According To The variety If the Warner Bros. logo was a badge, as opposed to a shield, Clint Eastwood would be the man behind it: the tough, rule-bending guy who sticks to his guns, à la Harry Callahan. So why is the studio doing him dirty on “Juror No. 2,” Eastwood’s 40th — and quite possibly last — stint in the director’s chair?
At 94, the star is just seven years younger than the studio with which he’s been associated since 1971. That was the year he shot “Dirty Harry” with his filmmaking mentor, Don Siegel, for WB, and it was also the year that Eastwood made his own directing debut, “Play Misty for Me,” over at Universal. He’s strayed from Warner Bros. just a few times since 1975, calling the studio home for nearly half a century, during which he’s earned four Oscars — and more than $4 billion at the box office.
Fast-forward to this year, and Eastwood’s latest film, “Juror No. 2,” is now in theaters, but good luck finding it, unless you live in one of the country’s biggest cities — as opposed to the Heartland, where his fanbase is strongest and would likely give the film a decent turnout (despite the star remaining strictly behind the camera on this one). Warner Bros. gave “Juror No. 2” a tiny theatrical release in the U.S., reportedly opening the film on just 31 domestic screens — though the studio withheld both the precise count and the resulting box office figures. That’s a sad send-off to one of WB’s most bankable assets: a man whose modestly budgeted projects often brought in a multiple of what they cost at the box office. This from an “artist-friendly” studio whose reputation was long tied to the directors it supported. (In recent years, Christopher Nolan, Ben Affleck and Zack Snyder have all left WB’s orbit.)
To be fair, “Juror No. 2” was produced for the studio’s streaming platform, Max, which has yet to announce the film’s release date on the service. According to my contacts, Eastwood was on board with that plan all along, with the understanding they would revisit the opportunity of a limited theatrical run once the studio had screened the film — and that’s what happened. Late this summer, WB let Eastwood know they would support a modest big-screen release, and in mid-September, it was announced that “Juror No. 2” would close the Los Angeles-based AFI Fest, with “a prestige theatrical showcase” (as a spokesperson for the studio described it) to follow on Nov. 1. On this point, insiders were adamant: The limited run was an upgrade, not a diss.
Warner Bros. gave “Juror No. 2” a tiny theatrical release in the U.S., reportedly opening the film on just 31 domestic screens — though the studio withheld both the precise count and the resulting box office figures. That’s a sad send-off to one of WB’s most bankable assets: a man whose modestly budgeted projects often brought in a multiple of what they cost at the box office. This from an “artist-friendly” studio whose reputation was long tied to the directors it supported. (In recent years, Christopher Nolan, Ben Affleck and Zack Snyder have all left WB’s orbit.)
To be fair, “Juror No. 2” was produced for the studio’s streaming platform, Max, which has yet to announce the film’s release date on the service. According to my contacts, Eastwood was on board with that plan all along, with the understanding they would revisit the opportunity of a limited theatrical run once the studio had screened the film — and that’s what happened. Late this summer, WB let Eastwood know they would support a modest big-screen release, and in mid-September, it was announced that “Juror No. 2” would close the Los Angeles-based AFI Fest, with “a prestige theatrical showcase” (as a spokesperson for the studio described it) to follow on Nov. 1. On this point, insiders were adamant: The limited run was an upgrade, not a diss.
