Something happens in the cinema, and in the world, when a Clint Eastwood movie comes out and people have barely heard of it. It is not normal that a cinema legend, who has delivered fundamental films of its recent history like No forgiveness, Mystical river either Million dollar babysuffer ostracism from an industry more concerned with its franchises, the next intellectual property to exploit or algorithms. Eastwood, moreover, is not an author who does not come into contact with the public. His adult films, which treat the viewer with intelligence, were hits that gave movie theaters and his production company, Warner Bros., resounding successes at the box office.
Not only the most obvious ones, like The sniper either Greater Turin. Minor and more recent titles such as The mule (2018) or Defile (2016), grossed over 100 million at the US box office alone. That is why it was surprising that Warner, who owes him several successes, decided to release it there in only 50 copies and with the growing rumor that, on the part of the company, they would not publish their box office data. American media suggest that it is the new head of the studio, David Zaslav, who is responsible for this decision after the failure of his previous film, Male shouts.
For some reason, it’s painful to see that a Clint Eastwood film doesn’t get the space it deserves. Even if this space is only for making mistakes. This is not the first time that Warner has betrayed one of its executives in its portfolio. The company’s refusal to release in theaters after the pandemicPrinciple, Christopher Nolan’s film caused the director to change it to Universal in Oppenheimer, which culminated with seven Academy Awards and a box office gross of nearly $1 billion. Warner would have, according to Variety, tried to get him back for their new film with a succulent offer that Nolan rejected, remaining at Universal.
Beyond the attack on Clint Eastwood for his merits, it is surprising because his new film Jury n°2 –which is also being released in Spain – is a great film. A smart thriller that focuses on adult cinema for adults, something increasingly difficult to find, but where a niche audience is opening up that is returning to theaters. Last week, a film with a similar montage to Conclave It exceeded expectations and opened to nearly $7 million in the United States.
It’s true that Conclave There’s a supposed Oscar race ahead of it that Eastwood’s film won’t have, but one that could generate word of mouth among a cross-sectional audience that it will perform in a more-than-decent manner. The release in 50 theaters completely blocks this possibility.
Jury No. 2 It has in its favor an original and surprising postulate. An ideal man, future father and perfect husband is chosen by a popular jury. When he approaches the case, he will realize that he is the culprit behind the victim’s death and therefore the person accused of murder is innocent. The question is whether he should surrender or not, but Jonathan A. Abrams’ screenplay gives it a twist so the viewer can see how the protagonist tries to convince the rest of the popular jury not to convict him without having to surrender. . While maintaining suspense over the verdict and doubt over the discovery of their lie.
Eastwood doesn’t waste such a powerful idea, and despite Nicholas Hoult’s limited dramatic talent, he manages to keep the viewer in place without really knowing where he’s going to go next. A film that draws inspiration from classics like 12 merciless men, but it achieves its own autonomy. Eastwood also ventures into his own territory to tackle many of his favorite subjects, such as morality, guilt and the failure of the justice system. Themes found in many of his most popular films such as Mystical river.
The veteran director, who is now 94 years old and claims to still have the strength to direct at least one more film, takes advantage of the thriller to raise interesting questions about a society without values, where a rich man has more chances of saving himself. than a poor man; where justice is based on prejudices and first impressions and there is no reliable system. A pessimistic vision that he takes care to maintain in his ambiguous final shot, which does not give answers and which leaves the viewer to complete as they wish.
Eastwood’s classic style remains. Without fanfare, reliable and relevant, although there may be certain visual truisms: focusing on a blind statue of justice every time there is moral doubt is something that must be overcome. The moral ambiguity of his characters carries over into the film as well, and this is where everything gets a little more uncomfortable, as Eastwood’s conservative seams are visible. While he succeeds in destroying this perfect (and believing) man, who puts his personal interest before the collective, Eastwood resorts to reactionary clichés to describe the rest of the characters.
For the director, black people are always angry and want to go home because life is beyond them; and there is little question as to whether the accused, guilty or not, is an molester of women. Details that do not completely obscure this pleasant thriller, which finds the aroma of a classic from the 90s, and which can even be understood as the trademarks of a conservative director who at this stage and at 94 years old isn’t going to change either.
