Say what you will about Clint Eastwood, the man has done it all. Eastwood began his career near the end of the Classic Hollywood era. Since then, he has outlived the classic studio system, the Spaghetti Western, the mid-budget adult studio drama and most of his critics. It’s not often that someone with such a long and legendary career continues working. Especially at such a pace as Eastwood has, and especially at age 94. All that and Eastwood still continues to be a filmmaker with commercial appeal. Some recent outings, such as “The 15:17 To Paris” and “Cry Macho,” were appreciated by only the most serious of Clint auteurists. However, other films like “American Sniper,” “The Mule” and “Richard Jewell” were critical and commercial successes.
Warner Bros. Worrying Decision
The decision by Warner Bros. to quietly bury Eastwood’s newest film “Juror #2” is an incredibly baffling one. Originally intended as a streaming release, the film was instead released in just 50 theaters across the U.S. in its first week. This was an attempt on the part of executive David Zaslav to win over subscribers to Max, the Warner Bros.-owned streaming platform. While the film did see a much wider European release and a modest second-week expansion, this still represents a worrying development. If one of our greatest living film directors can’t be guaranteed a wide theatrical release of one of his most accomplished releases from the studio he’s partnered with for decades, what does that mean for other filmmakers without that level of clout? What does that say about the priorities of major studios in this day of endless high-budget, low-artistic value franchise films?
“Juror #2” An Important Late Work
Shot on a modest $35 million budget from a script written by Jonathan Abrams, “Juror #2” is Eastwood’s most widely appealing movie in years. It is easily recommendable to casual filmgoers and diehard Clint fans alike. With his Classic Hollywood influences on full display, Eastwood brings his no-nonsense craftsmanship and understated visual sensibility to a tightly wound legal thriller. Continuing in the vein of aforementioned previous works, “Juror #2” is a Fordian exploration of American institutions and some of the moral predicaments they engender. Our leading man, Justin (Nicholas Hoult), a recovering alcoholic whose pregnant wife is expecting, is called up for jury duty on a case in which he begins to suspect he may have had personal involvement. The film, which may be Eastwood’s last, is both surprisingly insightful in its microcosmic depiction of the United States and gut-wrenching in its deeply felt exploration of guilt. It never eases down the tension till the final frame.
Deserving of More
The through-line, of course, is Eastwood’s humanism radically sincere in a film landscape dominated by cynical blockbusters and pretentiously self-aware arthouse pictures. Perhaps this is painting with too broad a brush, but the fact remains that filmgoers are hungry for movies like “Juror #2.” Yet studios, for some reason, still continue to see serious adult-oriented dramas as an unsafe bet. While the advent of streaming and leftover habits from COVID have certainly presented new challenges to the continued existence of film as a theatrical experience, recent history shows that if audiences feel like something is worth seeing, they will pay to see it. Hopefully, the mounting backlash against the handling of this release will cause Warner Bros. to change course and keep it in the theaters for longer. If “Juror #2” is still playing nearby by the time you read this article, do yourself a favor and see it.