I wish that I could say that I have some Irish content for this day, but I don’t. I have been away and so I am recounting a new movie that I watched on the plane from Europe on Sunday. So instead of Irish content (Northern Ireland and Ireland), of which there is plenty – from excellent movies like The Commitments, Sing Street, Once for music, to others like My Left Foot, In the Name of the Father, Brooklyn, Belfast and Banshees of Inisherin I have a new Clint Eastwood movie.
Juror #2: Released in 2024, this Clint Eastwood produced and directed courtroom drama plays a lot like a retelling of 12 Angry Men from 1957 with Henry Fonda in the principal role. It starts that way and then decides to take a little bit different take and turn on it. The cast is impressive with Nicholas Hoult, Toni Collette and JK Simmons. Hoult plays a recovering alcoholic with a young very pregnant wife. She is worried about the pregnancy as she has lost children before. Hoult has been called for jury duty. He still needs to go through the selection process and understand the case he could be involved with.
The case turns out to be a homicide case, involving a couple who had a domestic dispute in a bar full of people on a dark and stormy night, and she ends up dead at the end of it. The boyfriend with a checkered past is charged with her murder. Collette plays the prosecutor, looking for an election as a District Attorney in an upcoming election. Simmons is on the jury for a time and brings forth some new ideas to the deliberation. On its face, the case seems pretty straightforward but the Hoult character has a dilemma of his own which he doesn’t share with the rest of his fellow jurors. They are no longer angry white men only but since this is set in Georgia they have a cross section of diversity. A good number of them just want to conclude their business and go home. Then the drama unfolds. It is Hoult who has the real dilemma and pressures on his personal beliefs and what is right for his family.
Given the cast this is well acted if not more or less predictable. The defense attorney, played by Chris Messina does a good job of creating doubt. The story shows how the criminal justice system can work, and also how it can stumble from time to time. One glaring error for me with a legal lens on would be that a potential theory on what took place (which was not investigated) could be to examine the vehicle driven by the accused. My second challenge is that the prosecutor herself spends time doing some of the additional legwork in digging up some facts. I don’t think that she would undertake this work but rather seek out further police investigation. After all, this is what the police actually do. The story examines whether justice means truth, or whether a person can change in a meaningful way. Hoult professes that he can. Still one also wonders why the attorney approached by Hoult doesn’t explain legal concepts like double jeopardy. Or potential sentencing for a first-time convicted felon. If justice seeks out the truth, isn’t there also a concept of mercy, accident and lack of motive which could all come into play? All in all this is a movie that I don’t even recall being in the theatres. Most Eastwood films do get that attention. This was okay to fill time on a flight but I was pleased that I didn’t have to pay for it.
Mondays With Robbie 