Juror #2

When everyone thought that in his last film, Toki, as the "beneficiary" of the current political context, was going to stage a smug right-wing victory settlement, he actually went the other way and provided some progressive reflections in "Juror No. 2": for example, in the jury, the field where identity politics can be set up the most, the two most "stubborn" defenders of traditional family values ​​(to some extent representing ignorant and stubborn rednecks) are played by black people; and when the defendant uttered the classic scumbag confession "I'm not the guy anymore, I have changed" in the stand, what quickly flashed by was the silent sneer of the two female prosecutors who knew the truth - a typical female subject perspective.

In fact, this unprecedented thinking is by no means a trick. As the jury debate deepens, the film seems to be following the classic path of "12 Angry Men" and its many variations (it's funny, the opening scene of the female prosecutor picking up the phone even perfectly pays tribute to He Bing picking up the documents at the end of "12 Citizens"), and the early exposure of the male protagonist's crime breaks this pattern - what Dong Mu tries to do is to put everything in a swaying state. The so-called "rigorousness" has become a prejudice, and the theme of "justice" throughout the film has unexpectedly become a stumbling block to revealing or covering up the truth.

This ambiguity takes root and sprouts meticulously all the way until the last scene, when it suddenly changes its form. Through the gaze of the ending, the simple moral binary opposition in "Sully" or "Richard Jewell" is re-exposed. In Toki's values, there is and only one "correct" way of moral narration. On this level, "Juror No. 2" has never hesitated in morality or conscience. This is a firm conscience. For this reason, the skepticism about moral truth in "12 Angry Men" is actually opposed and even abandoned by this film. The last time this kind of complementary and inseparable justice and truth appeared in a concentrated manner seems to be traced back to Fritz Lang (and the day I watched the movie was his birthday). So everything ends with such a gaze that follows the moral values ​​of the black film nearly a hundred years ago.

There is no more perfect farewell than this. From the gaze, we see the adhered traditions, ancient ethics and principles, and the fate of this country - after all, don't forget the identity of the male protagonist, he is the most decent conservative white male protagonist in Dongmu's usual narrative, and his evil has been planted from the beginning. Just like the close-up of the scale that appears in the opening animation and runs through the whole film, the old man has completed an atypical patriotic reflection in this way that is consistent with and breaks the self.

It is said to be the last movie of the old cowboy. He is almost 100 years old and is still making movies. Objectively speaking, the characters are relatively flat and the protagonist's inner struggle is not very interesting. However, if I interpret it from another perspective, the movie itself does not want to express the protagonist's struggle. The protagonist's struggle is just for the audience to see. The protagonist himself is hypocritical. He simply struggles, but actually wants to use the common selfish values ​​of today's movie audiences to obtain the so-called redemption, which is actually just psychological comfort. What will happen if this moral dilemma is left to today's audiences to choose? In a sense, this is a conspiracy with the audience who believe in selfishness.

Just like the appearance of the movie, the long-ago "12 Angry Men" represented America's absolute legal confidence at the time. This film adds a variable to "12 Angry Men" and turns it into a kind of questioning.

The old cowboy did not write the story to a dead end. The protagonist did struggle a bit, but his behavior was still an attempt to escape, such as deliberately forcing the retired detective to quit and finally selling the car.

We can assume a situation where the protagonist intends to conceal everything from the beginning. Then it is obvious that this is a typical suspense film. I can even design the suspect to confess voluntarily to highlight the suspect's moral level and love for the deceased and gain the audience's recognition. In this way, the audience will have no moral pressure to fight the criminal.

So, if you have struggled inside, can you be sympathized with or even recognized?

But there is an old saying in our country: judge by deeds, not by heart.

I don’t even know if I can live to be eighty or ninety years old, but the old cowboy has lived for almost a century and is still thinking:

Maybe sometimes, people in this world, like all the characters in his movie, are flat in themselves, and the laws and morals are also flat.

If this is truly a swan song for Toki, his 40th feature as a director at the age of 94, it’s a fitting one: a legal thriller that’s anti-political in its politics, about truth, justice and the American way, narrated by an American icon.

Dongmu's films are usually known for their melancholy, ruggedness or hyper-masculinity, but this one is not so old-fashioned. It is much softer. There is no black and white justice in the world, but it compares the protagonist with the person whose fate is in his hands. Narratively speaking, Dongmu went all out from the beginning, abandoning the trick of suspense and directly putting Xiao Ni, who looks like Tom Cruise, on the trial seat of morality and conscience. He judges others for his own mistakes. Just when the audience has become accustomed to being stuck in Xiao Ni's guilt, Dongmu played a trick at the end of the film, skipping the jury's voting link and directly using the verdict to blast the audience to a crisp. While leaving a lot of things for people to chew on, it also forces the audience to become judges.

This is Toki's most aberrant film, without spectacle, very quiet, and introspective. It can also be seen as a counter-book to "12 Angry Men", where the whole system should be put on trial, and the only angry person in it is not the jurors, but Toki.

In my opinion, this is a film that goes beyond the case itself. It not only focuses on the protagonist Holt's fear, guilt and desire for self-redemption when facing his inner conflicts and the trial of conscience, but also presents the necessity of the jury system in the judicial system in multiple dimensions.

Although the jury's vote this time was not for the so-called justice, what is true justice and whether truth is justice is a process that can be explored through this film, where we can participate in the voting as both an audience member and a jury.

If you were a juror, who would you vote for?

I really envy countries that have a judicial system like the jury system. At least it guarantees to a certain extent that the judiciary will not abuse power, and it protects and takes into account the basic rights of citizens. It can not only guarantee the basic right of citizens to participate in the judicial trial process, but also enhance citizens' legal awareness and legal knowledge in this way.

"The device that connects human action to ends and means, blame and fault, good deeds and bad deeds is a device that no longer works, and the space for inaction opens up. This is the politics of pure means." This is the new perspective and space for reflection given in Agamben's "Karma" that I just finished reading. It's very good.

It is said that this film carries a heavy meaning of farewell and may be the final work of Clint Eastwood's directorial career. He is 94 years old and is still directing films, which is admirable. The open ending given at the end is also very good. It does not directly show people that truth is justice, but leaves blank space to give more space that is more in line with the repeated entanglement of human nature.

This is the 43rd film directed by Clint Eastwood, who is now 94 years old. At 94 years old, he was born in 1930. He still showed strong control in this film. Whether it is the plot, rhythm, audio-visual effects, or the expression of ideas, he is neat and restrained, and controls it from beginning to end. Unlike many younger directors nowadays, they fly away while shooting. According to what Wang Jing said in the roundtable, the director knows whether a movie can be successful after shooting one-third of it. For a movie that has already taken off, the director is likely to act on the set to give investors confidence. After all, hundreds of people rely on him for their livelihood.

Just like the 87-year-old Ridley Scott still sang praises to the upright virtues of bravery, friendship, and kindness in "Gladiator 2", in this "Juror No. 2", the old cowboy also discussed very traditional themes: truth and justice. In our concept, justice must be real, but this movie shows otherwise. If the ultimate justice is pursued, the protagonist's family, the prosecutor's career in office, and even the local security situation will be affected. At this time, letting an innocent person bear the blame is the lowest cost, although it is almost devastating for him and his family.

As a conservative who loyally defends traditional American morality, the old cowboy has always shown solid opinions in his previous films, and his right and wrong are as clear as a knife and an axe. But this time he put forward a dialectical view, which makes people feel that his 94-year-old age has not only not dragged down his body, but also has not bound his mind. However, he expressed this meaning through the protagonist's mouth, and he himself is still hiding behind the camera. In addition, the male protagonist is really a tool man in the film, a mouthpiece for the old cowboy. Compared with the old cowboy's acting skills of simplifying the complex, the young Nicholas Hoult still has a long way to go.

Of course, at the end of the film, the old cowboy still gave a decisive answer to the dialectical idea he put forward, and it was through a woman named Faith, which can be regarded as a small "political correctness".

As a country with the most perfect judicial system in the world, the United States has produced countless courtroom dramas, and the jury plays an important role in almost every film. Films such as 12 Angry Men and The Jury directly focus on the jury. The old cowboy has witnessed the development of courtroom-themed films, so he must know how to shoot in a different way. Juror No. 2 abandons the tense plot and dramatic performances, focusing the camera on the protagonist, and tells the story in a simple and natural way. It gives people a sense of ease like tasting aged wine, but of course, it is just a taste. The main line is focused, without any divergence, and it stops when it is finished, which is extremely restrained.

Because of this, the film seems to be stable and harmless, and it is difficult for you to feel any sense of achievement while watching it. In the series of Eastwood's works, it is not a dazzling film. It's just that the old man is old, and there are fewer and fewer films to watch, so watch them and cherish them.

So if you like watching Clint Eastwood's recent films that express social issues, such as Richard Jewell and Sully, then you can also watch Juror No. 2. If you are not interested in this kind of film that requires you to calm down to get into its narrative rhythm, then you probably won't like this film, so don't waste your time.