Eastwood Film: The Ballad of Richard Jewell

regretfully and perhaps deservedly the film is getting some push back from the Atlanta Journal Constitution Paper, now demanding a disclaimer about the AJC's Repoter's behavior. Maybe that's not a bad idea for EVERY film that 'based on a true story'.

I will note the Boston Globe was just fine - no problem - with some critical facts left out of how they were portrayed in 'Spotlight' because it made them look sooooooo heroic. But the paper was actually part of the problem in Boston.

So, disclaimers all around.

 

Is there any Eastwood film of the last 30 (40?) years that doesn't hinge on the audience waiting for some grievous wrong to be righted for the big emotional climax? (Usually with lots of cleansing violence, though perhaps not in this new one?) Tiresome formulaic hack.

 

You don't think media attitudes (which is what we're discussing here) towards Assange changed based on which individuals were exposed by WikiLeaks data dumps?

 

Thank you for steering the thread back to where it can be locked or deleted.

 

This disclaimer appears at the end of the film:

“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.”

 

I think this appears at the end of most movies based on true events, though.

 

A Perfect World (1993) is one of Clint's best films overall, both as director and actor, not to mention a criminally-underrated and unfairly-forgotten film.

That's my contribution to this thread, for what it's worth.

 

Eastwood on TV last night: "I read what I could find about the reporter. She was wild."

Wild? That's it? One word judgement of a once-breathing person? I'm sorry, I find that judgement not appropriate.
He should have kept his mouth shut.

 

And how much research have you made into "the reporter" or are you just looking to be critical of Eastwood? And I take it that you're OK with her and the FBI publicly convicting an innocent person?

From a AJC fluff piece on Kathy Scruggs:

“Kathy was a wild child,” said friend and former coworker Tony Kiss.​

Olivia Wilde Calls Out Double Standard Of Sexism

"She was incredibly successful as a cop reporter. She had a very close relationship with the cops and the FBI helping to tell their story, and yes, by all accounts she had relationships with different people in that field,” Wilde told Deadline."​

 

The FBI is obviously guilty. I just object to one word summaries of someone's existence. The word wild can connote man different things, but none of them are in any positive.

 

Eastwood has been an awful director for about 25 years now.

 

Has it occurred to you that Eastwood is using a purposefully vague word as an act of discretion, so as not to be manipulated into discussing any specifics other than those included in the film?

 

No, I find the word inflammatory, not vague

 

Yet I still don’t see any evidence from you that what the reporter did was wrong, guilty, unethical or whatever term that you are comfortable with to describe her actions in actively participating (if not leading the charge) in the smear campaign on an innocent man.

 

That's a great movie. One of Kevin Costner's best in my opinion.

 

That's right. You won't hear me defending her since I don't know the facts. But I do know that the word wild is inappropriate to sum up one person's entire existence and all facets of their personality from birth to death. If you do, that's cool.

 

Million Dollar Baby is totally in the formula of dishing out "deserved" violence to satisfy the craving built up in the audience. Remember the punks beating up the special-needs kid? Hits all the Eastwood buttons.

 

Remember the good ol' days when he'd drop in the occasional good film amongst the populist stuff? Not that the populist stuff was all bad...

 

Yeah.

I like a number of his earlier films.

 

For those who follow Rotten Tomatoes, it's rating very highly-Especially Paul Walter Hauser

Richard Jewell - Movie Reviews

 

I think you're projecting too much onto his word. He wasn't asked to sum up her life from birth to death.

 

I can think of three I like better, but I still agree that it's a truly great American film.

 

Not the kind of description that should win awards for precision, but if you do read about her, it's not grossly inaccurate. Those who knew her describe a talented, committed, and aggressive reporter (good qualities), combined with what sounds like some pretty hard living resulting in a tragic, early death.

 

I would have no problem if he said "I found her journalistic ethics lacking" or "she was easily deceived" or even "she displayed a nasty streak during the story". Like the film, that's open to interpretation and he's 'allowed' or entitled to ANY point of view about how she behaved in this situation. Lots of blame to go around. It's just one word as a sweeping summary of a life just rubs me the wrong way

 

Yikes. I don't know how such a gifted filmmaker could display such poor judgment. And I'm not referring to his politics; I'm referring to the way he forms (or at least articulates) his opinions. Calling an adult woman "wild," with no context offered to say how she's wild, is just unsupported character assassination, and that is precisely the sort of thing his film argues against.