Clint Eastwood has always been known to have a great face, and so it makes sense that at some point he had to rise to the status of one of our greatest Directors of faces. Although it sounds rather heavy, it is patently true that Eastwood is not only three decades into his late style, he has been single-handedly on a late style drive for more than 3 decades. Such was the case with ‘Unforgiven’; it was the elegiac effort of an aging revered figure who was revisiting his memorable career catalog, or should we say, that was in 1992. Recently, however, with the increasing stripping down and the persistent movement towards a more minimalist form his films possess, he has appeared much happier simply allowing the viewers to observe the characters he casts in his movies.
The faces matter because that is where the real drama is. In Juror No. 2, Eastwood, 94, delivers a courtroom thriller that, in its broad strokes, seems to be drawn from an airport paperback. (As far as I can tell, it’s not based on anything, but an enterprising publisher could probably make a quick cool buck by novelizing Jonathan Abrams’s script.) We’ve had plenty of eventful stories propounded on this theme of glee and despair over the years, but here their value is harbored more on the emotions and the cost that comes with the beliefs, the struggles at the core of the person’s existence.
The film features Justin Kemp portrayed by Nicholas Hoult, who is shown attending a court hearing alongside two other jurors. Justin’s character is a recovering alcoholic trying his best to stay sober. The jury case involves James Michael Sythe played by Gabriel Basso who has been accused of murder and has a history of violent behavior. One of the attorneys, Toni Collette’s character, is a district attorney and desperately wants Sythe to face the consequences of murdering his girlfriend, Kendall Carter, played by Francesca Eastwood. Participants in the jury hearing knew Justin was at the bar where the fight occurred, he was at the bar but he lay low the entire time and didn’t drink. A few other things began to unfold, like the fact that he ran over what he initially suspected was a deer but later thought could be Kendall. This serves as an exhibition of intense plot development especially where he aims to clear a man’s name and help an innocent take the blame, all while aiming to save his soul.
It seems like Kemp did not see eye to eye with the other jurors. He was always at the center of controversy but the urge of his character to focus more on becoming sober rather than revolting against dining the lunch together might have made it easier for them. The film is set in the times of justify however remember that Kemp as a character was responsive towards his father as compared to Sythe and even on multiple occasions provided care for Kemp’s mother.
The film encompassed a lot of information on justifications argued by the district attorney and it revolved around Kemps Kirk. Speculations also began to arise regarding the entire studio witness impression as a whole.
It’s given the film minimal marketing and is releasing only a handful of screens without an evident lookout for expansion. Bizarrely, it’s also not planning to cover the film’s box office performance which anticipatorily suspends a commitment to lose or be derisive to the chattering classes or perhaps both. Since it is well known that Eastwood has been for many years within the most honored circles of the company, for example, weeks or months to cut costs rumors that he and the famed Stanley Kubrick were the only directors Warner bothered with to cut at final times. Nevertheless, it also follows some as sick as morbid reasoning, especially since Eastwood with all his genre cred and iconic stature is among the handful of major directors making adult drama with the studios paying the bills. To the modern studio executive, he must detect a glacier in the matrix, not an artist who is held but rather an asset that is corrected.
He is also working within a tired genre. The courtroom drama was a riveting solid topic for courtroom thrillers. The legal thriller was built around someone in society abusing the nerve center of politics, such as disgruntled leaders, ruffians, and shady attorneys, but in most cases law functions. They were the bad guys and had the power to cause great harm but these films reflected a guarded optimism about the American way. The facts might be a little hidden in the initial stages and several lives may be lost or affected but the truth will be told and justice will be served. If I had to give the thesis for the question, of why legal thrillers have not aged so well, one would be wise to start looking inside, to see the growing and perhaps in some part justified cynicism towards the institutions. Juror No.2 is a piece by a man who still appears to believe such theatrical devices work; it even shows a sequence where the jurors are advised by a twenty-minute overhead through the u.s. flag made instructional video on the justice system and the role of the jurors in the American democracy. Things did not work so well for Michael Dukakis while working on the film either as this one shows the system can sometimes work but doesn’t quite turn up for the performance.
It is meant for us not to be treated with the delight of watching a villain get their due because there simply isn’t one.
This is not a film about frantic deadlines, dark plots, clever escapes, and courtroom chaos. It deals with a deep underlying pain in the form of close-up silent shots of the tormented and doubtful psyche of the character. For him, it seems he is a little impatient to change the state of boredom, his world as it is, still stays calm while the internal strife continues to gnaw at him slowly and painfully, in this case, the feeling of guilt. Justin’s world comes into a churn as his wife, pregnant in her late stages, is advised against a high-risk surgery, but important things are in store as Justin’s world is in for a whirlpool. And so do the rest of course, as they seek to spend time with their families, and we must say that this very Sythe character they are seeing only adds to their guilty feelings towards him. The opposing attorneys fight like rabid dogs in the courtroom but off the work, they are simply college friends grabbing a drink together. Sythe’s lawyer, Chris Messina, does not doubt his client’s guilt but it seems to him that he will not cry a river if he is banged up either. Jurors, some of them even single, see no use of the institutions whatsoever but on the other hand, it’s really a dismal legal thriller and even more so implies that the resulting injustice is created by well-meaning couples, fathers, and mothers, rather than some almighty puppeteer sitting on the other end.
And yes, there is perhaps some irony in the fact that the man who was once Dirty Harry has now made a movie about how easy it is to be intellectually lazy.
The generally commendable and quite functional simplicity with which Eastwood tackles these problems also creates some errors. Several times, the characters state that they look into Sythe’s eyes and hear his testimony and they know he is innocent. Considering Basso’s performance is somewhat lackluster in articulation perhaps “one-take Clint” should have taken the time to reshoot those moments. Otherwise, the director manages to elicited excellent performances from actors because he is generous with both time and space. With Eastwood’s relaxed approach, the strength and vulnerability of the characters permeate through. Maybe it is a more straightforward approach, but the implausible and the ambiguous cannot be more readily understood than in his direction. Juror Occupation Number 2 creates the latest chapter in a great director’s oeuvre. Unfortunately, most audiences will not be aware that such a work is there.
To Watch More Movies Like Juror #2 (2024) Visit Soap2day.
