In fairness, Billy Ray wrote the script, not Eastwood.
Mr. Ray is in his late 40s and a highly-regarded writer.
Perhaps Eastwood should have recognized the scene as offensive and advocated for its removal. On the other hand, Billy Ray's work has been Academy-nominated and perhaps there would have been a hands-off dynamic between them.
We can't make this about Eastwood's age. It's likely more about the kind of glib privileges male screenwriters enjoy and the way their voices go uncontested.
3
This is not Eastwood's false allegation of government misconduct or impugning honest people. Remember "Sully"? His portrayal of the post-crash investigation by the FAA & NTSB as being critical of the heroic Captain Sullenberger was entirely false. He admitted he needed a villain, and so he created one--government bureaucrats. This time, he's created a craven media reporter and a corrupt FBI agent.
5
This is why Hamilton is such a great way to learn history. Change the race of the main character. No one will notice.
1
It wouldn't, perhaps, make the film any better or worse to have cut the scene, but here are thousands of readers of this paper and of others, all having either this opinion and that opinion--with a "controversy" like this in newspapers and broadcasts all over the nation, along with a photo of moviegoers lined up to get in, the studio can laugh its way to the bank.
Thank you Clint for making it easy to save myself 3 hours and $30.
2
I knew Kathy Scruggs well and worked with her. She was a reporter's reporter: honest, tough, dogged and fair. She would no more have slept with a source to get information than she would have killed her cat. Depicting a dead person in such a defamatory way is cowardly, and Mr. Eastwood and his screenwriter should be ashamed. Or maybe that's too old fashioned for him.
15
This issue of the portrayal of a reporter as the malefactor might just be Eastwood displaying his attitudes towards the media based upon his Republican political views and his own encounters with the media as a public figure. He would not be the first highly intelligent and successful Republican who seems to think like that.
2
Controversy sells tickets.
3
In terms of his ideas about women journalists being flirty eye candy, maybe Clint's just watched too much Fox News. He's their main demographic after all--older, white Republican man. I can't use the word conservative any more to describe anyone in the Republican Party. Clearly that ship has sailed.
6
I’ve been done with Mr. Eastwood since his Republican convention ghost in the chair “speech”. He’s going down a rabbit hole again of false conservative grievances in his recent work and I just can’t support the propaganda. Sad end days of a great legacy. Make my day and go away now
6
Apparently, you cannot have a female character do anything unsavory, or it will be an insult to all woman. If a male character behaves deplorably, however, journalists will merely applaud the realism of the portrayal.
This article is a self-righteous, politically correct attempt at social engineering that also happens to slander a great director. Neither women nor journalists are beyond reproach, and it's natural for art to reflect that fact.
5
@SSG The movie doesn't depict a character; it depicts a real person, one who is deceased and can't defend herself. If that were your sister being portrayed, how would you feel about it? Having fictional characters act immorally is within artistic license, but one should be more respectful of actual people.
16
Sorry that Eastwood has devolved into making political screeds. If there was even a tiny doubt about the reporter's alleged sex for story behavior, it should have been left out of the final script. But apparently Eastwood's sense of morality was trumped by his willingness to cast aspersions on journalism and the FBI -- two of Trump's favorite villains.
3
Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute uses ageism to criticize Clint Eastwood's use of sexism in his movie. The issue is the facts, and when everybody involved is dead, it's hard to get to the truth. Reporters and sources build relationships; that's at the core of journalism. If the reporter and the FBI agent had a relationship of trust and friendship, that's good journalism; if it was based on sex, that's bad journalism. If the movie used Scruggs's real name, but did not use the real name of the FBI agent, that's unfair movie-making. Eastwood was wrong in his portrayal of Kathy Scruggs, I believe. I also believe McBride is wrong in attributing it to ageism. Old is not a synonym for bigoted or sexist, and it's not an excuse for it, either.
6
Leaving aside this movie and its implications, I note that there are quite a few strong reactions about sexism, morality, etc., here in the comments. Perhaps the crime reporter in this movie was portrayed incorrectly, perhaps not, but let's not deny the reality that some women, sometimes, sleep around to get something they want. I have experienced this directly more than once, as have other men that I know. Judge this as you will, but don't pretend that it doesn't happen, and don't blame it on men. If you want to expand your point of view, consider that women have some power over men, and some know how to deploy it effectively.
4
No one is pretending that stuff doesn't happen. Yet for some reason the reverse situation of a man using his body to get a favor is portrayed far less. It's much more common to see a woman using her body for favors in movies/shows. Add this movie to an already long list. Then Eastwood protected the FBI agent's name but not the FEMALE reporter? LOL c'mon!
6
This article says to me that certain men in Hollywood (many, probably) think women are for sex. Why else put in such a scene--and not even change the name?
10
So it shows the seduction...does it show the facts upon which the probable cause was developed that made Jewell a suspect to begin with...?
What would you expect form a man who talks to chairs?
10
Unsurprising lies from Clint Eastwood
4
Eastwood is a well-known right-winger. At least he hasn't talked to an empty chair lately.
8
What would you expect from a Right Wing nonagenarian who speaks to empty chairs on national TV? Of course he's going to stoke the "enemy of the people" line.
5
It's sort of interesting, in terms of movie-making technique, that apparently Olivia Wilde, who portrays Scruggs, believed she was portraying a completely different story line, where she and the FBI agent were romantically involved, and her behavior had nothing to do with trading sex for information, it was just her getting sexy with her boyfriend. And if it came out differently in the final movie, that must have been Eastwood's editing. You can do amazing things in the editing process...
7
If there is any question that the female reporter offered sex than it should be left out of the film.
It adds little to the plot and is a hostile gesture toward women suggesting that they are unprofessional and cheap.
11
Once I witnessed the "empty chair" display from the RNC, I knew for sure Eastwood had become a de facto propagandist specializing in conservative myth-making and lie-spinning. This film is just more proof.
7
There are men and there are women. And when those two meet up and want something are you really going to try and tell me that sex can be completely eliminated from that transaction?
I am 49 years old and in my lifetime I have used my sexuality in some instances to get ahead and I am proud to admit it. From a young age I realized that sweet, pretty girls are favored. Born in the 70’s to ethnically diverse parents did not make me an ideal “beauty.” But I watched and learned - movies and Judy Blume and The Little Princess and Scarlett O’Hara and many other traditionally female characters taught me that my differences from boys and (then) men were going to be fun to use.
I hate the new climate of fear. Rape is intolerable, but the “me too” movement is as well. I miss the days when a wink and a smile and a little flirt could get a girl something. I can think of discounted auto repair; free parking in NY; a free meal; a bus stopping and letting me ride for free while dressed to the nines for the ballet; my husband; on and on. I look at young women now, wanting desperately to disappear into the shadows with their freakishly dyed hair, piercings and tattoos-afraid of themselves and the power they could really harness all to be asexual pseudo feminists. I am a feminist, but I am also a realist.
4
You totally missed the boat. The Me Too movement deals with a whole other issue.
4
How reprehensible. This goes way beyond dramatic license. I was kind of interested in seeing this film, but now I will take a hard pass. It’s things like this that make me wonder if the stereotypes used against women will ever be overcome, despite the raised consciousness of #MeToo. I can’t help but wonder, though, given who directed this, if it isn’t one more hit from the Right at the media, with Ms, Scruggs as the weapon.
As a former employee of Cox Enterprises, I am ashamed that the company is apparently okay with the slandering of the reputation of one of its journalists, who can no longer defend herself.
4
There are men and there are women. And when those two meet up and want something are you really going to try and tell me that sex can be completely eliminated from that transaction?
I am 49 years old and in my lifetime I have used my sexuality in some instances to get ahead and I am proud to admit it. From a young age I realized that sweet, pretty girls are favored. Born in the 70’s to ethnically diverse parents did not make me an ideal “beauty.” But I watched and learned - movies and Judy Blume and The Little Princess and Scarlett O’Hara and many other traditionally female characters taught me that my differences from boys and (then) men were going to be fun to use.
I hate the new climate of fear. Rape is intolerable, but the “me too” movement is as well. I miss the days when a wink and a smile and a little flirt could get a girl something. I can think of discounted auto repair; free parking in NY; a free meal; a bus stopping and letting me ride for free while dressed to the nines for the ballet; my husband; on and on. I look at young women now, wanting desperately to disappear into the shadows with their freakishly dyed hair, piercings and tattoos-afraid of themselves and the power they could really harness all to be asexual pseudo feminists. I am a feminist, but I am also a realist.
1
Richard Jewell was falsely believed to have committed a terrorist act which was committed by a fanatical terrorist who later admitted to the deed. His life was ruined because millions bought into his guilt despite no proof of any participation in the bonding. That’s the story, which needs no elaboration to be extremely compelling.
5
Here's a truth - that most men in the media have known for decades. Women in journalism have been tilting the playing field, engaging in rampant discrimination against better qualified men and worst of all, have pushed some of THE most qualified men in print journalism right out the door. How? All they had to do was to say someone was too difficult to work with. Not sensitive to their needs. Didn't understand the female point of view. You name it, we've seen it. And yes, female journalists have used, if not sex, then the suggestion of intimacy, to further their careers. No one excels in a tough, demanding field like journalism without years of hard - working by yourself all night - work and dedication. Women used to have those qualities, but not so much in recent years. Now it's called women supporting women when a mediocre female talent is praised to the heavens, given assignments more deserving reporters worked for and deserve and even winning awards based on their gender. I've had some good female colleagues in newspapering, but many have been replaced by relentless self-promotion artists.
3
Happens all the time for dramatic effect. Typical Hollywood technique as the article notes. Remember the US Ambassador defamed by Costa Garvas in "Missing" ? He sued but the director and the court said it was "artistic license" . Selective outrage now from people who don't like Eastwood's politics.
1
I had been looking forward to seeing this film, based on the previews, but now I think I’ll skip it.
1
This is a fantastic way to market a film! Bravo to all concerned.
I was looking forward to this movie. Not any more. It’s just one more Trump-sponsored alternative fact.
7
"Critics have noted that a film focused on a low point for law enforcement and the press was directed by a prominent conservative at a time when President Trump has vilified the F.B.I. as an arm of the so-called deep state and has repeatedly called the news media “the enemy of the people.”
Gee, say it ain't so, Clint.
8
‘“I think Clint Eastwood is showing his age, frankly,” she added of the 89-year-old director.’
Too bad valid points about sexism are followed with some gratuitous ageism.
15
Is anybody really surprised by this, given what Eastwood has become over the past few decades?
Clint Eastwood fading into obscurity and lashing out at those who've nothing to do with him is an apt metaphor for our current social situation.
8
I'm not interested in any new Clint Eastwood films until he releases an action flick in which he battles an empty chair.
14
Ummm... while I don't like the portrayal the quote "...because she was very conscious of her role as a reporter and she wanted to be known as a top-notch reporter," from this article bothers me.
From the perspective of history, her reporting is the very opposite of what a top-notch reporter would produce. It is in fact the very definition of the reason why people have stopped trusting the media.
8
If memory serves me Eastwood likes to talk to empty chairs; maybe he is better when no one can talk back.
7
I will wait for the ‘free’ streaming option. Just REFUSE to be bilked the $15+ in a theater.
4
Why is an unsubstantiated storyline that sullies one person’s reputation being put forward in a movie meant to exonerate the reputation of another?
23
Clint Eastwood’s filmmaking is ham-fisted, jingoistic pablum. It’s the cinematic answer to Fox News. I am not surprised by this controversy, but I continue to be astonished by his popularity.
7
I hope this doesn't sound flip but I stopped taking Clint Eastwood seriously when he spent precious airtime at the 2012 Republican Convention talking disrespectfully to his projection of President Barack Obama--an invisible (literally), silent, man in a chair. Ralph Ellison couldn't have dreamt that up. Wow.
37
Such an insulting cliche. Journalists are not running around ready to sell soul and body for a scoop. What a sexist, old-school canard about female reporters. It's just like female lawyer characters who are shown sleeping their way into the high-powered firm or on some coveted case- the depiction undermines the professionalism, skill and ethics of women actually doing the job in real life.
18
@Lily And yet, some of them don't do the hard work required to excel. This from an old hand at a large metro.
4
I’m sure there are plenty of men who don’t do “the hard work needed to excel” either
9
Hollywood hates the media and presents reporters and editors as corrupt all the time. Additionally, Eastwood's movies are carefully arranged right wing propaganda. If you understand this going in you can still enjoy the films.
8
@Doug Terry Even Paul Newman and Sally Fields made a anti-media film entitled Absence of Malice. The press is not with out their problems, but the mainstream press does try hard to get their facts correct.
1
I was planning to see this movie but this article has changed my mind. How about Hollywood showing Robert Redford or Dustin Hoffman prostituting themselves for Watergate tips? I am tired of just passing over this type of outrageous sexism in movies. Great time for Clint Eastwood to retire.
37
This is nothing new for Clint Eastwood. His movies are thinly-veiled right-wing propaganda vehicles.
1
It's not really surprising to me that Eastwood would do this. He has had so many failed relationships with women.
Eastwood is a Libertarian and has rarely given a sympathetic portrayal of the government. This is just opportunity to take a shot at both women and the government.
I don't intend to watch this movie.
17
@cl
Tolerance for controversial art just flew out the window.
2
as i understand things, movies aren't supposed to tell the truth. that's supposed to be the job of a free press.
meanwhile, a filmmaker is probably right to believe that most people won't see a difference between trading sex for information and trading sex for money, and that most viewers would recognize the equivalence in a film.
4
I would say a substantial part of the blame goes to the editor and the company, who you'd think know to avoid these kind of 'artistic liberties', even if the writer and/or director put them in, especially for a award hopeful. The culture of Harvey Weinstein is alive and well.
9
This movie is a dramatization. Clint Eastwood also portrayed the NSTA untruthfully in the Sully movie.
Some people who knew Sharon Tate and other Manson family victims were upset by the Tarantino film earlier this year, calling it insensitive to survivors.
Let's remember that dramatizations of historic events take poetic license. As a former female reporter, I think the folks who put together the Richard Jewell movie could have found another way to create tension in a movie where you already know the outcome.
House of Cards also featured a journalist sleeping with a politico. I do not remember any outcry then. Sometimes a movie is just a movie.
11
@NR Ms Scruggs was a real person. That might make a difference.
Tarantino's movies are a different category: they're over the top enough that people may find them offensive in themselves, but you could claim that they don't pretend to be serious portrayals of their subjects, or of what really happened.
15
@NR — This goes far beyond poetic license. It is manipulating and slandering the career and reputation of a dead woman to tell a good story. Yes, sometimes facts are altered to advance a plot, but that is disclosed in the credits, and it usually isn’t this egregious.
Offensive, gratuitous, and cowardly. Eastwood would not have done this if Ms, Scruggs were still alive and could defend herself, and the fact that her employer apparently condones this is unacceptable as well.
4
@NR House of Cards was fiction. This film slanders a real person. Big difference.
6
This film, at a minimum, is good for the subject matter of at least 50 future Presidential tweets, conveniently combining the further trashing of the “enemy of the people”, the corrupt F.B.I., and plaudits for the right wing Eastwood.
11
Reason enough to boycott the film. The studio can re-shoot the scene or reedit it.
10
The fact that they changed the name of the male FBI agent but not the female reporter tells me everything I need about motive.
57
There are very clear notions on roles and behaviors of men and women. I was reading viewer reviews of “The Man in the High Castle”. Most negative reviews felt the story line in the final season was too ideological and unbelievable. Was that due to the heroes in the season consisted mostly of women and/or black instead of male and/or white. Believable stories need stock characters acting out expected roles.
3
Maybe instant karma that Olivia Wilde isn’t being recognized for her directorial debut?
3
Standing ovation vs someone hissed. Does it seem largely accepted only to me?
3
It is unfortunate that Ms. Scruggs should be caught up in making a point that is of the essence in examining the case of Richard Jewell. As a former reporter, I can attest to leaks by law enforcement designed to strengthen their case, especially when their case is weak against a suspect. I can also attest firsthand to their hostility when you question their laziness and egotistical zeal to solve a case. Too often zealous reportorial ego meets zealous investigators’ ego in such cases. A reporter breaks a leak on a hot story, and then the pack of even weaker reporters follow the lead. I don’t agree with Eastwood’s embellishment of Ms. Scruggs’s role to make this point, but the point of weak reporting and the hysterical pack journalism that follows is one that should be made.
9
I like Eastwood as a film maker and his movies, but he once did a skit on television where he displayed an empty chair who was supposed to be President Obama, and proceeded to do a roast. It was more demeaning that satiric.
9
He looked like an idiot.
28
I haven't gone to a film directed by Mr. Eastwood since his tin ear stunt with the empty chair in the guise of President Obama back at the 2012 Republican Convention.
Until I read this article, I would have gone to a cinema to see this film. After reading how he and the screenwriter, Mr. Ray, portrayed Ms. Scruggs, even to the point of using her name, there's no way in the world I'd view it.
Shame on Eastwood, Ray, and Warner Brothers.
43
Eastwood's latest slander doesn't surprise me at all. Anyone who knows anything about aviation would know that the NTSB is one of the most respected and appreciated organizations in the field. But in the movie 'Sully' Eastwood depicted them as a venal star chamber run by vile government bureaucrats eager to unfairly ruin Sullenberger's career. They were turned into fictionalized villains so Eastwood could make his movie more interesting. The investigation of Sullenberger/s handling of the engine failure bore no resemblance to the smear Eastwood performed on them.
It's no surprise to me that Eastwood is still smearing real people "for dramatic purposes.”
20
It’s so easy to blame the 24 hour news cycle media. The fact is that they would not exist if we didn’t like to consume the very thing they offer.
4
I'm not surprised that Clint Eastwood took a revoltingly cheap shot at a deceased female professional reporter. After all he mockingly grilled an empty chair that represented President Obama during the Republican Convention in 2012. I'm surprised that didn't flat line his career.
The fact it was not necessary to the plot of the film makes it that much worse. As for the screenwriter, Mr. Ray, perhaps he is to Eastwood as Barr is to Trump.
So called "conservatives" are fishing with dynamite. The collateral damage is our Constitution and our Country.
25
Eastwood has made some great movies ... but he has lost his mind of late. It started with his chair routine at the Rep convention. Really showed itself in the idiotic glorification of that mixed up Iraq War sniper. And now this.
12
I really wanted to see the film at first because Jewell is a tragic character. Unfortunately, from all I have read, it sounds like Eastwood is using Jewell's story to beat his own political drum. As for what Eastwood has done to Kathy Scruggs...it is the same thing he is accusing the media of doing to Jewell. You can't have your cake and eat it too Clint!
21
I think the Richard Jewel story needed to be told. Such a sad story. It’s unfortunate that a vehicle exonerating Jewel is being used to besmirch a dead reporter. Seems unnecessary to even include this scene but why not at least change the reporter’s name? Eastwood is a gifted director and though I am a democrat I think it is a good thing to have some prominent conservatives represented in Hollywood. This was not a good move on his part though and takes away from the movies message.
8
For the record, women never use sex and men never use golf to achieve results.
9
If filmmakers are allowed artistic license the next thing you will see is an African American playing Alexander Hamilton on Broadway.
13
I didn't see "The Mule" because of Clint Eastwood's involvement. I considered seeing the Richard Jewell movie but the defamation of this deceased reporter has sealed it for me. When it comes to anything Eastwood is involved with, there's nothing to see there.
22
Walt Disney ruined my favorite book 65 years ago. Not only did he not understand it, his film failed because of his ignorance/conceit. That's Hollywood, but also journalism. It seems to me that they both miss more than they hit -- but when everything works -- well -- what exhilarating magic they can create -- so worth the effort and pain. We have all now registered that this movie will be known forever for this caveat: that it cut a corner, presented as truth something probably not true for the sake of making their movie more appealing. I'm glad they got called on it. Mr. Eastwood will not be getting another Oscar for this.
6
A new low for Eastwood, and so late in his career. Why couldn't he have gone out the way DeNiro, Pacino and Pesci are doing in the Irishman. A bitter old man is a bitter old man, no fun.
8
A case of art imitating life
3
Does Clint have a history of chauvinism or hostility toward women?
In a Sixty Minutes interview he was asked about all his children, eight at the time, and his relationships with women. His facial expression and tone of voice registered fury.
When a man has serial relationships over the years with many women which all end unhappily, does that indicate a pattern of actual dislike of women?
21
People are mad that a dead women is being defamed in order to send a political message about the media. The irony is that the media not only defamed the dead Richard Jewell, they still defend their reporting of him. Eastwood wins because he baited the hook and you all but hard. This old man is smarter and wiser than you.
13
Fake news, dude. The media does NOT defend its reporting on Jewell. The media has repeatedly said it was bad reporting. So you’re wrong in a key assertion.
Clint Eastwood used a stupid cliche to make his movie. Too bad, because he’s a good director and I admire his work.
Life Hack: Everything you like doesn’t prove everything you don’t like. Sometimes there’s nuance.
19
The media has lost all credibility over the past three years since Trump was elected. The hyperventilated speculations and rumors about Russian collusion and pee stories which bombarded us every day yet proved to be false were just the beginning. It's interesting to see that this kind of malpractice is not new and happened twenty years ago in Atlanta. I predict this movie will be a blockbuster as will Trump's reelection in 2020. I'm looking forward to the movie that will be made about the media of our time. Unfortunately I don't think Eastwood will be around to make it.
7
The words "...I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness...Have you no sense of decency?" once had the power to counter a terrible injustice. How did we get to this point where retrench, deny, obfuscate trumps them?
5
I left Olympic Centennial Park just a few minutes before the bombing. When we left it was the beginning of Ray Charles' performance, when we got home and turned on the TV, it was all smoke and chaos. I remember all of the (real) Richard Jewell case, I remember Buford Highway so clogged with reporters and cars that you couldn't use it at all for a while. I remember the bombing. I remember when they went after Jewell, when Kennesaw College fired him and all the rest. Oh, and we were subscribers to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution at the time, too.
I remember nothing about Kathy Scruggs using sex to get information out of the FBI. Nothing. I don't actually believe it happened. I side with the AJC on this one. There's a huge difference between taking artistic license to make a film work and taking license with a real person's reputation and her legacy. Clint Eastwood needs to apologize and make a public statement saying that he didn't follow the facts on this.
38
No matter what the critics say about Clint Eastwood but I still think he is one of the best actors, directors, and producers in Hollywood during the past 60 years. I have been watching movies since 1935 and continued going to see movies today. I watched all of the Academy awards movies since the Gone with the Wind in 1939. There were three male actors I really respected since 1930s, Gary Cooper, Henry Fonda and Clark Gable. Since 1971 I have been crazy about Eastwood. No matter what critics say about Richard Jewell but i will go to see this controversial production. What is a big deal if a beautiful lady trying to use her charm to gain some important news story out from an important source ? Everything has a price. Eastwood makes Hollywood today more lively. The most recent movie he produced and acted was the Gran Torino in 2008 and I really enjoyed this film. The Mule he produced recently was a big flop. But Dirty Harry is always a classic. He deserves a lifetime achievement award from the whole world not just from Hollywood.
13
Good, yes, but one of the greats, not so much. Think Scorcese, Cameron, Spielberg.
3
After reading this article I am disappointed that a dead woman's character is defamed and that the actor portraying her defends this decision by the screenwriter and director.
I won't be paying money to see any film featuring Olivia Wilde, or any directed by Mr. Eastwood.
21
You’re going to miss a lot of good movies if you want them to be made by perfect people. Why not just accept that Eastwood and Wilde made a mistake and move on?
6
Because if it’s a great movie, it and its defamation will live until the next asteroid hits. I’m sure everyone’s family would be thrilled to have their close, loved relative being characterized as unscrupulous. Without any basis in fact. Please forward this email exchange to your grandchildren. I’m sure they’ll be thrilled
4
@Angelus Ravenscroft , I don't expect movies to be made by perfect people.
Eastwood could have told this story without including a tired old stereotype of women using their sexuality, but he didn't.
Wilde chose to take this part.
As a consumer I can choose how to spend my entertainment dollar, especially given the cost of movie tickets.
8
I have no desire to see this film, largely because I am disgusted and offended by this portrayal of the female reporter. Suggesting that she got her "scoops" by trading sex is just so disgusting and such a cheap sexist trope... I refuse to support that with my consumer dollars, thank you very much.
31
Expecting restraint and decorum from the 24-hour cable news media, or introspection after a rush to judgement, is like expecting a pack of rabid hungry wolves to show restraint around a recent kill.
8
All professional women suffer from this kind of stereotyping and nothing will make Hollywood stop. In over 40 years I have never known even one woman to have willingly slept her way to the top of anything. Our lives at work are full of sexual harassment, not sexual conquest.
24
Well, I mean, Eastwood did talk to a chair once, so he must be prone to delusions.
11
The Richard Jewell fiasco was a symptom of the cable TV era of being first pays more than being right. And now we have the Trump era of being right doesn't matter at all. The Fourth Estate is as weak as it's ever been. And if moderates in swing states don't stop Trump's second term, the top three branches of our government may fall too.
3
It’s a movie....not a documentary.
Another thought: If 10,000 people complain but, there’s 7.4 billion people in the world, is it really a big deal?
11
If 10,000 people show up on your lawn, will you be disappointed that all 7.4 million aren’t?
7
The deliberate portrayal of the late reporter, who can't defend herself, as trading sex for scoops was unnecessary. The refusal by Warner Bros. to acknowledge in credits that the script took liberties with the characterization of her, even in the face of statements by her colleague that she did not trade sex for news tips, means I will not watch this film. As a former newspaper editor, I saw this scenario play out too many times. Whenever an attractive newspaper reporter, particularly a " cops" reporter, broke a major story rumors re her means of getting the scoop would fly. The reprehensible rush to judgment on Jewell was triggered by a law enforcement source and saw the light of day because the newspaper management gave the story the green light. Reporters aren't publishers. This decision to demonize this reporter is beyond ironic given the premise of this film.
21
The Times should make this posting one of its Picks
7
Ironic would only apply if she had a staid, quiet personality. This is a movie and the creators took liberties with this woman’s attributes - they didn’t go that far off to call it ironic.
1
The entire film is about criticism of journalism that publicizes information not provable to a degree of precision and accuracy that would make NIST scientist blush.
Eastwood is As Trump Humper.
The movie is Anti-FBI and Anti Press.
It achieves this through the overall narrative, but explicitly by following a female reporter shown to be making fictional decisions reflecting bad ethics.
Thats it.
Its one of the handfuls of conservative cultural attempts to drive a point with a relative minimum of hyperbole.
It fails.
Conservatives are transparent.
Who owes Eastwood a budget at WB? who still gives him the time of day?
9
So you make a movie about a man who was mistreated by the press by mistreating a woman who was working for the press ... the irony is astounding!
13
The screenwriter is to blame by putting the scene in there.
4
I’ve never understood some critics’ determination to make us regard Eastwood as a reincarnation of John Ford and Gary Cooper combined. Unforgiven was good, but the sort of thing Peckinpah could have done in his sleep. Bridges of Madison County was an overlong attempt at an American Brief Encounter, but it did have a good Streep performance. Otherwise his career is mostly marked by mediocrity.
12
Whatever else may be true, Ms Scruggs did indeed eagerly destroy a man's life simply to promote her own career. It's not exactly easy to have a great deal of sympathy with the claim of her supporters that she is herself being treated unfairly.
And what did Mr Jewell do to have his life destroyed, other than be, in fact, a hero?
Why should our takeaway here be that the important thing is how badly Ms Scruggs has been treated in this film?
13
@frankly0 - Perhaps you should read the June 2000 case study by Ronald Astrow at http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/j6075/edit/readings/jewell.html.
3
As a former reporter and editor, I am comfortable that I never embellished a story or omitted a point of view in order to promote myself or a personal opinion. That was our responsibility, to get to the truth. It was taught and underscored at every reputable J school.
Journalism is now lost. Most writers and editors emphasize what they want the public to believe and what will get them the most recognition. Truth be damned.
Congrats to Clint Eastwood for telling it like it was, and is. I hope this is a catalyst for changes in the media so we can start to trust again.
11
@Anne ok all of a sudden after you left journalism has lost its way? No more truth , sounds like a Trump trumpet talking!
6
What if the movie version is true? This article quotes associates opinions, and the screenwriter still held his ground. Jewell was crucified. HIs name was valuable and would never have been given out casually without incentive. Reporters and LEO deal in restricted information. The FBI knew it was a loner act, publicizing the name gave them no advantage. The paper made a lot of money from the information.
9
This reminds me of Mike Daisey's The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs: making stuff up to make a political point.
1
The GOP has, since the days of J. Edgar Hoover, over-valorized the contributions and conduct of the FBI. Now, when it is convenient for Trump, the GOP establishment executes an "About Face", with respect to the "Party Line" about the FBI.
If the FBI was unreliable in 1996, what should we conclude about their methods and practices in 1972, at Wounded Knee? Or all of the harassment perpetrated against Civil Rights leaders in the 1960s? On the thousands of lives the FBI ruined as a result of the Anti-Communist Witch-Hunts of the 1950s?
Where is the film about Leonard Peltier, who has suffered a bit more than has Richard Jewell?
4
What's new?
They decided to add some sex to sell the film;
was the actual reporter as glamorous as the actress?
movie = real life ?
depends on how you define 'real life' :
sometimes, a little , rarely , never ...
4
Sure, but they used the reporter’s real name and changed the name of the FBI agent...
10
Apparently a woman cannot be successful in her career without being accused of sleeping her way to the top.
16
Maybe Clint Eastwood is just crushing on Jon Hamm. That man has powers. Primeval, orientation challenging powers.
1
Funny how many comments criticize Eastwood for one element of the film and give a pass to the media for its decimation of a man's life. Maybe this is Eastwood saying, "See, this is what it's like to be unfairly stereotyped". Good on the NYT for taking the high road back in 1997.
11
Mr. Eastwood is an example in my life of a celebrity wandering out of his lane and ruining a good thing. I always liked Clint and his movies — until I saw him inexplicably do the bit with the empty chair in order to berate the absent Mr. Obama. It was disrespectful, mean-spirited, and not even funny or entertaining. Clint came across as senile and a bit nuts.
Now I know that when he performs in the role of a racist ignoramus, like in Gran Torino, he’s actually playing himself.
So I haven’t seen any of Clint’s movies since then.
14
“For a film that purports to be about the besmirching of someone’s reputation to proceed to smear Ms. Scruggs and the paper she reported for in this manner is highly offensive,”
Offensive, but richly deserved. They are the ones, more than anyone else, who did the injustice to Jewel. Now, they don't like getting it right back at them.
There is a difference between something being true, and something having a factual basis. The paper and Ms. Scruggs delighted in that distinction when tormenting Jewel. Well, now I hope Eastwood has a "factual basis" for his otherwise defamatory depiction.
9
@Mark Thomason
"Offensive, but richly deserved. They are the ones, more than anyone else, who did the injustice to Jewel. Now, they don't like getting it right back at them."
Who is "they"? Looking at the previous sentences of the comment, I don't see any noun that it could be referencing..
3
Clint Eastwood is so last century, a product of and from a time with little relevance to today. When will we stop paying any attention to these dinosaurs?
17
Shame on Clint Eastwood!
13
As much as I dislike Trump the cries of the secular priests screaming misogyny ring so hollow. This man Richard Jewell was tried in print media -pre-internet/fake news mind you, when journalists weren't trotting about all gelding-like- and now it is all about Clint's presumed allegiance the Republican party. Shall we relitigate Disney's Pocahontas while we are at it? Newsflash: it's a movie. There might be larger issues to wring out hands over.
10
"The New York Times played down Mr. Jewell’s status as a suspect at the time in an article that focused on the media reaction, cautioning that there was not enough evidence to charge him."
Really the newspaper of record is still hiding behind the just covering the coverage excuse. Maybe its time to revisit the ethics of that logic. I wasn't in the lynch mob, just kind of running along with it you know like all those other times we're done that
7
I’m a lefty liberal who respects Eastwood as a filmmaker. But defaming Kathy Scruggs is cruel, cowardly and contemptible.
13
@Malahat
A reporter using a romantic relationship for a scoop, now where have heard of that before? Hmm. I’m sure if that happened the reporter would be fired and never hired again by a newspaper.
4
I was watching a live interview with Janet Evans at the 1996 Olympics when the bomb went off. Evans flinched at the sound. I watched most of the coverage over the next few days. I know that the quote in the article from Tom Johnson (then president of CNN) that no one in the media actually accused Jewell of being guilty is not accurate.
Because the Olympics were on NBC, Tom Brokaw led the coverage of the bombing. After the FBI identified Jewell as a suspect, I remember Brokaw assuring viewers that his "contacts" at the FBI had assured him that Jewell was guilty. Soon after, NBC reached a financial settlement with Jewell based on Brokaw's reckless remarks.
I was disgusted by Brokaw's comments at the time and have not respected him as a newsman since. He was so smug, clearly implying that his status as an insider afforded him insights that we ignorant viewers were not privy to. His disrespect for the presumption of innocence and unshakable belief in his own infallibility have never left me. I am sure that they never left Richard Jewell either.
If Eastwood wanted to criticize a journalist, he should have focused on Brokaw, rather than launching a sexist and, apparently, fact-free attack on Ms. Scruggs. That would have been an accurate representation of the events.
Richard Jewell was a hero who saved many lives. He was vilified when he should have been celebrated. I hope that he is resting in peace.
36
Whatever your view on how Jewell was treated, to try and make a point about someone's reputation being destroyed by destroying that of another is pure hypocrisy. Whatever errors in judgment Scruggs and the AJC made were not done with malice. Depicting her as an amoral, unethical slut was a choice he made and a reprehensible one.
26
Clint Eastwood and Warner Brothers have struck gold with the publicity generated by this controversy.
15
@Baba
How? I think the movie should be boycotted. I'm certainly not going to see it.
6
The movie would have attracted an audience that was predisposed to see it. It will not grow beyond its base
4
@Baba No gold from me - I'll be skipping this movie and advising others to do the same.
2
Ms. Scruggs estate should sue Clint for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
17
The last Eastwood film I watched was Sully. In the goal of providing some drama, he completely mis-characterized the actions and attitudes of the NTSB investigators. No one was ever trying to blame the pilots, they were just doing a complete investigation, looking at everything, which is exactly what you would want investigators to do.
The studio, the pilots, and even Eastwood admitted it was all done for the drama. I guess you always need an enemy; if there isn't an actual enemy, you make one up. Not surprising that he is a Trump supporter.
35
@Steve
But the whole point was that he had to create drama to even do the movie, because we know how it turned out and who the hero was. Otherwise, there would be no movie.
2
Oh, man. Eastwood has spent the last twenty years making truly awful movies. From Million Dollar Baby to the Iwo Jima hagiographies, he has been making meaningless movies that glorify the worst violence. Such liberal license to generate PR for what is likely another lousy movie is characteristic of his libertine nature.
Or, at this stage, his senile nature?
6
This appears to be how Conservatives like Clint Eastwood believe that women advance in their profession. Since it can’t be the quality of their work, it must be that they are sleeping with a man.
40
"a sexist Hollywood trope".
Fair enough, it is a sexist American trope. But it is also a sexist American reality.
There's the rub. Tropes are not lies. Tropes are metaphors, similes, images, signs.
The question (the only one that matters) is: did it happen? If yes, the movie is unassailable. If not, the movie is lying and subject to litigation (especially is sexual consent is falsely attributed to an idenifiable person who did not consent or did not have sex). It is as simple as that. If movies engage with the world of fact, they need to get their facts right. If they get them wrong, and associate lies with living people, they are and should be accountable to matters of fact. If the facts are wrong and a reputation has been injured, sue. I hope you win (if the movie did indeed lie).
4
@John - All indications are that it did.
2
In tonight’s online edition the late journalist, Janet Malcolm, is quoted as saying, “Every journalist”......”knows what he does is morally indefensible.” This was in 1989. I don’t think it’s a scandal if Ms Scruggs did what she is accused of doing. She was a journalist. Period.
10
But Ms. Scruggs was never accused by any one in real life of this behavior.. it's a totally made up lie by the screenwriter. That's morally reprehensible in my opinion.
10
@person - So, if you agree with Janet Malcolm, I assume that means you would be satisfied to live in a world where there was no news or information about what was going on. Malcolm's claim strikes me as a case of serious "virtue signaling" and is worthy of being ignored.
Please let us know how you feel when a loved one is defamed by a movie. I’m sure you’ll be thrilled
4
Mr. Jewell was a hero, and the way he was treated at the time was completely unacceptable. Nothing in this film, or how the press covers it, should detract from that central fact. I, and millions of others, felt very, very badly for him and ever since have tucked in the back of our minds: it could happen to anyone. The FBI and press behavior seriously damaged this man and his family, and he died way too young.
21
Agred. But what about the reporter
defamed in the movie?
11
Yes, but you’re missing the entire point of the article – director Clintwood chose to muddle this message by throwing a falsehood into his story just to score a cheap political point by smearing a journalist. Two wrongs don’t make a right, though God knows these days right and wrong has devolved from the bedrock of civil society to yet another partisan issue. And we know who did that.
18
@Fred Tilley - She, too, died way too young. Friends and colleagues say she was troubled by what happened until her death and speculate that it was hastened by the stress.
2
Let’s pretend the movie is complete fiction. STILL... why use such a tired cliché? That’s just bad filmmaking! Come on Clint. Is that the best you’ve got?!
27
@M
No doubt you've done better!
2
Pretty all around self-serving, NYT. Suddenly you sound like a Republican House member.
2
Old-school directors seem to have a positively Freudian need to telegraph their obsessions in their work: Woody and girls, Clint and politics.
6
Clint Eastwood is a loony tunes, senile, conservative hack. Has been for a long time. Someone should give him a chair with which to talk and a private room to spend the rest of his demented days. The question is, why did any other actor or producer go along with it? Integrity is very hard to find among the conservative Russia loving ideologues who cheer for Clint. Traitors every one of them.
Those that wrap themselves in the flag are the first to soil it.
24
My admiration for Clint Eastwood has pretty much evaporated. He went, early in his career in "Paint Your Wagon" from talking to the trees (they didn't answer him ) to talking to a chair at a Republican convention.
6
Ever since Clint Eastwood appeared at the Republican National Convention I've made it a point to boycott everything he does.
49
@Greg
But not articles about him!
4
I believe a lifetime of pretending to be something you're not results in mental illness for most actors. I also believe it's a sign of mental illness that a person could be so good at pretending to be something they're not in the first place.
2
People who think it is outrageous for the movie to suggest that Scruggs traded sex for information on Jewell may not have read toward the bottom of the article which reports that the source book states that she had a reputation for doing just that.
18
@James Russell - You left out the part that reads: "In a statement, the authors said: 'We have been asked repeatedly whether we found evidence that Scruggs traded sex for the story. We did not.'"
14
Clint Eastwood, an American Cinema Institution, is not a good man.
4
I was looking forward to the film— I was disgusted by the rush to judge Mr Jewell, which seemed motivated in part by the fact that he was working class and overweight (because we all know that’s what villains look like, presumably.)
Now I am equally disgusted that the film chooses to portray a hard-charging reporter as a slut, apparently because that’s the only way a woman can succeed. I will not be bothering with this one.
83
@Stevie Did you read the article? They made up the character of the FBI agent. They might have done the same with a plot point about a fictional female reporter. However, Ms Scruggs was a real person and there’s been no indication she engaged in this behavior.
19
@Lawyermom
Wow. Why are you calling another woman a slut? The movie didn’t say that, you did. I thought women had grabbed the right to have sex when, where and with whom they choose, hence “slut walks,” “ No slut shaming,” etc. How times have changed.
7
@Lawyermom
Fir that matter, they could have replaced her with a fictional male reporter, as long as they were distorting the situation.
7
Get over it. It’s a stupid movie. The New York Times is heading in the wrong direction with all these puff pieces. Get out of Manhattan and start doing some real reporting in this world.
7
@PM - The NYT is far from alone on writing about this issue. Just try googling to find some of the others.
6
I will not be watching this film
5
I loved Eastwood as an actor Josey Wales is one of my favorite movies . When he made the movie Sniper I realized he's just a tool of whomever .
2
I liked me some “Eiger Sanction,” some “Play Misty For Me,” even some “Where Eagles Dare” - thanks to Richard Burton - but Clint jumped the shark spiritually years ago, as epitomized by his empty-chair monologue and various other disturbingly Charlton Heston-ish right-wing inclinations. Oh well. Let’s just call him quaintly un-woke and move on.
30
Particularly interesting response from Olivia Wilde given that her mother, Leslie Cockburn, was an investigative journalist.
8
"“I think Clint Eastwood is showing his age, frankly,” she added of the 89-year-old director."
Ageism, much?
13
@Beyond Karma - Sexism? Fine by you. Ageism? Not so much. Got it.
2
@Annie Really? Uh, aren't we capable and allowed to have more than 1 opinion about isms? To me Her comment literally defeats her sympathies. Sorry if you are only able to spot one instance of discrimination at a time.
2
@Beyond Karma
And if he were showing his age and how out of touch he is, how else would you phrase it? He's a product of the last century when Mad Men ruled the world.
4
The press, including the NY Times should recuse themselves from reporting on this movie.
16
Liberals and their selective outrage!
14
@Aaron - Fascists and their need to blame liberals for everything!
8
At least Trump and other men like him will love this film. Not only does it demean professional woman and the media, it takes a cheap shot at the FBI. Look for a screening at a White House near you!
238
@One Nasty Woman. In these days when the mainstream culture places very few limits on sex between consenting adults, why is it surprising that a man or woman might trade something they have for something they want? And based on what we know about other decisions Ms Scruggs made—as well as her apparent lack of any concern for how her reporting might Hurd the innocent Mr Jewell, Mr. Eastwood was acting well within the bounds of artistic license here. And compared to how other filmmakers have trashed Jesus of Nazareth or put conspiracy theories about actual events (e.g, the Kennedy assassination), this is not problematic.
14
@ehillesum - This movie claims to be about truth. Its tagline is "The world will know his name and the truth." How does one further the truth by making up something about someone else? When it comes to that, Ms. Scruggs, her co-author, and the AJC started out simply by reporting that Jewell was the "focus" of law enforcement investigations and why. That was was accurate--he was. And other media outlets were also getting ready to go with the story. A June 2000 case study by veteran reporter Ronald Ostrow puts a very different face of what happened. (https://tinyurl.com/qltf7rp) Was there a media frenzy that damaged Jewell's life? Absolutely. But how that came about is far more complex than creating a fictional version of Kathy Scruggs that tars her memory by claiming that she was an unethical reporter who traded sex for a scoop.
Furthermore, you state that Ms. Scruggs had "an apparent lack of any concern for how her reporting might Hurd(sic) the innocent Mr. Jewell." Just how do you know this? People who knew her claim that she was troubled by what happened for the rest of her life and speculate that stress over it contributed to her early death.
It seems that Eastwood had an agenda to paint the media as unethical and didn't care that his film depicted an action by a hard-working (by all accounts) woman reporter that smeared her and by extension women reporters generally. Some dedication to truth on Eastwood's part. It's sort of the chair all over again--just make it up.
51
@One Nasty Woman
The FBI and the media brought it on themselves. And if the reporter was part of creating pillorying and innocent Richard Jewel for s terrorist bombing that he didn’t commit, then I am not going to bother to defend her apparently absent honor. Maybe that was the point of the scene.
13
Clint should go have a long chat with an empty chair. Maybe he'd get a clue.
301
For the forgetful, Clint Eastwood said in anti-Obama ad that America could not survive a second Obama term.
And his famous empty chair dialog is still available
"Clint Eastwood speaks at the Republican National Convention" (C-SPAN) - Full Speech 8/31/2012 ·
8
@AndrewDover
Every Democrat has said, and it has been repeated in the NYT, the America will not survive democracy. They are seriously working on invalidating the 2016 election and using taxpayer funds to damage the president.
1
I just looked back through the catalog of Eastwood movies and there is not one that is inspirational - not one that has advanced human emotional understanding - not even anything educational.
Why do the same people keep making movies year after year without making anything beautiful? Instead they distort the truth and diminish our collective humanity or at the very least just waste our time.
Please let this be the last we hear from Mr. Eastwood.
131
How about "Letters from Iwo Jima"? It is an amazing achievement to have an American direct a movie about WWII which was popular in Japan. That movie showed a real ability to get into the shoes of an adversary and make him human.
31
@Brother Shuyun The Bridges of Madison County was excellent.
17
@James Russell Letters from Iwo Jima was an unconscionable glorification of violence. It was a gut wrenching movie, but ultimately vapid.
9
At a time when President Trump is attacking journalism non-stop, it seems Eastwood is one of his camp followers, not only besmirching the industry indiscriminatingly, but also casting doubt on reportage itself. Rather than setting the record straight, Eastwood has made Jewell the water carrier for the attacks on 'fake news.' Who is the faker, Mr. Eastwood, using two dead people to carry your overt political message?
316
A cowardly act by Mr. Eastwood. If Ms. Scruggs was still alive, Dirty Harry might not have been as quick to trash her reputation.
294
Liberty Apples: The fact that she is dead leaves Eastwood immune to any suit for libel or defamation. Once someone is dead, detractors cannot be sued.
12
@Subjecttochange Precisely my point. Thanks.
13
@Liberty Apples
But the newspaper could sue because when he defamed her, he defamed her work and therefore the paper. Strong cases have been made on less.
11
The problem here is that in telling the story of someone who was indeed mistreated by the press and possibly libeled, the filmmakers libeled someone themselves. Creating this fiction and changing the name of the FBI agent in the film is further evidence that the filmmakers sense of irony is missing...or worse have an agenda beyond the story itself.
331
@Frenchie
I think it was a part of what he was trying to say. He was likening the behavior of the press in that case to prostitution, or at least to an abandonment of any personal honor.
4
@KBronson - But why try to pin that on a real person who by all accounts did not do what he claims that she did? Did Ms. Scriggs personally act unethically? According to Eastwood, yes. According to those who knew her, no. Where is Eastwood's commitment to truth?
15
@Frenchie
And of course, the Atlanta paper resisted Jewell's lawsuit all the way, and it was ultimately dismissed on 1st Amendment grounds. Now they complain of defamation!
Hypocrites.
10
I used to admire Clint Eastwood as a great actor, But no more .... why would anyone want to make a movie about Richard Jewell? Am I missing something?
1
@Vietnam Veteran
Eastwood loves underdogs
3
Come on people, have you ever seen an Eastwoody movie? Heartbreak Ridge, the Dirty Harry movies, The Mule, Unforgiven, Gran Torino and so on. They all have a scene or two or three, or four (Heartbreak Ridge) that depicts a woman playing the lusty sexual aggressor. It never fails! Even in The Mule he has one of those scenes and of course it's him surprised by a three way at the drug lord's estate. Seriously, it would make a great drinking game to pound one after every misogynistic phrase or female initiated sexual overture. Some things never change.
8
@Tony
The only Eastwood movies I liked were the spaghetti westerns where Eastwood only grunted and chewed cigars; the dialogue was in Italian. He wasn't bad looking in those days.
1
@Tony
Most curious! Are women never "lusty sexual aggressors" in real life? Some are; I've known a few in a long life and never objected.
And if they exist, can they not be portrayed in film?
2
Knowing that newspaper, at that time, I wouldn't put anything past them...
3
To quote the NY Times, "Hey, lighten up. It’s just a movie. And they don’t give an Oscar for telling the truth."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/08/movies/before-the-oscars-some-films-face-the-truth-test.html
8
They used real names!! Not just a movie. Ugh.
5
@Garbolity Yes, historical movies usually do. But, they are rarely, if ever, accurate. All historical movies take artistic liberties to shape the characters positively and negatively. There's another movie out right now regarding Fox News. I'm quite sure there are people that work there that feel that movies is not totally accurate. The movie JFK by Oliver Stone made it look like Johnson had the president assassinated. The list goes on and on. This is not news.
4
DO NOT see this movie in the theater. The way yet another women is portrayed is unacceptable.
If you want to watch it wait for it to come out on a channel such as HBO or Showtime but do pay for this movie at the theater or as a rental.
The movie needs to be a flop and everyone needs to know why.
This is 2019 and "Dirty Harry" needs to grow up!
78
@Brother Shuyun
I definitely intend to see it. I might not have, but the 'Media storm' has convinced me that I must, to make careful judgments!
And I really like Eastwood movies....
5
@RefugeeFromNY
You missed the entire point. It is an unnecessary and made up scene about a real person who never had any power and being deceased has no way to defend herself. It is a cheap shot at a woman and the kind of cheap shot that has been used to undermine women for centuries.
You are supposed to "speak truth to power" "Not speak lies about the powerless."
Unless your name is Trump.
7
I was truly intrigued by this film until I read this article. I do not want to support a film about fake news which spreads a fake narrative.
1
“I think Clint Eastwood is showing his age, frankly,” she added of the 89-year-old director.
McBride declares him sexist while making fun of his age. When will this charade end?
18
Great point
7
Just over a year ago Jack Shafer did a good piece for Politico on the vexed subject of reporters relationships "romantic" and otherwise with sources. It was inspired by the case involving NYT reporter Ali Watkins and her admitted relationship with former Senate Intelligence Committee aide James A. Wolfe, a man intimately involved in her "beat" at the time and admittedly - as revealed in text messages - eager to see the young reporter succeed as a journalist.
What made Shafer's piece interesting is he went beyond the easy "don't sleep with your sources"admonition to addressing the equally morally ambiguous dance reporters and sources go through when reporters are trying to cadge information from a source and the uncomfortable ifalse intimacy and transactional friendship that often evinces.
He rightly notes "Editors end up policing romances because it’s easy to show that a reporter has lost his impartiality because he’s shtupping his source. It’s harder to prove that friendship has made a reporter a pushover for his sources, so platonic relationships tend to go uncontested, and we stupidly reserve the scarlet letter of lost impartiality for romancing journalists only. The ethics cops seem oblivious to the fact that people you haven’t slept with often wield more influence over you than those who have." As always in the perpetually adolescnet USA we are obsessed with sex.
17
Clint has become the empty chair he once embarrassed himself with.
34
What’s good for the goose... How will women directors portray Eastwood once he is deceased?
65
A few salient factors were left out of this story. The most significant is that it is not generally possible to pursue a libel claim on behalf of a deceased individual ( unless it was filed before the death). Eastwood and the Producers know that no legal action will stand no matter how they portray Ms. Scruggs.
Further, her status as a public figure and her reported reputation as a “flirt” in the story would probably have given the film-makers license to move that needle just enough to
protect themselves.
Eastwood still seems to have all his “marbles” and I’ll bet he was banking on all the fuss over Ms. Scruggs to promote his movie.
42
The NYT was one of the papers relentlessly stalking that poor man out instead of maybe, like, you know, doing some investigative journalism.- I remember reading an article in the NYT about one of its reporters/photographers sitting all day on a roof across the street from this man's home waiting for him to come out to - what, get a picture or something? And the snide reporting that he had always wanted to be a policeman and that he lived with his mother - which of course automatically makes him a bomber... Yuck. All the News That is Fit to Print, indeed. It was ugly and unprofessional and made that man's life a living hell...
17
"Warner Bros. fired back with a statement that said, 'It is unfortunate and the ultimate irony that The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, having been a part of the rush to judgment of Richard Jewell, is now trying to malign our filmmakers and cast.'"
Yes, of course, Warner Bros.' maligning of Ms. Scruggs and, in perpetuating the idea that women can only get ahead by sleeping with some man who has what they want, all women would seem to indicate that they haven't the foggiest notion of what the words "unfortunate and the ultimate irony" even mean.
16
Perfectly in tune with the times, Clint. Sheesh.
7
Sure Mark, stuff like this could never happen with the lily white journalists in the real world.
Dude the news media is the one who vilified Jewel and ruined his life and it it is far from the 1st time.. I love it when you guys try to take the high road and become so sanctimonious. Its a movie stupid not a documentry.
Eastwood is one of our last great director storytellers despite the noise I see from many of the commenters trying desperately trying to interject their "social" conscience into the discussion.
9
They need to cut that scene. And the newspaper should sue.
23
A lawsuit would go nowhere. The paper should do something more significant and lasting in Scruggs’ memory..maybe naming its headquarters building after her, or commissioning a statue of her, or starting a fund to provide scholarships to aspiring female journalists.
Something lasting..because in a year and a half at the most, *this movie* will be forgotten, just as most of Eastwood’s other movies are
1
@Mikebnews
Man, you should watch The Outlaw Josey Wales, Unforgiven, Gran Torino, Pale Rider, and a whole bunch of others. I assure you, he is not forgotten, and among makers of Westerns, never will be.
4
@Longue Carabine
yes, he is a good film maker. So what? So is Harvey Weinstein and Roman Polanski. The fact is Eastwood has defamed a women who can't fight back. And the sexism of changing/protecting the male FBI agent's identity while using the female reporter name cannot be ignored. I won't be seeing this film. And the newspaper should still sue to force him to explain what he did.
5
"Media storm", indeed! "Media storms" exist only in the eyes of the media itself.
That newspaper wrecked Jewell's reputation, and its reporter is the one who started it.
Clint Eastwood was bound to come under fire from this ilk eventually.....
12
The Atlanta newspaper's fevered, tabloid approach to the coverage of the Olympic bombing is one of the low points in American journalism. At one point the newspaper ran a column comparing Mr. Jewell to convicted child killer Wayne Williams. That shows the mindset of the editors overseeing the coverage. Ms. Suggs was just a reporter in all of this. Her relationship with her sources is irrelevant. She simply brought information to her editors who used it to crucify not only an innocent man but a man who put his life on the line to save others. Thirty years later, the newspaper is still trying to say it did nothing wrong. The newspaper is just using Ms. Scruggs as a smokescreen to hide the bungling of the folks at the top.
18
Before anyone says Jewell was "libeled", remember that he lost his suit against the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell
Other news organizations caved and settled out of court, fearing a public backlash.
3
I go to see a film for entertainment.
Mr. Eastwood's films I very much enjoy.
Will see this one too -
Yours in Denver, practically gagging on 'Political Correctness"
7
@Mamie Watts Im glad to see people with your attitudes are evolving (even if you refuse). There is simply no reason to include a baseless and gratuitous insinuation that a young woman slept her way to a story except to perpetuate the notion that young women casually and regularly trade sex for what they want. It’s misogyny. It hurts women. It is totally unnecessary, and it comes as such a relief to me that these instances are finally being called out for what they are.
5
All the AJC can complain about is the portrayal of the reporter? Not its own reporting on Jewell? Pathetic.
12
@JP - The AJC won in court. Jewell sued a number of media outlets. "Everyone settled except for the AJC, which held its ground. That case was finally tossed in 2011 when the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed, among other things, that the reporting had been substantially true when it was published." (https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2019-12-10/richard-jewell-ajc-lawsuit-reporter)
What happened to Jewell was unfair and in a just world should never have happened. But simply claiming that it's the media--or law enforcement--that's at fault misses the complexity of the situation.
Do we want LE to stop investigating? To stop using profiling which has led to capturing real perpetrators? To not report on what is happening? I don't think there are any easy answers. I wish there were.
1
Straight up Trumpist propaganda.
Slagging off the Media and the FBI in the same scene.
Lunch at the White House for you oh loyal Sir Clint!
8
Thought I might like to see the film, though reviews are mixed. Now not so sure. I know that this is the age of Donald John, so anything goes (for some folks). But I would ask two questions: (1) how important is this alleged aspect of the story to the real issue, which is how Jewell got treated by the media generally (sensationalism over hard, truthful reporting); and (2) how fair (if fairness counts any longer) to a person, Kathy Scruggs, who is no longer alive and in the end, only a minor player?
4
This is absolutely typical of what professional women have to endure every day from the men in their fields. And it remains outrageous.
121
Eastwood was a terrible actor; his stints as director are thinly-veiled conservative propaganda. Enough. At 89, it is time for him to withdraw from public life, and stop hoovering up cash that would produce far more interesting films in the hands of more contemporary directors, as well as actors with more than one dyspeptic facial expression.
21
@KB
I d on't know what Eastwood films you've been watching.
Surely not, Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby, The two Iwo Jima films, Gran Torino, and American Sniper, The first shows flaws in the iconic American Western gunslinger trope, MDB is about mercy killing, Iwo films show a human side of Japanese enemies, GT is against racism, American Sniper which shows that the snipers on both sides are similar in family values
and that it was hubris that led to the sniper's death. I could also include his excellent job upstaging and thus
taking down Mitt Romney in 2012. He is conservative alright-- in ways no longer seen in the GOP. As to aging, we should all be able to do what he can at 89.
12
@KB - Are you implying that we need or want more sequels?
It seems that in most other Hollywood productions, this would simply be called "Creative License". This film portrays the media as going after a citizen for the biggest scoop regardless of the facts involved or consequences. Maybe it's too on the nose for some people.
4
Sadly, at this moment in history, we can't trust the media and especially the press and journalists to tell the truth and use sources ethically. So, Clint Eastwood is telling a story in which we see an illustration of how journalists "get" stories and bend the truth and in the process, destroy the reputations of innocent people without accountability. What's new here? Really. Sleazy, unethical journalists writing stories to sell "news." It doesn't matter to them that they got it wrong.
9
@Sam McCool - Why a real person to make this point? Why use a woman to perpetuate the ages old meme that women sleep their way to the top?
And, it turns out, Ms. Scruggs did not "bend the truth." Her original co-written article reported accurately on the fact that law enforcement had determined at that point that Jewell was the primary suspect and the reasons for that suspicion. The damaiging effects of a media frenzy are all too real, but that frenzy arises from our human weakness of the latest "news". How many of us participate in--at a very personal level--slurping up gossip and innuendo about friends, neighbors, and even relatives.
2
It seems that in most other Hollywood productions, this would simply be called "Creative License". This film portrays the media as going after a citizen for the biggest scoop regardless of the facts involved or consequences. Maybe it's too on the nose for some people.
7
@ArthurinCali - However, the tagline for this movie is "The world will know his name and the truth". If a movie claims to be presenting the truth, shouldn't we be able to expect that it won't invent a lie about a real life person--and there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that Ms. Scruggs traded sex for a scoop--in order to further its plot line?
5
@Annie
No movie presents the truth, even a claim to present the truth is not true.
2
@Lynn in DC - Of course no movie presents the truth--at least not fully. Nor does any book. But some are more egregious in their deviation from the truth than others.
1
Just another film I'll not waste my money on.
25
I’d rather watch Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair for two hours than another one of his films.
Make our day, Clint. Give it up. Nobody cares anymore about you anymore.
5
"“I think Clint Eastwood is showing his age, frankly"
Ah, ageism is OK. Sexism? Rush to the lawyer.
At 89 and still producing movies with a loyal fanbase and rousing standing ovations, I sense Mr. Eastwood couldn't care less. She'll go after the estate if he dies. They always do.
11
@Scott She's (the maligned reporter) already dead. The article says she died in 2001 at age 42.
4
@Scott - Uhm, by "she," I assume you mean Kathy Scruggs? Hard to go after something from beyond the grave--she died in 2001.
And just who is "they"? Women?
4
Oh please, a Hollywood movie taking liberties with the truth? It’s only outrageous when it bothers the left.
4
@DP No, it’s outrageous when it maligns an actual person. Just as was done to Mr Jewell
7
““I think Clint Eastwood is showing his age, frankly,” she added of the 89-year-old director.”
The film should not have portrayed the female reporter as trading sex for a story if that didn’t happen.
The critic of the film doesn’t need to use agist remarks to make her point.
19
@Herb Fillmore
Unlike racism or sexism, so called "ageism" has a point to it. So please stop the hand-wringing.
I remember being 15 and not allowed to drive and 17 and not allowed to vote - based solely on my age. Age is a real thing and older people tend to eventually have some oddities - such as having an entire conversation with an empty chair!
So please stop with the "ageism" Eastwood was born in 1930! That is only 10 years after women's votes were counted. He was 35 when the Voting Rights Act passed. He is from a different era and it shows. His mental faculties are slipping and it shows.
The same things are all true of Donald Trump by the way. It is not ageist to point out that he has signs of dementia.
8
@Brother Shuyun
Many people think racism and sexism have points. You are on a slippery slope here.
3
Seems that when Clint made "J. Edgar", the supposed bio-pic of J. Edgar Hoover, and included a scene with Hoover wearing a woman's dress (despite any credible evidence that such a thing ever happened), I do not recall the NYT having published the objections by many to same.
Just love our right to hypocrisy in this Land of the Free!
9
Published the same day as an article about female filmmakers being virtually shut out of the awards season.
Deeply discouraging.
I'll be skipping Clints latest and see Queen & Slim or Little Women instead.
5
This isn't the first time Clint Eastwood has manipulated the truth.
American Sniper is an equally egregious example. Out of morbid curiosity, I read about 80% of Chris Kyle's autobiography. The man, in his own words, is nothing like the character Bradley Cooper plays on screen. The real Chris Kyle was a loud and proud killer. He complained repeatedly about how boring being home with the wife and kids was, and how he just wanted to get back to Iraq to kill some more. He called Iraqi's "Brown Savages." The man had none of the mixed feelings or hesitation the film version of Chris Kyle portrayed to the audience. There was also no big show down with an elite enemy sniper. He was also a liar, proven in court no less which required his estate to pay out damages to Jesse Ventura.
Clint Eastwood obviously has an agenda with his films. This time he wanted to slander the news media, and maybe in the case of Richard Jewell they deserved it. But, why trash this woman in the process? It is completely unnecessary to the point he is making and it completely undermines it's validity. It's just his ingrained misogyny coming to the surface.
I really love a lot of Eastwood's work, it's a shame he is going out like this.
20
@Tom - Agree with everything except your final sentence.
@Tom
On the other hand, most people have 'gone out' a lot sooner than Clint has!
1
Hollywood continues to give money to these old cranky dinosaurs, and the results are not surprising. Eastwood has long been a serial misogynist - whether in his personal life or when he's behind the camera. My goodness I'm sick of these guys.
14
Eastwood is a Trumpster. Anything he does is suspect.
10
@COMMENTOR - He claims that he's not a Trumpster but that he simply can't stand Hillary's voice and didn't want to listen to it for four years.
OTHO, he sure acts like a Trumpster.
3
As a professional screenwriter who has written based on actual events scripts for the studios, I'm surprised the lawyers who vetted the script before production didn't demand to see where the source material suggests Ms. Scruggs habitually traded sex for stories.
Without such evidence, one would think they would demand the scene be cut or the reporter be fictionalized.
82
Yes, of course the film should have made the reporter as fictitious as they made the FBI agent
They certainly wouldn’t have tried this stunt if she were still alive
13
@Sparky
Maybe that's why Clint has been a huge success for so many decades. Maybe you have been too, don't know.....
There are two kinds of lawyers in this world. One type tells you what you can't do. Some of them are very good lawyers. The other type tells you what you can do. All the great lawyers are of second type.
Eastwood does what he wants. It's worked great for him. Nobody can touch him.
3
@Mikebnews And you really think they showed this scene to the lawyers for the newspaper? No way. They withheld it I'm pretty sure.
1
I’ll wait for this to hit cable, rather than spending my hard earned money at the cineplex. I guess Ms Suggs is Mr Eastwood’s latest “empty chair” for him to debate?
2
Inconvenient truths have always been unsettling to those bent on keeping a safe distance from reality. Appears that Richard Jewell and Harvey Weinstein shared a common weakness for human fallibility, albeit very different approaches and tactics.
2
@Milton & Rose Friedman (dec.) - What are you trying to say? Harvey Weinstein is an alleged sexual predator who will go on trial next year. Richard Jewel is an innocent man who got swept up in a bad situation created by law enforcement and the press, not by anything he himself did.
7
The depiction of the media is fairly accurate historically: Look back of the history of the "free press" in the USA and one finds that again and again, the "news" was purposely inaccurate, inflammatory, and biased to sell papers, to make the owners rich and advance their individual political agenda. Instead of questioning Eastwood's story, look at the history of journalism in America and see it for what it really is.
4
Eastwood a Republican turned Libertarian (the Yellow flag with rattlesnake group) by way of his depiction of the female reporter demonstrates the all too common approach towards women by the Republican-Libertarian mindset. This mindset is ultra-conservative and desires the 'good ole days when men were men and women knew their place'.
81
Didn’t an intelligence agent recently get charged with divulging classified info to a reporter he was sleeping with?
Not sure why the journos would get indignant about Clint Eastwoods movie. I would venture to guess that most Americans would think this was pretty standard practice.
14
@John Gilday this one doesn't.
10
@John Gilday - Yeah, because all women are sluts who can only get ahead by using sex. Nice.
19
@John Gilday
Only at the highest levels of American Society such as when CIA chief David Petraeus who thought the e drafts folder of Gmail was a secure place gave the nuclear codes to his mistress Paula Broadwell and got a slap on the wrist for it.
7
I remember when it happened.
The ambiguous findings of the investigations then led to a giant yawn upon the announcement of the final conclusions reached.
This movie already had a giant strike going against my patronage, so adding a second duplicitous component really kills my interest.
8
When "Absence of Malice" came out oh so many years ago, I remember the uproar in the press about the impossibility of a newspaper being duped by an unscrupulous prosecutor to put
pressure on an innocent man.
But everyone in Detroit had seen the case play out already, and could name the guilty and innocent parties.
I'll wait and see.
4
Full disclosure: I have not seen the film. However, I have read that Eastwood leaves out of his film the information that the actual bomber, Eric Robert Rudolph, was anti-abortion and anti-gay. I don't think this omission was accidental on Eastwood's part.
214
@John Hughes Of course not. Eastwood is a wingnut through-and-through. Empty chair, anyone?
39
@John Hughes
Eastwood is a senile old right-wing hack who does not know when to call it quits.
74
@John Hughes
It is a distraction from the story of how Jewel was lynched in the media and destroyed.
4
Clint Eastwood is pretty well the last man standing when it comes to old Hollywood.He shares the values and attitudes of the old time moguls who made the casting couch central to the Hollywood search for female stars. He has therefor allowed a comfortable presumption of the behaviour of a female reporter to replace fact and research. Strange in a movie dedicated to exposing a media frenzy in chasing fiction based news.
52
Mr Eastwood hasn’t liked the way he’s been portrayed in the press. It seems strange to attempt to rehabilitate Richard Jewel’s reputation through besmirching a female reporter. Almost seems like he’s trying to create headlines. Not much left for a cranky old man, I guess.
120
One could fill a room with books about people who have been smeared without evidence by Hollywood films—without much protest. I think this is parochial. One thing is for certain, her life has been lived and is unaffected. Jewels was ruined. That entire episode was the beginning of my deep rooted cynicism about the news media and about federal law enforcement.
28
@KBronson - Oh, wow, too bad this film did not come out before Ms. Scrugg's death so we could find out how it would have affected her. Now it only leaves a nasty stain on her memory and by furthering the idea that this is how women reporters get their scoops, extending the stain to all female journalists.
40
@KBronson
Her life has been lived, perhaps, but does her family deserve the pain of having her reputation tarnished, do her colleagues and friends deserve that pain as well? Do young women considering careers in media (and other fields) need to see again and again that no matter how competent and hardworking, powerful misogynists like Clint Eastwood will continue to imply that they slept their way to success?
95
@KBronson
My deep-rooted cynicism with the news media started with their consistent trashing of Hillary Clinton; another woman of tremendous talent and drive.
3
Someone should tell Clint that two wrongs don't make a right.
94
I feel like this scene was vindictive on Eastwoods part.
71
If Scruggs had had a reputation for sleeping with people to get stories, it would be fair enough to write that into the script. Apparently, she did not sleep around to get stories, however, so I'm afraid this is yet another example of conservative Hollywood treating women like garbage to make a buck.
200
This movie reminds me of one from 1981, Absence of Malice, in which the villain (a naive one this time) is also a young female journalist, played by Sally Field. What is it about young attractive women that is so triggering for older men?
88
@Sean - Yep, some "comely young women" do seek out successful, middle-aged men. Why is this extended in meme after meme to apply to all women and imply that the only way for a woman to succeed is to either marry one of those successful guys and live off their money or sleep her way to the top?
6
@Sean
You might consider that many middle-aged women are not attracted to hairy-eared middle-aged men anyway. We like the young as well as men do.
11
@Melissa
The answer? Your own words:
'young attractive women ... triggering older men'
In these situations the women have nothing to lose, maybe something to gain ...
The men? desperate, needy, willing to lose their self respect for just one more ...
It's classic, ageless, and now we have drugs for it !
I'm not surprised at Clint Eastwood. It beats talking to an empty chair and making up both sides of a debate with President Obama.
I am surprised at Olivia Wilde.
189
@William Joseph Olivia Wilde's mother, Leslie Cockburn, was an investigative journalist. Maybe her mother's experiences informed Ms. Wilde's decision to play Ms. Scruggs in this movie.
Just saying.
3
@milbank - Sounds to me like you're implying that Ms. Wilde's mother traded sex for info and Ms. Wilde is aware of that. Nice job of smearing yet two more women.
23
@Annie It only occurred to me after reading Ms Wilde's cavalier defense of the liberties this movie took with Ms Scrugg's life and reputation as an investigative reporter in this movie.
Mr. Eastwood has long had problems with women and has had several "open" relationships.
Like Nicholas Cage, Mr. Eastwood's great movies are things of the past.
93
@John
Yeah, like the recent past; check the list of the movies he's directed just in the last few years.
20
@John - When did Eastwood have "great movies"? I find all of them full of phony machismo. I know they're popular, but IMO they're worthless. And who could every forget his deeply disturbing and disgusting conversation with a chair in order to disparage Obama?
14