And The Oscar Goes To......

[Smilla]

All these networks and streaming services and they couldn't find one non-white woman to get a nom. I'm at a loss for words here, honestly.

Yikes. Loss for words here, too.

[Ladybug]

Clint Eastwood's Oscar-baity Richard Jewell movie made up a plotline about a reporter sleeping with an FBI agent to get information.

Clint Eastwood's upcoming film "Richard Jewell" is facing heavy criticism over its depiction of a real-life female reporter. The film, which follows the life of Richard Jewell after the 1996 Summer Olympics bombing in Atlanta, Georgia, shows Atlanta-Journal Constitution reporter Kathy Scruggs offering sex for confidential information about the case — which the newspaper called "false," "malicious," and "extremely defamatory" in a letter released Monday.

In a letter to Eastwood, screenwriter Billy Ray, Warner Bros., and other parties, lawyers for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and its parent company said Scruggs, who died in 2001, was reduced to a "sex-trading object in the film."

"Such a portrayal makes it appear that the AJC sexually exploited its staff and/or that it facilitated or condoned offering sexual gratification to sources in exchange for stories. That is entirely false and malicious, and it is extremely defamatory and damaging," the letter said.

The reporter is played by Olivia Wilde, and she's defending this.

Actress Olivia Wilde, who plays Scruggs in the film, stood by the portrayal despite the criticism. She told Deadline on Monday that "minimizing" Scruggs to the scene where she appears to offer sex for information to an FBI agent is a "double standard."

"She had a very close relationship with the cops and the FBI helping to tell their story, and yes, by all accounts she had relationships with different people in that field," Wilde told Deadline. "But what I resented was this character being boiled down to one inferred scene and I don't hear anyone complaining about Jon Hamm's character as being inferred that he also had a relationship with a reporter."

"If there's anything slightly questionable about a female character, we often use that in relation to condemn that character or to condemn the project for allowing for a woman to be impure in a way," she said. "It's a misunderstanding of feminism to assume that all women have to be sexless. I resent the character being minimized to that point."

I don't really understand what she's saying here. The screenplay apparently shows her character violating journalistic ethics by offering sex for information, and what makes it more problematic is that the real woman is dead and not here to defend herself. I don't know if Jon Hamm's character is based on a real person or is a composite character. It makes sense that the AJC would call out the portrayal of Skruggs because she worked for them.

[scarlet]

The newspaper that identified Jewell as a suspect, and where Kathy Scruggs worked, is demanding a retraction:

link

I'm 100% sure they won't get it, because Eastwood seems to be a particular brand of bulletproof asshole, but I applaud them for standing up for a co-worker who can no longer speak for herself.

[Ginger]

Olivia Wilde referring over and over again to "the character" shows that she just does not get it. This is about a real person being defamed, not Olivia's "character".

[Deleted]

I’ve been reading a bit about this controversy, and apparently the filmmakers did not consult anyone who actually knew Kathy Scruggs or indeed anyone who worked at the AJC at the time. The other interesting thing to note is that of all the organizations that Richard Jewell sued after his name was cleared, the AJC is the only one that didn’t settle and essentially won in court against him.

But that doesn’t fit with Eastwood’s narrative of a red blooded average American white man done wrong by the big bad media, so the AJC will be the villains and a dead woman’s name will be dragged through the mud again. Good on the AJC for at least trying to fight back against this.

[Mutagen]

Dec 10, 2019 11:49:17 GMT -4 @roisin54 said:

But that doesn’t fit with Eastwood’s narrative of a red blooded average American white man done wrong by the big bad media, so the AJC will be the villains and a dead woman’s name will be dragged through the mud again. Good on the AJC for at least trying to fight back against this.

I had those vibes from watching the trailer, and it's sad that this story about Kathy Scruggs seems to confirm it. It's also sad because the treatment of Richard Jewell really was unfair, and he was certainly deserving of a movie exploring that - just not *this* movie.

I also have to commend the AJC for fighting back. They published an article called The Ballad of Kathy Scruggs which was a pretty great read. What it makes me wish is that a movie would focus on the true villain - Eric Rudolph, whose extremist Christian/white supremacist terrorism indirectly destroyed the lives of both Jewell *and* Scruggs. (I haven't seen Clint's movie so I'm willing to be corrected if it does focus on that, but it's still no excuse for making things up about Scruggs.)

[Ginger]

The producers of Little Women are complaining that mostly women are attending their promotional screenings, and this will likely affect their awards contention. (It already did not do well with Golden Globe nominations.)

I'm a woman, I'm a fan of Greta Gerwig, and I like the actors in Little Women. But I have almost no interest in seeing this movie and wondered from the beginning why we would need another version of it. Unless Greta Gerwig is doing something profoundly original with it, why? The Winona Ryder version was good enough and there are a bunch of older versions too.

I thought Greta Gerwig did not get enough directorial credit for Lady Bird. (Hollywood was only willing to recognize her as a writer for it.) But I don't think I can get behind gender-based accusations around this film just because people are meh about an unnecessary remake. It is material that appeals primarily to women, and I haven't heard anything to indicate that this movie really deserves to cross over.

[petitesuite]

I'm not 100% sure what a promotional screening is--is for critics, awards voters, and a few plebes who won tickets or are they just general open-to-the-public events? If it's the latter then sure, it's completely unsurprising that it's mostly women. But if it's the former I do think male critics/voters are just being gross and should be going to screenings as they would go the screening of any other buzzed about movie with an all-star cast and lauded director. I am extremely confident that lady critics and awards-voters have somehow forced themselves to sit through five hundred movies with one barely-talking lady in them, so I don't think male critics and voters should be waiting to hear that "this movie really deserves to cross over." Suck it up, assholes! And, if it is mostly critics/voters going to these things...I don't recall A Star is Born having this "only women come to our screenings" problem so I think we can safely assume that LW arguably being an unnecessary remake is not the issue.

Also, the early reviews that I've seen have been glowing and I believe Gerwig changed the ending (thank GOD), so I don't see why this should automatically fall into 'unnecessary remake' category. (And I will say I don't know anyone my age who has profound reverence for the Winona Ryder version which suggests to me there is at least some untapped LW market out there.) But, I know many people here disagree with that so I realize this is a minority opinion in these here parts.

[Mutagen]

Dec 19, 2019 12:47:32 GMT -4 Ginger said:

It is material that appeals primarily to women, and I haven't heard anything to indicate that this movie really deserves to cross over.

But all-male movies are pretty much never seen as needing to "cross over", are they? They're the default, including in so-called highbrow films. I think if women started boycotting Martin Scorcese's sausage fest movies it would be seen as "politicizing" things or unfairly attacking him, but for men not to give a fuck about some mere woman's movie is just business as usual.

With that said, Little Women reportedly has its own problems with exclusion as well.

[scarlet]

Speaking of Scorcese, I'm about two-thirds of the way thru The Irishman and while the set design/costuming etc is great (all the various eras look spot-on) and I'm enjoying Pacino and Pesci's performances, I'm not getting the massive love. DeNiro is not doing anything I haven't seen him do exactly the same many times before.