Are movie theaters a vestige of a bygone era? This mantra is the new and tedious verbal hallucination spoken by people who don’t understand the cyclical nature of popular entertainment.
Thanks to the Lumiere brothers, movies, and people paying to see them, have been around since 1895 in Paris, France. The opening of the world’s first permanent, purpose-built movie theater, the Vitascope Hall, took place on Monday, October 19, 1896, at the Ellicott Square Building on Main Street in Buffalo. It was the product of the visionary Mitchell H. Mark, who saw the future of motion picture theaters.
These days, returning to intense popularity are DVDs (and their sibling the Blu-ray), as well as music cassette tapes. Of course, vinyl records, Compact Discs, television, and radio aren’t going anywhere. If anything is going to be roundly rejected by the public, it might just be the rip-off known as streaming.
Why are your streaming fees constantly going up? It’s because the greedy merchants behind streaming have roped you into what you thought was a good way to watch movies and television series. However, the media bosses have decided that they also want to stream live sporting events; therefore, your rates go higher because someone has to pay for the billions being spent for the rights to show football, baseball and basketball games. That’s you.
Regarding advertisements being inserted into movies being streamed, a friend said to me recently, “I thought the whole point of streaming was to not have movies interrupted with commercials.” Well, it was, but not anymore. If you want to experience most streaming services ad-free, you’ll now need to pay for a new premium option.
Meanwhile, moviegoers have jammed theaters to see “Moana 2,” “Wicked” and “Gladiator II.” The horror film “Heretic,” starring Hugh Grant, continues to do well. The big winner in terms of being excellent entertainment is the Oscar-bound, sensibly budgeted, $20 million “Conclave,” which reportedly has captured 46% of audience members aged 55 and over. That’s a rare, albeit well-deserved number, because the box office hit is terrific. The success of “Conclave” offers a realistic response to a motion picture studio blues about empty theaters. Produce good dramas and comedies for adults, make them for between $20 million and $50 million, promote them properly, and folks will go to see their movies.
Much has been written, including by me a couple of weeks ago, about the ridiculous and insulting studio games played by Warner Bros. regarding director Clint Eastwood’s “Juror #2.” There has been so much malarkey being spoken by Warner Bros. Pictures about their actual plans for the film that no one really knows what is up or down.
The chaos was the result of Warner Bros. Discovery’s President and CEO David Zaslav and his laughably peculiar ideas about how to run a media conglomerate. He apparently isn’t a fan of creative relationships, which is a no-no in that mythical kingdom known as Hollywood. Allowing the movie to be seen for a brief period in only 35 markets in the United States and Canada is a legacy that taints Zaslav as anti-entertainment. On December 20, “Juror #2” is scheduled to begin showing on HBO Max.
The legendary Eastwood, a four-time Academy Award winner, has earned the right to be called a national treasure. At age 94, “Juror #2” is assuredly one of the best films ever made by a director in his 90s and certainly one of the best movies of the year.
The feature is the work of an intellectually engaged and creatively sensitive filmmaker. It unreels like a ready-made classic. Eastwood knew exactly what he was doing, which was to make a mystery that is filled with high-pressure drama, both in and out of the courtroom.
The very smart screenplay by Jonathan Abrams sets up a story about two men, one on trial for murder and another, a young journalist, who may have unwittingly committed the supposed “murder.” This dichotomy is established at the very start of the story.
Gabriel Basso plays James Michael Sythe, the physically rugged defendant accused of killing his girlfriend Kendall Carter after a ferocious fight and dumping her body in a roadside ditch. Carter is played by Francesca Eastwood — Clint’s real-life, 31-year-old daughter. Chris Messina is Eric Resnick, Sythe’s public defender.
However, the alleged crime took place on the exact same night and on the exact same road on which Jeremy Kemp the journalist, played by Nicholas Hoult, was driving in the rain. He hits something and gets out of his car to look. He sees nothing suspicious, but his car does have damage, and there is a deer crossing sign nearby. Kemp believes he hit a deer and life goes on.
By coincidence, Kemp is chosen to sit on the Savannah, Georgia jury that will be judging Sythe. He tries to get out of serving because his pregnant wife is nearing the date on which she’s due to give birth. The presiding judge isn’t sympathetic to Kemp’s situation.
As the trial progresses, and thanks to the superb script and Eastwood’s directorial skills, what would be a basic legal drama in other movie hands becomes a tense and agonizing thriller. Who really killed Carter? Without revealing anything, there is something else that is important to the lives of both the defendant and the journalist.
As if this isn’t enough to intrigue you, the prosecutor (acted by Toni Collette) is a bit of a zealot about getting a guilty verdict because she has political dreams. She’s running for District Attorney. Some of the other jurors have interesting sidebars of their own, including a former homicide detective acted by J.K. Simmons. Yes, this brings up a good question. Would a former detective be selected to sit on a jury for a murder trial? Director Eastwood and screenwriter Abrams finesse this perfectly.
In “Juror #2,” the deepening tension builds for Kemp because if he really did hit Carter, his pleasant and promising life would be shattered. There is exquisite excitement in watching how he must continually reassess his ability to handle all the things in which he is involved.
The wonderfully acted — by all — “Juror #2” is very well made and certainly worth seeing. Let’s hope this isn’t Eastwood’s last directorial winner.