‘Jury Duty’ TV Show Turns Boring Civic Duty into Hilarious Comedy

Innovative Television: “Jury Duty” Blends ⁢Reality, Comedy, and Social Commentary

In a time of endless sequels, reboots, ‌and spinoffs, it’s rare to find something on television ⁢that is doing something new,⁣ but occasionally it happens. Such is the case with the new​ Amazon⁣ Prime series “Jury Duty,” which ⁤combines‌ reality television, improv comedy, and social commentary.

The show⁣ follows ⁢a real person who thinks⁣ he’s⁢ participating in a documentary⁤ on jury duty, but he’s actually participating in a fake ‌trial while surrounded by actors ​who are​ pretending to be jurors and court officials. It’s​ a little like “The ‌Truman Show,” except it takes place for two weeks inside the dingy rooms of an L.A. ‌courthouse and nearby hotel.

Although “Jury Duty” mainly works as a comedy, there are also moments of thoughtfulness and depth. This is made possible by ‌the ⁣non-actor⁣ protagonist Ronald Gladden, a⁣ friendly average Joe. Gladden works with his fellow jury members to‍ reach a fair verdict for a deadbeat employee. The employer‌ has accused the‍ employee⁢ of gross incompetence that cost⁢ millions of dollars in damages. ⁢Despite regularly facing⁣ the⁤ most ridiculous and ‌awkward situations the show’s writers could think up, Gladden is always trusting, ‌kind,⁤ and patient.

It is clear that ⁢both ​the show’s writers and the actors hope to rattle Gladden and provoke a reaction,​ but he successfully maintains his ⁣calm disposition. Whatever white ‍male ⁤privilege he was supposed to exhibit simply doesn’t appear.

The same can’t be said for his foil James Marsden, who plays an exaggerated version of​ himself — a narcissistic B-list actor (best known ‌for playing⁣ Cyclops in⁤ the X-Men movies) who’s auditioning for an upcoming movie while serving as an alternate juror.⁤ Time and ​again, Gladden defers to Marsden and hardly seems fazed by the‌ actor’s obnoxious vanity.

In⁤ terms of its commentary on the‍ world, it is significant that Marsden is​ acting while Gladden ⁣is ‍not. Their relationship reveals the chasm between the behavior of men in real life and ⁣Hollywood’s fictional⁢ men. In truth, there ​are far more guys like Gladden than ‍there⁢ are of ⁢Marsden — ​though Marsden ​deserves credit for having the humility to make​ fun‍ of himself.

The other⁤ actors keep the show interesting while maintaining a sense of realism. For several hours at a⁤ time, they are forced to stay in character and improvise. Although they receive ⁢directions between their‍ interactions with Gladden, ​they have‌ to develop a full-blooded character with‍ a background story as events happen in real-time. While all of them,​ including Marsden,⁢ start⁣ as a stereotype (i.e., the nerd, the naive immigrant,​ the straight-talking trucker, the busybody​ Karen, the conspiracy theorist, the privileged‌ white ⁢woman), all of them gradually become believable human beings by the end ‌of ​the trial.

For this reason, the interactions they have with Gladden feel genuine, making many⁢ scenes ⁣surprisingly poignant. When the middle-aged ⁢schoolteacher‍ Ross, played by Ross Kimball, struggles with personal problems, Gladden⁣ immediately sympathizes ‍with him and validates his ​feelings. ​When Ken, a bemused Korean immigrant with a gambling problem played ​by Ron‍ Song, loses in a made-up board game with Gladden, he​ insists on paying his gambling ⁢debt to Gladden, who repeatedly refuses. When ​it comes time to⁣ decide ​on the ⁢liability of the⁤ deadbeat man-child Trevor, played by Ben Seaward, Gladden rises to the occasion and carefully reasons through the many variables‌ of the fake case.

Not only do these scenes ⁣demonstrate that Gladden is a ⁣stand-up guy, but they show a kind of civility in American ‍life that few critics seem to ⁤notice. Writers like David Brooks ‍will publish long manifestos describing “How America Got Mean,” ⁤but this is ⁣not true‍ of most Americans. Even with eccentric misfits flouting social‍ conventions at every turn, ⁣most Americans’ first‌ instinct is to find common ground and work together.

That said, it would be a stretch to claim⁤ Gladden is‍ some kind of ideal man fit for sainthood. Sure, he may be nice and ⁣trusting.⁢ At 30 years ⁢old, however, it would be ⁢better to find him⁢ married with kids and more involved in his community, not playing Mario Kart‌ each ⁣night while being sequestered for jury duty. He even​ hints at ​this in ‌the last ⁤episode, ⁣as he reflects that this experience has made him ‌want to help others more and be less selfish.

Outside the dramatic comedy of the jury members, the show ⁤is fairly positive regarding its take on‌ the judicial system. Rules⁣ are followed, officials act professionally, and rights are observed. At least for people who aren’t reviled former presidents,‌ the⁣ legal process is mostly fair, and participants are doing their best. Far⁢ from‍ confirming the audience’s cynicism about today’s courts, the show offers reasons to ‌hope justice‍ will be served.

Overall, ‌“Jury⁢ Duty” is great entertainment and a fascinating study of human nature. Although it⁣ would be difficult to keep up ‌the illusion and novelty with‍ future seasons, there’s no reason‍ the show’s creators shouldn’t ‌try. Sometimes, particularly with⁣ this first season, combining fact with fiction can lead to the best of both worlds.