One more thing, which I hesitate to put in a review, but here goes: Everybody knows Eastwood is some kind of conservative or libertarian. Some, having seen “Richard Jewell,” have regarded this movie’s implicit critique of the press and FBI as ill-timed, considering the important role both are currently playing in our national life. But just as conservatives might see “Richard Jewell” as confirming their world view, progressives could just as easily see it as criticizing the media that gave us Donald Trump and the FBI that gave us the Comey letter.
Point being: If only for two hours, please, throw away the ideological prism. That is no way to watch movies.
Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
Mick LaSalle nails this one in his review, as he did Vox Lux last year, although I'm intrigued by his assertion that this is Eastwood's best since Hereafter, a movie he also gave an effusive rave and probably the only late era Eastwood I haven't seen. Going to be changing that soon!
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
Hereafter is a truly terrible film, I will be shocked if you like it. I feel like I mention it a lot because Bryce Dallas Howard gives a brief performance that is miles better and more interesting than anything else in the film
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
Now I'm even more intrigued, not because I think our tastes don't ever align (I watched To Rome with Love last night, woof!), but because polarizing films are always better sits than agreeable ones.
- John Cope
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
- Location: where the simulacrum is true
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
I love Hereafter but then I love almost all late Eastwood, save perhaps for J. Edgar.
-
- Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
I actually love J. Edgar too. One of my favorites. Hereafter is good too. It has a very matter of fact presentation of the obscure. It has some very good acting and a warm searching tone. Nicely done. Also the opening tsunami sequence is rather sensational. It was good enough to get the film a VFX oscar nomination, kinda unprecedented for such a modest film - apart from maybe Ex Machina. The only recent Eastwood that I did not like was in fact Invictus. That one was really dull and trashy Oscar bait.
-
- Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
This movie is a disastrous flop for Eastwood. This one must hurt, specially after delivering a 100 million dollar hit.
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
I'm sure it doesn't hurt at all, the man is glad to be making films regularly at his age and this one is a triumphantly good one regardless of opening weekend box office.
- whaleallright
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:56 am
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
Yeah I can't imagine him giving much of a shit. He's had huge hits and huge flops for nearly 50 years, death's door is approaching, what does he care?
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
He definitely strikes me as one of those “Keep busy” older men who never slow down. He will probably keep going til he keels over in the director’s chair, and would probably be more upset at his death delaying the shoot!
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
I feel bad for Hauser though
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
To wit, he refused to evacuate his offices on the Warners lot during the wildfires last monthdomino harvey wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:57 pmHe definitely strikes me as one of those “Keep busy” older men who never slow down. He will probably keep going til he keels over in the director’s chair, and would probably be more upset at his death delaying the shoot!
He 100% deserves an Oscar nomination that 100% isn't coming, as does Kathy Bates - but at least a starring role in a Clint Eastwood film ensures that he will have as long and fruitful a career as he wants to have
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
I have to imagine, at the least, some directors are watching the film and if they see something they like he'll get something ala Michael Stuhlberg's bounce despite nobody seeing A Serious Man.
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
I felt much the same way about Andrzej Wajda - a fortnight before he died (at 90) he introduced the Polish premiere of his last film Afterimage and said he was raring to go on his next one. We all assumed that he fully intended to die on set and would have been annoyed that he ultimately didn’t.domino harvey wrote:He definitely strikes me as one of those “Keep busy” older men who never slow down. He will probably keep going til he keels over in the director’s chair, and would probably be more upset at his death delaying the shoot!
And Wajda, like Eastwood, just kept going - there are half a dozen seriously great films in his output, rather more near misses and a handful that (by his own cheerful admission) are complete misses. But he never seemed that bothered, provided he still continued to have a career.
- flyonthewall2983
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
- Location: Indiana
- Contact:
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
Or the minute he quits, he dies. Andy Rooney and Morley Safer passed not that long after they bid farewell on 60 Minutes.domino harvey wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:57 pmHe definitely strikes me as one of those “Keep busy” older men who never slow down. He will probably keep going til he keels over in the director’s chair, and would probably be more upset at his death delaying the shoot!
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
Quite possible. I know there have been multiple studies that show people tend to live longer if they have a job to do
- Monterey Jack
- Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:27 am
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
Michael Madsen has a monologue in Kill Bill Volume 2 where he discusses how the biggest killer of old people is retirement.domino harvey wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:34 pmQuite possible. I know there have been multiple studies that show people tend to live longer if they have a job to do
- whaleallright
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:56 am
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
Works Cited
Madsen, Michael. "Monologue." In Kill Bill, vol. 2. Ed. Quentin Tarantino. New York: Miramax, 2003.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
No numerical attribution to the citation, that’s not AMA format!
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
In all seriousness, someone once asked me if there was a standard form for citing DVD/Blu-ray booklet essays, as they were becoming an increasingly essential resource (often containing info that you can't find anywhere else) but didn't have conventional publication info or an ISBN number.
- Brian C
- I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
I thought this was fine. I agree 100% with mfunk about Hauser's performance; it's really terrific, and all the more admirable considering the way Eastwood's actors usually seem to be directing themselves.
As a morality tale, it feels pretty simple-minded to me. Yes, Jewell got screwed, but that is a point that is not in dispute and that no one can possibly in good faith disagree with. It makes me appreciate all the more what Sorkin kinda-sorta managed to do with Molly's Game, which is show how shamefully these high-profile investigations proceed even when the target is pretty much guilty of what they've been accused of. The stakes might feel a bit higher if the movie had a more investigative bent of its own, and was more curious about where the mistakes in the investigation were made and by whom, but even the details we're given about this seem far-fetched. Wouldn't the fact that it was physically impossible for Jewell to make the call be literally - and I mean literally - the first thing the investigation would turn up? How did the "lone bomber" theory ever even take root? Hell if we know from watching the movie. There's just a vague notion that the FBI rushed to judgment and that's that.
So instead, we're left with a pretty easy-to-take story about how falsely accusing people is bad, y'all. Which, of course is true! But as morals to the story go, this is also kind of pandering - it lets people off the hook for their own tendency to rush to judgment, since we already know that he's innocent and thus can focus our scorn on his persecutors. But those of us who remember the 1996 bombing know that we don't really deserve that privilege.
As a morality tale, it feels pretty simple-minded to me. Yes, Jewell got screwed, but that is a point that is not in dispute and that no one can possibly in good faith disagree with. It makes me appreciate all the more what Sorkin kinda-sorta managed to do with Molly's Game, which is show how shamefully these high-profile investigations proceed even when the target is pretty much guilty of what they've been accused of. The stakes might feel a bit higher if the movie had a more investigative bent of its own, and was more curious about where the mistakes in the investigation were made and by whom, but even the details we're given about this seem far-fetched. Wouldn't the fact that it was physically impossible for Jewell to make the call be literally - and I mean literally - the first thing the investigation would turn up? How did the "lone bomber" theory ever even take root? Hell if we know from watching the movie. There's just a vague notion that the FBI rushed to judgment and that's that.
So instead, we're left with a pretty easy-to-take story about how falsely accusing people is bad, y'all. Which, of course is true! But as morals to the story go, this is also kind of pandering - it lets people off the hook for their own tendency to rush to judgment, since we already know that he's innocent and thus can focus our scorn on his persecutors. But those of us who remember the 1996 bombing know that we don't really deserve that privilege.
-
- Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
I'll address the elephant in the room first.
About the quid pro quo thing - trading sex for scoop. I think the film does NOT portray that. Our group had two women in it and both of them came to the conclusion that it was not a trade. Here's why -
I know the above might be a difficult discussion for some to have so I want to be sensitive about everyone's feelings. But I feel there is no avoiding addressing it since it has been such a massive story in the media.
With that out of the way -
It might seem that the movie is taking shots at the media and the FBI but actually the media largely goes unaddressed. Literally apart from the early scene when the Atlanta Journal decides to run the story, there are no other scenes about the media's activities at all. They are shown as a crowd asking questions but that's it. If anything, the movie does NOT really focus on the media.
The major focus is on the FBI. And if anything, it is that institution that the movie portrays in a bad light - a very very very bad light - which is just as well given the abuses we have seen them commit. Sure the media has infinite potential to destroy lives but the far more dangerous threat to civil liberties comes from overzealous law enforcement and that is what the movie portrays here.
Eventually, the movie plays like a cautionary tale of rights trampled as it explores the tenuous contract that individuals have with government and how fraught it is with perils. The movie is unsparing of Jewell as well and is not a flattering or deifying portrait of him. It in fact portrays him warts and all, some might even thinks it portrays him with condescension as a pathetic figure, a figure of pity but the lead performance by Hausner is always compelling, never settling for caricature and always providing nuance.
This is a largely quiet film - restrained almost dour in some sense. It essentially entirely takes place in Jewell's living room. It portrays an unraveling situation with deathly calm. And I think therein lies Eastwood's greatest strength as a director. With Bressonian cool, he lets the narrative do its thing and films this in very classic set-ups, standard mounted still camera, classical cutting etc. There are no trick shots or anything the least bit showy. To me, it is always a sign of enormous confidence if a film-maker can be reserved in their film-making.
The film remains compelling throughout. I was always engaged, never bored. The performances are very good. The horror it feels for the FBI's violations is genuine. Hausner's dignity in the lead role is a note of grace.
About the quid pro quo thing - trading sex for scoop. I think the film does NOT portray that. Our group had two women in it and both of them came to the conclusion that it was not a trade. Here's why -
SpoilerShow
I think an earlier scene and Olivia Wilde's performance saves the film from that reading. First, there is an earlier scene with Wilde and Hamm where they are flirty and which indicates there is history between them. Then in the scene in question, again the two are very clearly monkeying around with each other. She then asks him to give her a scoop. He then tells her the FBI is investigating Jewell. THEN she proposes sex. She already has had the scoop at that point. Hamm does not withhold that information in exchange of sex. He gives it to her straight. And then Wilde says she wants to have sex. To the extent that Hamm seems surprised and asks her - Is this happening? And she says yes this is happening. Basically, Hamm was NOT expecting to be paid back for having given her the scoop. He seemed surprised when she wanted to have sex.
So in the final reading - Wilde's character comes across as a confident young woman, sexually active, assertive and dogged. Unless that is what people are objecting to. The scene in question does not lead you to be default conclusion that she traded sex for a scoop. I think it is a fair inference that Wilde and Hamm's characters had slept together in the past and that even if Hamm had given her nothing that night, the two of them might have made it a night.
Secondly, if I were to add a more exculpatory reading - the movie is at least somewhat elliptical. When Hamm presents the information to her, she tells him that they are not going to print it unless there is a second source corroborating. In the editorial meeting, they explicitly state that they have corroboration and that CNN, NBC and other outlets have the story too but none has run with it. All of this is to say - it seems reasonably fair and above board to me. Sometimes stories have corroboration - but for whatever reason, editors might want to hold on.
If anything, the movie actually throws a bone to Wilde's character in the sense of showing 3 scenes where she has regrets about running with the story. Though you could argue, she did everything above board with the story if she ran it with corroboration and eventually did not make the decision to print it. It is her job to pitch the story, the editor made the call to run it.
So in the final reading - Wilde's character comes across as a confident young woman, sexually active, assertive and dogged. Unless that is what people are objecting to. The scene in question does not lead you to be default conclusion that she traded sex for a scoop. I think it is a fair inference that Wilde and Hamm's characters had slept together in the past and that even if Hamm had given her nothing that night, the two of them might have made it a night.
Secondly, if I were to add a more exculpatory reading - the movie is at least somewhat elliptical. When Hamm presents the information to her, she tells him that they are not going to print it unless there is a second source corroborating. In the editorial meeting, they explicitly state that they have corroboration and that CNN, NBC and other outlets have the story too but none has run with it. All of this is to say - it seems reasonably fair and above board to me. Sometimes stories have corroboration - but for whatever reason, editors might want to hold on.
If anything, the movie actually throws a bone to Wilde's character in the sense of showing 3 scenes where she has regrets about running with the story. Though you could argue, she did everything above board with the story if she ran it with corroboration and eventually did not make the decision to print it. It is her job to pitch the story, the editor made the call to run it.
With that out of the way -
It might seem that the movie is taking shots at the media and the FBI but actually the media largely goes unaddressed. Literally apart from the early scene when the Atlanta Journal decides to run the story, there are no other scenes about the media's activities at all. They are shown as a crowd asking questions but that's it. If anything, the movie does NOT really focus on the media.
The major focus is on the FBI. And if anything, it is that institution that the movie portrays in a bad light - a very very very bad light - which is just as well given the abuses we have seen them commit. Sure the media has infinite potential to destroy lives but the far more dangerous threat to civil liberties comes from overzealous law enforcement and that is what the movie portrays here.
Eventually, the movie plays like a cautionary tale of rights trampled as it explores the tenuous contract that individuals have with government and how fraught it is with perils. The movie is unsparing of Jewell as well and is not a flattering or deifying portrait of him. It in fact portrays him warts and all, some might even thinks it portrays him with condescension as a pathetic figure, a figure of pity but the lead performance by Hausner is always compelling, never settling for caricature and always providing nuance.
This is a largely quiet film - restrained almost dour in some sense. It essentially entirely takes place in Jewell's living room. It portrays an unraveling situation with deathly calm. And I think therein lies Eastwood's greatest strength as a director. With Bressonian cool, he lets the narrative do its thing and films this in very classic set-ups, standard mounted still camera, classical cutting etc. There are no trick shots or anything the least bit showy. To me, it is always a sign of enormous confidence if a film-maker can be reserved in their film-making.
The film remains compelling throughout. I was always engaged, never bored. The performances are very good. The horror it feels for the FBI's violations is genuine. Hausner's dignity in the lead role is a note of grace.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
This was solid but the MVP is Hauser who makes this film far better than it should be. I hated the depiction of the Wilde character’s and the FBI’s one-dimensional methods and I think the script simplified the other sides into a cartoon to fit a right-wing agenda but once letting that go there’s a lot to like here. I like mfunk’s von Trier analogy and think it adds a layer of appreciation to the film when taken out of its specific historical context or the political fake-news one the filmmakers are arguably going for, and allows the film to work on that broader universally relatable level of social fear. This narrative still functions well within its context if the creative liberties are ignored in favor of the empathy for Jewel which is actually easy to do and Hauser should be nominated for the Oscar (and probably win) for not just doing a great job but for allowing such political baggage and potential motives to feel irrelevant and become forgivable in favor of basic human sensitivity.
-
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:50 pm
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
What about this read as conservative to you? I thought this was a very good depiction of the specifically American kind of police worship to the point of delusion, only falling apart a bit when Jewel becoming an officer is depicted without irony.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
The police worship is an angle I hadn’t considered. I was referring to Rockwell’s statement of the government and media as the “two most powerful forces” that are wronging Jewell. That ‘voice of reason’ and the cutthroat illegal, narcissistic and immoral presentation of Wilde and Hamm as people just trying to get ahead or protecting themselves respectively, by sacrificing an innocent man are together what make me think there are conservative undertones. I’m not saying the story didn’t happen, doesn’t serve as a cautionary tale to these points, etc. but there seemed to be a perspective that simplified the other side into a corner of ‘fake news’ and malicious selfishness about govt branches and media as unnecessary and harmful to its citizens rather than having any interest in drawing a more full picture of all sides. If you’re going to make characters interacting behind the scenes outside of the scope of Jewell’s subjectivity, I think you’re trying to tell a well-rounded story, and adding another dimension to the other side beyond this cartoonish dimension while still painting them as wrong is doable. I still liked the film and again, this didn’t bother me too much, but it was a subtle anger I noticed throughout.
-
- Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am
Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)
There's been such a trumpian shift in politics I feel it's kinda crazy. As seen by my review, I think the movie is mainly taking aim at law enforcement. Herein lies the rub -MongooseCmr wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:44 pmWhat about this read as conservative to you? I thought this was a very good depiction of the specifically American kind of police worship to the point of delusion, only falling apart a bit when Jewel becoming an officer is depicted without irony.
It traditionally has been a conservative position to be PRO-law enforcement or pro FBI or pro CIA.
It traditoinally has been a liberal or progressive position to be doubtful or questioning or wary of law enforcement or FBI or CIA.
So on its face, the movie's stance might be construed as liberal or progressive because it is taking aim at law enforcement and FBI and CIA.
But because trump has so brutally attacked the FBI and CIA and run them through the mud basically, the default progressive position seems to have become to defend the CIA or FBI. That's the only angle through which the movie can seem conservative.
But again from my vantage point, the movie takes the side of civil liberties which is a progressive position.