60 years after his breakout role in “A Fistful of Dollars” (1964), Clint Eastwood has released what may be his final film, “Juror #2.” Instead of ending his career with a spectacle, Eastwood’s most recent film is a powerful meditation on the nature of humanity and its institutions.
Juror #2 follows Justin Kemp (Nicholas Hoult), a Savannah, Georgia-based journalist and recovering alcoholic whose wife is soon to deliver their first child after a traumatizing miscarriage just a year prior. Despite his best efforts, he finds himself serving on a jury concerning an alleged murder that took place a year before. The night of the murder, Kemp was at the same bar as the victim and later — after fighting the urge to relapse into alcoholism — hit a deer on the drive home. During the early days of the trial, Kemp realizes that what he thought might have been a deer may instead have been the murdered woman. But due to his past history as an alcoholic and the fact that he was driving home from a bar, coming forward would almost certainly put him behind bars for a long time.
Kemp spends the movie wrestling with this fact, desperately searching for a way to keep James out of prison without sacrificing himself. At the same time, Faith Killebrew (Toni Collette), the prosecutor, aggressively pursues a conviction in hopes of winning the election for district attorney. Her efforts are inadvertently helped by Sythe’s overworked public defender Eric Resnick (Chris Messina), whose defense efforts are strong yet limited by his many other cases.
The film, while set primarily in a courtroom, is a mix of thriller and crime mystery. Such a decision is very Eastwood, who has previously made genre mashing films like “Gran Torino,” “The Mule” and “Cry Macho.” Somehow, these influences leave the film feeling most reminiscent of the Westerns that defined Eastwood’s early career, with a strong emphasis on moral and legal conflict and a flawed protagonist.
Yet in spite of, or perhaps because of, its influences, the film feels unique. In contrast to most court dramas, the arguing of the case is given very little screen time — a potential commentary on the lack of time a public defender can give a particular case. And while the jury debates of “12 Angry Men” show the beauty of civic engagement, the debate we are shown in Juror #2 emphasize just how little care many give to this core civic duty. One character votes guilty because he wants to leave, and another character — who feels modeled after the bigoted Juror 10 in 12 Angry Men — makes it clear he will never stop voting guilty as he believes someone with Sythe’s criminal background can never truly change. Almost everything you’d expect is in the movie, but often not in the way you’d expect it to be.
Beyond its uniqueness, Juror #2 is an overall astute film. Eastwood’s style is quite sparse, placing strong emphasis on the characters and continually reminding the audience this is a story about people. Of course, this is also a byproduct of his infamous habit of being a “done by 5” filmmaker who does as few takes as possible. The settings and visual references created by his direction emphasize, rather than distract from, his themes. While the screenplay has some weak points, like Killebrew weirdly waiting until the very last minute to make a pivotal yet shockingly easy Google search, they are few and far between. And the star-studded cast delivers strong and compelling performances, with Hoult doing a wonderful job in the central role. These pieces come together powerfully.
While I won’t spoil the ending, it revolves around questions of guilt and redemption. Kemp has potentially yet inadvertently done a horrible thing — taking a life — and his attempts to avoid culpability are putting an entirely innocent man, who loved the victim, in incredible risk. His internal struggle to cope with his actions shares parallels with Dostoevsky’s Raskolnikov, while the way he draws others around him into his web of lies shows how often evil can be self perpetuating. The conclusion to his tale brings to mind the Nobel Laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s famous remark that “the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart — and through all human hearts.” Kemp is offered the choice to do good or evil, and — justify it as he might with statements about who he is — his different decisions say a lot about where in his heart that line lies.
In addition to serving a commentary on man, the film calls into doubt many of our institutions. This part feels most reminiscent of the Western genre, which is characterized by a largely absent federal government and towns that struggle to meet the basic obligations of the state. The judge presiding over the case makes a Churchill-esque remark that trial by jury is both imperfect and the best option there is. Unfortunately, the film shows how much our legal system is driven by selfish desires, well-intentioned but destructive actions and inadequate work. The viewer leaves wondering about how many of our institutions are deeply flawed, at a time when they are under increasing attack. These are also Eastwood’s own struggles. He and his work have long held distinct views on what America is and should be, and the movie represents his current – and perhaps final – conclusions.
While I hope Clint Eastwood keeps making movies, I realize that, at the age of 94, he may not be able to. Juror #2 is a fitting end to an accomplished and prolific Hollywood career that builds on themes Eastwood has explored for decades. His message may be bleak, but it rings unnervingly true.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.
Zev van Zanten is a Trinity junior and recess editor of The Chronicle's 120th volume.