Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Lady Iris

Richard Jewell (2019)

Recommended Posts

I remember waking up that morning hearing about the bombing on the news but don't easily recall the aftermath so I'm looking forward to hearing this story.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

31 minutes ago, anna0852 said:

I hope it focuses on how he was completely innocent and eviscerates the media for hounding that poor man.

The poor man’s life was ruined. I hope it’s better now

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, topanga said:

The poor man’s life was ruined. I hope it’s better now

Not so much. Richard passed in 2007.

42 minutes ago, anna0852 said:

I hope it focuses on how he was completely innocent and eviscerates the media for hounding that poor man.

The media was somewhat to blame for not being more careful with the info they got, but the FBI leaked that Jewell was a suspect.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/9/2019 at 7:28 PM, AimingforYoko said:

Not so much. Richard passed in 2007.

The media was somewhat to blame for not being more careful with the info they got, but the FBI leaked that Jewell was a suspect.

Yeap, it was the FBI feeding the media to break Richard Jewell. He did get settlements from media organizations for their role in the debacle. People always thought the stress the FBI and media put on him contributed to his health declining and his eventual death at such a young age.

I remember watching Jewell's interview and thinking how lucky those people got that he spotted the other bombs and took quick action. When the FBI played the audiorecording of person who gave the warning, it was obviously not Jewell. The voice and accent on the recording were so different. I have no clue how the FBI came to suspect Jewell.

I probably won't watch this until it is out on Blu Ray. I am pretty much done with Clint Eastwood.

Edited by SimoneS
  • Like 5
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

3 hours ago, SimoneS said:

I probably won't watch this until it is out on Blu Ray. I am pretty much done with Clint Eastwood.

Same here but this movie is going to have to go on the longer list of movies/projects that Mr. Eastwood has done in the last seven years that I can't watch while he's still living due to not wanting to chance ANY of my monies going to him. Why did someone who has such great talent have to have become so despicable (IMO) and  intolerant of others' POVs not in lockstep with their own the latter part of their life?

  • Like 5
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

It was indeed an excellent trailer and I will definitely be checking it out.  Nice to see Clint still doing some great work into his 90s.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I can't with Clint Eastwood, so I was really bummed when I first read he was the one directing this movie, which is a story I'd see once it came out on Blu-Ray.  And the trailer looks good.  But between Eastwood and the apparently made-up female journalist trades sex for info plot, I may take a pass. 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Bastet said:

and the apparently made-up female journalist trades sex for info plot, I may take a pass. 

Yes, I just saw that above me in the thread! WTF?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Dejana said:

Olivia Wilde Defends Her Richard Jewell Role: 'People Have a Hard Time Accepting Sexuality':

https://people.com/movies/olivia-wilde-defends-her-richard-jewell-role-people-have-a-hard-time-accepting-sexuality/

Dammit, I hate when people I like show their ass. It's not about having sex. It's not even about having sex with people involved with her work. It's about trading sexual favors for access, which is a big journalistic no-no.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

Wrongly suggesting a person is guilty of something based on no evidence? I thought that was what this movie was supposed to be about, not one of its goals. Disappointing because I agree that the story and trailer are compelling.

Edited by krankydoodle
  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

On 12/3/2019 at 6:02 PM, AimingforYoko said:

Dammit, I hate when people I like show their ass. It's not about having sex. It's not even about having sex with people involved with her work. It's about trading sexual favors for access, which is a big journalistic no-no.

Exactly, plus the fact that it apparently isn't true. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/5/2019 at 1:47 AM, Anela said:

Exactly, plus the fact that it apparently isn't true. 

In addition the woman in question is dead so can’t even defend herself against this baseless claim.

The AJC wants WBs to issue a statement saying they took dramatic license with that part of the story which I think is the bare minimum it should do.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/9/2019 at 2:46 PM, biakbiak said:

In addition the woman in question is dead so can’t even defend herself against this baseless claim.

The AJC wants WBs to issue a statement saying they took dramatic license with that part of the story which I think is the bare minimum it should do.

The heavy rotation of the tv trailer with Eastwood is very annoying. It is hard to take his sincerity of making this movie with the inclusion of the untrue and unnecessary defamation of a female journalist.  I'm a little surprised that there has not been more outcry about this outdated misogynistic slander of any female who dares to be in journalism.

What I can not understand is how all those involved do not see how this all detracts from what the film is trying to show.

What Clint Eastwood’s new movie gets very wrong about the female reporter who broke the Richard Jewell story (Washington Post)

On 9/2/2019 at 2:54 PM, Dani said:

This is from another forum.  In the case of 'Rasputin' the person being defamed was still alive and successfully sued to have the offending scene removed.  It is a real pity that the families of the journalist or the FBI agent could not do the same.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Clint Eastwood's latest, based on the hero-turned-scapegoat Richard Jewell (who discovered the pipe bomb at Centennial Park during the 1996 Olympics) has just been released, and looks to be Eastwood's lowest-opening film. There has been equal praise on the movie's theme of media irresponsibility, and criticism for its unflattering portrayal of AJC reporter Kathy Scruggs. I'm old enough to remember when this happened, but had nearly forgotten about it. Thoughts on the film and the real life events surrounding are welcome (it's a touchy subject, so civility first and foremost).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I am pretty conservative and don't have the highest value in the media, but I don't blame Kathy Scruggs's family and friends for being pissed at Client Eastwood and Warner Bros suggesting she slept with an FBI agent to get information, since it seems there is no evidence corroborating this.  I'll be frank, I hate when movies depict real people as villains, since 9 times out of to 10, they get it wrong, and would rather they change the names, of the enemies/secondary characters. I am glad it seems to be tanking. I am happy when any these types of movies tanks, whether conservative or "woke".

Quote

The heavy rotation of the tv trailer with Eastwood is very annoying. It is hard to take his sincerity of making this movie with the inclusion of the untrue and unnecessary defamation of a female journalist.  I'm a little surprised that there has not been more outcry about this outdated misogynistic slander of any female who dares to be in journalism.

I hate slander, whether it is against a man or a woman. Fuck Clint Eastwood. He should have given a different name to Kathy Scruggs to avoid this. 

Edited by Ambrosefolly
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe after Mr. Eastwood's passing (when there's zero chance of him getting any profits from my contributions for reasons I've detailed earlier on this site), I might eventually  see it as a late night movie rerun on TV just to see whether there's any artistic merit or if it could just be a tedious, monolithic dirge (to say nothing of possibly slandering a deceased person despite the fact that the movie's touting itself as vindicating another deceased person ). Regardless, it's not one that ranks high among the films I'm eager to see upon Mr. Eastwood's demise. 

Edited by Blergh
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Ambrosefolly said:

I hate slander, whether it is against a man or a woman. Fuck Clint Eastwood. He should have given a different name to Kathy Scruggs to avoid this.

Or just not do the tired trope that female journalists fuck their way to a story.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

They didn't just have Kathy Scruggs sleep with a source for a story, they portrayed her as an asshole altogether. She was nasty to everybody.

Kathy Bates, as usual, did a great job, but Paul Walker Hauser was awesome.  Especially, finally, in the FBI office, when he broke.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Regarding Kathy Scruggs, the movie hinted that she knew Jon Hamm's FBI character and they may have been involved previously - not stated, just my impression given their familiarity before the controversial scene.   She is suggesting the sex and I can see why Olivia Wilde felt the need to defend it - the movie character is enthusiastic and seems to be suggesting something fun for them both.  Still, it's an ugly trope and the scene doesn't need to be there; no one knows how Kathy got the lead, so make up something else or use a different name for the character.

I actually liked Kathy - I liked her drive and the fact that when she examined the facts (the phone call timing) she had regrets.   She didn't hide in the lawyer's car but he and she did have similar dialogue - there are RL interviews with the lawyer and he liked her too.   She wanted what she wanted - a story.  

Hamm's FBI guy is much more of an asshole.  He leaked Richard's name to Kathy (one of her colleagues also gets Richard's name from a different agency).   It was interesting to me because I fell down the true crime rabbit hole recently and when you examine how these narratives are manipulated, it makes you think.  I watched shows where the police were sure about their bad guy and kept at it until the got him, which is what the FBI were trying to do with Richard, except they were wrong.   They were convinced they were right.

Richard at first isn't terribly likable - he goes overboard as a security guard.  You can easily picture him as an asshole cop.   He's nerdy and annoying to some people.  He's also honest and though he knows facts, comes across as not very bright sometimes.   His desire to be accepted by law enforcement is kind of sad.   He reminds me somewhat of Stallone's character in Cop Land.

The cast is excellent.   Paul Hauser's performance from accepting of everything to determined is quietly moving.   Sam Rockwell nearly steals the movie with his hyperactive, in your face attorney.  Kathy Bates is fantastic and heart breaking as Richard's mom.  Maybe I am biased because I watched an interview with the real Bobi Jewell (she is still alive) and she still tears up over it.    Videos from that time show that the movie didn't exaggerate - the media swarmed his apartment and they couldn't even walk the dog without being shouted at.    The movie also used real interviews with Richard and real media commentary, which was effective.

According to History vs Hollywood, what you see in the movie of how the FBI treated Richard is all true, and some of them faced mild disciplinary action.

The movie's over 2 hours long but didn't feel like it.  What I appreciated the most was the portrayals of real people - Richard was a flawed person and also a hero of the bombing who didn't deserve to be hounded and didn't deserve to be mocked because he was overweight and lived with his mom.  

  • Like 3
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

raven.

 

So, boiled down to essentials, the movie might have been worth seeking out had it solely made the case to vindicate the late Mr. Jewell without attempting to postmortemly smear the rep of the late Miss Scruggs, but that's not what it did. It looks as though    it's going to be virtually dead last of the Eastwood movies I plan to  seek out upon his demise.

Edited by Blergh
  • Like 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

On 12/4/2019 at 11:55 AM, krankydoodle said:

Wrongly suggesting a person is guilty of something based on no evidence? I thought that was what this movie was supposed to be about, not one of its goals.

Irony, table for one.  

 

On 12/15/2019 at 11:22 PM, biakbiak said:

Or just not do the tired trope that female journalists fuck their way to a story.

As someone who works in TV news, it's not just a trope unfortunately.  I also blame the 24  hour news cycle and the need to be "first" even if they don't have all the facts.  Then they plant the idea in the viewers' heads and there goes someone's reputation, even if they're innocent of wrongdoing.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Putting aside the movie's depiction of how Kathy got her info, how bad of a writer was she? She tells her colleague her writing isn't all that and asks him for help. The result didn't set my world on fire. It was literate, but that's it. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/20/2020 at 2:00 AM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Oscar nomination:

Actress in a Supporting Role - Kathy Bates

She was good but Paul Walker Hauser was incredible. He should have been nominated. Clint Eastwood should have also been nominated. 
 

Didn’t care for the journalist or how she was portrayed. 
 

What the media and the FBI did to Richard and Bobi Jewell is disgusting and heartbreaking. But everyone should see this movie to see what they are capable of. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I just saw this and will agree Eastwood lacked nuance when it came to the female reporter..almost moustached villiany but the FBI looks far worse..not dumb or idiotic but driven by a narrative of a profile with not much evidence.

I am sad that the reporter came out of it the way she did and that took the focus OFF the movie and it's message. The media and the authorities rarely ever do a mea cupla when they get it wrong and still pretend they are always right...and there will be more Richard Jewell's in the future.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size