|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Richard Jewell (2019)
|
Harold Hallikainen
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 906
From: Denver, CO, USA
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 12-11-2019 11:08 AM
GREAT movie! I went with about 20 friends and everyone loved it. The rest of the audience seemed to also, as there was applause during the credits. Paints an unflattering view of media and the FBI. On the media side, it's probably driven by the public demand for "tabloid news." Would a newspaper survive without such news, though (if it acted responsibly and held back information until it had the full story). I was impressed with the view of the Boston Globe in Spotlight.
Anyway, there are questions as to the accuracy and artistic license taken in the film. Here's a story from the LA Times
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2019-12-10/richard-jewell-ajc-lawsuit-reporter
A storm is brewing around Clint Eastwood’s ‘Richard Jewell.’ Here’s why
By CHRISTIE D’ZURILLASTAFF WRITER
DEC. 10, 2019 4:28 PM
With only days left before “Richard Jewell” hits theaters, lawyers for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and its parent company, Cox Enterprises, have demanded that Warner Bros. slap a disclaimer on the Clint Eastwood film.
At issue is the film’s portrayal of the late reporter Kathy Scruggs. She broke the story that security guard Jewell — at that point a hero for saving countless lives in the Centennial Olympic Park bombing at the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta — was in fact the FBI’s lead suspect in the case.
Scruggs, played by Olivia Wilde, is depicted as a wildly unethical journalist who offers to trade sex for information from an FBI agent portrayed by Jon Hamm.
“The AJC’s reporter is reduced to a sex-trading object in the film,” says the letter, which according to the AJC was sent to Warner Bros., Eastwood, screenwriter Billy Ray and others. “Such a portrayal makes it appear that the AJC sexually exploited its staff and/or that it facilitated or condoned offering sexual gratification to sources in exchange for stories. That is entirely false and malicious, and it is extremely defamatory and damaging.”
Another point of contention is the representation of the newspaper’s behavior around the 1996 story. The letter, sent Monday from L.A.'s Lavely & Singer law firm, maintains that the organization “acted responsibly.”
The letter demands a public statement from the studio and those associated with “Richard Jewell” to clarify that artistic license was used in portrayal of events and characters and that some events were “imagined for dramatic purposes.” It also wants a “prominent disclaimer” to that effect added to the movie.
Warner Bros. told Deadline on Monday that those claims are “baseless.” A studio source confirmed to the trade outlet that a disclaimer has always been at the end of the film.
“It is unfortunate and the ultimate irony that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, having been a part of the rush to judgment of Richard Jewell, is now trying to malign our filmmakers and cast. ‘Richard Jewell’ focuses on the real victim, seeks to tell his story, confirm his innocence and restore his name,” the studio said.
Ray’s screenplay was based in large part on a 1997 Vanity Fair article about Jewell and a new book on the case. The movie, which premiered Nov. 20 at AFI Fest in Los Angeles, is another of Eastwood’s films “depicting the dark side of celebrated heroes,” according to The Times’ Glenn Whipp.
“I’d like a street named after him,” Eastwood said of Jewell after the world premiere. “He deserves even more.”
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has had its antennae up for a while regarding “Richard Jewell,” which also stars Paul Walter Hauser as the titular character, along with Sam Rockwell and Kathy Bates.
“I worry about Eastwood’s version of Kathy. It would be so easy to play Kathy as a love interest, as something less than the competent reporter she was. Movies often reduce complex people to types. This leaves little space for nuance,” said Bert Roughton, who was Scruggs’ editor when the Jewell story broke, in a September AJC opinion piece.
Roughton said he had read Ray’s 2015 screenplay and “it gave [him] pause” — both the scene implying a sex-for-information scenario and the script’s flattening of some people into stereotypes. He said he understood that it wasn’t a documentary but also asked, should a film be fair?
Wilde defended her portrayal of Scruggs last week, saying she had an “immense amount of respect” for the reporter, who died in 2001 from an overdose of prescription pain pills. She told the Hollywood Reporter that “by no means” was she intending to suggest that as a female reporter Scruggs needed to use her sexuality.
The actress said people have a hard time accepting sexuality in female characters without letting it define the character entirely.
“I feel a certain responsibility to defend [Scruggs’] legacy — which has now been, I think unfairly, boiled down to one element of her personality, one inferred moment in the film,” Wilde said.
Ron Martz, a former AJC reporter who worked with Scruggs on much of the 1996 bombing coverage, told the Journal-Constitution that she was “one of the better reporters I ever worked with. She was really tough and hard-nosed. When she went after a story she did what was necessary to get the story, within legal and ethical bounds.”
“She was never at peace or at rest with this story. It haunted her until her last breath,” Scruggs’ friend and former coworker Tony Kiss told the AJC. “It crushed her like a junebug on the sidewalk.”
Jewell was publicly cleared by the FBI months after the AJC’s story came out, but not in time to prevent the 88-day media frenzy that enveloped him and his mother, whose house he lived in. Jewell died of complications of diabetes in 2007, at age 44.
“I find it appalling, quite frankly, at how quickly everybody leapt to finger [Jewell],” The Times’ late media writer David Shaw said in a 1996 interview with Atlanta magazine. “To write about it in the context of a larger story about the explosion, down in the sixth or eighth paragraph — that’s one thing. But to bring out a special edition and start leading your newscast and putting out Page 1 stories on it — that’s over the top.”
In 2005, Eric Rudolph pleaded guilty to that bombing and three others. He is currently serving four life sentences without possibility of parole.
Sam Rockwell, Kathy Bates and Paul Walter Hauser in “Richard Jewell”
Sam Rockwell, left, with Kathy Bates and Paul Walter Hauser in a scene from “Richard Jewell.”(Associated Press)
After his ordeal, Jewell sued or threatened to sue ABC, CNN, NBC, the New York Post and the AJC/Cox for defamation, as well as his former employer, Piedmont College, which he said gave false information about him to newspapers and the FBI.
Everyone settled except for the AJC, which held its ground. That case was finally tossed in 2011 when the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed, among other things, that the reporting had been substantially true when it was published.
“Richard Jewell is unquestionably a tragic figure,” the appeals court said in its conclusion, which favored the newspaper. “Here is a man whose valor and quick thinking catapulted him from obscurity to beloved national hero almost instantaneously, who then saw those universal accolades vanish in the blink of an eye. All of a sudden, Jewell was the mistaken villain, forced to endure unfathomable media and law-enforcement scrutiny, as well as rampant media speculation that he may have committed the very crime he had so bravely attempted to thwart. And while Jewell’s good name was eventually cleared, he and his family suffered tremendously as a result of this ordeal. For that, we have the greatest sympathy.
“Nevertheless, for all of the reasons noted supra, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Jewell’s motion to compel or in granting the Media Defendants summary judgment on Jewell’s claims.”
“Richard Jewell” will be released in theaters Friday.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 12-11-2019 12:02 PM
Seems like an easy ask to put a disclaimer on the film. Of course, a disclaimer AFTER 10 minutes of credit crawl won't cut it IMHO. At the very least, put the disclaimer after the last frame of the film and BEFORE the credits. Hell, I'd even say put it FRONT of the opening credits. That would go a long way to show good faith and certainly wouldn't in any way impinge on the impact of the film, in fact it would give the audience even more context.
All the big media outlets settled, which pretty much tells me that they realized there was fault in the way they handled or rather mishandled this event with regard to this man. Even when they did report later that he was exonerated, THAT coverage wasn't nearly as pervasive or intense and the "news" that he was the bomber.
I certainly remember him and that he was thought to be the bomber, but I only vaguely recall "something" about that he was maybe wasn't the bomber, but somehow still part of the plot. That's how his name remained in my mind all these years later. Point being, the media that labeled him a murdering terrorist, didn't exactly fully clear his name afterward.
Of course in this litigious age, I guess the studio's lawyers are saying if they put up a disclaimer, that may be construed legally as an admission of wrongdoing and open them up to a lawsuit and a monetary judgement against a film that is poised to make how many millions? And lawdy knows, we can't have THAT.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Cassedy
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1661
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Dec 2006
|
posted 12-11-2019 02:32 PM
I watched the Richard Jewell flick several weeks ago when I ran a private press
screening. It's not a "bad" movie, but, personally I didn't enjoy it as much as I
was expecting to. But IMO one of the things that made it sit-through-able were
the outstanding performances by Sam Rockwell & the guy who played Mr Jewell,
who was excellent in the part.
> Trivia: Back in my days as a camera-assistant I worked on one of Sam
Rockwell's first films. He was about 17 or 18 at the time and one of my tasks,
in addition to driving the film & camera reports at the end of the day from a
location up in the wine country to a lab in San Franicsco, was to drop Sam,
who was living with his mom in a house in the same neighborhood as me, off
at home. One of Sam's jobs was to help keep me awake after the very long
shooting day on the late nite drive home. Nice kid, but he wasn't very good
at being a human substitute for caffeine.
- I only drove him once or twice, because after finding myself nearly dozing
off behind the wheel a couple of times I realized this was not a safe situation
for me or my young passenger, or anyone on the road, and I got them
to put me up in a room near the location for the remainder of the shoot at
that location. I'm not sure how Sam got back home every nite after that.
(So, now I like to tell people "I saved Sam Rockwell's life.." ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) )
"Me", On Set, ca.1989
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic