Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Movies
Related: About this forumStop defending an irresponsible movie and start apologising
Benjamin Lee
The controversy swirling around an unverified claim of a journalist having sex with an FBI agent in Clint Eastwoods new movie has led to a string of unconvincing justifications
Fri 13 Dec 2019 16.17 EST
Last modified on Fri 13 Dec 2019 17.28 EST
The ongoing furore over Clint Eastwoods Oscar-hungry new drama Richard Jewell shows no signs of abating, partly because the contentious issue at its centre is so egregious and partly because no one involved with the film is willing to admit this.
The film purports to tell the true story of the heroic security guard who found the pipe bomb which killed one person and injured 111 others at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. He was heralded as a hero until he became the focus of the FBI investigation, a fact that was first made public in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution before getting picked up across the country. Jewell was ultimately cleared after a difficult 88 days of accusations and media focus.
Since its premiere last month, one particular scene has sparked controversy, an interaction alleging sex-for-tips between Kathy Scruggs, the AJC journalist who broke the story and played in the film by Olivia Wilde as a vampish femme fatale and an FBI agent, an amalgamation of characters played by Jon Hamm. Its an unverified claim according to her colleagues, friends and family as well as Kent Alexander and Kevin Salwen, the authors of The Suspect, the book that served as a basis for the film and which involved over 180 interviews in research. In a firmly worded statement this week Alexander and Salwen stated that they found no evidence of sex-for-tips ever having taken place. Scruggs herself died in 2001.
Those who knew and worked with Scruggs have expressed their anger. The AJC has threatened legal action against Warner Bros, and female journalists have shared their frustration with both the sullying of a respected and hard-working professional and also the recycling of a tired stereotype of reporters sleeping with sources for intel. Warners and Eastwood stood their ground, turning the tables on the paper, blaming them again for reckless journalism but not explaining the origin of the scene itself. And at the Gotham Awards last week, Wilde claimed it was sexist for critics to call out the scene and was a misunderstanding of feminism.
More:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/dec/13/richard-jewell-kathy-scruggs-olivia-wilde-irresponsible
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
8 replies, 2310 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Stop defending an irresponsible movie and start apologising (Original Post)
Judi Lynn
Dec 2019
OP
The most obvious "tell" is that the FBI agent isn't based on a real person...
TwilightZone
Dec 2019
#2
I haven't seen an eastwood movie since he mocked a slitting of the throat of President
still_one
Dec 2019
#4
redstatebluegirl
(12,482 posts)1. That movie is a right wing wet dream.
TwilightZone
(28,833 posts)2. The most obvious "tell" is that the FBI agent isn't based on a real person...
but the reporter is. Plus, the reporter isn't around to defend herself, of course.
It seems completely gratuitous and unnecessary...and quite intentional.
BKDem
(1,733 posts)3. I will do my part by not watching it.
still_one
(96,665 posts)4. I haven't seen an eastwood movie since he mocked a slitting of the throat of President
Obama at the republican convention
exboyfil
(18,008 posts)5. This is the problem with biopics
Other examples include Max Baer in Cinderella Man and Freddy Mecury's lover/manager in Bohemian Rhapsody. This one seems particularly egregious since the AJC was found to only have published the truth. A decision that went all the way to the Georgia Supreme Court and the US SC refused to hear it. Everyone wanted a name, and the FBI leaker gave Scruggs the name.
exboyfil
(18,008 posts)6. I am waiting for the Clint Eastwood/Sandra Locke biopic
Producers don't be gentle.
czarjak
(12,459 posts)7. The guy with five ex wives next movie will be about the sanctity of marriage?
thucythucy
(8,742 posts)8. This is typical of Eastwood.
His movie "Sully" featured an entirely made-up conflict between the pilots and federal regulators.
Truth is never a priority with right wingers.