Juror #2 Reflects the Major Themes of Clint Eastwood’s Career—Down to Its Unpredictable Ending

As a film enthusiast with a keen eye for storytelling and a deep appreciation for the works of Clint Eastwood, I find “Juror #2” to be a testament to the director’s artistic maturity and his ability to leave an indelible impact on audiences. The ending, reminiscent of Eastwood’s masterpiece “Mystic River,” is both satisfying and enigmatic, providing closure while leaving room for interpretation. It’s this signature touch that has become Eastwood’s trademark, a perfect one-two punch that resonates deeply with viewers.

“This is a story about people.”

This was the first thing Clint Eastwood said to first-time screenwriter Jonathan A. Abrams upon reading Abrams’ script for Juror #2, a sure-handed, handsomely made, and understated courtroom procedural. The thriller deals with such weighty ideas as truth, justice, morality, and guilt—mainstay themes that have long been part of the DNA of Eastwood’s wide-ranging filmography, from Dirty Harry to Sully. “He said it with his trademark to-the-point-ness,” Abrams remembers during a recent conversation with TIME over Zoom.

After producer Matt Skiena inquired about the ideal director for the movie, Abrams suggested Clint Eastwood, who is renowned for directing films exploring intricate themes of virtue, ethics, and justice. When they first met, Abrams described it as one of the most memorable days of his life, second only to the births of his children and his wedding day. He shared that their conversation felt casual, like two friends chatting. In fact, if Eastwood had proposed a Mars setting, Abrams would have eagerly agreed. Ultimately, Eastwood’s reading of the script confirmed he was the ideal choice for the project.

As a cinephile, initially viewing J.J. Abrams’ story in Juror #2 seemed like just another generic tale based on its initial impression. However, upon deeper reflection, it mirrors Clint Eastwood’s lifelong preoccupation with the complex dualities that define humanity – a trait he has consistently explored throughout his illustrious career as a director, producer, actor, and composer. If this turns out to be Eastwood’s final film, given retirement rumors, it would serve as a poignant farewell note, encapsulating the essence of his cinematic journey.

Juror #2 is about people who exist in the gray area

Juror #2 Reflects the Major Themes of Clint Eastwood’s Career—Down to Its Unpredictable Ending

In simpler terms, “Juror #2” is a gripping drama that revolves around a fictional murder trial in Georgia. The narrative primarily focuses on the internal struggles of the jury as they deliberate on the guilt or innocence of Kendall Carter’s (Francesca Eastwood) volatile boyfriend, James Michael Sythe (Gabriel Basso), who is the main suspect. Although there is persuasive but inconclusive evidence against him, the actual culprit is Justin Kemp (Nicholas Hoult), a writer with a history of alcoholism who serves on the jury. The story unfolds through flashbacks that reveal the night when Kemp, believing he hit a deer, accidentally left the crime scene unaware. This film was a type of captivating and rewatchable drama that major studios don’t produce much anymore, as it was considered mainstream in the ’90s.

In this scenario, Faith Killebrew (portrayed by Toni Collette) vigorously argues for Sythe’s guilt, demonstrating her sharp legal acumen and unyielding spirit as a prosecutor. On the other hand, Eric Resnick (Chris Messina), an equally resolute defense attorney, strongly advocates for Sythe’s innocence. The jury, composed of an impressive ensemble including Leslie Bibb, Chikako Fukuyama, J.K. Simmons, Cedric Yarborough, and Adrienne C. Moore, each with their unique perspectives and potential biases, listen intently to the arguments presented in these civil proceedings. Concurrently, we are introduced to Allison (Zoey Deutch), Kemp’s pregnant wife, who seeks Justin’s support after experiencing several devastating miscarriages.

Essentially, Juror #2 can be described as a narrative focusing on people, each grappling with their own burdens, flaws, and moral dilemmas that often find them in the “gray area,” as Abrams notes. This film, much like many of Eastwood’s most insightful movies, invites us to question ourselves – “What would I do in this situation?” In other words, everyone who takes a moment to contemplate their actions is essentially undergoing their own trial within the story.

Clive Eastwood’s creative output consistently reflects his keen interest in human nature, often questioning established institutions such as government and judiciary. This concern is not only evident in his movies but also in his unconventional political views, identifying himself as a socially liberal, fiscally conservative libertarian – neither a conventional Republican nor a Democrat. In some of his most impactful films, we observe these themes unfold: outlaws can maintain their integrity (Unforgiven), thieves may possess moral compasses superior to those in power (Absolute Power), strong family women can experience profound love outside of marriage (The Bridges of Madison County), and even misogynistic old coaches can find their life’s purpose through a female athlete (Million Dollar Baby)).

Fine-tuning the script alongside Eastwood

Juror #2 Reflects the Major Themes of Clint Eastwood’s Career—Down to Its Unpredictable Ending

Abrams uncovered an intricate tale for Juror #2, inadvertently transforming into a sort of advisor for the District Attorney’s office. This journey began years ago, as a friend of his, now the youngest judge in California Superior Court and once a prosecutor, presented him with an unusual proposition. “He was struggling with his closing argument,” Abrams recalls. “He needed some cinematic flair for that final speech, akin to Matthew McConaughey’s performance in ‘A Time To Kill.'” With Abrams’ assistance—whose past work includes being an associate producer for the 2013 thriller ‘Escape Plan’ and writing the script for the Broadway musical ‘The Heart of Rock and Roll’ about Huey Lewis— he won the case. Inspired by this success, Abrams continued offering his consultancy services. He frequently visited the courthouse to observe trials, focusing on their dramatic elements. It was during one such observation that he witnessed a jury selection, noticing everyone’s attempts to avoid duty. “I pondered what could be said at this moment to convince the judge,” Abrams thought. “Your Honor, I am unable to serve because I have committed the crime.

He knew this kind of morality play it was a great idea for a script. “I wanted it to be the story of the difficult decisions we’re forced to make in life. We want to be good, but what does it mean to be good when it costs you potentially everything? I felt like as a director, Clint Eastwood would lean into the nuance of what I was trying to convey on the page, as opposed to turning it into a spectacle.” His instincts were spot on, as over the course of the next several months to a year, his collaboration with Eastwood indeed strengthened his script in stylish ways, deepening the characters’ dichotomies considerably.

Initially, the director advised Abrams to eliminate the flash-forward sequence that had been added under pressure from others who believed it was essential for a memorable opening. Clint proposed starting with a scene showing the character going about his daily life, and Abrams gratefully accepted this suggestion. From then on, they decided to remove anything in the script that didn’t seem authentic or genuine, while emphasizing the elements that did. This revised version of the script was greatly improved as a result.

The duo additionally focused on the movie’s flashbacks, which delve into the circumstances surrounding Carter’s demise and Kemp’s participation in a gradual manner. The initial act flashbacks, where Kemp acknowledges his guilt, were already scripted, generating an effect similar to Rashomon when contrasted with the court proceedings. However, Eastwood proposed including more flashbacks later, particularly during the jury’s visit to the crime scene. “In a clever way,” he said, “this helped resolve any remaining doubts about Sythe’s [guilt or innocence] that viewers might have. It was just the right amount, not too much, and that was Clint’s idea.

The influence of Mystic River and its impeccable ending

Abrams refers to Eastwood’s 2003 Oscar-winning film as his guiding light in creating Juror #2. The themes present in the earlier movie, a crime thriller dealing with trauma, family, and an unrelenting guilty conscience, are evidently reflected in the new project. Abrams describes it as a murder mystery that isn’t strictly about the murder itself. Like Juror #2, it doesn’t conclude with a gunfight, but rather an investigation. The final scene of Mystic River shows Kevin Bacon giving Sean Penn a finger gun during the parade, which suggests “I’m coming for you,” but leaves the outcome uncertain.

In contrast, although Juror #2’s decision seems definitive, it leaves room for speculation – Kemp initially escapes his unintentional crime but is pursued by determined prosecutor Killebrew in the closing scene. Although her purpose is clear, we are not privy to what follows, avoiding an overly descriptive account. Abrams humorously remarks, “It doesn’t give away any secrets, but I’m pretty sure she wasn’t there for his banana bread recipe.” The script underwent discussions regarding the desired level of closure. The initial draft was even more ambiguous, with Kemp getting away scot-free and left to grapple with the consequences. However, it was decided that more needed to be done. A knock on the door was always planned, and the question was whether we would learn who stood behind it. In the end, Clint opted for Toni to be the one waiting there.

Abrams comments that Eastwood has a distinctive style of adding something extra, which he refers to as his signature move. This is followed by the screen fading to black and revealing ‘Directed by Clint Eastwood.’ He describes this as a powerful one-two punch – not everyone might appreciate it, but Abrams feels proud of it.

Civility and respectful disagreement

One key characteristic that stands out about Juror #2 is the mutual respect portrayed among the film’s characters, even those on opposing sides – like the prosecution and defense, or among jury members themselves. To Abrams, this isn’t just a simple courtesy; it carries a profound significance. “When Eric addresses his rival Faith after a faulty verdict, he doesn’t lash out with hate, but instead says, ‘I hope the sacrifice was worth it.’ This is significant,” explains Abrams. “The jury room scenes are among my favorites in the movie. Characters say things that others might find offensive, yet they never resort to personal attacks or meanness. They listen to each other. It’s civil discourse. That’s why those scenes resonate with me, as both a viewer and an artist. It’s a valuable lesson in our current society.

Once again, I owe a debt of gratitude to Clint for infusing those scenes with his unique touch of ambiguity. It was truly captivating how he portrayed friendship amidst conflict, saying ‘I disapprove of your actions and don’t respect them, but we’re still friends. There are more battles ahead, and despite its flaws, the system we have is the best we’ve got.’ I admired his performance immensely.

If this final film represents Eastwood’s retirement, there’s no doubt it encapsulates the essence of his illustrious career in a deeply reflective manner.

2024-11-05 01:06