Clint Eastwood's recent directorial effort Juror #2 received strong reviews from critics and blandishments from the audiences.

Rotten Tomatoes summarized the critic's opinion about the film:

"A legal thriller with a heavy conscience, Juror #2 is less a summation of Clint Eastwood's storied directorial career than another terrific reminder of his knack for plain-spoken drama."

The film is also being called one of the best films of the year. 
 

What has baffled admirers of Eastwood and industry observers is how Warner Brothers mishandled the cinema distribution of the film. Released on November 1, the film is currently playing in fewer than 50 cinemas across the U.S.

To put this in perspective, the same film will be released in more than 300 cinemas in the UK. The U.S. has around 5000 cinemas while the UK has around 1000 cinemas.

Since the award season has just begun, it is customary for films to be initially released on select screens and then gradually expand nationwide. However, this doesn't seem to be the case with Juror#2.

Despite critical acclaim, the film didn't feature on Warner Bros’s 'For Your Consideration 'website, meant for Oscar hopefuls.

The film had its premiere at the AFI festival in October, which Eastwood skipped.

Warner Bros hasn't even revealed the U.S. box office returns for the film.

So what's going on here?

Some claim Juror #2 is being given stepmotherly treatment due to the underwhelming response towards Eastwood's previous effort, the 2021 neo-western Cry Macho (2021).

Cry Macho was by no means among Eastwood's best, but it was still an enjoyable watch.

However, Cry Macho recovered only half of its $33m budget at the box office.

A possible reason for the film's lackluster box office returns is most U.S. cinemas were closed due to the pandemic. The cinemas that were open operated under heavy restrictions. Perhaps Eastwood's fans among the older demographic groups were hesitant to step out of their homes and be in enclosed places for prolonged periods for fear of contracting COVID-19.

Another reason for the film's underwhelming performance was that it was released simultaneously on Warner Brothers's streaming service HBO Max. This means HD prints were ripped by pirates and made freely available on the web.

Cry Macho lost $17 million for Warner Brothers, this is an insignificant amount considering the budget of their bigger films. Warner Brothers' recent films such as Dune - Part 2 cost $190 million while flops such as Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga cost $168 million, and Joker: Folie à Deux cost around $200 million.

A year after Cry Macho's release, hit pieces about the film and Eastwood began to appear in the media. The tone and content of the pieces would give the reader the impression that Cry Macho was the worst film ever made and that Eastwood had bankrupted the studio with the film. The pieces contained unconfirmed leaks from the meetings at Warner Brothers.

Anyone following the news media during the Trump era knows that the goal behind such pieces is not to reflect facts but to build perception. 

According to a piece in the Wall Street Journal, Warner Bros. executives informed their then-new CEO David Zaslav that they felt indebted to Eastwood because of his 50-plus year relationship with the studio and Eastwood’s consistent ability to deliver films under budget and on time.

Zaslav allegedly responded that the executives didn't “owe anyone favors,” he even quoted Jerry Maguire: “It’s not show friends, it’s show business.”

The fact that these claims weren't refuted means they were either factual or the articles were authored at the behest of Zaslav or his proxies.

But Zaslav is right about the film business. Showbiz doesn't operate on emotions; it's all about making a profit.

We look at Eastwood's recent efforts before Cry Macho and its profitability.

• Richard Jewell (2019) cost Warner Brothers $45 million, but the amount was recovered when the film earned $44.6 million at the box office.
• Mule (2018) cost Warner Brother $50 million but earned $174 million at the box office.
• The 15:17 to Paris (2018) cost Warner Brother $30 million but raked in $57 million.
• Sully (2016) cost $60 million but earned $240 million at the box office.
• American Sniper (2014) cost $59 million but earned $547 million at the box office

If one adds the profits of these films the figure is roughly $819 million, making the $17 million that Warner Brothers lost for Cry Macho look like a pittance by comparison.

Zaslav's rage against Eastwood seems misplaced and devoid of context.

Let's give Warner Brothers and Zaslav the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they subscribe to the principle that a filmmaker is only as good as his last film. Let's also assume the executives were concerned that Eastwood may be losing his magic and wanted to play it safe.

If that was the case, they should have based their release strategy on the critical response and the audience reaction from initial screenings. Juror #2 is opened to rave review while the audience response was also positive, it held 7.3 on 10 at IMDB and 89% approval from the audience on Rotten Tomatoes

Juror #2 cost around $30 million; this is modest by current Hollywood standards. There is no rationale to restrict screen count, and not recover the cost and earn a profit.

So why is David Zaslav, who seemed furious at losing $17 million, unwilling to earn a profit and recover the loss from a promising film?

There is no reason or logic behind his decisions. Zaslav seems determined to dismiss Juror #2 and designate it as a flop.

Perhaps the motivations are beyond business. Could this be Hollywood's revenge against Eastwood for being a dissenter? We do know that Hollywood has a blacklist.

There were some reports that Juror #2 could be Eastwood's final film.

Was this Hollywood's way of sabotaging Eastwood's swan song for masterfully roasting their deity Barack Obama?
 

It seems possible. Why else would profit-driven Hollywood sabotage a film that can reap handsome gains?

A good sign is that film outlets are noting this unfairness and are reporting it. Perhaps the outrage had an impact, because the film now appears on Warner Bros’s 'For Your Consideration' website meant for award contenders. An Oscar win or even a nomination for Eastwood would serve as poetic justice. 

Hopefully, this distribution mess will be rectified, as well. If not, Eastwood must move to another studio for his next film.

The likes of Zaslav must understand that their rude words, petty ploys, and hit pieces will not affect the reputation and regard of a great filmmaker and actor such as Clint Eastwood.

While the likes of Zaslav will soon be forgotten, Clint Eastwood's masterful work will remain in the memories of filmgoers as long as cinema exists.

Image: Warner Brothers