RICHARD JEWELL Review

Of all the people to become a moment in the years of 2019 and 2020, Richard Jewell is the most surprising (well, maybe the TIGER KING people are ahead but let’s not get lost in the forest here). Not to say that the man doesn’t warrant the coverage; after all, his tale is one of heroism and betrayal in the face of terror. Even so, as Clint Eastwood once more grumbles into the director’s chair, one wonders why the subject of a man beloved and subsequently scorned by his nation due to lacking government entities and bloodthirsty media outlets came to garner its own movie and mini-TV series in these current times. Actually, writing that out it makes a ton of sense as to why the tale of a man quickly uplifted and betrayed by America’s two dominant forces (the government and the media) crept into the conscious of Hollywood in the years of 2019–2020 AD.

With that background context in mind, RICHARD JEWELL, the movie marks another acceptable entry in ol’ Eastwood’s filmography. Like many of the actor-turned-director’s other later entries, JEWELL moves about with a sense of judicious pride throughout its two-hour runtime as Eastwood seems to just be checking the boxes of prestige filmmaking 101. Indeed, as someone who actually watched the TV mini-series MANHUNT from creator Andrew Sodroski first— which covered this very same topic — RICHARD JEWELL as a companion piece to that much more comprehensive mini-series feels less in-depth and also less emotionally investing. Intentionally so, I imagine, as Eastwood and writer Billy Ray, who based the script off an article written by Marie Brenner and the book, THE SUSPECT, by Kent Alexander and Kevin Salwen, focus moreso on the man at the middle of a terror attack turned media and government SNAFU: Richard Jewell, here played by Paul Walter Hauser. At least in theory.

Even with a more focused approach though, RICHARD JEWELL never quite succeeds as an enthralling portrait of a wronged man instead coasting on the idea of its subject rather than actually grappling with it. You have Richard’s background, where Eastwood quickly gives the audience glimpses into Richard’s stints as a busboy for future friend and lawyer Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell), a security guard for a college, and eventually, his fateful tenure as a security guard stationed at Centennial Park in Atlanta, Georgia the night of the bombings, a sequence that quietly builds from suspicion after Jewell first discovers an ominous backpack under a bench to full on frenzy as the bombs go off. From there, we see the malevolent forces of the constantly behind and frazzled FBI, microcosmically represented by Jon Hamm’s unsurprisingly slippery role as a less than stellar FBI agent, and the under-the-table griminess of Atlanta-Journal Constitution reporter Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde) literally get into bed with one another on their quest to frame Richard as the bomber — a story point that is entirely fictional and off-putting in equal measure. Indeed, it’s no surprise that a filmmaker with the political beliefs of Eastwood gravitated towards this true story of government and media failings resulting in the persecution of a good hearted American everyguy. While it’s no doubt true that the FBI and various news outlets bungled their depiction of Jewell in real life (the film, unlike the MANHUNT series, never focuses on the actual perpetrator of the bombings); in this film, these two entities are portrayed as simply incompetent or malicious (or both, if Eastwood is in a particular mood on set that day I suppose). In these moments, Eastwood gets lost among his own personal qualms with aspects of modern American society that only serve to make his film, again a film that alleges to tell the personal tragedy of a man scapegoated, edge ever closer to “old man yelling at the clouds” territory.

But if there’s one thing that the director is gonna do besides add little splashes of his own political beliefs into his films, it’s usually gonna be him actually making a movie that gets the job done. As mentioned, Eastwood isn’t really wanting to waddle in the grey areas of this true story — again, the government and the media are out to get you, common American — but he nevertheless manages to nail down the feeling of its protagonist as the walls praise and soon crash on him. While this film, like many of the director’s other later works, fails to catch the eye visually as it basks in subdued colors and lighting, Eastwood manages to touch on the strains of those fleeting but hectic moments of being both a hero and a villain, thanks in large part to his central actor. Hauser in the lead role takes a bit to find his footing, especially in the film’s slapdash first section prior to the bombings, but once RICHARD JEWELL leaves its audience with its main character, the actor is able to portray the plight of a common man with high ideals of himself and the government quickly being forced to confront the flaws of both of those ideas. Sam Rockwell, as per usual, enlivens every scene he’s in, taking what is a holier-than-thou paper thin supporting character and evolving it into the film’s show-stealer, at times even pushing its central character to the side in regards to interest and talent. Outside of those two guys though, RICHARD JEWELL is once more to content to trot out black and white side characters, ranging from Kathy Bates’ put upon and increasingly distressed mother to the likes of the aforementioned Hamm and Wilde as the film’s undeniable villains, unforgiving arrogance and all, which is fine when you gather actors of that caliber to fill out those thin roles, but in the end it’s hard to really connect to characters that only exist to further its creator’s own structured view of the film’s real life events. Ray’s script occasionally allows these performers to dig deeper into their real-life subjects’ problems but as with the rest of the film, those moments are quickly overpowered by more melodramatic moments of “gotcha” monologues (granted, every scene where Hamm and Rockwell are dicks to each other always hits).

As standard prestige film fare, you could do a lot worse than this. Indeed, it’s always nice to see stories like that of Richard finally get the chance to come back into the public’s conscious as there are indeed important and tantalizing themes that still nag at our society today and Eastwood covers enough of the subject to give one a solid understanding of the events. However, despite the fact that the film’s title seems to hint at something of a more personal film, RICHARD JEWELL is too content to just cover the events from A to B rather than digging deeper into the man involved and abused between those points. Just as the nation did with the real-life Richard, Eastwood veers away from the man at the center of it all to focus on the smoke and mirrors all around the situation.

2.5/5