I'll warn you: today's text will contain spoilers . Although maybe not a spoiler . I mean, it's only a spoiler for those who don't know Clint Eastwood's filmography – and for those who think that every film is an Agatha Christie novel. In any case, the warning is made. Now I’m going to start talking about “Juror Number 2”.
 |
| "Juror Number 2": a bold dilemma for an audience accustomed to the childlike simplicity of superhero films. (Photo: Disclosure/Warner Bros. ) |
Moral dilemma
And I'll start with the film's excellent moral dilemma. Don't worry, this isn't a spoiler or anything. The situation becomes clear right at the beginning, when Justin (Nicholas Hoult), the titular juror number 2 , realizes that he may be, oh, who am I kidding, he 's the one responsible for the death of a young woman. It was an accident and all, a hit-and-run in an area where deer often cross the road, but it's for this crime that James Sythe is being tried.
What would you do?
Here the film makes no effort to be subtle and asks you: what would you do in Justin's shoes? Before you start beating your chest and saying that you would confess, however, let me mention a few circumstances that make the confession even less straightforward. First, Justin has a history of alcoholism, including being involved in serious accidents. We, the audience, know that he has been sober for a few years. But we are not the ones to judge .
Circumstances
To make matters worse, on the day of the accident Justin suffered a terrible loss and so he stopped at a bar. He ordered a glass of whiskey, but didn't touch it. Again, we, the viewers, know this. And a third circumstance: Justin's wife is expecting a baby, in a high-risk pregnancy. In other words, he is starting a family and is a reformed man, while Sythe, unjustly accused of his girlfriend's death, has already gotten involved in drug trafficking and so on.
Curious
With that dilemma in mind, it's time to talk about some other aspects of the film. For example, the nod to the masterpiece “Twelve Angry Men ”. Regarding this, I just found it curious that screenwriter Jonathan A. Abrams had to turn a juror into a criminal in order to raise the possibility that Sythe was innocent. After all, if it were just based on the evidence, the witnesses' words and the defendant's past, frighteningly, the doubt would have gone unnoticed by everyone. Including the viewers and juror number 2.
The ending (maybe with spoilers)
And now the moment I've been putting off has arrived: the time to talk about the ending of "Juror Number 2". It's an open ending, which forces the viewer to imagine what happened to those involved in the plot. That's why it's also an ending that has upset a lot of people. Not me, as you've probably noticed. After all, I love imagining it – as you've probably noticed .
In God We Trust
In any case, I want to draw your attention to one specific shot . A few seconds in which Clint Eastwood gives a close-up of the United States' national motto: In God We Trust. For me, this is the key to understanding what the director and screenwriter wanted when they dared to propose an open ending for an audience accustomed to the crude and childish Manichaeism of superhero movies .
Compassion
Does it have to do with belief in the American justice system? Yes, it does. But it mainly has to do with belief in divine justice, which is not restricted to the ideas of punishment and revenge, and which must necessarily include the notion of mercy . In other words, by abandoning themselves to God's will, Justin and the prosecutor, whose name is not coincidentally Faith Killebrew, will have to believe that a mild or severe punishment, or even an unlikely acquittal, are the best that God has in store for him and his family. Oh, and for the prosecutor's political career too.
Illusion of control
But that's easier said than done, right? Now, if we have difficulty abandoning ourselves to the divine will in tiny aspects of life, such as a decision at work or in marriage. If even in politics it anguishes us that we don't have the illusion of control... That's why it's difficult not only to put yourself in Justin's shoes, but also to judge him good or bad, intelligent or stupid , clever or foolish and, above all, guilty or innocent of be who he is – and even more so in these circumstances.
Writer: Paulo Polzonoff Jr.
Copyright © 2024, Gazeta do Povo. All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment