Juror #2 Review: Is it Possible to Have Justice without Truth
What is this Movie?
It’s 12 Angry Men with a twist, what if one of the jurors figured out they committed the crime. The tagline for the trailer on YouTube is “Could one decision change everything”, with the film slowly revealing that one decision becomes the personal responsibility of many characters. Nicholas Holt is reunited with Toni Collette on screen after 22 years since playing mother and son in About a Boy, both working on their first, and what could be last, Clint Eastwood project. Holt plays Justin Kemp, a father to be and recovering alcoholic who is picked to be Juror #2 for a case convicting James Scythe played by Gabriel Basso of murdering his girlfriend. Toni Collette plays the prosecutor Faith Killebrew who feels the case is a slam dunk win for her, as Scythe has a gang-affiliated criminal background. Chris Messina plays the public defender assigned to Scythe who believes in his client’s innocence and lack of due process. J.K. Simmons, Adrienne C. Moore, and Cedric Yarbrough play more vocal jurors presenting opposing views on why Scythe is or is not guilty of this crime. It’s a film mostly depicted from the 3rd person perspectives of Kemp trying to save himself without sacrificing his social responsibility and Killebrew trying to advance her career, both characters essentially faced with their own difficult one decision that could change everything.
What is this Film?
It’s an ethical drama fashioned by the hands of Clint Eastwood into a subtle thriller revolving around the theme of self-interests versus social justice. The film causes the audience to question the subjectivities of right and wrong pertaining to justice. The most obvious representation of this being the main plot involving Justin Kemp (Holt), realizing he committed this murder but unwilling to make the ultimate sacrifice of his own freedom by admission. It’s a film full of but-what-ifs. But what if the person was a good person who made a mistake they didn’t even realize they made? But what if the person has a pregnant wife and he’s the sole breadwinner? But what if the person is persevering through struggle and addiction showing true redemption? As stated, many times in interviews, Abrams and Eastwood demand the audiences’ intelligence remanding their own moral integrities to be put on trial.
Making things even more complicated than the knowing another person is innocent of a crime because you did it is then giving you power over their fate. How does a good person save themselves and save the innocent party. Does considering saving yourself, basically getting away with a crime, but helping someone else also not be convicted of this crime still make you a good person? The story gets even more complicated when Holt has opportunities to distance himself from this case but chooses to stay to manipulate the other jurors at his own expense which he seems to be unaware of. Holt is able to portray all the emotions of a person struggling with this messy conundrum superbly, with the end of the film showing the audience exactly what type of person Justin evolves into.
Now combine all the above with a strong supporting cast revealing their own moral integrities and views of justice through their actions and words. Allison (Deutch), who plays Justin’s wife and baby mama to be, and Faith (Collette) share a very small but pivotal scene where her actions beg to question her character and how involved she is with Justin’s situation. Faith is also driven by her own personal interests of using the potential guilty verdict in this high-profile domestic violence homicide case to secure the victory in her run for District Attorney. This puts her at odds with a close colleague also appointed as Scythe’s (Basso) public-defender Resnick who over drinks questions Faith’s integrity. So as Faith starts to seriously question Scythe’s innocence herself, based on newly founded evidence that could be the fault of Kemp’s own attempt to sway the other jurors to an acquittal, she now must weigh sacrificing her DA run over the freedom of a potentially innocent man with a criminal background.
Even the judge makes bold, misguided, or just lazy assumptions about the jurors and the jury process when she tells the jurors, “the fact that you don’t want to be here is exactly what makes you the perfect group to judicate this case. You are impartial.” This is wrong. And it’s manipulative. The interaction that leads to the judge even making this statement shows jurors are not impartial, unless you believe not caring about this case enough to want to do jury duty means you’re impartial. In my opinion, it does not. A person who cares enough to actually want to be a juror could arguably be more qualified or impartial a juror then someone who just wants to get this case over with as soon as possible. Follow this up with the jury selection process which is also not impartial and you see dispensing justice is far from a fair process.
Then there’s the jurors themselves. Because Eastwood and Abrams are requiring the use of all your brain cells with this film, there’s an element of 12 Angry Men here that can’t be ignored. The moral integrities of the jurors will have you questioning their true intentions. For me, the film is a perfect example of why a jury of your peers is an unfair, naïve, broken judicial practice in an already corrupt system. If absolute power corrupts absolutely than giving 12 random unqualified people absolute power over the future of a person’s life is an absolute recipe for folly.
There are jurors here who don’t want to be here, so their only vote is to go home sooner than later. Yarbrough plays a juror who has his own emotional holdups with this case making him the biggest foil to Kemp’s plans other than Kemp himself. Some jurors base their qualifications on their own True Crime podcast addiction, while others their medical school education or their previous history with law enforcement. One is even a professional juror which must be the craziest, saddest career choice ever. 12 unique people with 12 uniquely lived life experiences who don’t have the emotional intelligence or endurance to agree objectively on the role they play here, their duties to this case, and the rules to abide by to help them reach a unanimous verdict. These people don’t even understand what reasonable doubt means. And Kemp is trying to manipulate them all to do the right thing so he can save himself. How the film was able to capture all of this in such a compelling way so profoundly I still can’t fully wrap my big ass head around. And still, that’s not all this film has to offer.
If I had any issue with all that’s happened here, it’s the lack of catharsis I felt from the ending. So many characters were shown to be callously sacrificing their moral sanctity without any type of atonement. I wanted to see and or hear their reactions to what is suggested by the ending of this film. I wanted these people to face self-reflection for their actions. It doesn’t take anything away from the film not having this 4th act. But for me to walk away not questioning if the audience who saw themselves in these jurors understands these people should not be jurors due to the real weight and responsibilities of jury duty, I needed this 4th act.
Ultimately, how you identify with all these characters will have you questioning your own moral integrities by the end of the film? But it all starts and ends with, If you were Kemp, what would you be willing to lose?
♦♦
Director: Clint Eastwood
Writers: Jonathon Abrams
Starring: Nicholas Hoult, Toni Collette, Adrienne C. Moore, Cedric Yarbrough, Gabriel Basso, Kiefer Sutherland, Chris Messina, Zoey Deutch, J.K. Simmons
Runtime: Hour Minutes
Synopsis: A man selected for jury duty suspects he might be the one who committed the crime, leaving him to decide the fate of an innocent man.
Follow us on Twitter:
Want more podcast greatness? Sign up for a MTR Premium Account!
