The case of the disappearing Clint Eastwood movie
At first, it seemed like 94-year-old Clint Eastwood would be getting the full Hollywood treatment for what could be his final film. Then it essentially vanished from the spotlight. What happened?
At first, it seemed like Clint Eastwood would be getting the full Hollywood treatment for what could be his final film.
Juror #2, his 40th film as a director, had a glitzy world premiere last month at the famed TCL Chinese Theatre in Hollywood. It was part of a film festival that had unveiled several other Eastwood films, including his Oscar-winning box-office hit American Sniper.
Eastwood, 94, didn’t attend the premiere. On the red carpet, Juror #2 star Toni Collette extolled the launch of an “old school” courtroom drama, saying, “In this day and age, films like this are not made.’’ But many people might not realise the film was made. After that night, Juror #2 essentially vanished from the spotlight. Warner Bros, the studio that backed the film – along with just about every other Eastwood-produced movie since the mid-1970s – put it in a handful of theatres from November 1, with virtually no marketing other than an internet trailer. As yet there are no plans for a release in Australia.
Breaking with standard practice for movie distributors, Warner Bros didn’t report box-office receipts for Juror #2, suggesting the studio didn’t want to be judged on box-office returns for a film it wasn’t promoting.
Now Warner Bros is saying that it planned all along to release Juror #2 on its Max streaming service and that the limited theatrical release was a gesture of respect for Eastwood’s legacy and long relationship with the studio.
But when news of the Eastwood project came out in mid-2023, there was no mention of it being intended for Max. When The Wall Street Journal inquired last northern summer about a release date for Juror #2, which had wrapped production at the end of 2023, Max was not mentioned either. Furthermore, Max didn’t promote the fact that it had a Clint Eastwood movie when it made a major presentation to advertisers last northern spring.
The decision to make it a streaming movie rather than a full theatrical release also contradicts statements from Warner Bros Discovery’s chief executive, David Zaslav. Soon after taking the helm of the company he declared that it would no longer make movies specifically for Max, undoing a strategy of the previous regime that he felt didn’t make financial sense.
The hushed release of a Hollywood legend’s potential swan-song creation is the latest sign of how the world of cinema has been upended by shifting corporate strategies and the question of what kind of film can draw moviegoers to the cineplex. A casualty of that is the relationship between studios and talent, with filmmakers having less say in how their art is released.
A Warner Bros Motion Pictures Group spokeswoman declined to comment on why, if a streaming release was always the plan for Juror #2, it was kept so hush-hush. The film will add additional theatrical markets this weekend, the studio says, as part of its limited-release strategy.
As for the decision to not disclose its box office performance, a person familiar with the matter said the company didn’t feel box-office receipts were an essential component of the release plan. The studio has yet to announce a date for the film’s streaming premiere.
Eastwood’s longtime lawyer has not responded to a request for comment.
‘A real message of disloyalty’
Executives inside Warner Bros say the leadership had little faith that Juror #2 would perform at the box office, so there was reluctance to spend the tens of millions of dollars necessary to promote the film. Additionally, the studio, like many units at Warner Bros Discovery, has been asked to cut costs, and marketing is often one of the areas targeted, making the decision to drop it on Max easier.
For some Hollywood historians, the decision to relegate to Max what is likely to be Eastwood’s last film is a display of disrespect for an actor and director whose body of work has brought more than a fistful of dollars to the studio.
“This is Clint Eastwood, one of the very few people who can be called iconic. When you do this to him, it sends a real message of disloyalty and lack of faith in talent,” said Stephen Galloway, dean of Chapman University’s film school. Galloway, who previously wrote about the movie industry for the Hollywood Reporter, added that if Warner Bros couldn’t give Eastwood a proper release, “then how much deeper do their financial difficulties go?”
The studio has endured a string of disappointments of late, including the expensive flop Joker: Folie à Deux, Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga, and horror movies The Watchers and Trap. At the Warner Bros Discovery earnings meeting on November 7, Zaslav said the studio needed to do better, calling its performance “inconsistent”.
Eastwood has had a storied history at Warner Bros Movies. He starred in or directed (or both) for the studio Oscar winners such as Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby and American Sniper. Known for his no-frills shoots, with just enough takes to get the performances he needs, Eastwood has a reputation for bringing his movies in on time and often under budget.
As his industry pivoted to comic-book adaptations and franchise tentpole releases, Eastwood’s auteurship seemed more like a throwback. And not all his movies hit the mark.
His last movie for Warner Bros was the neo-western Cry Macho, which was released simultaneously in theatres and the Max streaming service in the northern autumn of 2021 during the pandemic. Several months later, Zaslav questioned the decision to green-light the movie, especially after studio executives acknowledged there had been doubts about its commercial viability.
“It’s not show friends, it’s show business,” Zaslav told them, quoting from the 1996 Tom Cruise movie Jerry Maguire, it has been reported.
The state of the adult drama
The case of the disappearing Juror #2 also reflects the shaky market for the kind of films for which Eastwood is known. Serious dramas made for adult audiences are highly susceptible to the “I’ll just stream it at home” effect.
In theatres this year, adult dramas are expected to generate $US1.6bn ($2.45bn) at the worldwide box office from 38 wide-release films, according to film industry newsletter FranchiseRe. Last year, by comparison, this broad category brought in more money ($US1.9bn worldwide) from fewer films (27), including outlier mega-hit Oppenheimer. The 2024 crop included much-discussed flops by filmmakers with icon status, namely Francis Ford Coppola (Megalopolis) and Kevin Costner (with the first instalment of his Horizon series of westerns).
Compared with those movies with production budgets of more than $US100m, Juror #2 is a much more modest film that cost about $US35m, a source said. In the film, Nicholas Hoult plays a juror in a murder trial who realises he was unwittingly involved in the death of the woman in the case. Collette is a prosecutor wrestling with her own role in serving justice.
Good reviews for the movie (with scores in the 90s on Rotten Tomatoes, the reviews aggregator site) and online speculation about its quiet release seem to be encouraging audiences to go to find Juror #2.
One recent Wednesday evening session at a theatre in a Manhattan multiplex was almost completely full for a 7.40pm showing. Though there were some scattered giggles at certain plot twists, the movie received some applause at the end when Eastwood’s name appeared on the screen.
Ozzie Rodriguez, a theatre director, was seeing Juror #2 for the second time, having brought an actor friend to check out an example of good directing and acting.
“It’s not one of these stupid, what do you call those things? Marvel movies. We’ve had it with all that junk. Finally we’re dealing with something important. The justice system,” Rodriguez said.
“It’s also Clint Eastwood’s last movie apparently. He’s 94 or something. Are you kidding? Why was this film being shoved under the rug?”
