Juror #2: Eastwood's Poignant Swan Song

get off my lawn, david zaslav

High-profile murder trial. Boyfriend accused of killing girlfriend. Twist. Juror #2 committed the murder by accident. Should he let a free man rot in jail to save himself? Or should he pay for his mistake at the cost of his family and future? What a concept. Sounds like a Hitchcock film, right? Well, guess what, it’s not. Clint Eastwood has discreetly released what many are dubbing his final film Juror #2 in theaters this past weekend. However, many will be hard-pressed to find any that play it, premiering in only fifty theaters nationwide. Nothing is pushing Clint to make films. He’s 94 years old and leaves behind a storied career that’ll go down as a legend. Nonetheless, here he is and regardless we should all be inspired to see a man continue doing what he loves no matter what obstacles lay ahead of him. So, will Eastwood’s last foray into cinema be as much a national treasure as him? Or did Zaslav have reason to bury it?

A journalist and recovering alcoholic Justin Kemp played by Nicholas Hoult is about to have a child with his wife who’s in a high-risk pregnancy. During the last trimester of pregnancy, he’s called into jury duty despite attempting to evade selection. The case itself concerns a woman named Kendall Carter who got into a fight with her boyfriend Justin, a rehabilitated former drug pusher, at a bar. She was subsequently killed with her body found under a bridge near the same bar. The prosecutor played by Toni Collette presents enough evidence to likely convict said boyfriend in hopes of being elected district attorney in the upcoming election. However, as Justin listens to the evidence, he begins connecting the dots and realizes he may have been the one who killed Kendall, mistaking her for a deer. Justin remembers he went to the same bar on that same night in a moment of weakness to clear his head where he eventually overcame his temptation to drink, leaving sober. Following this realization, what follows is a lengthy moral dilemma. Justin cannot allow an innocent man to rot in jail for the rest of his life. However, if he outs himself he’ll be jeopardizing the future of his family and all the hard work he’s put in to resurrect himself. Given his history of DUIs, no court will believe he was sober. Realizing the case must reach a verdict otherwise risking further scrutiny that would lead directly to him, Justin must convince a jury of his innocence despite strong opposition. 

It’s safe to say Zaslav dropped the ball big time here. This is the kind of film that would have made 150 million dollars ten years ago. In a day and age where audiences are craving non-IP adult-oriented films, it’s a shame to see Juror #2 effectively buried. I’m not sure what sane studio would treat one of their most beloved filmmakers like this. Zaslav was leaked a few years back during Cry Macho’s release that the studio owes no favors to Eastwood despite him delivering several major box office hits all under budget and schedule. Now, Juror #2 is barely seeing the light of day in the United States, ironically doing well overseas. Warner has barely put any money into an awards campaign initially having conceived it as a streaming-only release until public outcry was too loud to ignore. But, the joke’s on them because Eastwood’s swan song is really really great. It’s easy to see why, it all starts with a brilliant screenplay and one of the year’s most intriguing concepts. The concept of justice has always been explored in Clint Eastwood’s films even the ones he’s acted in like Dirty Harry. However, many of his attempts were shrouded in genre trappings and a lack of ambiguity to drive the point home. But, Juror #2 sticks the landing. It may as well have been directed by a 49-year-old for all I care, not a 94-year-old. Eastwood could have filmed everything in wides and he would’ve gotten due credit for it, but he pulls all the stops here. A criticism of Eastwood’s recent directorial outings is that they oftentimes feel lethargic in pace and direction (understandably), but not here. To me, Clint Eastwood and Paul Schrader are two of the older generation of filmmakers still exploring the woes of contemporary society. Our concept of justice and retribution has been skewed in the social media age, where a single tweet can outcast an individual sans evidence. Eastwood aims to remind everyone of the inherent grey in our systems that make them great and imperfect at the same time, but that there may or may not be a greater power governing justice after all. Yet, it’s not all a mirage of ideas with Hoult playing a protagonist the audience genuinely cares about. So many times filmmakers forget that stories and characters take precedence and will automatically hook you into whatever you want to say. Eastwood has mastered the tenets of basic storytelling where there’s rarely a dull moment as his primary focus is on directing the audience’s attention while still giving room for the performances to breathe.

The performances here deserve a special shout-out. Everyone down to the very bit roles is fantastic. Even the minor jury members have great comedic timing and insight that makes the film come alive. They may not all be Marlon Brando but they represent the average, boring people that would comprise a jury panel and play well against established Hollywood actors. There’s just great chemistry all around. The cast itself is stacked, I already mentioned Nicholas Hoult and Toni Collette but there’s also Zoey Dutch, Chris Messina, J.K. Simmons, Keifer Sutherland, and Cedric Yarbough. They’re all fantastic. Eastwood’s recent films seem to prioritize a sense of realism, especially in the performances to the point of casting the real-life military vets in 15:17 to Paris. Notoriously known for printing the first take, Eastwood doesn’t demand much from his actors so everybody has to be on their A-game and they sure were. This sense of realism never compromised the quality of acting once. Nicholas Hoult remains the standout and I hope his name is put in the ring come Oscar season. He’s likable enough to root for him yet still keeps his distance as he crumbles under the burden of a complete moral crisis. On one hand, it’s a performance so subtle forcing you to read the lines of his face while at other times he commands the entire jury panel with his undeniable screen presence proving that Hoult remains one of the most underrated actors in the industry. 

In recent years, there’s been a dearth of American studio films that respect the audience, refusing to tell you which side to root for. Many of our films simplify the world to a simple narrative of good versus evil. However, that’s not real life and Juror #2 understands this. Most legal thrillers operate understanding that the system itself is flawed but “justice” or the “system” will prevail at some point. Think Al Pacino in And Justice for All …, the system fails but Pacino gets to espouse guilt against the guilty in an infamously Hollywood monologue where the bad guys fall one way or another. Eastwood is happy to operate in the gray as the film oscillates between love and disdain for our institutions. Juror #2 sets out to ask questions not answer them. The moral questions this film places are immense, asking whether “justice” is or should be the same as “truth”. Is it just to let a good man rot in jail for a crime he didn’t know he committed because it’s the truth? The film never arrives at a verdict. Even more impressive is that Eastwood doesn’t contain these moral questions into the confines of the courtroom, asking if there’s a higher power that renders guilt and innocence and whether that takes precedence over our imperfect institutions. What is made clear are the inherent human foibles that render our systems susceptible, a growing problem in today’s modern social-media world. America has always had a love affair with the Old Testament “Eye for an Eye” concept and that everybody has what’s coming to them without realizing the country’s core values lie in each individual’s right to fairness under the law. This vindictive attitude has grown with the advent of social media platforms like Twitter where the world has become more reactionary, rarely considering both sides. In the film, several jury members are convinced in their gut that the accused is guilty adhering to their emotional responses rather than logic where human nature destroys the very noble intentions of blind justice. Some of these ideas may be basic insights but have grown increasingly more relevant as our country becomes increasingly polarized. Yet, Eastwood seemingly has not given up on our new generation believing that every person has the right to rehabilitate themselves and start anew where no person is presented as entirely good or bad. It’s about whether or not the system truly allows second chances or merely pays lip service to them. This is the current that runs through the film, the hot and cold nature of justice. On the one hand, it’s reverent for the ideals of American justice and due process while still being critical. Despite Eastwood’s lifetime conservative values, he’s never pandered to one side, always taking an apolitical stance to celebrate and explore American values.

I’ve heard criticisms that Juror #2 is riddled with plot holes and laughable circumstances with writing that’s often too on the nose. Frankly, I never caught wind of it myself. Eastwood stages the characters and situations so well, that I got lost in the story and didn’t notice anything awry. Perhaps I’m conditioned to the way Eastwood makes a film. Although I’m I never actively look for plot holes, I feel that’s a lame way to watch films. Of course, screenwriters have to avoid the “could have been solved in one minute” problems that arise. Yet, every great thriller is chock-full of plot holes and it all comes down to how the director overcompensates. And at 94 years of age, Eastwood certainly does. Basking in an understated classicist style, it’s one of the best legal thrillers in recent years and possibly of all time (hyperbole slightly but time will tell). It’s a major return to form for him after the underwhelming Cry Macho with an ending that punctuates one of the greatest careers in film history. It’s fitting that the guy who made Dirty Harry famous finishes his career with one of the most nuanced takes on justice and due process ranking amongst his quietest most self-reflective films to date. [3.75/4]