Released on the sly on October 27 by Warner, the fortieth, and perhaps final, film by Clint Eastwood stands out as a major success. “Juror No. 2” is a legal thriller of astonishing precision which explores the moral dilemma of a juror confronted with a murder case for which he may well be responsible.
There is something rotten in the realm of Hollywood. Historical producer of almost all of Clint Eastwood’s films since 1976, the Warner studio has decided to release its new, and perhaps last, film on the sly, without a promotional campaign.
Barely fifty theaters in the United States, a pittance compared to the importance of the 94-year-old filmmaker, visibly “punished” for the failure of his latest feature films, “Cry Macho” and “The Richard Jewell Case”. A shameful ingratitude which should not eclipse the excellence of “Juror No. 2”, a trial film as disturbing as it is fascinating.
A torn hero
While his wife is expecting their first child, Justin Kemp is chosen to be Juror No. 2 in a high-profile, politically decisive homicide trial. Prosecutor Faith Killebrew intends to convict the accused in order to boost her electoral campaign. The accused, James Sythe, a notorious drug dealer with a violent past, is suspected of having murdered his partner, Kendall Carter, found dead at the bottom of a bridge, after an argument in a bar. Very quickly, Justin realizes that he was in the same bar the night of the tragedy and that the deer he thought he hit on his way home in the pouring rain was perhaps not a deer.
Set in the town of Savannah, Georgia, where Clint Eastwood had previously made his other trial film, the memorable 1997 “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil,” “Juror No. 2” delves into the moral dilemma of its hero, who questions his responsibility in this sordid affair before wondering how to exonerate the man he is supposed to judge.
>> Vertigo’s cinema debate dedicated to the film “Juror No. 2”:
Complex and meticulous
From the outset, the film is astonishing with the meticulousness with which it describes the legal procedure. From the choice of jurors to the trial itself, including the prolonged deliberations (we think of Sidney Lumet’s “Twelve Angry Men”), the story takes the time to develop all the complexity of an institution where humans are too often judged for what he is, or appears to be, rather than for what he has actually done. With, at the heart of the scenario, a highly ambiguous question which questions the notions of truth and justice, here more opposed than synonymous.
“Juror No. 2” proves even more captivating since it avoids the clichés apparent at the beginning of the plot to reveal the paradoxes and contradictions that each character conveys. Thus, the prosecutor, shown as a careerist ready to do anything to achieve her goal, begins to doubt the validity of her reasoning throughout the story. One of the members of the jury, the most vindictive and stubborn, reveals perfectly understandable reasons for wanting to send the accused to prison.
Finally, Justin Kemp himself, a sort of ideal son-in-law at the start of the film, turns out to be overtaken by an alcoholic past which guides his choices, guided more by personal interests than by moral obligations. The hero and his companion Ally find themselves compared to the James Sythe/Kendall Carter couple, designated less as a counterpoint than as a barely distorting mirror.
Crystalline fluidity
Supported by the crystalline fluidity of its staging, which unites in a common movement the most troubled facets of humanity, “Juror No.2” once again proves Clint Eastwood’s unique ability to enrich and ramify the dramaturgical issues a priori scenarios sewn with white thread.
Fascinating from start to finish, the result asserts itself as the filmmaker’s best film in almost ten years and gives us hope that it will not become the last.
Rafael Wolf/sf
“Juror No.2”, by Clint Eastwood, with Nicholas Hoult, Toni Collette, Kiefer Sutherland and JK Simmons. To be seen in French-speaking cinemas since October 30, 2024.
