John Grisham’s first novel ‘A Time to Kill’ didn’t gain much popularity until the publication of ‘The Firm’ and the associated rerelease by Doubleday publishing in the early 90s. ‘The Firm’ made Grisham a sensation and soon afterwards saw many of his works adapted for the screen including ‘A Time to Kill’ in 1996. Unlike the adaptation of ‘The Firm’ which changed the stories conclusion Grisham’s first novel is more respectfully handled by Joel Schumacher and the result is a good film that is truthful to the essence of Grisham’s text but clearly recognises the differences between the two forms of media.

The first obvious difference between the film and the novel is the simplification of the narrative and the absence of Grisham’s procedural approach to the court room. It might be something that interests fans of his novel but translating the progression of the case through the indictment process by the Grand Jury on top of the motion for a change of venue would just be confusing for most viewers as it requires explanation which is difficult in a film. In addition, a film must worry about pacing so it’s always going to have to make cuts to make a 400 something page novel into a watchable length. Towards this end the Director and production team need decide which elements of the narrative they want to emphasis. This is clearly the case with ‘A Time to Kill’ as the film simplifies the lead up to the shooting by removing the character of Cat Bruster and Lester Hailey. Firstly, this makes the killing seem less planned and an insanity defence more plausible but also allows the movie to get to the trial faster to empathise the main themes. Additionally, the film removes any real reference to the possibility of jury tampering which would complicate the conclusion and shift the focus away from the racial inequality and detract from the films climax. All these narrative decisions take the film away from the novel but are understandable considering that movies in general need to appeal to a wider audience and often need to be more dramatic.

Characters are important in both texts but while Grisham has the benefit of gradually revealing a character’s backstory whether it is information about Jake Brigance’s relationship with his wife and his decision to quit drinking or Carl Lee Hailey’s experiences in Vietnam. This type of characterisation takes time and is revealed gradually throughout the novel, but it makes the main personalities in the novel more realistic and doesn’t seem forced. In a film creating character is largely influenced by the casting decisions and the actor’s ability to represent the essence of a character. In this instance Schumacher and his team make some well thought out decisions as Matthew McConaughey is perfectly cast as Jake Brigance, a young lawyer who is trying to make his name, cocky and self-assured who finds himself in a situation that is spinning out of control. At the same time Kevin Spacey gave the character of Rufus Buckley the right degree of arrogance and made his manipulation of the media seem believable for someone wishing for higher office. However, perhaps the best casting choice was Samuel L. Jackson as Carl Lee Hailey as he can portray the anger and self-righteous indignation of a father seeking revenge for his daughters’ rape. His ability to flip the switch in a sense is what give the film one of the main pivotal moments in the court room when he says “yes, they deserve to die, and I hope they burn in hell” with the perfect degree of force.

Despite these strong performances and those by a terrific supporting cast the film does not reach the same heights of Grisham’s novel due to the simple fact that it lacks a real uniqueness without his procedural approach and tends to overly dramatize the overall message rather than delve into the more complexity. Brigance’s closing statement is perhaps the perfect example as Tonya Hailey’s ordeal is told in detail before he concludes with the statement “imagine if she was white”. On film this works exceedingly well as the climax and McConaughey delivers the line perfectly, but it means that the overall verdict is immediately connected to the jury’s ability to remove race rather than whether they condone revenge. In contrast in the novel, this same idea is brought up in the jury’s deliberations to break the deadlock created by a variety of outside influences including intimidation. As such the novel presents the jury’s racism as one component of the decision and as a result is more realistic and complex.

As a result, the simplification while necessary for a film which is sometimes labelled as too long anyway means that its sites amongst other films whether it is ‘Mississippi Burning’ or even “To Kill a Mockingbird” which all deal with the processes of racism in the American South. Therefore despite “A time to Kill” rightly regarded as the best adaption of Grisham’s work it is simply a good movie rather than a great one.