Clint Eastwood Takes Nicholas Hoult to Court
DIRECTED BY CLINT EASTWOOD/2024
Clint Eastwood’s Juror #2 is a good movie whose treatment by its studio demonstrates what’s bad about modern movie going, a solid, mid-size genre picture with several respected actors, made by one of the few remaining masters of this type of adult popcorn fare. The reviews proved strong, as well as the audience rating; at least to those audiences that could see it. Its French release was larger than the forty screens Warner Brothers dropped it on in the states before they move it to Max next month. I had to drive from Austin proper to Pflugerville to see it for this review that will appear after it has left most of those theaters. Still, for me, it was worth the trip.
The story is in the mold of a nineties legal thriller Hollywood seemed to roll out every other month in that decade. Nicholas Hoult plays Justin Kemp, a recovering alcoholic who has built a nice middle-class existence with his very pregnant wife (Zoey Deutch) He gets called for jury duty in a high-profile case prosecuted by Faith Killebrew, as she runs for Georgia District Attorney. The state versus James Michael Scythe (Gabriel Basso), a guy with a dirt-bag past, for killing his girlfriend, Kendall Carter (played in flashbacks by the director’s daughter, Francesca Eastwood) after a very loud and public argument at a local tavern, not too far from where her body was found near a bridge. As Justin hears the facts, he realizes he was at the that bar on that night, tempted to drink. He drove home and hit what he thought was a deer on that very bridge.
If he brings this up to the court, they will find the two DUIs on his record and the public is demanding somebody pay. A hung jury will only make them try Scythe again. This forces Justin to push for a not guilty verdict. On the first day of deliberation, he is only one of two who vote in that direction.
Eastwood skillfully works the genre tropes to deftly balance the social and emotional themes of Jonathan A. Abrahams’ script. Eastwood’s libertarian viewpoint often informs his films, especially his later ones, but here he uses it more as an eye of examination to capture some of the flaws of our legal institutions. Different characters in the film often state the system isn’t perfect, but it’s the best there is. In a quiet way, the movie asks if it could be better, though We see the political, public, and personal aspects that corrupt how we judge a person on trial, often inadvertently.
As in many of his films, it’s the duty of the individual to saves us from one-fits-all systems when it affects an irregular. Justin works to navigate the criminal legal world to not become a victim of it as well as creating another victim. The moral question is what he will value more. Faith practically takes the handoff of becoming the protagonist near the end as doubts push her took look further into the case, closing in on Justin’s involvement.
Kiefer Sutherland plays a small but important role in three scenes that reflect Justin’s dilemma. We first meet his Larry Lasker as Justin’s AA sponsor, before he goes to court. He advises the younger man to deal with his secrets before they destroy them. The next time, after Justin has realized his dilemma, we learn Larry is a lawyer who advises him that the only way out is for a not guilty verdict. When this is your spirit guide, you are not in a good spot.
There has been some complaint of there not being enough depth to the jury members. I saw it as the script sketching them out just enough to establish them without slowing down the momentum of the thriller aspects and the director and actors shading the characterizations. Leslie Bibb perfectly expresses polite exasperation as the jury foreman over her head due to Justin’s actions. Cedric Yarbrough creates believable conviction as a jurist whose own morality will not move him from the verdict, no matter how many questions arise. All actors show how their judgement is influenced from everything from their personal experience to their addiction to true crime stories,
It’s no surprise the stand out of this group is J.K. Simmons as Harold, a retired cop who is the other initial not guilty vote and breaks the valid jury rules to do some investigating of his own, thinking he has an ally in Justin. Through his simple presence, he captures the decency and intelligence of the character even if his actions are questionable. I would love to see how Eastwood could use him as his own avatar of a certain age in other films.
The legal thriller conventions allow Eastwood to one of the things he does best, create an environment for these and other talented journeyman actors to do their thing and cook. There are few close ups, with the director relying on two shots and masters to capture character interaction. He’d rather execute a reveal through blocking than an edit. The people caught up in this story move it. There is a wonderfully nuanced scene between Simmons and Collette as Harold makes his final case to Faith. He subtly conveys his frustration as Faith looks at her phone. When he walks away, with little fanfare, we realize she is looking at the phone because she can’t look him in the eye. Film lovers will pick up many of these small moments since they are rarely played in genre films these days.
There is talk this may be Eastwood’s last film for the ninety-four-year-old Eastwood. Many fans want their director’s to go out with something big and epic, but for one of the last classic craftsman this may be a perfect final note, especially in a market of bloated director statements like Joker: Folie a’ Duex, that probably spent more on craft services than Juror #2’s entire budget. It’s the epitome of the unpretentious, well-acted and well-crafted genre film, that Eastwood has delivered for over half a century. If only Warner Brothers wanted to deliver it to us properly.