Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BSUTOP25

Media Blacklisted Richard Jewell Movie

Recommended Posts

Watched the Richard Jewel flick last night, highly recommended. Great acting and screenplay. Too bad the media blacklisted the film due to the portrayal of the AJC reporter because it certainly keeps the viewer entertained. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

The media blacklisted the film? 

You really think there was much positive pub over what is a very good movie? Come on. Most of the coverage has/had been negative toward this film. If you don’t think the media by in large has biases, you’re fooling yourself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, youngrebelfan40 said:

When it came out I saw a lot of press about it...

I didn’t see much and what there was I remember being overly critical. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, youngrebelfan40 said:

When it came out I saw a lot of press about it...

Bad press about how the movie was sexist and misogynistic. Press about how the sensational and dishonest movie cast a well intentioned reporter as evil. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AndroidAggie said:

haven't seen it, been meaning to.

Good movie. Some dramatized “Hollywoodized” events but very well done. Kathy Bates was amazing, as usual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

I saw and read quite a few reviews of it at the time it came out and few were negative. 

We must subscribe to different news feeds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

You really think there was much positive pub over what is a very good movie? Come on. Most of the coverage has/had been negative toward this film. If you don’t think the media by in large has biases, you’re fooling yourself. 

"The media" doesn't have a singular bias. Members of the media have biases. And to your point, it looks like the critics score was good on Rotten Tomatoes. And it was well-covered when it was released.

So I ask you, is your assumption of media bias actually a product of "the media" or a product of your biases toward the media?

As for the movie, the coverage of Richard Jewell was a dark stain on the FBI and the covering media, including and perhaps especially the AJC. I don't think Clint Eastwood needed to make the now-deceased AJC reporter a whore to make that point. Of course, what do I know? I was just 200 yards away from the bomb when it went off, so Richard Jewell may have saved my life, too. But other than that, it was hardly a personal issue for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

We must subscribe to different news feeds.

Most reviewers liked the film from what I read. But many were critical of the way Kathy Scruggs was portrayed, implying that she was trading sex for information. I think that's fair criticism, because there is no proof of anything like that happening. And because she is dead, she hasn't been able to defend herself. 

As a note, most journalists consider the whole Richard Jewell affair as a cautionary tale. It is taught as a lesson in j-school to this day about how reporters can do enormous damage by not being careful in their reporting, including not verifying sources, even (and maybe especially) trusted ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a pretty entertaining thread.

guy 1: I will now make a completely unsubstantiated claim without so much as a link

guy 2: here’s a link that refutes your claim

guy 1: that’s not how I remember it

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Most reviewers liked the film from what I read. But many were critical of the way Kathy Scruggs was portrayed, implying that she was trading sex for information. I think that's fair criticism, because there is no proof of anything like that happening. And because she is dead, she hasn't been able to defend herself. 

As a note, most journalists consider the whole Richard Jewell affair as a cautionary tale. It is taught as a lesson in j-school to this day about how reporters can do enormous damage by not being careful in their reporting, including not verifying sources, even trusted ones.

I haven't seen the movie but this is what I remember from when it came out. People seemed to like it but there was anger from reporters and others about what you mentioned. And yeah it sounds like it was justified. I know people loved the actor that played Jewell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

"The media" doesn't have a singular bias. Members of the media have biases. And to your point, it looks like the critics score was good on Rotten Tomatoes. And it was well-covered when it was released.

So I ask you, is your assumption of media bias actually a product of "the media" or a product of your biases toward the media?

As for the movie, the coverage of Richard Jewell was a dark stain on the FBI and the covering media, including and perhaps especially the AJC. I don't think Clint Eastwood needed to make the now-deceased AJC reporter a whore to make that point. Of course, what do I know? I was just 200 yards away from the bomb when it went off, so Richard Jewell may have saved my life, too. But other than that, it was hardly a personal issue for me.

Wow, sorry you thought I was being flippant about you almost getting killed — as if I could have known that. 

Anyway, these are anecdotal arguments we’re having and unless someone wants to take the time to gather every media mention of the movie and break it down by the tone and content, we are going to have to disagree on the media’s treatment of this film. And hey, you’ve got @SJSUMFA2013 on your side but that tool isn’t much to lean on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SJSUMFA2013 said:

This is a pretty entertaining thread.

guy 1: I will now make a completely unsubstantiated claim without so much as a link

guy 2: here’s a link that refutes your claim

guy 1: that’s not how I remember it

I hadn't really heard of the film, so I just googled it.

First article I found reviewing the film included a commentary on Clint Eastwood (the director) not supporting President Obama ("Clint the chair ranter"), and comparing the criticism of the Media in 1996 (who slandered Richard Jewell) to present day Donald Trump.

I guess we found why a lot of the media didn't like it.  Because Clint Eastwood was the director (and he is a Republican?)

 "For this, it couldn’t be more obvious, is why Eastwood made the film in the first place: to demonize the same forces Donald Trump is now in the business of demonizing. “Richard Jewell” is a drama that piggybacks on Trump’s demagoguery. The movie says that the mainstream media can’t be trusted, and that even the government’s top law enforcement agency will railroad you. And Jewell himself is the pudgy-soul-of-the-heartland, ordinary American white-guy yokel who gets used and abused by these corrupt institutions, with no one to look out for him. The movie treats him as a symbolic Trump supporter. Yet Eastwood, pretending to be a crusader for justice, would never come close to applying the same standard of truth and honor to the institutions that defend Donald Trump."

 

https://variety.com/2019/film/columns/richard-jewell-clint-eastwood-kathy-scruggs-controversy-1203435866/

 

Honestly, seems like a stretch to say that this film is in any way related to Donald Trump.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Wow, sorry you thought I was being flippant about you almost getting killed — as if I could have known that. 

Anyway, these are anecdotal arguments we’re having and unless someone wants to take the time to gather every media mention of the movie and break it down by the tone and content, we are going to have to disagree on the media’s treatment of this film. And hey, you’ve got @SJSUMFA2013 on your side but that tool isn’t much to lean on. 

Seems like you’re fighting a losing battle for pride’s sake, Top25. I think swallowing a little crow is the right play here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Wow, sorry you thought I was being flippant about you almost getting killed — as if I could have known that. 

Anyway, these are anecdotal arguments we’re having and unless someone wants to take the time to gather every media mention of the movie and break it down by the tone and content, we are going to have to disagree on the media’s treatment of this film. And hey, you’ve got @SJSUMFA2013 on your side but that tool isn’t much to lean on. 

I just meant it as a way to emphasize just how much this means to me. I am not a passive observer, especially because I was there, but also because I was a reporter (though when it happened, I was in j-school). I have lapped up just about every piece of information since that night, and I was in Atlanta reading the AJC daily in the aftermath. I have read the book that the movie is based on and read dozens of stories on the movie itself. Also, the Rotten Tomatoes critics score is a compilation of all major reviews, and 76% of critics reviewed it positively. So that is more than just anecdotal arguments.

My interest goes way beyond just a movie I liked, and momentary urge to use it as a cudgel against "the media."

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

I didn’t see much and what there was I remember being overly critical. 

Movie got an Metacritic grade (which measures media grades) of 68, with 34 positives, 9 mixed and 2 negatives.  So much for blacklisting and overly critical.

 

Maybe you need to get out more.

 

 

 

Well....not now, necessarily...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...