Eastwood Film: The Ballad of Richard Jewell

Looking forward to seeing this one. Clint has made some very good films.

 

I'm really interested in this one. My friends and I were at Centennial park after seeing Olympic Volleyball at the Omni. We decided to go to a nearby iHop instead of staying in the park. By the time we got there, they were playing the news on the radio that the bombing had occurred. I called home after we ate to let my parents know I was ok and they had no idea what I was talking about as they had gone to bed.

 

Exactly. It was a red carpet interview. Not a in depth Dan Rather interview.

 

Yep. And no amount of feigning umbrage is going to change the fact that Kathy Scruggs was both a journalist wild with the facts and a "wild child" in her personal life.

 

I don’t know if I’ll see the movie but do doubt it. While the story might highlight the news media’s harassment of Jewell, the story for me will always be law enforcement’s over reliance on psychological/criminal profiling, a pseudo science at best. My opinion.

 

I’m hardly going to argue with you, but you didn’t like Mystic River? Sure, it had its problems, but I thought it was pretty good.

 

It's so long since I saw Mystic River that I can't say a lot about it. I know I liked the book enough for a quickie read and wouldn't watch the film again, but that's it.

 

I wouldn’t watch it again, either, but it wasn’t that bad.

Dennis Lehane? Right?

 

Sounds right -- funny because it's the only book of his I read and not my usual thing. But the book and film were enough of a thing here in Boston that I guess I checked them out way back when.

 

Don’t forget: Her story for the Atlanta paper — that Jewell was the FBI’s lead suspect — was proven to be accurate. As the Georgia Court of Appeals ruling stated, “the articles in their entirety were substantially true at the time they were published,” and Jewell’s lawsuit against the Atlanta paper was ultimately dismissed.

What’s more, the Atlanta newspaper was also the first major news outlet to debunk the FBI’s theory that Jewell was the bomber.

One other thing: There’s nothing scandalous or even unusual about the police considering someone a suspect and then, eventually, clearing them. This is why suspects are almost never publicly named until charges are actually filed. It’s also why most reputable news outlets won’t publish the identity of a suspect — regardless of whether they’re 100 percent certain the individual is a suspect — until the charges are actually filed. And of course, even then, police and prosecutors (and, sometimes, judges and juries) might very well hold the wrong man responsible for a crime. It’s no exaggeration to say that probably happens every single day in America, with crimes both big and small.

Jewell spent four months living under a very public cloud of suspicion. That should never have happened. But after those four months, he was publicly cleared. By comparison, other innocent men have been arrested, imprisoned, tried, convicted, and then executed, in this country.

There’s no question Jewell didn’t deserve to be publicly branded a suspect ... but it’s interesting that he’s seen by some as a folk hero for what he endured. Like everyone else, I think he deserves to be remembered as a hero for his actions in July 1996 on the day of the bombing — and, fortunately, after October 1996, that’s exactly how he was treated by both the media and the public.

None of this is to excuse the media outlets that identified Jewell as a suspect. I still don’t understand why they relinquished their role as gatekeepers, and why they ignored their own policies on sourcing and on naming uncharged suspects. One likely factor: Jewell was already a very public figure (by virtue of his role in clearing the area around the bomb) by the time the FBI began interviewing his friends and co-workers, searching his home, keeping him under surveillance, etc. So the fact that he was being treated as a suspect would have been impossible to keep secret, regardless of what the Atlanta paper (and other media) chose to report. That’s the sort of situation that causes editors to take leave of their senses and say things like, “Even if we don’t publish it, everyone else will! The information is ‘out there!’ ” It definitely doesn’t excuse the decision to publish Jewell’s name ... but it does help explain it.

 

Leaking to the news media is an action that is used to boost public relations and as a method to pressure suspects during an early investigative stage where evidence is scarce and theories abound. In this case it fell flat on its face because the profile was invented to fit the suspect. High profile cases create a demand for progress, real or imagined....it doesn’t matter. Richard Jewell was a victim of this. Again, simple opinion.

 

Her own friends and colleagues called her a “wild child” according to a 1997 Vanity Fair article (I haven’t seen the movie so this may have been addressed there as well).

 

The comments that the media was correct reporting Jewel was considered a suspect are missing the point. Sensationalizing and reporting misleading information made things worse for Jewel—for example, the Atlanta paper reporting that he fit the “lone bomber” profile without naming the FBI or any law enforcement agency as the source for that assertion. The Atlanta paper also claimed Jewel contacted them seeking to be interviewed, which wasn’t true.

I’m looking forward to seeing this movie; tbh I didn’t really follow the story all that closely back then, especially when Jewel was exonerated. It’s amazing Eastwood is still making films at the age of 89!

 

Saw this today and imo it was fantastic. Incredible performances (especially Paul Walter Hauser as Jewell and Sam Rockwell his lawyer). When it was over no one moved from their seats; literally frozen. I couldn't help but think of old man Eastwood behind the scenes directing. I hear he has very little to say when directing, but this cast was definitely listening, and with their individual talents nailed it. Entire cast was outstanding.

I picked my wife up after (she was shopping) she said you know we were supposed to be there that night (we lived in ATL at that time). I said I didn't remember that. She said we hadn't been to any of the Olympic festivities and decided to go that Saturday night, but you worked Saturdays then and we decided to blow it off because you had a rough day. Funny the things you forget … and how great wives' memories are.

I'm glad this film was made if for anything other than for Richard Jewell.

 

Terrible take on the matter. Every other news agency settled with Jewell. The case was dismissed 7 years after Jewell died. Statue of Limitations had passed.

 

Just listened to Film Week, a movie review program from the Los Angeles Public radio station KPCC.

Critic Tim Cogshell made several interesting points. First the film was originally going to be directed by Paul Greengrass, with Jonah Hill as Jewell. All the critics agree that Greengrass would have made a very different film.

He also said that in 1997 Janet Reno issued an apology to Jewell - a fact not mentioned in the movie. Jewell appeared on Saturday Night Live, in a documentary about the whole situation and got a serious job in law enforcement afterwards.

The thing he was most worked up about was that the script implied that the newspaper writer had traded sex for story leads... something that is not supported by any evidence. And as she is dead, nobody can be sued for libel.

 

I read that one of her colleagues referred to her as a “police groupie.” Otherwise it is objectionable to portray her as sleeping with an FBI agent for potential leads if there is no real evidence for it. Unfortunately tying in a sex angle is par for the course when it comes to Hollywood movies.

 

Why are people only worked up about the implication that a reporter was sleeping with an agent for a story and not the implication that an FBI agent was sleeping with a reporter to put out stories that could public opinion on their case?

 

As has been stated several times in this thread, the film is a dramatization, Scruggs did have a relationship with the FBI agent (Hamm’s character, who is also a composite) and she also had relationships with other members of the police and FBI.

I suggest reading Olivia Wilde’s comments on her character and Kathy Scruggs instead of those feigning umbrage over the sex for leak point.

And Reno’s apology wasn’t exactly a formal statement. She made it during a weekly press conference a year after the fact and promptly disconnected it from Jewell by saying she apologizes to anyone subject to a leak.

 

Well, if you're suggesting the case was dismissed because the statute of limitations had passed, there are two problems with that argument:

(1) In civil litigation, the statute (not "statue") of limitations applies to the time between the offending act (or the time when the offending act was discovered) and the initiation of litigation. Jewell filed his lawsuit in plenty of time, so the statute of limitations was never a factor.

(2) The case was dismissed after the state Court of Appeals ruled the was story was truthful at the time it was published, stating, "Because the articles in their entirety were substantially true at the time they were published – even though the investigators’ suspicions were ultimately unfounded – they cannot form the basis of a defamation action."

As for the fact that other media outlets agreed to settle the case without going to trial, yes, that's true -- but of course the newspaper didn't settle and it ultimately prevailed.

Mind you, I'm not saying the paper acted responsibly in naming an uncharged suspect. As I said, I don't think it did.

 

The real question is: who on earth was really asking for this story in the first place? No wonder it seems to have flopped.

Box Office: Clint Eastwood Suffers Worst Opening in Four Decades With ‘Richard Jewell’

 

Saw this movie last night. Nothing great. A decent movie. Lead actor was very good. I think the film suffered bad box office because....really....most people don't care about this subject to pay $12 to watch it.

 

His biggest problem, IMO is that he scores his own films.....it would help if he handed that role off to someone else

 

So much hyperbole about Eastwoods films.
Trying to be objective he has made some very good to borderline great films. He has had 5 films nominated for best picture and two wins, that is not subject to opinion.
He is a storyteller in the tradition of John Huston.
Bird, Unforgiven, A Perfect World, Flags of Our Fathers, Letters From Iwo Jima, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, and American Sniper are all recognized as very good films by pretty most critics and everyone without some kind of built in bias.
Personally I really like Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil and Changeling, and don't care much for Million Dollar Baby. Also lately he has done quite a few clunkers, but I would certainly never call him a hack, that is absurd.

I grew up in the 70s and hated Eastwood, he was just a big box office guy back then. Then when Unforgiven was in the theaters, I went to see it because we were stuck at the beach during a tropical storm. That film stunned me with its brilliance, what a wake up call. Never forget walking out of the theater after that one.

 

Who thought this was a good idea???

Weekend Update Segment - Richard Jewell