Directed By Clint Eastwood

Starring – Sam Rockwell, Paul Walter Hauser, Kathy Bates

The Plot – American security guard Richard Jewell (Hauser) saves thousands of lives from an exploding bomb at the 1996 Olympics, but is vilified by journalists and the press who falsely report that he was a terrorist. Now, he races against the clock to clear his name and accurately tell his side of how things went down on that fateful day.

Rated R for adult language including some sexual references, and brief bloody images

POSITIVES

– Socially relevant. Even for a story that took place over 23 years ago, “Richard Jewell” feels twice as resonant now with the fake news social media landscape than it ever did previously. Eastwood crafts enough focus on how news tidbits are attained, how proof is skewered, and how innocent lives hang in the balance along the way, conceiving a story that gets bigger the more news sources irresponsibly share it. This approach not only vividly entails the vicious cycle to rumor mill gossip, but also feels therapeutic for Clint, a man with no shortage of bouts with media reporters over the previous two decades. This not only blossoms Clint’s maturity as a filmmaker from the awfully self-indulgent “The Mule”, but also gives him the opportunity the depict the lunacy of the situation that envelopes everything and everyone whole, setting off a media frenzy tornado where paranoia is the only certainty.

– Time warp. This is a film set entirely in the 90’s, so the necessity to recreate familiarity not only in the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games, but also in the presentation of the media age is one that Eastwood takes pivotal artistic integrity in conjuring up. The set designs are full of detail, bringing to life Centennial Park with the kind of sparse details that would only be prominent with on-the-scene witnesses for what went down. In addition to this, the inclusion of real 90’s television footage personalities, like Bryant Gumble or Tom Brokaw really helps immerse us not only in the heat of the scandal, but also puts it at our fingertips in the same way that worldwide watchers saw it as it was happening. Aside from the footage itself playing a narrator role in what transpires, the 2.35:1 aspect ratio changes to a 3:4, which gives it a tube-like quality to the way it is presented. Time as a gimmick used in films should be subtle enough without constantly reminding us in expository dialogue, and thanks to the air of familiarity that Eastwood feasts on, we can use it where the story sees fit.

– Tonally complex. This is a dramatic film first and foremost, but what many didn’t expect is the abundance of comedic moments within these awkward bubbles that weigh so heavily on Jewell’s bumbling demeanor. It’s important to note that none of this takes away from the dramatic heft of mounting consequences, nor does it ever feel out of place with real time developments. It breaths life into a series of characters to better indulge upon their unique dynamics and impeccable chemistry, and brought forth a consistency in laugh deposits that I was truly grateful for. Without them, I feel like “Richard Jewell’s” one face of fear would take away from the re-watch capabilities that the movie surprisingly attains, and in turn would rid us of what we should and eventually do find charming about Richard’s puzzling personality.

– A-Game performances. This is an exceptionally well rounded cast that better help to elevate the material deeper than a story based on speculation rightfully could. In this regard, the work of Rockwell and Bates are both deserving of Academy recognition, with each of them truly captivating the screen each time they invade. For Rockwell, it’s the familiarity of his timely line delivery and endless charisma, which make him the alli we’re glad is on Richard’s side. For Bates, it’s the same emotional firestorm of tears and long-winded diatribes that we’ve come to expect from the multi-decade heralded actress. As Richard’s emotionally fragile mother, we feel the pain that resonates ever so soundly within her, because of the world taking away the pride that she feels for her son. These two are easily Richard’s biggest supporters, and better help even the playing field against two terrifying antagonists, in the media and the government. Hauser is also a near-perfect replica for the titular character, emoting Richard with a gentle bumbling of demeanor that can sometimes be his best and worst advantage in the on-going interrogation. Jon Hamm as an FBI Agent also gives another reputable antagonist turn.

– Jaded protagonist. For Clint, these kind of leads in his films are his bread and butter, and Richard might be the most dominant of all of his leads in this particular category. Part of what I loved about the case against Richard is that the movie doesn’t try to make a saint out of him, pointing out very early in the film some of the character’s distinguishing flaws that make him easily prone to self-destruction. Without this, Jewell could easily fall into the category of being a one-dimensional protagonist whose unfaithful perfection could soil the integrity of the real life figure the movie is based on, but the unabashedly revealing approach to telling his story, as well as casting a relatively newcomer like Hauser to the forefront of the film, harvests an everyman approach for Richard that works even more significantly when cast against a barrage of reputable names and faces within the film’s ensemble cast. It makes his turn all the more believable for it, and tip-toe’s on the line of uncertainty for the case when you consider that any word this man says could be his undoing at any moment.

– Coming together. Eastwood’s uniquely personal message for the film seems to be a sense of urgency towards people to embrace one another over these powerful allegiances that will pick and prod away at people into getting them to submit. What is refreshing about this, especially compared to his previous two or three films, is the unified approach against the government and against law enforcement, who are dominantly right-wing in their beliefs. Eastwood’s message is sharp but his direction agenda seems as restrained as ever, choosing instead to let the characters and unfurling circumstance vividly paint the picture, and never feeling desperate or forceful towards such ambitious intentions. As I mentioned previously, this is a film that is more resonating now with its issues than any previous age depicted in the film, and because of such, serves as a butterfly effect of sorts for something that happens many moons ago playing such a pivotal role in the world today that has evolved from many cautionary actions. It casts grave importance in the movements that we make today having a grave importance on future dates, and reminds us that humanity is the last thing that these major factions will strip away when they’ve manipulated us for the puppets that we are. Very profound for a director whose best days are unfortunately behind him, but because of films like these will leave a lasting legacy of socialism that very few directors have the bravery to comprehend.

– Clint’s stories. Part of what I love about the projects that Eastwood takes on is that they are all tied together with protagonists of the everyday man, who are each deserving of the spotlight to establish what about them makes them special, and “Richard Jewell” is certainly no stranger to this concept. Richard himself seems to beg the question why we as people put so much trust and faith into a media with an agenda of selling newspapers or racking up clicks, as opposed to highlighting what about the human spirit makes it special. This is seen in Richard’s own eyes, as even throughout the many tribulations of humiliation that they put him through, he still has a faithful respect for law enforcement that even nags at the nerves of his friend and lawyer, who is every bit a part of his grueling stride as Richard himself. Richard’s greatest strength seems to be his refusal to change who he is as a person, despite the world around him burning at the seams. It outlines what about Jewell makes him special to be depicted on a big screen level, but more than that advances everyday people as true celebrities who do extraordinary things every day, and are rarely ever credited in a light that they truly deserve.

NEGATIVES

– Technical fumbles. There are a couple of issues in the film’s productional capacity that stood out like a sore thumb in an otherwise exceptional biopic. The first deals with the sound mixing and recording of the film, with a few instances not matching the consistency in detail that the storytelling captured. For one, during the scene in the arcade, Galaga sounds can be heard clearly over the game that Richard is playing on-screen. The problem is that Galaga isn’t present anywhere to give it this kind of volume. Even if it is supposedly present in the distance, it wouldn’t be as crystal clear as it is unless it was right next to this game, which it isn’t. On top of this, there are scenes of dialogue with some of the year’s worst A.D.R. Musical performances offer a worse lip-synching job than Ashlee Simpson, characters are heard without their mouths moving, and a couple glitches along the way sound like they are cutting off another character’s speaking while a new one begins to talk. On top of all of this, the explosion effect from the terrorist plot looks terribly artificial on color and texture measurements to the integrity of the scene. Just because this movie is set in 1996 doesn’t mean the same effect has to resonate from the same age of filmmaking.

– Kathy Scruggs. This character is not only played completely over-the-top from usually consistent actress Olivia Wilde, but is captured in such a sexist framing that really adds a shameful quality to Eastwood’s inclusion of her in such a project. Considering Kathy is now unfortunately deceased, she isn’t able to defend herself against allegations in the film that she slept with FBI officers in order to obtain vital information into the case’s leads. This element of her investigating has never been made apparent in any journal or books on her and the surrounding people within the case, nor does it seem to be a particularly necessary plot device in what she requires to push the levers of her side of the Richard Jewell story. This could’ve easily been re-written to not only add decency to the character and Kathy’s lasting legacy, but also not to unnecessarily use theatrics to hammer home an irresponsibility in the media that was previously doing a fine job without Wilde’s…..well…..wildness.

– Too many cooks. The film’s weakness for me is definitely during the third act, where Richard becomes a supporting character in a movie that centers around his dealing with insurmountable odds against a world that is turning against him more with each passing day. The element of a big name cast certainly weighs heavily on this decision, but during the final half hour of the movie, there are too many convoluted measures of focus with Richard’s lawyer, his mom, the media, the FBI, and an emerging best friend that seems to pop up when the script requires it to hammer home that Richard be anything (God forbid) but gay. With more focus on the titular character, and a scene of him losing his grip while in private, the film could better flesh out the claustrophobic circumstance of one man who is restrained from stepping foot outside of his door, for constant case details that are mounting against him. Without it, we start to lose the heart of the story during a time when it’s needed the most, and limits the appeal for Hauser getting a Best Lead Actor nomination because of it.

My Grade: 7/10 or B