A solid little morality play bolstered by great acting, Juror #2 gets a solid recommendation.
Listen at the podcast providers of your choice.
Clint Eastwood's directorial output over the last 10 years has been impressive. He's made a musical adaptation, had the biggest box office hit of his career, and starred in two of the films as well. Eight movies in 10 years from a man who just turned 94. And...man a lot of them are problematic or far less interesting than they should be. The biggest culprit is 2014's American Sniper, which outside of featuring the least convincing baby doll in cinema history, is an uncritical adaptation of a memoir by the equally, if not even more problematic Chris Kyle. Sniper also set the standard for Eastwood, in that he continued to make films about interesting stories that he would adapt to match his worldview. See the "man who knows his stuff vs. powers that be that don't" take on Sully or the "this is all this one woman's fault" approach to Richard Jewell. Which is why I was a touch surprised to see that Eastwood's latest, Juror #2, is being mentioned as a dark horse Oscar or awards candidate. So I thought I'd see what the fuss was about, and see if Eastwood has shifted gears.
The Setup
Nicholas Hoult stars as Justin Kemp, a recovering alcoholic and soon-to-be dad that's been selected for jury duty. And unfortunately for him, he's been tagged for a high-profile murder case that could take days or weeks to conclude. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The larger problem is that Kemp may have knowledge that exonerates the man on trial...that would also implicate himself.
So I'll do a little house-cleaning before I get into the movie itself. One of the big reasons this movie is getting more attention than it might otherwise is due to conflict/frustration with the studio, that's been with Eastwood basically since he got behind the camera by the way, Warner Bros. Instead of getting a giant theatrical push, Juror #2 got a very small theatrical release before being dumped onto Max, which is what Warner Bros. wanted all along. Which isn't something you typically do with a high profile director and understandably has frustrated a ton of people within the industry. Hard to say how well the movie would've done with a typical distribution, but this is a bit mind-boggling to me, because this is Eastwood's most accessible movie to a wide audience in years, right when this kind of morality play/courtroom drama hasn't been hit in years.
Why? Well there's three big reasons why.
Reason #1: Thematic Appeal
The appeal of Juror #2 is that it is a morality play that's meant to look and feel like a grounded drama. So as much as people are going to make comparisons to Twelve Angry Men, the real push and pull here is what are people willing/going to do for the sake of their vision of justice. This is where Eastwood's minimalist direction (i.e. a lot of static shot reverse shots) works really well because it feels realistic, even though the actions within aren't.
What we find out very quickly, not a big spoiler here, that Kemp is a recovering alcoholic, who in a moment of weakness went to a bar and considered having a drink. He didn't, but on the drive home he hit what he thought was a deer...that also might've been the murder victim. But because of his history, he feels like bringing this up will turn out very badly for himself.
So he's trying to poke holes in the prosecution's theory, who is running for public office and therefore will not accept a hung jury, while also not implicating himself.
What I like so much about this, is that every party involved in this case has conflicting motivations that come down to, what's the moral thing to do in regards to this case vs. what benefits these people personally or makes them feel better. It means everyone's actions make some degree of emotional sense and provides the necessary friction throughout the film.
So he's trying to poke holes in the prosecution's theory, who is running for public office and therefore will not accept a hung jury, while also not implicating himself.
What I like so much about this, is that every party involved in this case has conflicting motivations that come down to, what's the moral thing to do in regards to this case vs. what benefits these people personally or makes them feel better. It means everyone's actions make some degree of emotional sense and provides the necessary friction throughout the film.
The film also smartly keeps what exactly happened a touch vague, even if you're pretty confident about what happened it still comes down to the evidence and testimony and leaves room for doubt. Does a great job of putting the audience in the juror's headspace.
Reason #2: Top Flight Acting
Another one of the reasons Eastwood's movies have been less appealing to me for a bit is that he's been casting himself in the lead roles, or going with newer actors as his primary players. For instance in The 15:17 to Paris he cast the real life men in the movie.
This time around he's put together a great collection of actors who all get chances to flex their muscles. The two standouts are Nicholas Hoult as Kemp and Cedric Yarborough as Marcus, a fellow juror. Hoult has to get this right for the movie to work, since he spends the entirety of the movie in a moral quandry, and he does this very well. I especially like how he soft sells every alternate theory to avoid blow-up arguments or to bring more attention to himself, when by speaking out, he's already doing that.
Cedric Yarborough is going to surprise a lot of people as well, since a lot of folks probably know him best from work in comedies like Reno 911. But he has plenty of dramatic chops and when he gets chances to dig into monologues, he shines as someone who is righteously angry about the terrible things going on in his community because of men like the defendant.
These two are good enough by themselves before we get to an equally conflicted DA played by Toni Collette (who is good in everything), Zoey Deutch as Kemp's very pregnant wife and small character roles for JK Simmons and Kiefer Sutherland that play to their strengths. This is the kind of cast, Eastwood should always cultivate.
Reason #3: Surprisingly Critical of the Criminal Justice System
A long time ago, I heard my step-dad describe the appeal of Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry as a "guy who's outside of the system, while still being a part of it." And I think this gets to the core of a lot of Eastwood's contradictions as an artist. He loves the power of the individual while also recognizing an individual's ability to do horrible things. He seems to hate state power and failures, but also celebrates people who succeed within these structures.
So I was...cagey about how this movie would portray the criminal justice system. And honestly, it's pretty fair. Admittedly there's some stuff that couldn't/wouldn't happen in a case like this or seems illogical, but most of this is there to drive the drama within the movie.
The core, however, points out that in order to function properly, the criminal justice system needs everyone involved to buy in and do their jobs correctly. And Juror #2 points out over and over again, how frequently that doesn't happen, even within a single case. I especially like how the film points out, as I mentioned earlier, that personal interest shades everything.
The DA is pushing a case with less than great evidence because she's got an election coming up, against a public defender that is overworked and can't do their job to the best of their ability, who argue a case in front of a jury. The majority of whom want to get home as quickly as possible, may not actually understand the legal system or might want the man on trial to go to jail regardless of what he did or didn't do to his wife because of his other actions.
The Verdict: A Pleasant Surprise
A solid little morality play bolstered by great acting, Juror #2 gets a solid recommendation 7/10.
No comments:
Post a Comment