Esteemed members of the jury, today we will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Clint Eastwood is one of our most reliable directors. Mr. Eastwood has carved a career out of a precise and efficient filmography that is measured in equal parts grit and economy. By the end of today’s session, we firmly believe we will adjudicate this four-decade filmography as a resounding body of work, that showcases a craftsmanlike spirit to the art of filmmaking.
Often, we look at filmmaking as one thing or another. Whether it’s some fun or it’s some art. For Mr. Eastwood, the fun and art of filmmaking are set aside for a more workmanlike approach. The director will shoot it once, work on short schedules, deliver work that lives up to its premise, generally low-concept and high-execution, and will always direct with stunning economy in form.
Said to be his final film, Juror #2 is peak late-era performance. It embodies what Clint Eastwood is so good at. This is a perfect airplane novel by way of film. Easy watching, high moral impact, and fills your time with efficiency and grace, wasting no scenes, and no time on filler.
The reason Juror #2 resonates so deeply is that it has a perfect premise and a clean execution. The hook is ingenious: a man is called into jury duty and it becomes clear over the course of the trial that he is responsible for the death of the victim. The man, so-called Justin Kemp, is played beautifully by Nicholas Hoult, who holds a multitude of feelings at once, like guilt, remorse, fear, and shame. The thing is, he has a lot more to lose than the victim’s widowed boyfriend who stands on trial. Kemp’s wife is due any date with a baby. He’s in recovery and has made good choices to solidify his life as a partner and a father. The stakes are exceptionally high but the moral question also pulsates from the heart of the film.
Initially, everyone but Kemp believes that the boyfriend is innocent, including the equally terrific Judge played by Toni Collette and the former cop who lies his way into serving on the jury played by J.K. Simmons. The cast is made for a Clint Eastwood movie and everyone benefits from the sharp casting choices.
Likewise, the efficiency of the movie could only be handled by a director like the late-era Eastwood, who has modeled his later films around a no-frills Paul Greengrassian concept of Grandpa Cinema. When done expertly, it’s delightful, as it is here. This is a terrific court movie because it doesn’t waste our time and understands that the moral questions of the trial are where it needs to spend its time.
We are providing our defense of Mr. Eastwood pro-bono, in belief that the movie is being underserved by the studio releasing it. Warner Bros. have spent half a century producing Clint Eastwood pictures only to give his plausibly final film short shrift. It’s releasing in only 50 theaters in the United States for only one week. That is an insulting run for this quality of movie which has such a terrific execution on its premise. There should have been an earned trust here, a release deal grandfathered in by decades and decades of loyalty to the studio by Mr. Eastwood. Frankly, the release strategy is insulting, mirroring the streaming-only release of William Friedkin’s final movie last year, the excellent courtroom drama The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial. When these elder statesmen of cinema put out their final works, whether it’s the late-Friedkin or the still-going-in-his-‘90s Eastwood, it’s also an insult to the history of cinema that they’ve so richly contributed to.
Before we rest our case, let us settle a final argument. Juror #2 is exactly how a deeply prolific and equally proficient director ought to finish out their career. It embodies all the things that Clint Eastwood movies can be. It’s lean, mean, and tightly thrilling. Shot with easy competence and know-how and it’s the kind of story that doesn’t get told anymore, in that it’s straightforward, succeeds only on the merits of its competency, and has no gimmicks or tricks to it. It’s also grounded in the autumnal season and a background of an election year. It’s just the right movie to go out on and it’s a movie for right now. We would like to motion for Warner Bros. to carefully consider their digital release strategy to follow and honor a lifetime of work dedicated to their studio. The defense rests their case and firmly believes Juror #2 to be one of the year’s tightest and most clear-headed products. If we can find it within ourselves, we ought to celebrate our directors who have shaped cinema before they are done. Let’s give Mr. Eastwood his flowers — about 40 movies in and still proving it, what else could it possibly take? Beyond any reasonable doubt, Clint Eastwood is our greatest living representation of the filmmaker as a craftsman, who honors the work it takes to make a good movie and has spent an entire career making good movies with economy and grace. We ask the jury to consider the entire body of work and for the studio and the audience to give this film what it deserves: a real audience.