Warner Bros. Wanted to Dismiss ‘Juror No. 2’ to Streaming, but the Film Proves Clint Eastwood Is Still Built for Theaters

As a seasoned film critic with decades of experience under my belt, I have had the privilege of witnessing some truly remarkable careers in Hollywood. Among them is the legendary Clint Eastwood, a director whose body of work speaks for itself and whose name has become synonymous with grit, determination, and unparalleled skill.

Instead of portraying the Warner Bros. logo as a shield, let’s imagine it as a badge. In this case, Clint Eastwood would be the man wearing it – rugged, rule-bending, and unyielding, much like his iconic character, Harry Callahan. So, one might wonder, why is Warner Bros. treating Eastwood unfairly in “Juror No. 2,” his 40th directorial endeavor (which could very well be his last)?

At 94 years old, the star is only seven years younger than the film studio that he’s been connected to since 1971. In that year, he filmed “Dirty Harry” with his mentor in filmmaking, Don Siegel, and it was also the year when Eastwood directed his first film, “Play Misty for Me,” both for Warner Bros. He has departed from this studio only a few times since 1975, but for nearly half a century, he has considered Warner Bros as his home. During this period, he has won four Oscars and grossed over $4 billion at the box office.

This year, Eastwood’s newest movie, “Juror No. 2,” has hit theaters, but locating it might be a challenge unless you reside in one of the nation’s major cities. Contrastingly, it is more accessible in rural areas, where his fanbase thrives and would potentially provide a good audience for the film (even though Eastwood himself does not appear on screen in this production).

Warner Bros. presented “Juror No. 2” with a minimal theater release in the United States, allegedly debuting on only 31 domestic screens, without revealing the exact number or the earnings. This is an underwhelming farewell for one of WB’s valuable properties, as a person whose moderately priced productions frequently exceeded their production costs at the box office. This comes from a studio known for its artist-oriented approach, with its history intertwined with the directors it nurtured (however, in recent times, Christopher Nolan, Ben Affleck, and Zack Snyder have all departed from Warner Bros.’ circle).

It’s worth noting that “Juror No. 2” was created specifically for the studio’s streaming platform, Max, and as of now, there’s no set release date on this service. Interestingly, it was chosen as the closing film at the AFI Fest in Los Angeles last month, which subsequently led to plans for a theatrical release on November 1st. The exact reason behind this switch, whether due to contractual obligations or increased faith in the movie’s quality, is unclear. However, industry insiders stress that this brief theater run isn’t a demotion but rather an enhancement, not a downgrade.

Despite earlier indications suggesting no further theatrical showings for Eastwood, the movie has now been scheduled to play on 15 additional screens this coming Friday. While a film like “Juror No. 2” can work well on streaming platforms, I found watching it on the colossal Imax screen at the TCL Chinese Theatre during AFI Fest absolutely captivating. It’s evident that audiences are eager to see it on the big screen.

As a movie enthusiast, I can’t help but express my excitement about the broader release of “Juror No. 2” by WB’s international divisions. The film raked in an impressive $3.1 million during its debut weekend in France, which, to me, seems fitting given the French audience’s historical appreciation for Clint Eastwood’s work. It was Pierre Rissient, a pioneering press agent who sadly passed away, who first recognized Eastwood’s potential as a significant filmmaker back at Cannes in 1985 with “Pale Rider.

Back then, people primarily saw him through the prism of his celebrity image, similar to how many still perceive Kevin Costner today. Notably, their collaboration in “A Perfect World” (1993) is considered one of Eastwood’s finest works. However, it wasn’t always that way; there were moments when opinions shifted, particularly due to a few missteps in more recent times. For instance, the reception of his last film, “Cry Macho,” was not as strong as expected, and his peculiar stunt involving a chair at the 2012 Republican National Convention left many feeling uneasy.

Currently, Eastwood is widely regarded as a national treasure by both home viewers and film critics, with “Juror No. 2” boasting a 92% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Additionally, premiering the film in cinemas makes it eligible for Academy Awards.

When Clint Eastwood first joined WB, he didn’t concern himself with such matters. As quoted by Patrick McGilligan in “Clint: The Life and Legend,” the star reportedly said, “I’ll never win an Oscar, and let me tell you why. First of all, because I’m not Jewish. Secondly, because I earn too much money for the Academy’s old guard. Thirdly, and most significantly, because I don’t care.

20 years ago, when I had an opportunity to interact with Clint Eastwood, that statement may not hold true. In fact, it was more than just a meeting; I had a detailed, in-person interview with the esteemed actor-director at the Malpaso offices on the Warner Bros. lot. Not only did we chat, but he graciously consented to an exceptionally extensive interview. To top it off, he was seated under a colossal subway poster for “Dirty Harry,” mirroring the fierce demeanor of the detective character portrayed in the artwork above him.

As a devoted cinephile, I can’t help but feel a sense of awe when I think about Clint Eastwood’s production company nestled in a charming Spanish-style bungalow, just steps away from the Eastwood Scoring Stage. The strategic location and the studio’s decision to name a building after him are clear testaments to the high regard Warner Bros. holds for one of their most cherished artists.

Reflecting on our past encounter with the renowned actor, it’s evident now that we met him at a pivotal moment in his career. This celebrity had established himself through Westerns, B movies, and an unexpected duo of hit comedies featuring an orangutan (“Every Which Way but Loose” and “Any Which Way You Can”). However, by 2004, he was aiming for the Oscars. He yearned for another Best Picture award – multiple ones if possible.

12 years prior, Clint Eastwood had received the top honor for “Unforgiven,” an award that seemed more like a lifetime achievement, but otherwise, he hadn’t been much on the Academy’s radar, except perhaps for Meryl Streep’s nomination in “The Bridges of Madison County.” However, this began to change in 2004 when we met. Fresh off the success of the Oscar-winning “Mystic River,” his personal favorite among Eastwood’s films, he was preparing to promote his heavyweight sports drama “Million Dollar Baby,” a deep contemplation on right-to-die issues hidden within the genre of boxing movies.

Indeed, “Baby” (a reference to the film Million Dollar Baby) brought him two additional Oscars. This was just the start of a 12-year period where Clint Eastwood focused on selecting projects with a reputation for excellence, primarily with the aim of winning more awards. The films Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima (the latter being award-winning) followed, as well as Gran Torino which won a César Award but not an Oscar. This was then followed by Invictus, Hereafter, and eventually American Sniper, which came the closest to hitting the bullseye for Eastwood in terms of awards.

Approximately half of those projects contained unconventional decisions that turned them into anything but secure investments. Some, such as “Baby,” dealt with daring stances on contentious matters. Eastwood approached “Letters From Iwo Jima” from the Japanese perspective – in Japanese – offering a critical counterpoint to his more nationalistic “Flags of Our Fathers.” His biopic of the notorious FBI director, “J. Edgar,” confronted the rumors of his homosexuality. He embarked on his first musical, “Jersey Boys,” during his 80s and cast three real-life heroes in a dramatic retelling of a foiled terrorist attack, titled “The 15:17 to Paris.

In a sense, creating “Juror No. 2” for a streaming-only audience could be perceived as Eastwood’s latest risky move. The film is already unconventional: it’s a gripping courtroom drama with an odd premise that might be hard to digest. Nicholas Hoult portrays a character struggling with alcoholism who unknowingly committed a hit-and-run accident, only to find himself selected for jury duty in a murder trial involving his own crime. Will he confess or attempt to manipulate the verdict from within to protect himself?

Just like many of Clint Eastwood’s films – take for instance the one starring him as a burglar who happened upon the demise of the President’s mistress, or the gripping crime thriller where his aging FBI agent received a heart transplant, mysteriously donated by the very serial killer he was pursuing – the seemingly improbable plot twists could initially catch you off guard. But trust me, once you immerse yourself in the film, it becomes an unforgettable cinematic experience.

Embrace it and the movie unfolds a challenging ethical predicament, one that aligns with Eastwood’s frequent motifs. This hypothetical situation portrays the collapse of the legal system, exposing the strain it places on imperfect individuals. If Warner Bros. were to provide an opportunity, this intellectually stimulating film could prove successful for the director.

It seems like some people think that the studio has neglected one of its top horses – an idea that’s hard to disagree with, considering how Warner Bros. handled “Batgirl” and “Coyote vs. Acme.” However, this isn’t entirely accurate in this specific situation.

Twenty years ago, I encountered Eastwood who was aggressively pursuing acclaim from the Academy, and he achieved it. Not all of his work was exceptional, but few directors in their 70s could produce a film annually at such a high caliber; only Ridley Scott comes close. Remarkably, he continued this pace well into his 90s. Winning Oscars no longer seems to be Eastwood’s focus, and yet, I find myself appreciating him more when he’s not actively seeking recognition.

Initially, Eastwood commanded my admiration, and it deepened further as he shared his casual working style – his belief in actors, keeping retakes to a minimum, and valuing unexpected mishaps during filming. This approach came to mind when observing Toni Collette’s (portraying the prosecutor) minor line flubs in “Juror No. 2.” Despite these errors, her outstanding performance feels authentic – and undiminished in impact – precisely because of its imperfections.

In today’s cinematic landscape, it costs almost as much to advertise “Juror No. 2” (approximately $35 million) as it did to produce it. This is one reason why mid-range films are scarcely seen in megaplexes these days, but they’re starting to resurface on streaming platforms. Although it doesn’t fit the typical mold of an awards movie, anything can happen if Andrea Riseborough managed a nomination for “To Leslie.” After all, there’s no harm in preparing a film that relies on strong performances for potential recognition.

As a passionate cinephile, I found it intriguing how the studio strategically allowed the flood of positive reviews from the AFI Fest premiere to serve as a cost-effective marketing tool, signaling the world about the existence of this film. However, they underestimated the immense desire among moviegoers to experience this cinematic gem on the big screen.

It’s unfortunate, considering Eastwood’s past achievements, but there’s still a chance for him. In a competitive Oscar season like this, who knows? He could very well feel his luck is in.

2024-11-09 00:18

Warner Bros. Wanted to Dismiss ‘Juror No. 2’ to Streaming, but the Film Proves Clint Eastwood Is Still Built for Theaters

Read More

Minority Mindset