|
Post by Nora on Jan 1, 2020 21:51:32 GMT
but they were, at least at the part when they wante him to waive his rights o councel and god knows what else they wanted him to sign was entrapment and also wouldlnt likely hold in court IF it was examined/attacked properly. plus they were pushing it too much, not primarily conducting a objective/ legitimate investigation. yeah but there was just a bombing. It could gave been an act of terrorism. Actually it was an act of terrorism. Sometimes whole wars start from thing like this, see 9/11 and iraq war. So it might have been expeditious to get the much evidence from Jewell as possible given the opportunity. true but that evidence wouldnt hold in court once he had a lawyer i think most fbi want to get evidence they believe will stand against acrytiny. i think here it was a series of poor judgements because one of them leaked the info and were worried about teir own credibility/job. not saying thats what happened in rrality but in the movie thats what it looked like.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 2, 2020 6:13:58 GMT
As dubious as some of the bureau's conduct may have been, the FBI was not attempting to "frame" Jewell. Nor is there any parallel between this film and what is occurring today; as Watson Bryant states in the movie, the FBI could bug Jewell's apartment and conduct such an invasive investigation "because people like you don't matter." It is the powerless who suffer from profiling, not the powerful. Indeed, consider the fate of O.J. Simpson (a book about whom is mentioned in the movie) versus that of the average black man facing a similar predicament. I agree with your point about Jewell shedding tears. His vulnerability and melancholic catharsis, along with Bryant's response, is quite affecting. what were they doing then? They made him record his voice saying theres a bomb in centennial park. ... trying to see if they had a voice-match in Jewell (meaning a match with the actual caller). I am not defending how the agents went about it, but trying to "frame" him would have meant planting or distorting evidence, and obviously that did not happen. Ultimately, when the FBI found that it lacked evidence (no matter how hard it tried to find some), the bureau ended its investigation into Jewell, as the film showed. The FBI's actions were not corrupt, but they show the perils of profiling, which is a common tactic in law enforcement and how society processes information in general.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 2, 2020 6:20:35 GMT
but they were, at least at the part when they wante him to waive his rights o councel and god knows what else they wanted him to sign was entrapment and also wouldlnt likely hold in court IF it was examined/attacked properly. plus they were pushing it too much, not primarily conducting a objective/ legitimate investigation. yeah but there was just a bombing. It could gave been an act of terrorism. Actually it was an act of terrorism. Sometimes whole wars start from thing like this, see 9/11 and iraq war. So it might have been expeditious to get the much evidence from Jewell as possible given the opportunity. You make a good point in the sense that that rationale is surely how the FBI obtained the warrants to bug and surveil Jewell so quickly—the "national security" catchphrase can cover a lot, and the concern is legitimate, but it can also lead to abuse. That probably was not the FBI's intention here, but due to the clumsiness of profiling, it is sort of what happened and Jewell thus became something of a victim.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2020 12:50:17 GMT
what were they doing then? They made him record his voice saying theres a bomb in centennial park. ... trying to see if they had a voice-match in Jewell (meaning a match with the actual caller). I am not defending how the agents went about it, but trying to "frame" him would have meant planting or distorting evidence, and obviously that did not happen. Ultimately, when the FBI found that it lacked evidence (no matter how hard it tried to find some), the bureau ended its investigation into Jewell, as the film showed. The FBI's actions were not corrupt, but they show the perils of profiling, which is a common tactic in law enforcement and how society processes information in general. okay. i'd like to say just one more thing. in the film, it seemed like that was almost the intent of the filmmaker, to make us believe the FBI was actually trying to frame him. was I completely off the mark on thinking this? i would even go so far as to say I wasn't the only one thinking this as I'm pretty sure I heard some frustrated plaintive sighs of incredulity from others in the audience during these exact moments of the film. maybe they were just generalized expressions of whatever. idk
|
|
|
Post by moviemanjackson on Jan 3, 2020 2:22:21 GMT
Hauser, Bates, and Rockwell carry the movie for me. Kind of a clunky beginning (Macarena...really Eastwood? Felt like the first 20 minutes or so were deliberately painted to make Jewell a caricature, which maybe was Eastwood just driving home why the media would pick on him during the investigation, but it just felt odd totally), and speaking of caricatures, Kathy Scruggs and John Hamm's FBI character. Drew me out of the movie at times when they were on.
Still, I think it is pretty engrossing once the bombing goes down. Hauser and Bates at least need to be Oscar players.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 4, 2020 6:35:49 GMT
... trying to see if they had a voice-match in Jewell (meaning a match with the actual caller). I am not defending how the agents went about it, but trying to "frame" him would have meant planting or distorting evidence, and obviously that did not happen. Ultimately, when the FBI found that it lacked evidence (no matter how hard it tried to find some), the bureau ended its investigation into Jewell, as the film showed. The FBI's actions were not corrupt, but they show the perils of profiling, which is a common tactic in law enforcement and how society processes information in general. okay. i'd like to say just one more thing. in the film, it seemed like that was almost the intent of the filmmaker, to make us believe the FBI was actually trying to frame him. was I completely off the mark on thinking this? i would even go so far as to say I wasn't the only one thinking this as I'm pretty sure I heard some frustrated plaintive sighs of incredulity from others in the audience during these exact moments of the film. maybe they were just generalized expressions of whatever. idk I heard something like that as well during my second viewing; audience members could have been interpreting the matter as you did, or they could have just been frustrated by the the agents' aggressive, slippery tactics. But I do not believe that Eastwood was trying to suggest an actual attempt at "framing," so much as the overconfident, almost desperate, definitely pushy and perhaps disrespectful nature of the FBI agents' approach. Remember that the FBI would have possessed ample opportunity to "frame" Jewell, especially given that they eventually asked him, his mother, and his lawyer to wait outside their apartment, and also given how much they took from that apartment. But while the lead agent, played by Jon Hamm, still believed that Jewell was "guilty as hell," the FBI ended its investigation into him after eighty-eight days.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 4, 2020 7:08:43 GMT
Hauser, Bates, and Rockwell carry the movie for me. Kind of a clunky beginning (Macarena...really Eastwood? Felt like the first 20 minutes or so were deliberately painted to make Jewell a caricature, which maybe was Eastwood just driving home why the media would pick on him during the investigation, but it just felt odd totally), and speaking of caricatures, Kathy Scruggs and John Hamm's FBI character. Drew me out of the movie at times when they were on. Still, I think it is pretty engrossing once the bombing goes down. Hauser and Bates at least need to be Oscar players. I did not feel that Eastwood was attempting to paint Jewell as a caricature, but Jewell was indeed passionate about law enforcement and clearly had made some mistakes. As you indicate, his obsessions and missteps helped lead to his profile and the mistaken assumptions by the FBI and media. I thought that Hamm was solid and Olivia Wilde—while dynamic (perhaps too much so at first glance)—proved compelling and convincing as Scruggs, especially after a second viewing. There are definitely some reporters like that, looking to break the big story before anyone else. What makes matters work, in my view, is that the Hamm and Wilde characters do not ultimately come across as bad people—indeed, Kathy Scruggs eventually reexamines the case and acknowledges her initial mistake. But they are originally careless, they get in over their heads, and they have to scramble thereafter. Unfortunately, Jewell was the one who suffered. Showcasing the Macarena felt fitting to me. I was in high school at the time, and the song/dance were just huge. A few months earlier, in Spanish class, I believe that our teacher played it and that she and some students did it. It really constituted this brief national (or international) song/dance craze, perhaps the last one that there has really been. A few days ago, I looked up this newspaper article from August 16, 1996 (shortly after the bombing) about an Atlanta Braves-Philadelphia Phillies baseball game, and the writer (Don Bostrom) made multiple references to the Macarena to illuminate his points, including the leading line in the article:
So it really was that big. Also, showcasing the song/dance suggests the fun-loving, relaxed mood of the event and why the other law enforcement officials seemed less than eager to go through the tedious bomb-scare protocols; only Jewell's professional diligence and vigilance prevented the terrorist attack from being so much more deadly. As people now say, it was a "pre-9/11 world." I like the beginning, but it is good to read people's takes on the film.
|
|
|
Post by moviemanjackson on Jan 4, 2020 18:47:50 GMT
Hauser, Bates, and Rockwell carry the movie for me. Kind of a clunky beginning (Macarena...really Eastwood? Felt like the first 20 minutes or so were deliberately painted to make Jewell a caricature, which maybe was Eastwood just driving home why the media would pick on him during the investigation, but it just felt odd totally), and speaking of caricatures, Kathy Scruggs and John Hamm's FBI character. Drew me out of the movie at times when they were on. Still, I think it is pretty engrossing once the bombing goes down. Hauser and Bates at least need to be Oscar players. I did not feel that Eastwood was attempting to paint Jewell as a caricature, but Jewell was indeed passionate about law enforcement and clearly had made some mistakes. As you indicate, his obsessions and missteps helped lead to his profile and the mistaken assumptions by the FBI and media. I thought that Hamm was solid and Olivia Wilde—while dynamic (perhaps too much so at first glance)—proved compelling and convincing as Scruggs, especially after a second viewing. There are definitely some reporters like that, looking to break the big story before anyone else. What makes matters work, in my view, is that the Hamm and Wilde characters do not ultimately come across as bad people—indeed, Kathy Scruggs eventually reexamines the case and acknowledges her initial mistake. But they are originally careless, they get in over their heads, and they have to scramble thereafter. Unfortunately, Jewell was the one who suffered. Showcasing the Macarena felt fitting to me. I was in high school at the time, and the song/dance were just huge. A few months earlier, in Spanish class, I believe that our teacher played it and that she and some students did it. It really constituted this brief national (or international) song/dance craze, perhaps the last one that there has really been. A few days ago, I looked up this newspaper article from August 16, 1996 (shortly after the bombing) about an Atlanta Braves-Philadelphia Phillies baseball game, and the writer (Don Bostrom) made multiple references to the Macarena to illuminate his points, including the leading line in the article:
So it really was that big. Also, showcasing the song/dance suggests the fun-loving, relaxed mood of the event and why the other law enforcement officials seemed less than eager to go through the tedious bomb-scare protocols; only Jewell's professional diligence and vigilance prevented the terrorist attack from being so much more deadly. As people now say, it was a "pre-9/11 world." I like the beginning, but it is good to read people's takes on the film. I was only 6 when everything went down and knew next to nothing about Jewell. So this was definitely my first exposure to the story.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 5, 2020 10:07:14 GMT
I did not feel that Eastwood was attempting to paint Jewell as a caricature, but Jewell was indeed passionate about law enforcement and clearly had made some mistakes. As you indicate, his obsessions and missteps helped lead to his profile and the mistaken assumptions by the FBI and media. I thought that Hamm was solid and Olivia Wilde—while dynamic (perhaps too much so at first glance)—proved compelling and convincing as Scruggs, especially after a second viewing. There are definitely some reporters like that, looking to break the big story before anyone else. What makes matters work, in my view, is that the Hamm and Wilde characters do not ultimately come across as bad people—indeed, Kathy Scruggs eventually reexamines the case and acknowledges her initial mistake. But they are originally careless, they get in over their heads, and they have to scramble thereafter. Unfortunately, Jewell was the one who suffered. Showcasing the Macarena felt fitting to me. I was in high school at the time, and the song/dance were just huge. A few months earlier, in Spanish class, I believe that our teacher played it and that she and some students did it. It really constituted this brief national (or international) song/dance craze, perhaps the last one that there has really been. A few days ago, I looked up this newspaper article from August 16, 1996 (shortly after the bombing) about an Atlanta Braves-Philadelphia Phillies baseball game, and the writer (Don Bostrom) made multiple references to the Macarena to illuminate his points, including the leading line in the article:
So it really was that big. Also, showcasing the song/dance suggests the fun-loving, relaxed mood of the event and why the other law enforcement officials seemed less than eager to go through the tedious bomb-scare protocols; only Jewell's professional diligence and vigilance prevented the terrorist attack from being so much more deadly. As people now say, it was a "pre-9/11 world." I like the beginning, but it is good to read people's takes on the film. I was only 6 when everything went down and knew next to nothing about Jewell. So this was definitely my first exposure to the story. On the night of the bombing, I continuously viewed SportsCenter on ESPN into the wee hours. The network showed footage of someone interviewing American swimmer Janet Evans as the bomb blasted loudly in the distance. In fact, one can see that moment starting at the 1:39 mark of this video: 1996 Olympics bombing
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 8, 2020 9:11:51 GMT
I was only 6 when everything went down and knew next to nothing about Jewell. So this was definitely my first exposure to the story. On the night of the bombing, I continuously viewed SportsCenter on ESPN into the wee hours. The network showed footage of someone interviewing American swimmer Janet Evans as the bomb blasted loudly in the distance. In fact, one can see that moment starting at the 1:39 mark of this video: 1996 Olympics bombing When I viewed Richard Jewell for a third time, I noticed—and then very vaguely remembered—that the woman who hands the Olympic torch to Muhammad Ali (as seen in the film) is Janet Evans. For Janet Evans, lighting Muhammad Ali’s torch at ’96 Olympics ignited a flame in her to inspire others
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 8, 2020 9:40:32 GMT
I acually really enjoyed the simplicity of it. A great Class on filmmakig on its own. Having viewed Richard Jewell again, there is a "classic" or "classical" quality to it. Some shots are stylish, but the stylishness is subtle and brief: an early closeup of the video game gun, wielded by Jewell, surrounded by darkness and pointed toward the camera; in the following scene, a quick subjective tracking shot around a corner, from Jewell's point of view, toward the desk where Watson Bryant is working—darkness illuminated by a desk lamp with a glowing green cover; much later, a short exterior shot of Jewell's mother, played by Kathy Bates, peering between blinds in an image that is quite haunting; later still, after Jewell and Bryant depart the FBI's formal interview, a lingering closeup of the bureau's seal, which Jewell has just discussed. Speaking of Bates, she too is excellent, and I am not sure that there is a film from 2019 that features a pair of performances as stellar as Hauser and Rockwell. Perhaps DiCaprio and Pitt in Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood would be in the discussion, albeit in a very different mode of performance for a very different style of movie. And then there would be DeNiro and Pacino (or Pesci) in The Irishman, along with the satirical Pattinson and Dafoe in The Lighthouse, but for naturalism and nuance, I would have to go with Hauser and Rockwell. Overall, Richard Jewell can bring a smile to one's face and a tear to one's eye almost simultaneously, and that feat is not easy to achieve. After a couple more viewings, I noticed that there are two such shots of Bates peering out the window; both are stylish, but the second one—briefer and occurring at night—is notably haunting. There is also a very effective shot late in the film, in the FBI building, where Eastwood's camera briefly tracks back—showing a "Supply Room" door—and then slightly pans to the right to show Jewell, who will walk toward a cart near the door, which remains in the shot. (And we next see a subjective shot from Jewell's perspective as he approaches the cart.) The initial shot in that scene is especially elegant, and it speaks to circular construction given that we first met Jewell ten years earlier as a supply room clerk. A little later, in the final shot in the Jewells' apartment, the camera shows Bobi (Jewell's mother) silently expressing chagrin about how her Tupperware has been marked up, and then pans a little to the right to show more FBI employees returning the Jewells' belongings, and then pans to the left and tracks a little forward (and pans subtly, in a wavering way, to suggest observation) toward the portrait of Jewell in uniform, foreshadowing the coda. Earlier in the film, Eastwood's camera had shown Jewell's extensive array of firearms in a nice sustained shot that tracked forward toward the guns spread out on his bed, and then panned to the left to show a flabbergasted Watson Bryant, and then to the right to show Jewell on the other side of the bed. So there are some subtly stylish, sustained, gentle camera movements in Richard Jewell that are perhaps imperceptible upon a first or second viewing yet help entrance the viewer and establish the film's engrossing rhythms. Upon repeated viewings, the artistry becomes apparent yet remains subtle. This approach is different from that of, say, director Alejandro G. Iñárritu. To be sure, I thought that Birdman (2014), which I viewed three times in the theater, constituted a "very good" film and that The Revenant (2015), which I saw twice on a huge screen, proved "good/very good." Using one continuous shot (or, to be more accurate, the appearance of one continuous shot), with dramatic tracks up and down corridors, fit the witty and satirical style of Birdman, just as minutes-long shots fit the visceral verisimilitude of The Revenant. But that form of showy artistry really is no better than the manner of Richard Jewell—it is just more obvious.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Feb 1, 2020 11:27:38 GMT
RICHARD JEWELL is about the 1996 Summer Olympics bombing, and the scenes of the discovery of the bomb and the explosion itself are well-executed, but what makes the movie as a whole riveting is how likeable the title character (a security guard who found the bomb and was then wrongly accused of planting it in order to look like a hero) and the people who believe in him are, as well as how they all play off each other. How ironic that a big flaw is the unlikeability of another character. Look, it's alright to write a character with a negative personality. Hell, in some cases, it's better. However, there has to be something about them that makes the viewer want to watch them. It can be a trait that makes them a little sympathetic, an interesting method to do bad deeds, etc... Reporter Kathy Scruggs is unpleasant and that's that. From her first scene, I wanted to look away from the screen. Script writer Billy Ray does try to redeem her in the last part, but her change is too sudden to be believable. Now that I've watched the movie, I'm going to do some research on the plot's historical accuracy. Oh. I'm finding out that the movie is controversial. That people claim that Kathy wasn't like this in real life. All the more reason to hate the character right? Wait, it says here that it's mainly about her sleeping with FBI Agent Tom Shaw in exchange for information. OK, I agree that it's wrong to tarnish a person's image like that (the names of some characters were changed, so why not do that with Kathy too?). I also agree that behavior is unprofessional. That being said, let's give the movie some credit. It seemed like Shaw and Kathy had history. That she didn't sleep with any guy who could give her a scoop. Also, there's a character named Nadya Light who proves that Ray does have an understanding on what makes a woman strong without resorting to stereotypes. Now, where was I? Oh, right. The performances are good, but the last scene made me think that Ray didn't know how to end the story. It's a flashforward in which Richard is now a cop. No time is given to show his satisfaction for finally achieving his dream. Watson Bryant (his friend and lawyer) arrives and tells him that the real culprit has been arrested. They both look as happy as they should, but they doesn't sound as happy as they should (clearly the dialogue is to blame here). Watson then leaves. Isn't this a moment you should experience together, considering how it affects you both? Then, the epilogue text reveals that Richard eventually died of a heart attack. Just like that. There were hints throughout the movie that he had a health problem, but you still needed to slowly ease the audience into it. Why not skip the scene and go directly to the text, which would say the good things he did after the events of the movie and then explain how he died? What's worse is that it's the only sentence about him in this epilogue. You put him on a pedestal for 2 hours and then push him out of it by making us leave the theatre with that information. 7/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Feb 4, 2020 6:54:10 GMT
RICHARD JEWELL is about the 1996 Summer Olympics bombing, and the scenes of the discovery of the bomb and the explosion itself are well-executed, but what makes the movie as a whole riveting is how likeable the title character (a security guard who found the bomb and was then wrongly accused of planting it in order to look like a hero) and the people who believe in him are, as well as how they all play off each other. How ironic that a big flaw is the unlikeability of another character. Look, it's alright to write a character with a negative personality. Hell, in some cases, it's better. However, there has to be something about them that makes the viewer want to watch them. It can be a trait that makes them a little sympathetic, an interesting method to do bad deeds, etc... Reporter Kathy Scruggs is unpleasant and that's that. From her first scene, I wanted to look away from the screen. Script writer Billy Ray does try to redeem her in the last part, but her change is too sudden to be believable. Now that I've watched the movie, I'm going to do some research on the plot's historical accuracy. Oh. I'm finding out that the movie is controversial. That people claim that Kathy wasn't like this in real life. All the more reason to hate the character right? Wait, it says here that it's mainly about her sleeping with FBI Agent Tom Shaw in exchange for information. OK, I agree that it's wrong to tarnish a person's image like that (the names of some characters were changed, so why not do that with Kathy too?). I also agree that behavior is unprofessional. That being said, let's give the movie some credit. It seemed like Shaw and Kathy had history. That she didn't sleep with any guy who could give her a scoop. Also, there's a character named Nadya Light who proves that Ray does have an understanding on what makes a woman strong without resorting to stereotypes. Now, where was I? Oh, right. The performances are good, but the last scene made me think that Ray didn't know how to end the story. It's a flashforward in which Richard is now a cop. No time is given to show his satisfaction for finally achieving his dream. Watson Bryant (his friend and lawyer) arrives and tells him that the real culprit has been arrested. They both look as happy as they should, but they doesn't sound as happy as they should (clearly the dialogue is to blame here). Watson then leaves. Isn't this a moment you should experience together, considering how it affects you both? Then, the epilogue text reveals that Richard eventually died of a heart attack. Just like that. There were hints throughout the movie that he had a health problem, but you still needed to slowly ease the audience into it. Why not skip the scene and go directly to the text, which would say the good things he did after the events of the movie and then explain how he died? What's worse is that it's the only sentence about him in this epilogue. You put him on a pedestal for 2 hours and then push him out of it by making us leave the theatre with that information. 7/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog.Regarding Kathy Scruggs, as you suggest, Richard Jewell does show her revising her premature conclusion later on, timing the walk from the Olympic Park site to the payphones and recognizing that he could not have not have been the caller. And the film shows her shedding tears during Bobi Jewell's press conference, helping prompt her further exploration. Thus the movie grants Scruggs some humanity. And I feel that the shift works because while the film may have presented her as unlikeable, it did not necessarily suggest that she constituted a bad person—just overly ambitious and frustrated with mundane minutia. As I noted earlier in the thread, Olivia Wilde's performance grew on me upon multiple viewings, for she portrays Scruggs with excellent fluidity and conviction. You are completely correct about the spurious nature of the "sex-for-information" controversy. When viewed in the context of the actual film, Kathy Scruggs did not simply offer sex in exchange for journalistic information—or do it out of nowhere. As you note, she and FBI agent Tom Shaw possessed a very flirtatious history. Indeed, based on the movie, Scruggs seemingly wanted to have sex with him anyway, and the tease of information was simply part of their flirtatious dance (so to speak). Moreover, Shaw did not expect Scruggs to actually follow through with her offer, nor did he expect her to actually use the information that he had given her. So the notion of some cold sex-for-information transaction is an absolute fallacy, one resulting from either the sheer ignorance and stupidity of the controversy's purveyors or their willful and cynical manipulation. As I indicated earlier in the thread, I actually feel that the coda "clinches" the overall film. The brevity and simplicity of it (dialogue included) help further the haunting, bittersweet, and ironic tones of the movie. The audience has already witnessed an emotional exchange between Jewell and Bryant in the diner just two scenes earlier; in the coda, we receive a more fatalistic sensibility that naturally segues into the postscript. And skipping the coda would not have provided that final, crucial note about the relationship and friendship between Jewell and Bryant. A hint of a nod, a glint in the eye, a line—"Look at you"—those subtle gestures and bits of sparse dialogue resonate much more deeply and powerfully than the sentimentality and effusiveness of Best Picture nominees Ford v. Ferrari, Jojo Rabbit, Marriage Story, and Little Women. If Richard Jewell is actually the best picture of 2019, as I feel is probably the case (I have tickets for two more screenings of Parasite later this week; I have seen that film once thus far), it is ultimately because Jewell shows that sometimes the most subtle and unadorned filmmaking can offer the greatest artistry.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Feb 4, 2020 10:12:18 GMT
One could also argue that the coda's tone of relief and muted satisfaction, as opposed to joy, is appropriate for two main reasons. First, it of course occurs six years after the main events, meaning that the time period (2002) is less fraught and reflects a sense of belated revelation. Second, after the ordeal that Jewell and Bryant endured, their response to the Eric Rudolph news would naturally be tempered rather than giddy.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Mar 15, 2020 20:08:29 GMT
Just viewed again for the second time. Paul Walter Hauser was just superb, but so was the rest of the film. I can't have enough praise for him. Will look forward to seeing more of him. same. i thought the pairing of Hauser with Rockwell was incredible too.
|
|