Has anyone seen the movie “Richard Jewell”?
Feel free to discuss it here.
I don’t go to the movies much, but I may go to see this one. Is it as good as reported?
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
Feel free to discuss it here.
I don’t go to the movies much, but I may go to see this one. Is it as good as reported?
While there is nothing earth shaking in the film, it is very good. I had to check the runtime. I thought it was about 1:45 but actually it is 2:11, so it held my attention very well.
There are three themes in the film: 1) Not quite a bromance, but an unlikely friendship; 2) Gov. bureaucracy and media avarice run amok; 3) A character study of Jewell’s unconventional self and the problems that causes.
Some have suggested that the actor portraying Jewell (Hauser) should be nominated for a Best Actor Oscar. I’d agree with that, though I’m not sure it was worth winning the Oscar.
There is a somewhat surprising amount of humor in the film which the filmmakers talk about here. Eastwood claims they picked up the humor as they filmed, whereas John Hamm thinks he saw the humor in the script.
Clint Eastwood is looking quite frail, and I was surprised that the film is as good as it is in spite of that. The film got shopped around and nobody wanted it, so Eastwood went back to his old team at Warner Bros. I suspect that his solid and familiar team was able to off-load enough effort from Clint that it all went smoothly.
The current media flap over the portrayal of Kathy Scruggs sounds like a pile of BS to me. My tiny bit of research on it, suggests that it is uncontested that Scruggs slept with cops to get stories. Where or not she slept with the lead FBI agent on the bombing case is largely irrelevant to me. The real issue IMHO is whether or not the FBI (and media) is generally a suspect organization, because if it is, then maybe people should think twice about the Russia-Trump “collusion” theory.
It was good, not a classic, but good. Don’t think Clint overdid it.
Of course showing anything shady about the FBI and our betters in the media will cause howls of derision from SJWs. As expected
My wife and I both went and enjoyed it immensely…a rarity for any movie these days for sure.
It is a solid piece of filmmaking and very enjoyable on that level with great performances (especially from Paul Walter Hauser in the title role). It was enjoyable and engrossing with well-scripted and choreographed scenes…so much more than an ideological screed but it served its purposes at that level as well. Go see it!
Everyone should see this movie, true as it is, to understand the viciousness and ineptitude the media and government agencies are capable of. This is the Russian collusion before the Russian collusion.
One takeaway: NEVER talk to the FBI without a highly qualified attorney with you. And NEVER talk to the media. Period.
I saw it and liked it. And, I agree with Bill. Never talk to LEOs without an attorney you trust and always snub the media.
Outstanding movie. Highly recommend.
And, yes, Hauser should get an Oscar for his wonderful performance.
I haven’t seen it yet but just the other night watched Eastwood’s THE 15;17 TO PARIS about the three American passengers on the train who thwarted a terrorist who was out to slaughter who knows how many — a heroic incident hardly known of here. Clint actually used the non-actor original characters to re-enact their roles as tourists in Europe and then heroes on the train. It works. These late films by Clint are really interesting. He has a populist sensibility in the best sense of that term.
Agree with all commenters above. An intelligent, well-crafted, only-too-relevant movie with great acting, great storytelling, and a real sense of time and place. The scenes in the park before/during/after the bombing put me on the edge of my seat. There is no way in such a complex story to give all the threads in 2+ hours but I came away with an appreciation for how terribly hard the job of law enforcement is and also what a rotten mess they made of it in this case. Eastwood does not go beyond the facts (as this under-informed reader understands them) but they are pretty damning.
What comes through clearly is the terrible human tendency to rush to judgment: to want to fill that hole torn in our little world by an act of sick violence like this. FBI was under pressure to solve the case. Scruggs at AJC was under pressure —hunger, ambition— to tell people the case would be solved, there was a villain. And so to hell with “truth,” to hell with due process, run the story, all that matters is winning.
A very powerful lesson. And unbelievably timely.
if called to jury duty, i will tell the judge and councils that I will never convict based on the testimony of any FIB agent who served under lying Comey or Gestapo Müller
avi on December 27, 2019 at 6:50 pm said:
if called to jury duty, i will tell the judge and councils that I will never convict based on the unsupported testimony of any FIB agent
who served under lying Comey or Gestapo Müller* * *
Made a few edits to match my own position these days.
If called to jury duty, I would never tell the judge or counsels any such a damn fool thing. Anyone doing so would be immediately excused. If you were unjustly accused, wouldn’t you want a skeptic sitting in the jury box? Darn straight you would.
TommyJay opined …
“The real issue IMHO is whether or not the FBI (and media) is generally a suspect organization…”
I’m so old I remember when ‘The Left’ thought the FBI was a suspect organization and ‘The Right’ thought the whole organization was filled with straight arrows like Efrem Zimbalist Jr. ( sponsored by Ford!)
The reality is that the entire organization ( the FBI ) has ALWAYS been an elaborate publicity seeking con job foisted upon the American people.
We get what we deserve, I suppose.
I didn’t like it though I’m glad it was made. The protagonist was an stupid overweight mama’s boy cop wanna be who went outside his jurisdiction who at least had the sense to ask for a lawyer. My experience with the Federal Bureau of Incompetence was not as serious as Jewell’s,(I had to call another agency to deal with the problem).
SEE this movie…..as above, unbelievably timely. We are ALL human beings, with all of the internal and external pressures that humans are subject to.
Really good performances by “Jewell” and his lawyer…..and by the end, the FBI agent will make your skin crawl.
I like nearly all of Eastwood’s work, so I do carry a bias. But the film was very good, in Eastwood’s uncluttered, understated way. I would not place Hauser’s performance in Oscar-territory, but it was very solid and believable, as was Kathy Bates’. The FBI and media characters might seem a bit vampish and caricatured, but ironically it would seem that the script has accurately abided with the actual events. The FBI agents really did cynically engage in some rather dastardly skulduggery in an attempt to entrap a slow-witted suspect, and the newshound who broke the story really was an over-ambitious, unprincipled slut. So: see the movie, it’s worth the price.
I haven’t seen the movie; but, the FBI, and the willing news media, put him through living hell. He may have died young from his own health struggles; but, the garbage they put him through didn’t help.
As for “he fit their profile” and therefore was worthy of investigation as so many in the news media have claimed about his story in the past, I say, if he fit their profile and turned out to NOT be their guy then the problem is with their profile, not him!
I look forward to seeing the movie. I’m not sure that I would bother if it weren’t for the fact that Eastwood is the director as I would not trust any of the lefties in Hollywood to be honest.
Just saw the movie this afternoon. It does not feel like it is over 2 hours. It hit a lot of nerves fo me.
When the FBI arrived I told my husband, “Never invite the FBI into our home.” I have now told him, “Never go with them without a charge.”
My husband is from the South and I could imagine him being helpful, trying to give backstory, etc. Me, I’m more like the lawyer.
It took Clint Eastwood to bring out the truth. There were times I wanted to stand up and pace the theater because of my frustration and anger at the events as they played out.
It struck me that the press/media is doing the same thing to President Trump. How many lives have they destroyed?
Two weeks ago I was seated next to a progressive and we talked civilly about a multitude of subjects for 5 hours. Towards the end of the flight, she asked why I supported Trump, etc. and listened. She did not want Biden and when I offered Hillary she was against that, too, and did not offer and alternative. But at one point she said, “You’re an anarchist aren’t you? I’m right there with you sister.” I said, “If wanting to be left alone and not looking for violence is what you are talking about…”
I do believe we have the best foundation for a government, but I am aware that there is corruption within and without working to topple that foundation. As I told that progressive, I would fight with gun, crossbow, marbles and slingshot and damage could be done. (She liked the crossbow). It is sad when the government loses the faith of its lawful citizens due to the bad characters it employs.
Adding my $.02: I really enjoyed the movie. I had always intended to see it b/c I’m generally an Eastwood fan and was sympathetic to its purported criticism of the media and the FBI. But, I also had a bit of worry that it might be a downer; that I would be depressed at watching the corruption of our institutions displayed so vividly. It does show the corruption of the media and the FBI (and especially the two working together), but it is, first and foremost, a character study of Richard Jewell. He comes across as both sympathetic and odd. The film treats him with respect and humanity, but shows that he was awkward socially (which made him so vulnerable to the scapegoating treatment he received).
I thought the whole Scruggs “controversy” was a red herring, meant to sling mud at the movie in whatever way possible. Re: Scruggs, I make these observations:
1) The Scruggs character is terrific: vivid, crude, funny – Olivia Wilde really grabs the screen in her first entrance.
2) The interaction between Olivia Wilde (Scruggs, the journalist) and Jon Hamm (FBI) was classic Hollywood: a literally corrupt personal relationship that works as a metaphor for corrupt institutional relationships – the main theme of the movie. There is a line somewhere in the movie to the effect that the media and the government are the two most powerful institutions in the United States – and they were partnering to destroy Jewell. The journalist/FBI agent pairing embodied that.
3) Wilde (who, I think, unfortunately back-pedaled) initially pointed out, quite correctly, that everyone has focused on the female journalist’s sleazy behavior but completely ignored the male FBI agent’s sleazy behavior. She’s right and I would add that at least the female journalist (as portrayed fictionally) had a professional goal: to get a story. The FBI agent had only personal sexual satisfaction as an aim. The agent comes off much worse unless you are only capable of looking at a story through one lens, e.g., can we spot a “trope” about women professionals and, having done that, not need to do any more thinking about the story line or the implications of the characters actions.
4) People who complain about the treatment of the Scruggs character never point out that this character later double-checks the facts she was given, realizes Jewell can’t have planted the bomb and is remorseful about her role. In other words, the female character demonstrates great integrity and professionalism – that’s the impression that stuck with me.
Judith Sears on December 29, 2019 at 4:34 pm said:
Adding my $.02:
* * *
You valued your insights much too low!
In particular, (3) & (4) made good points about both viewers & reviewers.
“It is sad when the government loses the faith of its lawful citizens due to the bad characters it employs.” – Browninhawaii
Well said.
I can’t say enough how I loved this film and how deeply it grabbed me into the story. I cried for Richard Jewel and his mother. And this actor, Hauser even in his color and struggles for breath had me worried for him. His physiology was absolutely reflecting the physical/mental stress he was under. I remember the real Richard Jewel. And I do understand why he had to be examined as a possible suspect. He did fit that cop wannabe and volunteer firefighter that would set a fire to be a hero, but the FBI and the Press keeping their hooks into him because they needed him to be guilty was quite a shock to us that still believed in the integrity of the FBI. Kathy Bates. Stunning. Sam Rockwell as the lawyer and his secretary…..all perfect. Hamm was all in as an unscrupulous agent who was willing to manipulate a good man full of trust to make his career. I admire his willingness to play a real bastard. That movie stayed with me for
days. I am definitely behind Hauser getting an Oscar which will never happen. And for Kathy Bates. —- And how prescient was Eastwood to make this movie right as we are witnessing it before our eyes with Comey who gleefully set up General Flynn, a true American hero, and Mueller who’s career in the FBI was full of scumbaggery.