Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Message
Author
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#26 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:24 pm


User avatar
PfR73
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 6:07 pm

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#27 Post by PfR73 » Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:58 pm

What that article states is mostly, but not fully true.

The film does portray Kathy Scruggs as getting the information from Jon Hamm's FBI agent by offering sex (which it implies happens subsequently off-screen). Even while watching the film, this scene seemed suspect to me; I couldn't believe the real people would agree to be portrayed this way. Turns out they didn't; doing some research after viewing the film Monday night, I found other articles about this very issue: Kathy Scruggs had already passed away, and the FBI agent is a fictionalized character not using the name of a real person.

What is untrue about the article is that the film "makes it appear that the AJC sexually exploited its staff and/or that it facilitated or condoned offering sexual gratification to sources in exchange for stories." I do not recall the film portraying that anyone else at AJC encouraged or even knew about the fictional Scruggs doing this.

Overall, I thought the film was pretty good, if a little pedestrian; but that scene did seem false even without knowing the truth beforehand, and there's really no reason the film should have gone there.

User avatar
Fiery Angel
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:59 pm

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#28 Post by Fiery Angel » Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:24 pm

So a film bemoaning character assassination of one individual engages in character assassination of another individual? Thanks, Clint!

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#29 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:24 pm

Was there a sense that Eastwood may have been going out of his way to represent journalists in a negative light, PfR73? That's the only reason I can think that it would have even been written and staged that way - otherwise why misrepresent a dead journalist unless she was an enemy of his of some kind? What would be the benefit to writing a real person in a libelous fashion like this? And yes, this question also goes, of course, for Billy Ray, the credited screenwriter.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#30 Post by domino harvey » Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:26 pm

Based on what we know about his working methods, my guess is Eastwood just filmed whatever was in the script without thinking much more about it

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#31 Post by knives » Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:29 pm

Shouldn't it go more to Billy Ray? Eastwood is not known for being involved with writing.

What Dom said.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#32 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:32 pm

Sure, of course. Of course, the buck stops with the person directing the film, and one would think Eastwood contributes more perspective than merely watching someone turn a camera on and then turn it off despite his age

User avatar
Fiery Angel
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:59 pm

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#33 Post by Fiery Angel » Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:35 pm

He probably just speaks to an empty chair.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#34 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:36 pm

Yuk yuk yuk

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#35 Post by domino harvey » Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:39 pm

Again, based on what we know of his modern working methods, I really don’t think he’s interested in doing anything but getting the script on the screen as is. There’s a workhorse-level skill that goes into doing that beyond just being present when the camera rolls, but this is hardly a radical reading of his recent career

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#36 Post by Big Ben » Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:44 pm

Independent of my feelings on the film's content (Not a good look) you cannot to the best of my knowledge libel/slander the dead (The woman in question has been dead since 2001) in the United States. I'm unsure what the paper hopes to accomplish outside of making threats to Warner Brothers. Unless I've missed some obscure US tort law concept.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#37 Post by knives » Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:54 pm

domino harvey wrote:
Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:39 pm
Again, based on what we know of his modern working methods, I really don’t think he’s interested in doing anything but getting the script on the screen as is. There’s a workhorse-level skill that goes into doing that beyond just being present when the camera rolls, but this is hardly a radical reading of his recent career
Further, I can't imagine facts play a big role to him. Likely he read the script and enjoyed it as a story shooting the scene in a way he felt best worked as entertainment. It's a very studio system mentality.

User avatar
captveg
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#38 Post by captveg » Wed Dec 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Big Ben wrote:
Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:44 pm
Independent of my feelings on the film's content (Not a good look) you cannot to the best of my knowledge libel/slander the dead (The woman in question has been dead since 2001) in the United States. I'm unsure what the paper hopes to accomplish outside of making threats to Warner Brothers. Unless I've missed some obscure US tort law concept.
The standard disclaimer at the end of all movies based on real events - "The film is based on actual historical events. Dialogue and certain events and characters contained in the film were created for the purposes of dramatization" - typically covers the movie creators in regards to this.

Nasir007
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#39 Post by Nasir007 » Wed Dec 11, 2019 9:41 pm

I agree with the above. Late Eastwood kinda depends upon the script a bit. He shoots the script without any changes more or less. I think he's unique among the great directors in that sense. Someone like Spielberg is very heavily involved even in scripts he does not write. But Eastwood basically shoots the script.

Regarding libel, since the main party is dead, I think there might be standing issues. And libel laws in the US are remarkably weak. I don't think any legal motion would succeed at all. It is very difficult to prevail in a lot of libel cases when a public figure is involved. Otherwise even somebody like fox news people might have sued Bombshell. There really isn't much that people can do here.

User avatar
PfR73
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 6:07 pm

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#40 Post by PfR73 » Thu Dec 12, 2019 2:47 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:
Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:24 pm
Was there a sense that Eastwood may have been going out of his way to represent journalists in a negative light, PfR73? That's the only reason I can think that it would have even been written and staged that way - otherwise why misrepresent a dead journalist unless she was an enemy of his of some kind? What would be the benefit to writing a real person in a libelous fashion like this? And yes, this question also goes, of course, for Billy Ray, the credited screenwriter.
I mean, the story is about the FBI & the media rushing to judgment, so yes, journalists, with Kathy Scruggs being their main on-screen representative, are represented in a certain negative light.
SpoilerShow
She is introduced as someone who wants "interesting" stories and to get "scoops." References are made early on that other staffers at AJC are jealous of her being able to get front-page/high-profile coverage investigating crime stories. When she gets assigned to cover the celebration in Centennial Park, she is frustrated that it is a "boring" assignment. She is shown to be a more wild personality compared to the other, conservative women in the office (which is true according to articles I read).

While standing around during a concert with nothing "interesting" happening, she flirts with Jon Hamm's FBI character, who's been assigned to monitor the festivities, and they commiserate over their "boring" assignments at Centennial Park. It's not clear whether they already know each other prior to this or have met for the first time at Centennial Park. They both happen to be present when the bomb goes off.

Scruggs is excited that a real story has broken and she wants to be the first to identify the bomber. She visits Hamm's character at the bar where he hangs out, and seduces him to get him to tell her who the FBI is investigating.
She then pushes her bosses at AJC to print the story as soon as possible so they can be the first to report on who the suspect is. She says something along the lines of "this happened in our backyard, if we're not printing this first, what are we doing here?" I do not recall her telling them how she got the information, beyond perhaps confirming it came from the FBI.

The main thrust of the film's criticism with journalists seems to be more of the desire to be first to report something, the competition between media outlets leading to reporting without really examining the facts. Scruggs, as the reporter who broke the story, is the main focus point for this (although the film shows later articles from other papers and other TV reporters, especially focusing on a report where Tom Brokaw seems to throw the book at Jewell). Scruggs (and her writing partner Ron Martz, who is not present when Scruggs talks to the FBI) seem to write the article identifying Jewell based purely on what the FBI told her, focusing on the "lone bomber" profile the FBI was using. At the time of her first article being published, she is not shown doing any real additional research into the facts of the bombing.

For awhile, she is unrepentant in her belief that Jewell is the bomber, including a scene where Jewell & his lawyer (played by Rockwell) go to the AJC to demand a retraction and encounter her in the bullpen on their way to her boss' office and Rockwell gives her a loud dressing down in front of all the staff, many of whom are shown smirking at her getting her comeuppance (with the audience invited to share their glee).

Subsequent to this, she decides to investigate further and becomes convinced of Jewell's innocence after confirming there was no way he could have made the bomb threat phone call from one location and also been present at the bombing site based on the timing of each (something Rockwell & his assistant have already done). She meets Hamm at the bar again and tries to convince him the FBI is wrong and ignoring facts; Hamm disregards these facts with the FBI's theory that Jewell had an accomplice. When Scruggs states that having an accomplice contradicts the "lone bomber" profile, Hamm shrugs her off. She is later shown as one of the reporters present at a press conference held by Jewell's lawyer & mother and is clearly shown looking on sympathetically & supportively when Jewell's mother is delivering her tearful speech.

So she starts off as a "villain" but has a redemptive arc where she realizes she was wrong about Jewell.
This is unlike Jon Hamm's character, and his cohorts at the FBI, who maintain the entire time that they believe Jewell was the bomber and are only being forced to drop the case due to lack of evidence. They do this, and provide him an exonerating letter, begrudgingly, certain that they are letting a murderer get away.

According to articles I read, Scruggs never revealed her source for the Jewell information or how she got it. So it seems that Billy Ray had to dramatize some way for her to get this information without knowing the truth of how she did it; and in doing so, he chose a boneheaded way to write it that is at odds with the theme of the film. Those her knew her state that it would never have been through sexual offers. Maybe Ray thought this was the most expedient way to dramatize it and that it would also "spice things up," who knows? But since Scruggs is actually given an arc where she comes around, though she begins as a target of scorn, it doesn't seem the film was trying to unrepentantly paint her as an unredeemably bad person/journalist and feels more like a poorly-thought-out screenwriting choice that should have been re-evaluated.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#41 Post by domino harvey » Thu Dec 12, 2019 3:01 pm

Very thorough response detailing that, thanks!

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#42 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:57 pm

That was very interesting, yes, thanks. Truly a boneheaded, screenwriting 101 thing to get wrong, despite later plot developments.

Heard an interview with the star of this film on WTF today and he was incredibly genuine, open, and charming. Perhaps the most unlikely lead performer in such a big film in a long time, can't help but be thrilled for him.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#43 Post by knives » Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:59 pm

More unlikely than Eastwood's last lead actor?

Also I'll that as an interesting and great post.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#44 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:04 pm

Paul Walter Hauser owes his career to having the stones to go up to Dustin Lance Black at a casting call for extras in rural Michigan to compliment him on Milk and his Oscar speech, and Clint Eastwood is Clint Eastwood

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#45 Post by knives » Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:13 pm

I was referring to The 15:17 to Paris. I forgot that The Mule was a thing.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#46 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:46 pm

Bafflingly, Billy Ray has doubled down on this in a new interview:
Billy Ray wrote:The movie isn’t about Kathy Scruggs; it’s about the heroism and hounding of Richard Jewell, and what rushed reporting can do to an innocent man. And by the way, I will stand by every word and assertion in the script.

The only creative license taken in the movie is actually in the redeeming of Kathy Scruggs. In the end she realizes the error of her ways. She never publicly atoned for her reporting.
The authors of the book the film is based on have stated:
Kent Alexander and Kevin Salwen wrote:We have been asked repeatedly whether we found evidence that [Kathy] Scruggs traded sex for the story. We did not.
AJC editor and Scruggs' boss during this time:
Bert Roughton wrote:When a reporter trades sexual favors for a story, their career is over. If I ever thought for one second that Kathy did anything inappropriate, I would have seen to it that she was fired in 24 hours. To defame a dead woman and to accuse her of doing the worst thing in her profession is just cruel. To convict her of the mortal sin of trading sex for a story, it’s the worst thing conceivable you can do to a journalist. It’s one thing to debate the journalist, but to destroy someone’s reputation eternally — because for the rest of time, this movie will be out.
Olivia Wilde:
Olivia Wilde wrote:Contrary to a swath of recent headlines, I do not believe that Kathy 'traded sex for tips.' Nothing in my research suggested she did so, and it was never my intention to suggest she had. That would be an appalling and misogynistic dismissal of the difficult work she did. The perspective of the fictional dramatization of the story, as I understood it, was that Kathy, and the FBI agent who leaked false information to her, were in a pre-existing romantic relationship, not a transactional exchange of sex for information.
PfR73, I'll let you play the judge here after all this testimony!

User avatar
PfR73
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 6:07 pm

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#47 Post by PfR73 » Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:50 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:57 pm
Perhaps the most unlikely lead performer in such a big film in a long time, can't help but be thrilled for him.
My brother pointed something out to me this morning: back during the actual events, Jay Leno made a joke that [the real-life] Richard Jewell looked almost exactly like Shawn Eckardt from the Nancy Kerrigan/Tonya Harding saga. Paul Walter Hauser played Shawn Eckardt in I, Tonya and is now playing Richard Jewell.

User avatar
PfR73
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 6:07 pm

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#48 Post by PfR73 » Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:35 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:46 pm
Olivia Wilde:
Olivia Wilde wrote:Contrary to a swath of recent headlines, I do not believe that Kathy 'traded sex for tips.' Nothing in my research suggested she did so, and it was never my intention to suggest she had. That would be an appalling and misogynistic dismissal of the difficult work she did. The perspective of the fictional dramatization of the story, as I understood it, was that Kathy, and the FBI agent who leaked false information to her, were in a pre-existing romantic relationship, not a transactional exchange of sex for information.
PfR73, I'll let you play the judge here after all this testimony!
SpoilerShow
Wilde's quote ties in to what I said above, that her character & Hamm's character are shown interacting & flirting with each other at the Centennial Park concert, prior to the bombing, and I did actually consider during those moments that there could be some kind of history between them. But the film fails to establish such a history or that they're actually in a relationship; you can't tell if they've known each other for years or if they just met while standing next to each other at the park off-screen 20 minutes prior to the moments we see.

Then the film fails to show them in any kind of subsequent relationship; the only scenes I recall between the characters are the one at the park, and the 2 in the bar I described above which purely revolve around the Richard Jewell investigation. Additionally, Hamm seems surprised that they're going to have sex. While propositioning him to try to get the information, she says something (I can't remember the actual quote) about whether they should get a hotel room or go [some other location I can't remember]. After he gives her the information, she pulls him with her away from the bar and says something like "Let's just go do this in my car, I can't waste time" and he responds "Oh, this is really happening" as the scene ends.

So, if the intention was that they were actually in a relationship, and so it wasn't information for sex, but two people who regularly had sex and were just choosing to do it after exchanging information, then I do think Eastwood & Ray failed to properly communicate that. Because of the film failing to really show them being in a relationship, I came away from my viewing interpreting the scene that sex was being traded for information, and would bet at least 99% of the rest of the audience saw it that way also.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#49 Post by mfunk9786 » Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:17 pm

Turns out this is my favorite Eastwood since Million Dollar Baby, so that's why you should see a movie before getting too far down the road decrying it. Stellar, Oscar-worthy lead performance. Will write more when I have the time but an odd kinship (should I be posting this in Great Double Bills?!) I felt, particularly in a scene later in the film, was between this and Dancer in the Dark. If you liked that film and bought into what it was doing from the perspective of executing on a manipulative but raw and emotionally sincere morality play (and like to cry in the movie theater over injustice wrought upon a decent, modest person by manipulative achievers who feel superior to them), I would imagine the Venn diagram between it and Richard Jewell will be a large one.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Richard Jewell (Clint Eastwood, 2019)

#50 Post by mfunk9786 » Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:23 pm

Box office is rough, going to open to around $5 million

Post Reply