Warner Bros. planned to release “Juror No. 2” to streaming, but the film proves that Clint Eastwood is still suitable for cinemas

If the Warner Bros. logo were a badge and not a shield, Clint Eastwood would be the man behind it: the tough, rule-breaking, loyal guy, a la Harry Callahan. Why does the studio put him on “Juror No. 2,” Eastwood’s 40th and possibly final directorial effort, Dirty?

At 94, the star is just seven years younger than the studio he has been associated with since 1971. That year he made “Dirty Harry” with his cinematic mentor Don Siegel for WB, and it was also the year that Eastwood made his own directorial debut with “Play Misty for Me” at Universal. He has left Warner Bros. only a handful of times since 1975, making the studio his home for nearly half a century, where he won four Oscars — and more than $4 billion at the box office.

More of diversity

Fast forward to this year, and Eastwood’s latest film, Juror No. 2″ is in theaters now, but good luck finding it unless you live in one of the country’s largest cities – unlike Heartland, where its fan base is strongest and would probably give the film a decent turnout (even if the star stays strictly behind the camera in this film).

Warner Bros. gave “Juror No. 2” received a small theatrical release in the US, reportedly opening the film in just 31 domestic theaters – although the studio withheld both the exact number and the resulting box office figures. It’s a sad farewell to one of WB’s wealthiest assets: a man whose modest-budget projects often grossed many times what they cost at the box office. This from an “artist-friendly” studio whose reputation has long been tied to the directors it supports. (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 this plan from the start, with the intention of revisiting the possibility of a limited theatrical release once the studio had screened the film – and that’s exactly what happened. Late that summer, WB informed Eastwood that they would support a modest theatrical release, and in mid-September it was announced that “Juror No. 2″ would conclude the Los Angeles-based AFI Fest with “a prestigious theatrical performance” (as a studio spokesperson described it) is scheduled to follow on November 1st. Insiders were adamant on this point: the limited edition was an upgrade, not a diss.

Although it initially seemed like that was all Eastwood would see in theaters, as of yesterday the film is set to expand slightly this Friday (reportedly to 15 more theaters). A film like “Juror No. 2” plays fine on Max, but I found it positively thrilling to watch on the giant Imax screen at the TCL Chinese Theater at AFI Fest. The demand is clearly there to see it projected.

In other territories, WB’s international divisions have “Juror No. 2” wider introduced. The film grossed $3.1 million in its first weekend in France, which makes sense. The French were the first to treat Eastwood like a major filmmaker, largely thanks to Pierre Rissient, the late press agent who had championed Eastwood since his first appearance at Cannes in 1985 with “Pale Rider.”

Back then, Americans still viewed him through the lens of his star persona, just as they still view Kevin Costner today. (Incidentally, the two actors’ collaboration in 1993’s “A Perfect World” is one of Eastwood’s best films.) But it’s not as if they didn’t happen despite some setbacks in recent years – whether it was due to the poorer performance of his previous film , “Cry Macho,” or that embarrassing “talking to a chair” stunt he pulled at the 2012 Republican National Convention.

These days, Eastwood is considered a national treasure by local audiences and critics alike (“Juror No. 2” is now 92% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes). Additionally, the film will qualify for the Oscars when it is released in theaters.

When he started at WB, Eastwood wasn’t interested in such things. “I’ll never win an Oscar and do you know why?” Eastood biographer Patrick McGilligan quotes the star in “Clint: The Life and Legend. “Firstly, because I’m not Jewish. Second, because I make too much money for all these old farts in the academy. Third, and most importantly, because I don’t give a shit.”

That may have been the case in the 1970s, but 20 years ago, when I met Clint Eastwood, that was no longer the case. More than just meeting. The legendary actor and director had agreed to an unusually generous in-person interview at the Malpaso offices on the Warner Bros. lot, where he sat beneath a giant subway poster for “Dirty Harry,” looking every bit as intimidating as the snarling detective wall above him.

Eastwood’s production company is located in a Spanish-style bungalow, a stone’s throw from the Eastwood Scoring Stage. His prime placement — and the fact that the studio named a building after him — speaks volumes about the value WB places on one of its most valuable talents. (Just because other streamers are putting out mediocre “content” doesn’t mean we should interpret a Max-only release as a snub. WB is still testing a strategy for its audience’s rapidly changing viewing habits.)

Looking back on that long-ago meeting with the star, I now realize that I met Eastwood at a turning point in his career. The star had made his reputation through westerns, B-movies and even two hit buddy comedies in which he played alongside an orangutan (“Every Which Way but Loose” and “Any Which Way You Can”). However, in 2004, he had his sights set on the Oscars. He wanted another Best Picture trophy — several if he could swing them.

Eastwood had won the top prize a dozen years earlier for “Unforgiven,” which almost seemed like an untimely lifetime achievement award, but otherwise remained largely off the Academy’s radar (unless you count Meryl Streep’s nomination for “The Bridges of Madison County). “). That changed when we met in 2004. He was fresh off the Oscar-winning Mystic River – still my favorite Clint film – and was ready to promote his gripping sports drama Million Dollar Baby, about a deadly serious thinker about the right to die who dresses up as a boxer.

In fact, “Baby” earned him two more Oscars. And that was just the beginning. Over the next twelve years, Eastwood continued to select “respectable” projects with the express aim of collecting Oscars: the one-two punch of “Flags of Our Fathers” and “Letters From Iwo Jima” (the latter received a score) and “Gran Torino” . ” (which won a César but no Oscar), followed by “Invictus,” “Hereafter” (yikes) and finally “American Sniper” (again, as close to a hit as Clint got).

Half of these projects involved rogue decisions that made them anything but safe. Some, like “Baby,” took risky positions on controversial issues. Eastwood told “Letters From Iwo Jima” from a Japanese perspective: in Japanese – as a critical reversal of his more overtly patriotic “Flags of Our Fathers.” His unflattering “J. “Edgar” dealt with the infamous FBI director’s alleged homosexuality. In his 80s, he filmed his first musical, “Jersey Boys,” and cast three real-life heroes as himself in the dramatic re-enactment of a foiled terrorist attack, “The 15:17 to Paris.”

In some ways, it could be seen as Eastwood’s latest venture, “Juror No. 2” for a streaming-only audience. It’s already an unusual film: a gripping courtroom drama with a strangely hard-to-swallow premise. Nicholas Hoult plays a recovering alcoholic who has killed a woman in a hit-and-run accident, but only realizes it when he is called to serve on the jury at a murder trial in which the defendant is charged with his crime. Will he come clean or will he try to manipulate the verdict from within to save his skin?

As in so many of Eastwood’s films – like the one in which he played a burglar who witnesses the death of the president’s mistress, or the cat-and-mouse crime thriller in which his aging FBI agent receives a heart transplant from the serial killer ” He had been following it – the implausible structure could trip you up.

Keep going, and there’s a serious moral dilemma that drives the rest of the film, one that fits right in with Eastwood’s recurring themes: a hypothetical scenario in which the legal system collapses, revealing the burden placed on flawed citizens. The thought-provoking film could be a solid effort for the director if WB would just give it a chance.

To some, it looks like the studio has turned its back on one of the award-winning studs in its stable – a theory that seems unfounded given the ruthless way Warner Bros. buried “Batgirl” and “Coyote vs. Acme.” is shockingly easy to believe. But that’s not entirely true in this case.

When I met Eastwood 20 years ago, he was actively seeking recognition from the Academy – and he got it. Not everything he did was brilliant, but name another director in the ’70s who could produce a film a year at this level (not Woody Allen, not Robert Altman, only Ridley Scott comes close), and he stayed with it well into his 90s. Winning Oscars no longer seems to be Eastwood’s goal, and yet I prefer him when he’s not actively seeking recognition.

Eastwood already had my respect when we sat down, and it only increased when the industry veteran explained his relaxed approach: the way he trusts his actors, shoots a minimal number of takes, and the little accidents that happen along the way could accept. I thought of this while watching Toni Collette (who plays the prosecutor) in Juror No. 2” stumbled over a few of her lines, as her otherwise great performance seems all the more real – and no less powerful – for being imperfect.

The way the theater business works now, “Juror No. 2” would cost almost as much to market as it did to produce (estimated at around $35 million). That’s one reason why mid-range films are so hard to find in megaplex theaters these days, but are making a bit of a comeback on streaming. It doesn’t fit the profile of awards films either, but you never know. If Andrea Riseborough could be nominated for To Leslie, there’s no harm in qualifying a film based on solid performances.

Sure, the timing is strange, but the studio let the overwhelmingly positive reviews of the AFI Fest premiere effectively do the low-cost job of alerting the world to the film’s existence. What they apparently didn’t expect was the huge demand to see the film on the big screen.

That’s a shame given Eastwood’s track record, but at least he has a chance. You never know, he might just get lucky in a full-on Oscar race.

The best of diversity

Sign up for Variety’s newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.