Almost a year ago to the day that I sit down to write this review, I saw "The Mule" in theaters and was embarrassed/saddened by how out-of-touch Clint Eastwood seemed to have become in telling a viable story on-screen. I was hoping that keeping him behind the camera for "Richard Jewell" would help matters, and the trailers really pulled me in. Sadly, this film is only a slight step above "The Mule" in terms of overall effectiveness at conveying a story.
For a very basic overview, this film tells the story of Richard Jewell (Paul Walter Hauser), a security worker affiliated with the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta who diagnosed a bomb scare and helped clear the scene to avoid larger destruction. While initially hailed as a hero, Jewell is eventually investigated by the FBI as a prime suspect in the bombing, as well as excoriated/harassed by the media.
I'll say this right off the bat: there is no doubt that Jewell was mistreated by many parties throughout this entire ordeal. Those relevant parties have even admitted as such. He did a heroic thing and had his life turned into a living hell because of it. There is certainly an interesting story to be told within that set of circumstances.
Unfortunately, Clint Eastwood is no longer the person to tell that story, and (once again) it really shows here. Instead of a nuanced look at how the media, authorities, and individuals can/should interact with each other, we instead get a piece that embarrassingly vilifies journalists/media to almost cartoonish proportions, and gives the same basic treatment to the federal authorities. This is in contrast to Jewell's lawyer, Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell), who is largely portrayed as the benevolent hero of the piece.
Clearly, the main theme of "Richard Jewell" is that the media (or those possessing power in general) can spin the narrative any way they want. While this is true, to a certain extent, it needs a more nuanced, tactful touch. Another wholly probably explanation is that the authorities did indeed suspect Jewell and want to investigate him, and the media felt compelled to cover the store. Does that justifying Jewell's hounding? Of course not, but that's where the nuance comes in (or doesn't, in this case).
The most embarrassing character of the whole thing is Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde), an Atlanta newspaper reporter who might as well be Cruella de Vil through Eastwood's lens. Much criticism has come from the Atlanta-Journal Constitution (Scrugg's employer at the time) over the portrayal, and I can see why. Unless she was a true monster, this performance borders on libel. Sadly, I don't trust Eastwood to make that distinction anymore, either.
The only character that truly seemed "real" in the entire movie was Jewell's mother Bobi (Kathy Bates), as that was the only character given any true humanity. All the other participants are pastiches, lacking any real-world substance or the conflicts that all individuals face. In Eastwood's world, you are either a "good guy" or a "bad guy", and there's absolutely no middle ground.
The bottom line here is that until Eastwood gets away from making films about true-life "hero" stories, this is exactly the type of fare we'll get again and again. No depth, no humanity, just over-the-top characterizations that fit into his own strict worldview. I came into the theater expecting very little of "Richard Jewell" based on my "Mule" experience, and it still managed to disappoint.
For a very basic overview, this film tells the story of Richard Jewell (Paul Walter Hauser), a security worker affiliated with the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta who diagnosed a bomb scare and helped clear the scene to avoid larger destruction. While initially hailed as a hero, Jewell is eventually investigated by the FBI as a prime suspect in the bombing, as well as excoriated/harassed by the media.
I'll say this right off the bat: there is no doubt that Jewell was mistreated by many parties throughout this entire ordeal. Those relevant parties have even admitted as such. He did a heroic thing and had his life turned into a living hell because of it. There is certainly an interesting story to be told within that set of circumstances.
Unfortunately, Clint Eastwood is no longer the person to tell that story, and (once again) it really shows here. Instead of a nuanced look at how the media, authorities, and individuals can/should interact with each other, we instead get a piece that embarrassingly vilifies journalists/media to almost cartoonish proportions, and gives the same basic treatment to the federal authorities. This is in contrast to Jewell's lawyer, Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell), who is largely portrayed as the benevolent hero of the piece.
Clearly, the main theme of "Richard Jewell" is that the media (or those possessing power in general) can spin the narrative any way they want. While this is true, to a certain extent, it needs a more nuanced, tactful touch. Another wholly probably explanation is that the authorities did indeed suspect Jewell and want to investigate him, and the media felt compelled to cover the store. Does that justifying Jewell's hounding? Of course not, but that's where the nuance comes in (or doesn't, in this case).
The most embarrassing character of the whole thing is Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde), an Atlanta newspaper reporter who might as well be Cruella de Vil through Eastwood's lens. Much criticism has come from the Atlanta-Journal Constitution (Scrugg's employer at the time) over the portrayal, and I can see why. Unless she was a true monster, this performance borders on libel. Sadly, I don't trust Eastwood to make that distinction anymore, either.
The only character that truly seemed "real" in the entire movie was Jewell's mother Bobi (Kathy Bates), as that was the only character given any true humanity. All the other participants are pastiches, lacking any real-world substance or the conflicts that all individuals face. In Eastwood's world, you are either a "good guy" or a "bad guy", and there's absolutely no middle ground.
The bottom line here is that until Eastwood gets away from making films about true-life "hero" stories, this is exactly the type of fare we'll get again and again. No depth, no humanity, just over-the-top characterizations that fit into his own strict worldview. I came into the theater expecting very little of "Richard Jewell" based on my "Mule" experience, and it still managed to disappoint.