Clint Eastwood’s “Juror #2”—the director’s 40th film, at the age of 94—is about a moral dilemma. It’s also the first courtroom procedural in some time to feature a behind the scenes look at jury deliberation in lieu of high-energy courtroom lawyering. It features good acting all around, notable from Nicholas Hoult, J.K. Simmons, and Toni Collette, playing an ambitious Assistant D.A. Its sin, I feel, is it gives away its hand too early and struggles to make its moral dilemma felt instead of shown. Nonetheless, it’s still adequate entertainment. It offers food for thought on the legal system and personal decisions that have wide-sweeping ramifications.
Juror #2 in this film is Justin Kemp, played here by Nicholas Hoult with that same sketchy, something hiding-under-the-surface eeriness he injects into his characters (I’m thinking mostly of “The Menu” as I write this). He’s called for a murder trial and is selected as the titular 2nd juror. The jury selection process itself is touched on, but not elaborately. The one time I was selected to appear for jury duty, a number of potential jurors hemmed and hawed and offered excuses as to why they couldn’t serve—and that was only on a drug charge. Here, in a high-profile murder case, only Justin (his wife’s expecting a high-risk pregnancy) and one other offer objection. Among the pool selected are a diverse gathering. We’re not talking “12 Angry Men” here.
A Unique Moral Dilemma
The problem is, that as the trial unfolds, Eastwood and Writer Jonathan A. Abrams give away the hook to us. Juror #2 knows something about the crime, something he remembers in flashback sequences that allude to the innocence of the alleged. I said this film is a moral dilemma, and it is. However, more really can’t be said without giving away the entire film. Suffice to say, a lot is on Justin’s shoulders, and the following machinations he embarks on in the jury room stem from this moral dilemma.
I will say this—the jury deliberation scenes are fairly well-constructed, albeit it somewhat rushed. Starting deliberation on a Friday and breaking until Monday when a verdict could not be reached gave it a bizarre yet realistic quality. The defendant’s alleged guilt is assumed by most, which I found irritating as reasons aside “that boy did it” or variations of “I have a family to get back to” aren’t offered. Eastwood has a way of asking audiences to think (the great “Gran Torino” comes to mind). Is it purposive or accidental that one of only persons inside the jury room that wants to tease out the accused’s guilt or innocence is Justin, who is morally conflicted? If he didn’t know what he knew, would we even be here? Or would a guilty verdict be hastily and shoddily rendered?
Supporting actors all around add meat to the movie. J.K. Simmons plays a good role as a retired detective who knows there’s more to this case than meets the eye. The way he and Hoult play off each other is fun to watch, and Simmons is in command of his character. This isn’t a film for him to shine, but act. A heart-to-heart he has with the Judge (a good Amy Aquino) shows he was an integral detective during his service. As noted in Christy Lemire’s review from RogerEbert.com, the film also pays attention to the unlikelihood of a retired detective being missed in jury selection, rendering the proceedings more believably.
Some Corner Cutting and Tonal Shifts
Some others, however, are hit or miss. For instance, the way Eastwood and Abrams use “24” alum Keifer Sutherland to almost wholly create Justin’s moral dilemma with stern legal advice gives the film an odd sense of drama. He plays a lawyer named Larry, who happens to be Justin’s sponsor (he’s a recovering alcoholic). There’re also some tonal shifts in the way this is presented. Justin himself uses his alcoholism to show the jury members how people can change in an emotional scene. But as we know more about Justin than the others do, we have to wonder what his angle is. He wants the jury—most who offer clear bias in their decision to vote ‘guilty’—to think this over. But he wants them to think it over in the right way, and stumbles over his decisions throughout the process.
But the main issue I found with “Juror #2” was while Justin’s dilemma was understandable, it wasn’t something I felt. The facts of it are laid bare by the film’s 20-minute mark, and the script doesn’t go deep enough to really show us how he’s struggling with it. His wife, Allison (a good Zoey Deutch) is painted somewhat thin. She and Justin have had a miscarriage before, and while expecting again (she’s due any day now) should be a happy thing, a sense of dread looms over it. But where this situation was rife to underscore Justin’s struggle and build a sense of he and Allison’s relationship, the film shies away. A following scene in their garage left me with the impression that mistrust of Justin’s alcoholism have left a mark. I would have liked to see their relationship—and what Justin stands to possibly lose—more fleshed out.
Food for Thought
In this way, “Juror #2” feels like a procedural, where it would have benefitted more from feeling like a drama. Lists are ticked off, boxes are checked, but the emotion never quite gets there. The film’s lone scene of unbridled emotion exists between Collette’s D.A., the accused (Gabriel Basso) and his lawyer (Chris Messina). Basso sells his character, and Eastwood and Abrams have even developed a likable, professional relationship between Messina and Collette’s characters. Given this, I wondered why Justin’s character and emotions were grazed, but never exposed. Or maybe this would have been alleviated by revealing Justin’s moral dilemma later in the deliberations rather than up front, adding a level to the drama that would have struck harder. But perhaps “Juror #2” is just supposed to be a conversation starter and nothing more. It’s up to the beholder.
All-in-all, “Juror #2” is filmed well. It’s impressive that Eastwood is still able to turn out bankable films at such an age. While lacking the depths of some of his other turns (most notably “American Sniper” and “Gran Torino” in the last 20 years), it does offer food for thought and an interesting look at courtroom thematics. It falls short in its imperative and rushed third act, but it’s forgivable. It’s well-acted and flows easily. It will likely lead to moral discussions following its conclusion, which will hopefully give viewers an insight in morality, justice, and law & order.
