Jump to content
The World News Media

A Review of a Review of Richard Jewell


TrueTomHarley
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Member

“Clint Eastwood’s Richard Jewell tries to raise up the little guy. But It takes unnecessary shots in the process,” said the Time review. Readers weren’t having any of it.

“For some reason the same media that helped try to destroy this guy is pretty lukewarm on the movie about it,” tweeted Dan.

“Stephanie Zacharek is one of those writers that's more interested in [dissing] someone who doesn't fawn over the press than getting her facts straight,” added Penny.

William darkly warned: “Beware of journalists angry over this movie. Let's hope they do not become violent because of it.”

Richard Jewell was a security guard at the 1996 summer Olympic Games in Atlanta. He spotted an abandoned backpack. It looked suspicious. He reported it and authorities had enough time to start evacuating the area before it exploded. One died and over 100 were injured yet it could have been far worse. His actions saved dozens, if not hundreds, of lives. For a time he was a hero. But then the FBI began to suspect him. When it did, the Atlanta newspaper poured gas on rumors—and his life accordingly went up in flames. For months he faced media frenzy wherever he went. Stephanie describes him as “portly and friendly” a man who is a bit odd, still “a zealously upstanding citizen with dreams of someday working in law enforcement....[with] no reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt.” He died at 44. Can anyone think his undeserved pariah-ship did not hasten his death?

Dmin let out a tentative feeler: “I have often wondered if Richard Jewel was someway under suspicion as a result of "fat shaming"? If he had been more movie star perfect would his actions have brought the same scrutiny and speculation?”

One can also read “job shaming” to the list—Jewell is a wannabe cop, not a real one, “shamed” in the same way that mall policemen are “shamed.” One might even add “class shaming”—Jewell was single and lived with his mother. Was it a rush to judgment from someone who was none of these things—a jab from one perceived to had “made it” in life toward one who had not? Probably the ones who commented were people like me—people who saw events unfold in real time and were aghast at the zeal with which the big little man was crucified.

The movie is a “well-acted picture about a clear act of injustice against an innocent man. So why does it leave such a sour aftertaste?” asks the reviewer. I will venture that it does not to anyone other than a journalist. It does to reviewer Stephanie because it is one of her own who is skewered, the late reporter Kathy Scruggs. She’s not painted fairly, is the complaint, as though the purpose of the movie—of any movie—is to celebrate fourth estate journalism. The more I read the review, the more fed up I become. The profession that points the finger at everyone else has the thinnest skin of all when even one of the three fingers points back.

She writes: “Eastwood shows the utmost compassion for Richard Jewell, the wrongfully accused little guy. But his generosity stops there, and he shows particular vitriol and distaste for Scruggs. She is played as “a brazen smarty, a seasoned pro who zips from here to there, wherever the sirens take her. Her blouse may be unbuttoned a little too low, her skirt is perhaps a bit too short, but it’s all part of the game, and of her personal style. You can certainly make the case that Scruggs ran with the Richard Jewell story too soon, or used poor judgment in revealing his name. But all Eastwood can see is the vixen journo who’ll do anything for a story.”

I think that’s all most people can see in the wake of a speculative hit piece that destroys a person—while their sympathy wears thin with regard to the one who does it. “Scruggs—who died in 2001—was a real person” [as though Jewell was not]. Furthermore, “she’s no longer here to defend herself” [as Jewell was, but it did’t do him a bit of good in the face of a journalistic assault].

It’s clear where Ms Zacharek’s sympathy lies. Was the woman reporter truly a “brazen smarty?” Family and friends say no—she wouldn’t go so far as the implied trading of sex for a story—though they all agree on attributes such as “ball-busting,” “profane,” “loud,” “brash,” “liked to party,” “smoked like a chimney,” fond of  “Johnie Walker Red,” noteworthy for her “short skirts.” No crime in those things, but one might almost think a director could be cut some slack for confusing a person who so closely resembles a brazen smarty with an actual one that he couldn’t tell the difference.

Incredibly, a Scruggs colleague mourns that stress over the article is what killed her—oblivious to the collateral damage that takes out Jewell. “It destroyed her," she says quietly. Then she recalls a pivotal time that Scrugg’s editor “told her she needed to apologize. Instead, she quit." That’s what will infuriate anyone who is not a journalist. ‘Just apologize,’ the editor says. She can’t do it. A real genuine “loud” and “brash” swan dive of a public apology was all that was needed—it always worked for Ralph Kramden. Jewell would have forgiven it all—and if not him, then everyone else—for we all make mistakes and everybody knows it. She couldn’t do it.

Look, everyone sticks up for their own. It is to be expected. It is not wrong of Stephanie to do that. It is even commendable, so long as it does not overshadow everything else. Let Eastwood apologize to her if he is inclined—no harm in that, I don’t think. Warner Brothers outright refuses to. The movie states up front that certain historical events have been dramatized, they point out, as they always are in movies—what is it with people who cannot apologize? Would not life be so much more agreeable if they could? To be sure, sometimes the one seeking apology seeks considerably more than apology; sometimes what is sought is acquiescence to every aspect of a point of view, but apologies can be worded to not go that far if that is what is desired. Maybe no one apologizes anymore for fear lawyers will pounce upon one as a sure admission of guilt.

From the beginning of cinema, directors have that realized a movie needs a villain—otherwise the audience falls asleep. It can’t be all earnest people doing their level best and yet it all goes to hell anyway—what would that say about the world we are supposed to feel good about? What about Sully, another Eastwood movie, that painted the FAA as the villain? Did that one bother the Time reviewer? In fact, the FAA accepted from the beginning that Sully was a hero and did not hassle him at all, but Eastwood needed a villain and—come on! who makes a better villain than the government?

Another Eastwood movie (A Perfect World) even took a shot a my people, and you didn’t hear me complain about it (much), did you? “We have a higher calling,” the Jehovah’s Witness mom says as she disallows her kids to go trick or treating. No Witness in 1000 years is going to say, “We have a higher calling” to her kids—they simply don’t talk that way—so I knew that it was not personal with Eastwood. He just needed a villain. You didn’t catch JWs trying to torpedo A Perfect World on that account, do you, the way the press is waging war against this movie for touching one of its own?

John Hafley I can picture snorting out coffee through his nose. “Are you kidding me, Time? unnecessary shots?” he tweets of the review. “It is a fantastic historic review of how power and the press can destroy the innocent for sex and money. The strong will do what they can, the weak will suffer what they must.” He doesn’t even extend the benefit of the doubt to the reporter, so caught up is he with the plight of the victim.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 145
  • Replies 3
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think his being fat was the root cause of why the world around him ended up shaming him instead of hailing him as a hero.     then i think of paul blart mall cop and watch the entire nation p

“Clint Eastwood’s Richard Jewell tries to raise up the little guy. But It takes unnecessary shots in the process,” said the Time review. Readers weren’t having any of it. “For some reason the sam

I think his being fat was the root cause of why the world around him ended up shaming him instead of hailing him as a hero.  
 

then i think of paul blart mall cop and watch the entire nation poke fun at fat white men who are nice people. 
 

while everyone loves people like snoop dog who are always too high to remember to eat and promote drug use and a life of crime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Apparently, the Family of Richard Jewell LIKES the movie.

...Good enough for me to wait 7 months and get it delivered to my home for 78 cents, on Netflix DVD.

That's how my wife and I saw "The Mule", his previous movie, which we both enjoyed immensely.

..... total cost 39 cents each ... postage paid both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
12 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Apparently, the Family of Richard Jewell LIKES the movie.

 

No question that the Jewell family would like it. It’s the reporter’s family that’s grumbling.

12 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

That's how my wife and I saw "The Mule", his previous movie, which we both enjoyed immensely.

I am told that the Mule family liked that one a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

  • Members

    • Janice Lewis

      Janice Lewis 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Thinking

      Thinking 874

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

    • The Librarian  »  Chioke Lin

      Feel free @Chioke Lin to make your own posts on any topic you like.
      If you don't want someone in particular to comment on said post just please ask me to delete that comment from that thread and I will eventually see it.
      · 1 reply
    • Pudgy  »  Anna

      I had quit the JW Open Club, so as not to be a cause for dissension …. which if I am not careful I can take over a conversation … as TTH ALLUDED to that, and he was correct.
      Under the circumstances, I feel if I do not comment, it would solve at least 3 points of concern.
      I have been thinking about this for several days and decided it would be appropriate to “belong” if I only commented if asked a question, etc.,and not post cartoons.
      Basically, the same rules at the Kingdom Hall, except I will be courteous to anyone that is courteous to me, except that for d’fd people, not to discuss any theocratic issue or “what’s going on”, etc., realizing it is a double edged sword that should cut both ways.
      With all that in mind, I again request approval to join the closed club mainly as an observer.
      The open club has evolved into a bat cave of crazy people.
      Pudgy
       
      · 2 replies
    • Mic Drop

      This Bitcoin and Crypto stuff is really starting to take off like wildfire
      · 0 replies
    • Arauna  »  Thinking

      Hi, it seems we are the only two left talking about it as the rest have lost interest.  PITY, because they will soon see what is coming. I have always had a good imagination for understanding injustice. ..I watched the video about the injustice you put up.... very sad. We understand those things.....the other video is just a parody, of snippets of a very nasty person.... I do not know who she is but she was standing  next to the health minister.....
      I am not well, so I may not make it thru this system..... and I am happy to say maybe it is a  good thing.... I want to praise jehovah until I die ...but the opportunities are getting less.... and who wants to see people suffer?  If I were still around I would be severely stressed by it.  
      My father always said " know all, blow all" when people think they know it all.  And I have seen some pretty opinionated people on here. Mostly people who have had very little suffering and had authority in congregations.   
      I encourage you to stay strong dear sister and please devote more time to worship Jehovah in love. I also want to cut my time on internet ........ I spend time trying to find hidden  news about new developments in UN etc.  Soon all news about what is really  going on will not be available..... just mandates from governments and propaganda from the governments. People will be liquidated and we will not be able to get news about it. 
      Just stay strong. I am glad you spoke out about Australia.... I have a friend there who is too afraid to talk on internet.  They have already built  Covid "camps" in USA and Australia.... the  ĺorcing all "faith in god" out of everyone..  only worship of the state will be allowed. .... to compromise as many as he can.
      Strengthen yourself. No one can do it for you. 
      · 0 replies
    • Toni  »  T.B. (Twyla)

      Thank you so much for the spiritual food!!!
      Agape
      Toni
      · 0 replies
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      64.4k
    • Total Posts
      142.8k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,291
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    MillennialDawn
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.