Richard Jewell

Acts of Domestic Terrorism
or
Getting the Story Wrong

"No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"

Unattributed, although ascribed to many

Clint Eastwood's new film, Richard Jewell, should be fairly cut and dried, seeing how it is "based on a true story" and a well-documented story at that, enough that the tag-line has been altered to "Based on the True Story of the Atlanta Bombing," as if anybody actually remembered it. But, no, it's isn't cut-and-dried, it's controversial, when it shouldn't be. 

Oh, the facts are there—the bombing of Atlanta's Centennial Park during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games; the sudden elevation of a low level security guard Richard Jewell as a hero for finding the bomb and preventing more destruction than the two deaths that were were recorded—one direct and one indirect and 111 injuries; his just-as-sudden FBI suspicion of being the one responsible for the bomb (despite a 9-1-1 call from a distant pay-phone ten minutes before the explosion when he was trying to convince police and security that there might be an actual threat); the media frenzy over the Jewell investigation leaked by the FBI, when it was based on rather hazy, and misapplied, profiling and, when that didn't work, conspiracy theories.   

Meanwhile, Jewell was put through a head-spinning change of fortunes, partially based on his own behavior characteristics and his unquestioning respect for authority. Jewell wanted to be in law enforcement, but he was physically unfit for the job and seemed to have a chip on his shoulder that others didn't hold the same respect for the law that he did. Jewell was "by the book" and held people to their word, making him contradictorily diligent and detail-oriented and yet incredibly naive. Those qualities made him the perfect guy to find the bomb—there was a LOT of security there that night that did not—over-react, and, while doing the right thing, getting people's noses out of joint.

Better than having nails explode in your face, though.

And better than the the trial-by-gauntlet Jewell faced being part of a headline story being covered 24/7 by an already entrenched media firing squad. It was the Olympics and the whole world was watching. One would think, with such attention, the idea would be to get the story right than to get the story out. But, as has been seen time and again with "Breaking News" there's a lot of mis-information that comes out initially. And there is no subsequent rush—when "news breaks"—to fix it. 

Jewell, initially hailed as a hero for his actions—in a crowded park, full of police, security and FBI (all fussing over who has jurisdiction). Jewell is trotted before the intense "up close and personal" Olympic coverage on television. Then, the investigation begins under the same glare of spotlights and confusion. Given the scrutiny from all sides, the pressure results on being first, with egos and reputations on the line.

Without any hard evidence, despite an FBI sweep of his apartment shared with his mother, and some rather dodgy techniques to trick Jewell into some form of entrapment, he is made the initial focus of the investigation and this gets leaked to the news media, particularly The Atlantic Journal-Constitution, which runs it as a headline in an Extra edition and at that point, everything escalates, with speculation, mobs of reporters outside the Jewell residence. The only thing the movie doesn't get into is the pressure from FBI headquarters to nail down the search, quickly. 

All fairly laid out as it transpired—and the best source of information is Marie Brenner's "Vanity Fair" article "American Nightmare: The Ballad of Richard Jewell," which goes into a bit more detail about the then FBI director Louis Freeh's heavy hand in it, as well as the FBI agents who have been morphed into the character of "Tom Shaw" (played by Jon Hamm), who, under pressure for results—he is even placed at the scene of the bombing, giving him a sense of guilty responsibility.

Eastwood's film is, first of all, well-acted. It's Sam Rockwell's first film with Eastwood and his role as Jewell friend and legal adviser Watson Bryant is another of his extraordinary performances that feels lived in and natural, while spicing it up with just a notch of theatricality. He's the backbone of the picture, the guy with the attitude and the perspective, he's the text of the film's view. Kathy Bates plays Jewell's mother and she's the heart of it, showing the destruction of one's psyche when everything trusted is turned against her. 

Both of these actors provide the emotional fireworks,* the outrage and sorrow not prevalent in the character of Jewell (played by the relatively unknown Paul Walter Hauser, but whose quirky turn in I, Tonya made him someone interesting to watch). Hauser makes Jewell aggravating but still sympathetic, at times prideful and pathetic, perpetually having his balloon popped—intelligent, certainly, but not above having it overwhelmed by an inferiority complex.  Hauser is amazing, but then, he always has been, infusing his roles with a dash of unglamorized normalcy. He's not theatrical, but he's quickly elastic with no irony applied. It's a naked, raw performance that makes you wonder if Eastwood just snatched up the real guy again (he didn't, of course—Jewell died in 2007).

They're the "good guys." The elephant in the internet is Eastwood's "bad guys." The one that's getting the headlines is Olivia Wilde's AC reporter Kathy Scruggs. There have been charges of sexism against an ambitious female reporter...because she's an ambitious female reporter (I've been trying to think of a female reporter in any movie that isn't) and that Scruggs is treated unfairly and inaccurately. It is harsh, but one should reiterate that it is her name on the byline of the story. It is alleged in the film that Scruggs traded sex for information from an FBI informant—more on him in a bit—but there is no evidence for that and may be the screenwriter reading more into Marie Brenner's characterizing Scruggs as "a police groupie" than there is (although most of the "police groupies" I know are male). Scruggs, in the movie, is given a redeeming character arc that implies conscience and a kind of redemption that has never been displayed by the paper in its long legal battles against Jewell's civil suits, and it is the only news organization that did not settle in its civil lawsuit, saying that their story was "factually true at the time." 

No one, however, is complaining about Hamm's FBI agent who is, even at the end of the film and despite evidence to the contrary, completely sure of Jewell's guilt. There is no ax to grind here, apparently—Eastwood, after all, made the controversial J. Edgar with one of the Richard Jewell's exec's, Leonardo DeCaprio—no need to blow up the interwebs over that. Nor, has anyone made mention of the fact that Jewell, Scruggs and the compendium "Shaw" can all be tarred with the same brush that brought Jewell under suspicion in the first place—being over-zealous. Irony doesn't play well in social media, evidently.

One shouldn't be surprised that the very entities with with reputations to tarnish should be the ones to squawk the loudest when they are put in a defensive position by something that might exert a change in the power dynamic they enjoy. But, then, an unfair power dynamic lies at the heart of the film, and has been at the heart of so many of Eastwood's films. It is amazing that in a time when film-makers are reaching down for the common denominator, that Eastwood's films still stir people up, allowing people to see what they want to see, a sort of litmus test for those who dare to take it.

Jewell's nightmare that would solve all problems—covering the bomb with his body.

The real Jewell—holding the evidence.

* Oh. Did I mention that there's an explosion in the movie? Damn, it made me and the rest of the theater patrons jump. Cover your popcorn, people!