Richard Jewell (2019)

[ScottJH]

Title: Richard Jewell

Genre: Drama

Director: Clint Eastwood

Cast: Paul Walter Hauser, Jon Hamm, Kathy Bates, Sam Rockwell, Olivia Wilde, Nina Arianda, Ian Gomez, Dylan Kussman, Mike Pniewski, Billy Slaughter, Niko Nicotera, Alex Collins, Desmond Phillips, Grant Roberts, Ronnie Allen, Garon Grigsby, Brian Brightman, David de Vries, David Shae

Release: 2019-12-13

Plot: The true story of Richard Jewell, hero and then suspect of the 1996 Olympic Park bombing.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

There's no question that Richard Jewell got a horrifically raw deal, but I can't help thinking that Eastwood made this because Jewell's story neatly fits into all of his preconceived notions: the heroic white man, the evil media, the oppressive government.

It might end up being a really compelling movie, but it also might end up being a polemic.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Wow, Eastwood got this one done real quick.

It was set up at Fox, but Disney let him take it over to Warner Bros. earlier this year when the merger closed. I wasn't aware it had actually gone into production yet and wasn't expecting to see it until 2020.

By comparison, one of the other Fox projects that Disney cut loose, News of the World with Tom Hanks and Paul Greengrass, landed at Universal and was recently given a release date of Christmas 2020. So, certainly, Eastwood got this one up and going and done fast.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Wow, Eastwood got this one done real quick.

Even at 89, Clint Eastwood is still probably the fastest working director in Hollywood.

It's a combination of things. He got his start on television, shooting seven seasons of "Rawhide", so he got used to working at a really fast pace. Directors that moved slow frustrated him his entire career as an actor. He's also been directing films for half a century now. He prepares extensively beforehand, so when he's actually shooting he knows exactly what he wants and exactly how to get it. He doesn't waste time with additional takes once he's got one he's happy with.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Even at 89, Clint Eastwood is still probably the fastest working director in Hollywood.

It's a combination of things. He got his start on television, shooting seven seasons of "Rawhide", so he got used to working at a really fast pace. Directors that moved slow frustrated him his entire career as an actor. He's also been directing films for half a century now. He prepares extensively beforehand, so when he's actually shooting he knows exactly what he wants and exactly how to get it. He doesn't waste time with additional takes once he's got one he's happy with.

Eastwood is the polar opposite of directors like William Wyler and George Stevens.

 

[Doug Wallen]

Hope this is better than The 15:17 To Paris. Looks like it might be. Interested in this one.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Nice cast.

There's no question that Richard Jewell got a horrifically raw deal, but I can't help thinking that Eastwood made this because Jewell's story neatly fits into all of his preconceived notions: the heroic white man, the evil media, the oppressive government.

It might end up being a really compelling movie, but it also might end up being a polemic.

Hope this is better than The 15:17 To Paris. Looks like it might be. Interested in this one.

God, I hope it's better than 15:17. That was disappointing. Such a compelling story poorly told. SO poorly told.

The potential is there for this to be a sensational story. The behavior of the media in the Jewell case is a story that everyone should know...and needs to be taught in journalism classes of how NOT to go about their business.

But if we are presented with endless scenes of Jewell working his boring security job (like we saw the three Americans sight-seeing in Europe in 15:17) things might not go well.

 

[JohnRice]

OK, this is a touchy area, HTF rules wise...

...but, in reality was it media who railroaded him, or was it law enforcement, and media trusted them?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

OK, this is a touchy area, HTF rules wise...

...but, in reality was it media who railroaded him, or was it law enforcement, and media trusted them?

It's worth noting that libel cases against media organizations in the United States are notoriously difficult to win, and yet NBC, the New York Post, and CNN all paid cash settlements to Jewell.

I think there's enough blame to go around. The FBI zeroed in on the wrong guy, and leaked to the press before it had built a case. Then the media reporting gossip and innuendo that was deeply prejudicial to Jewell. It was perfectly legitimate to report that he was a suspect. It's another thing entirely to report that the feds have "probably enough to prosecute him" before an arrest had even been made.

The was one of those situations that began to really shine a light on the perils of the 24-hour news cycle in the era of cable news. Being first became an imperative that compromised other journalistic principles.

On the other hand, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution stood by its reporting and ultimately prevailed in court.

Back in 1997, Vanity Fair ran a really good feature piece on everything that went wrong in this case, on both the government side and the media side.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Back in 1997, Vanity Fair ran a really good feature piece on everything that went wrong in this case, on both the government side and the media side.

PLENTY of blame to go around.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter Kathy Scruggs passed away in 2001 from a drug overdose, at the age of 42.

While there is little question that her reporting was personally devastating for Richard Jewell, it's worth noting that the AJC was the one major media outlet sued by Jewell that didn't settle; the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the newspaper, and the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed, noting that: "because the articles in their entirety were substantially true at the time they were published—even though the investigators' suspicions were ultimately deemed unfounded—they cannot form the basis of a defamation action against the Media Defendants."

In other words, the reporting was good; it was the investigation that was bad. Unlike other news outlets, the AJC did not assign guilt to Jewell; it reported the best information available from its sources.

Now Clint Eastwood's new film is doing to Scruggs what it claims the media did to Richard Jewell, casting aspersions on someone without any basis in evidence, who is not in a position to mount an adequate defense.

The narrative is cleaner if Scruggs is an arrogant slut who sleeps with sources and crosses ethical boundaries to get a story. The reality, which is that journalism can be done very well and still not capture the truth, is murkier but more accurate.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter Kathy Scruggs passed away in 2001 from a drug overdose, at the age of 42.

While there is little question that her reporting was personally devastating for Richard Jewell, it's worth noting that the AJC was the one major media outlet sued by Jewell that didn't settle; the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the newspaper, and the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed, noting that: "because the articles in their entirety were substantially true at the time they were published—even though the investigators' suspicions were ultimately deemed unfounded—they cannot form the basis of a defamation action against the Media Defendants."

In other words, the reporting was good; it was the investigation that was bad. Unlike other news outlets, the AJC did not assign guilt to Jewell; it reported the best information available from its sources.

Now Clint Eastwood's new film is doing to Scruggs what it claims the media did to Richard Jewell, casting aspersions on someone without any basis in evidence, who is not in a position to mount an adequate defense.

The narrative is cleaner if Scruggs is an arrogant slut who sleeps with sources and crosses ethical boundaries to get a story. The reality, which is that journalism can be done very well and still not capture the truth, is murkier but more accurate.

View attachment 65934

I suggest some of us read the following article about Kathy Scruggs:

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/the-ballad-kathy-scruggs/Ua5vSJBTHzkQfC1Lvs6snK/

 

[Jeff Brooks]

Blow my post out if I am violating anything. But, I was born and raised in Atlanta, (and still live in the metropolitan area), and the "AJC", formerly known as the "Atlanta Journal-Constitution", is still affectionately called the "Atlanta Urinal-Constipation".
They are currently raising sand about the very thing they did at the time. Even if the movie or book it is based-on, is taking some "artistic license", or embellishment, about the reporter, they supposedly have put a disclaimer in.
It would be another sad day in our great country if a newspaper prevented the release or success of a movie. Wouldn't it?

 

[RobertR]

It might end up being a really compelling movie, but it also might end up being a polemic.

Now Clint Eastwood's new film is doing to Scruggs what it claims the media did to Richard Jewell, casting aspersions on someone without any basis in evidence

Golly, everyone knows Hollywood NEVER engages in polemics or promotes a particular narrative, and of course it NEVER distorts historical reality to fit said narrative.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Golly, everyone knows Hollywood NEVER engages in polemics or promotes a particular narrative, and of course it NEVER distorts historical reality to fit said narrative.

It's the reason why people need to research a subject matter before making a final judgment regarding any movie about a historical event and/or real people. We have a brain for one reason and that is to think with it.

 

[RobertR]

It's the reason why people need to research a subject matter before making a final judgment regarding any movie about a historical event and/or real people. We have a brain for one reason and that is to think with it.

Far too many people don't bother, either because they want to watch movies to "turn off their brains", or because they're so eager to embrace the Hollywood narrative that they don't want knowledge of anything that contradicts it.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I lived through this story since I live in the ATL, but I wonder who is dying to go see this movie? I'd be surprised if it took in more than $20 million on opening weekend.

 

[Malcolm R]

Eastwood takes on some unique projects, but he always seems to make them successful (critically, if not always financially). I still cannot believe The Mule made almost $175 m worldwide. I haven't seen all of his recent films from the past 5 years, but I don't think I've ever been disappointed with an Eastwood film.

I also can't believe this film didn't even start shooting until June 24 of this year, now it's already coming to theaters (and actually premiered last month). Eastwood works very fast.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Eastwood has to be the fastest working director of today. His directing mentors trained him well.

 

[Jeff Brooks]

I think this is the 38th movie he has directed. He'll be 90 in May and he just keeps on keeping on. Not every movie is great, but he has definitely been involved with what I think are some of the best movies of all time. He seems to just want to tell a certain side of the story in this one. I will definitely rent it.