Skip to main content

You have a very loud lawyer. Congratulations.

Richard Jewell

(SPOILERS) Clint Eastwood’s unfussy, no-frills approach to directing rarely lends itself to great movies. Rarely, he happens upon a dynamite script (Unforgiven) and the rest is gravy, but more often, deficiencies present in the material and casting tend to be exposed unflatteringly for all to see. Plus, the idea of a proactive editor seems entirely foreign to his being. Richard Jewell could certainly have done with about twenty minutes shaved off it, but that aside, this is that surprisingly strong late – very late – period Eastwood picture, one that finds the reliably angry old Republican taking an axe to the FBI and the media with equal abandon (and was thus, so went the latter’s narrative, unabashedly pro-Trump). No wonder the knives were out.

Nadya: Where I come from, when the government says you’re guilty, that’s how you know they’re innocent.

If you read some of the reviews, there’s nigh-on affront that Clint should get behind the innocence of his title character, simply because he’s the kind of guy who would have voted for Trump, were he still alive. And therefore, goes their peculiar logic, is obviously the sort who might well have been guilty, were he not in fact innocent (and on this angle, for all that Eastwood and screenwriter Billy Ray have the forces antagonistic towards Richard in their sights, they make no bones about Jewell’s less flattering “badge-wearing zealot” qualities, obsessions and foibles). In the media’s “My mother is a fish” logic, the carrion tendencies the Press displayed in Jewell’s case are transposed to Trump’s relationship with the media, and therefore, any criticisms Eastwood is making are automatically invalid, or to be faulted by any means available.

With Richard Jewell, the most visible way to achieve this was to focus on the depiction of Olivia Wilde’s journalist Kathy Scruggs, who was at the vanguard of hanging Jewell out to dry. It was outrageous and symptomatic of why the picture sucks that this female character should be depicted as willing to sleep with someone for a story. It’s an attack on women everywhere! It’s notable that History vs Hollywood answers the question of whether Scruggs slept with (an) FBI agent to get the scoop on Jewell with a decisive “No”, before admitting it can’t answer the question for definite.

My own feeling is this was an unnecessary doubling down on the character’s ruthlessness, yet still made for a more plausible development than her tearful realisation she got it wrong about Jewell, which just makes her seem like (a) a lousy reporter because she couldn’t even figure the logistics of Jewell making the phone call and being where he was when the bomb went off, and (b) nothing we’ve seen of her hitherto suggests she’d give a shit, except perhaps in regard to adverse repercussions for her career. There’s also the (not entirely unreasonable, within limits) stock defence that this is a movie, not a documentary, and if you start picking and choosing what’s fair and unfair invention without relating it back to the perspective of the dramatisation, you’re going to end up writing off pretty much every biographical movie ever made.

And so we come back to the perspective of Ray and Clint. Olivia Wilde, unsurprisingly being a full-blooded woke Nazi, backtracked on her support for the film with all the abandon of an actor whose dream was to work with Woody Allen until they figured it might be better for their career to badmouth him (yet not realising it would backfire disastrously). Jewell was evidently a very flawed individual; a corpulent security guard at Centennial Park during the 1996 Olympics, he spotted a suspicious package that turned out to be a pipe bomb; his actions almost certainly ensured there were no deaths when it went off (a hundred-plus were injured), but in the days following his initial feting, the press, stirred up by the FBI, turned savagely on him. Before long, there were gross headlines referring to his gross weight and Leno – a fine one to talk – was regularly labelling him Una-doofus. Jewell’s life fell apart as the FBI attempted to finger him for the bombing, and his own character background (over-fastidious law enforcement, even when impersonating an officer, living with his mother, a gun collection) tended to support their case.

Watson Bryant: They found some really dangerous pantyhose, apparently.

Indeed, as noted, it’s to Eastwood’s credit that he makes it very easy to see why suspicion might have fallen on Jewell. His lawyer Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell, charismatic as ever, albeit one of the eventual lawyers was the prolific Lin Wood) has to ask him outright if he did it. Paul Walter Hauser’s performance is truly outstanding, and he absolutely ought to have been Academy Award nominated (in either supporting or main, he’s head and shoulders above any of the actual contenders that year).

If Clint makes Jon Hamm’s FBI Agent Tom Shaw odiously malignant and unswerving in his attempts to bring down Jewell, is that necessarily a drawback? Only to the extent that the two-pronged assault makes Scruggs and Shaw collectively supremely hissable, so there’s only really superficial reflection on the institutions/edifices they represent. But portraying journalism and the federal government as morally reprehensible in this case is nevertheless entirely legitimate, and it’s entirely legitimate that Richard Jewell’s nigh-on nonagenarian director makes no bones in getting you angry about Jewell’s treatment.

Obviously, the way Clint makes his movies, what you see is what you get (there’s the occasional flourish, such as a nightmare sequence and the camera strapped to Hauser’s chest). He hasn’t worked with material this strong since the ’90s, though, and the results speak for themselves. I don’t know the ins and outs of the pipe bomb attacker; it seems like a legit case in terms of the actual perpetrator, although these days, anyone with their wits about them will instantly go to “false flag” as an explanation of a terrorist incident (see Clint’s earlier The 15:17 to Paris, or don’t; I have an aversion to these Hollywood rehearsals of recent – War on Terror – history, and the tepid box office they yield suggests few have much interest in seeing them “legitimised” be it by Paul Greengrass or Clint).

Watson Bryant: Were you expecting a zombie invasion or something?

The only complaints that movie got were about its amateur actors; Richard Jewell had Eastwood overstepping his political boundaries, as he’s been perceived to do in several projects in the last couple of decades (American Sniper, The Mule). Is it a classic? No, but it’s a picture that absolutely plays to Clint’s straightforward strengths as a director, and has little difficulty in standing as his best work in years.

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

The Krishna died of a broken finger? I mean, is that a homicide?

Miami Blues (1990) (SPOILERS) If the ‘90s crime movie formally set out its stall in 1992 with Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs , another movie very quietly got in there first at the beginning of the decade. Miami Blues picked up admiring reviews but went otherwise unnoticed on release, and even now remains under-recognised. The tale of “blithe psychopath” Federick J. Frenger, Jr., the girl whose heart he breaks and the detetive sergeant on his trail, director George Armitage’s adaptation of Charles Willeford’s novel wears a pitch black sense of humour and manages the difficult juggling act of being genuinely touching with it. It’s a little gem of a movie, perfectly formed and concisely told, one that more than deserves to rub shoulders with the better-known entries in its genre. One of the defining characteristics of Willeford’s work, it has been suggested , is that it doesn’t really fit into the crime genre; he comes from an angle of character rather than plot or h

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

You tampered with the universe, my friend.

The Music of Chance (1993) (SPOILERS) You won’t find many adaptations of Paul Auster’s novels. Original screenplays, yes, a couple of which he has directed himself. Terry Gilliam has occasionally mentioned Mr. Vertigo as in development. It was in development in 1995 too, when Philip Haas and Auster intended to bring it to the screen. Which means Auster presumably approved of Haas’ work on The Music of Chance (he also cameos). That would be understandable, as it makes for a fine, ambiguous movie, pregnant with meaning yet offering no unequivocal answers, and one that makes several key departures from the book yet crucially maintains a mesmerising, slow-burn lure.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .