale' envelope in public and this made it believable for Fitch that the offer was genuine.

reply

Aye, maybe so - i still think it was just a plot-keeper though

reply

In order for their plan to work, it was very important that Fitch perceive them as entirely third party, out for money, not pro-gun nor anti-gun types. Being able to swing both ways allowed them to really threaten his case, thus making it worth a great deal of money to bring them on board, thus producing a blackmale against him for 10 years as well as money for their hometown. Also, if they just came to him, it could provoke suspicion, in the "are they out to get us into a scandal?" type of thing.

As far as plot goes, it's an interesting twist-creator, but you can sort of infer their true motives in some subtle ways. Just look at the way she looks at Hoffman's character when presenting a deal, then look at how they speak to Fitch. You can detect a great deal of sympathy in them toward the anti-gun people when you put the pieces together, so I don't think it was really meant to throw the viewers too much.

Plus, from a total story standpoint, the story does everything it can to establish the two as protagonists, the gun lobby as the bad guys (shady room with owners smoking cigars, arson/attempted murder at random intervals, etc), and the Hoffman character as the naive idealist good guy ("I believe in the jury system," surprised that his witness gets messed with, etc).

reply

What if Rohr accepted as he very nearly did?

It was contrived. To make it believable, they would have communicated to Rohr they didn't want him to take the offer and they were depending on Fitch's surveillance to make it seem believable. Passing a note to him would have been sufficient to do that. All Marlee had to do was hand him a note claiming it was something else (like an email address to reach her with) that instead had instructions to ignore any offer made by them and that they were certain to be under surveillance.

I just saw it as an enormous plothole sloppily placed into the plot purely for the audience's sake. The note could have been shown at the end of the film, and it would have accomplished the same effect.

reply

Zebar - an interesting question - thanks for posting it, and for crediting this as a good film! I'll comment that that Nick and Marlee were well aware that Fitch's team were monitoring all contacts with 'Wendell Rohr', the Hoffman character, who finally signals that he's dropping out of the 'auction', content to leave it to the jury. Afterwards, Fitch asks Marlee if she's prepared to offer a discount, now that there's only 1 bidder! Fitch had Rohr's line tapped, or he had an inside contact. However, this only served to entrap Fitch more convincingly. That's what the story (and the book) were all about - beating a ruthless, but clever operator at his own game.

There's more insight into the characters of Nick, Marlee, and Fitch available on the DVD, if you watch it with the Directors Commentary turned on.

reply

AHA - this makes sense - they would have to make Fitch think they were purely in it for the money and by treating Rohr the same they would convince him of this. I guess you could also assume that they knew Rohr would not go for it as he was more honourable than Fitch. Thanks for the answer, it has eased my mind and increased my appreciation for the fim.

reply

1) They have to make Fitch think that there just doing this for the money. If they wouldn't try to blackmail Dustin Hoffman, Fitch would become suspicious and maybe look for a political or personal reason for the jury manipulation.

2) It's the only way Fitch would actually pay. Weisz and Cusack knew Hoffman wouldn't pay and when that moment happens (the phone call that Fitch is easdropping on) he is convinced that they'll swing the verdict his way.
Also it would be suspicious if Cusack and Weisz wouldn't try to make maximum profit by playing both sides

Am I making any sense???........

reply

You make perfect sense my friend

reply

My theory is based on the last scene of the movie. You can tell by the look Rohr gives Nick and Marlee that he knows what they did. I have my suspicions that Rohr was in on this all along - remember, he approved Nick for the jury in a heartbeat, and his case was pro bono. Which means he took steps to move the case specifically against Fitch. This explains why his decision not to take any money worked so well for Nick and Marlee - he knew from the beginning why he was being offered it. To fool Fitch.

But it's important to remember that Rohr's motive in the conspiracy was to screw over Fitch, not necessarily to twist the case in his favor. Ultimately, Nick does nothing to unfairly sway the jury. It's highly likely Rohr knew of Fitch and what he was up against, being a high profile pro bono attorney with an anti-gun agenda who has likely brought such suits in the past. Even if they had lost the case, Fitch was still screwed and Gardner, Indiana got its money. It was a win-win for everyone with an anti-gun agenda.

reply

You can tell by the look Rohr gives Nick and Marlee that he knows what they did.
Rohr gave that look bc he had been in contact w Marlee. He didnt know her inside contact was Nick. I think Roht might wonder but will never truly know if he won or if Nick swayed the jury.

remember, he approved Nick for the jury in a heartbeat, and his case was pro bono
I think this is bc he figured a electronics manager/gamer would find quickly in his favour so he could get back 2 his games.

Which means he took steps to move the case specifically against Fitch.
There isnt proof of that. Rohr was against the gun co & had no way of knowing that they'd hired Fitch.

But it's important to remember that Rohr's motive in the conspiracy was to screw over Fitch, not necessarily to twist the case in his favor.
Nope. It was 2 win. Did u not see his moments w Celeste Wood?
Roh wasnt in on any conspiracy. Marlee called him, he didnt hire her. Marlee has her own agenda, justice 4 her irish twin Marlee .

Even if they had lost the case, Fitch was still screwed and Gardner, Indiana got its money.
Yes yes. Im glad too.

It was a win-win for everyone with an anti-gun agenda.
Sigh. I dont feel the gun co is responsible for mr wood's death. & I side with Herrera in that Celeste is a WASP. Born into $,married $, has money out her *ss. She didnt need more $.
|
IndiaArieTESTIMONY VOL2:LOVE&POLITICS

reply

Actually Rohr knew that Nick was working with Marlee or at least he should have known. Remember that Jeremy Piven's character warned Rohr that Nick Easter was spinning the jury. So Rohr should have figured out that Nick was Marlee's contact on the jury.

Both lawyers approved Nick because the judge chastised Nick for not taking jury duty seriously. Neither wanted to get the judge mad by preemting Nick.

reply

So you are glad when Fitch gets screwed but not very glad when the prick who hires Fitch to buy a verdict gets screwed? Why such hypocrisy?

Time for some soul-searching.

reply

I agree with Panterken. I think the film succeeds very much as both a drama and thriller because I kept guessing Nick and Marlee's motives up to the very end. It seemed quite clear that they were never really going to sway the jury. For me, it seemed like they were mercenaries and they were going to take the money from both parties and just run away. Finding out exactly what they were up to was part the thriller in the movie, while finding out who they were and why they were doing what they were doing was the drama part for me. Loved it.

reply

[deleted]

I just watched this movie on tv and got onto imdb now to look for this very message board. zebar's post is EXACTLY what I'm thinking.

reply

They knew fitch would do absolutely anything to win the trial. They also knew his tricks and mos likely knew that he'd be listeneing in on thier phone calls and would know that Hoffman would also be given the chance to buy the jury as well. I think they were hoping Hoffman would agree to bribe the jury in the hopes that Fitch would offer even more to secure a verdict for the defense.

reply

Lepanto...I just saw this on Sunday last and was less concerned with the somewhat puzzling twists of the plot than with the totally incredulous manner in which a small town pair of sweethearts display such professional crime-like tactics, especially the martial arts skills equal to Steven Segal, Sly Stallone and the hero of Borne Identity. I mean, Rachel Weise defeats an obviously professional 'tough' guy with karate moves and the old sleeping victim act with the ease of a cat jumping a mouse. Where did she learn such back street stuff...in the interim between leaving the sleepy berg in Indiana and hanging out with macho man Kusack? I don't think so. From their earliest encounters with Fitch, it is obvious they have him on an equal footing...a dead giveaway as to who will sine in the end. While the idea of two idealists who want to swing a jury for a cause, worthy or otherwise, is not that improbable, but the manner in which two kids from flyover country operate seriously undermines an otherwise quasi plausible plot line. Only in the scene in the Catholic Church did they even appear to be real characters, i.e., truly afraid of what they were up against. Perhaps a few more realistic encounters with the bad guys, and getting away a little more 'damage' would have added much more to the intensity and credibility of this film. Just my thoughts.

reply

lepanto, what a great observation. Although an all-time exellent movie for me, this same thing was always in the back of my mind and I had never heard the same thoughts (so well) expressed by another.

I kept rationalizing this and explaining that Nick and Marlee had been preparing for this for many years and had taken extensive martial arts training. Then the courage of their convictions helped them win out in some of the fights I guess.

But it's still weak - these were professional thugs they ran into. The strategies in the negotiations with Fitch & the jury I bought. But the fights - these should have been more believable. Nick and Marlee could have escaped through some fate/dumb luck situation in the encounters, but not by out-fighting these guys.

reply

AnneO, much appreciate your charitable assessment of my comments. I, too, thought that the pure goodness of the 'kids' would see them through, but I'm always drawn to that sobering passage from Sacred Scripture that says, 'the children of light are always undone by the children of dark...' We expect a real special forces, quasi wild man, super macho type like Rambo defeating ten bad dudes with one hand behind his back...but that is a different genre and you go in knowing he will not be defeated. This was so interesting and plausible, you had to think there was a little Rambo borrowing in there. In reviewing the film in my mind I was reminded that the brilliant tactic of having a decoy approach Fitch in the restaurant was quite fascinating; then having him meet her outside in one minute, just in time to get on a street car (the perfect place to avoid interference) and avoid Fitch's camera boys was so original as to cause me to question the other sharp moves of the honest duo. I would expect Lara Croft, Tomb Raider, to come through unscathed, but not the pure kids from Indiana...maybe an arm in a sling for Nick and several more marks on her face for Marlee would have made their efforts a little more realistic. I guess the better side of our nature always wants to good guys to win and that's not a bad thing to wish for. Lepanto

reply

Not a bad thing to wish for in real life Lepante but it certainly makes this film corny and detached from reality

....

http://soundcloud.com/dj-snafu-bankrupt-euros

Coz lifes too short to listen to Madlib

reply

I agree with zebar-1's original assessment...it looks like a plot hole cover to me. For one thing, I don't see why Nick couldn't just SAY they were only targeting Fitch's side, and blackmail him to go along by threatening exposure of his operation. Everyone involved was, on the surface, ostensibly there to make money, so it's not like it'd be out of place. They didn't NEED to involve the plaintiff's lawyer at all.

I also don't understand why the defense didn't move for a mistrial; the plaintiffs would have to take months if not years to regroup and might not ever regroup at all.

This is a REALLY ENTERTAINING movie for a number of reasons, but the OVERALL plot integrity isn't one of them. Lol. It's no Chinatown.

reply

this was clear to me, its obvious he would have people spying on her, so she wanted him to see/hear her make an offer to the other side as well. Also this was used to bargian up the price.

reply