Showing posts with label Paul Walter Hauser. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul Walter Hauser. Show all posts

Wednesday, 15 January 2020

Review: Richard Jewell



Richard Jewell
Cert: 15 / 131 mins / Dir. Clint Eastwood / Trailer

"The world will know his name and the truth" proclaims the poster for Richard Jewell, with director Clint Eastwood bravely carving this cinematic monument a mere twenty four years after our eponymous hero's trial by media for his alleged role in the 1996 Atlanta bombing, fifteen years after his official exoneration, after a 1997 magazine article, a 2014 documentary and a 2019 book. Clint, you're the real unsung hero of this whole damned saga. Bravo.

Following a nuts-and-bolts lead up, we follow Jewell (Paul Walter Hauser) through the events of that fateful evening and into its aftermath. The lowly security guard who discovers a suspect package at a concert is initially lauded for his vigilance, then turned upon by the media (represented here largely by Olivia Wilde) as they learn that the FBI (represented here largely by John Hamm) considers Jewell to be a leading suspect in the case, albeit with not enough evidence to actually charge him. Richard's efforts to clear his name with the assistance of lawyer Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell) are confounded by his fitting the profile of a 'hero' bomber, and also his unerring ability to say the wrong thing to the wrong people at the wrong time. Can the truth rise above all this?

EMERGENCY


Well yes it can, since much like Just Mercy, we know from the moment the emergency occurs that Jewell did not manufacture or plant the bomb. We're shown that explicitly. So the film loses the chance to be a double-crossing conspiracy thriller and turns into a lecture instead. Irrespective of an audience's knowledge of the case, there's a far better movie to be made from playing those scenes with ambiguity. Instead the press, media and FBI become the pantomime villains in a surprisingly linear take which paints nobody in a particularly good light, and much like 2016's Sully, we're even treated to dream-sequence re-enactments of the bombing with different outcomes. Nice of Clint to keep the action throughout the film, I suppose. Because since there was no sweeping courtroom triumph to the Jewell case and the FBI eventually just dropped the charges, the story peters out anyway. So it's probably for the best that this follows it petering-in to begin with.

Paul Walter Hauser makes for a decent lead, assuming his aim is to keep a respectable distance between the character and the audience's empathy. He plays 'borderline unlikeable' fairly well (with a conflict that's missing from the rest of the movie) yet still stays within the boundaries of writer Billy Ray's screenplay. The supporting cast are largely fine in roles that feel like quickly typed caricatures rather than real people. Coming out on top is Sam Rockwell, firmly in the runner-up position for screen time but he appears to be the only person on the set trying to be in a better film.

CHANGING


To his credit, Eastwood makes a solid go of being undecided whether to make a film supporting a patriotic American undergoing trial by media for a crime he didn't commit, or whether to support the FBI for investigating a gun-obsessed, authority-obsessed, incel-prototype with potentially undiagnosed learning difficulties who a) looks guilty as hell and b) keeps saying dumb things that suggest he's guilty as hell. It's just a shame that this dichotomy doesn't make for an interesting story. There are no twists, no turns and certainly no surprises. Eastwood's directorial work is procedural - never moreso than here - as he describes events rather than painting a picture. Richard Jewell may have right on its side but the film made is without passion or flair.

Although contrary to the rulebook for This Sort Of Thing, it closes with three 'what happened next' caption-cards*1, but without accompanying photographs of the real-world players. Then again, Clint has already clumsily stitched in archive news footage of the actual Richard Jewell so there's probably no need. That's not the case all the way through, just at a point where it feels like the production was running out of time so didn't re-shoot that particular interview.

As is so often and so sadly the case with true story/injustice cinema, the story - and its participants - would be better served by someone making a documentary. Oh wait, they did.

But at least we know Richard Jewell's name and we know the truth, now.
Okay, we know some of the truth.
Okay, we know his name.

Bravo.



So, what sort of thing is it similar to?
It's like Sully but less mawkish, if only because Clint Eastwood prefers righteous indignance.


Is it worth paying cinema-prices to see?
Not particularly.


Is it worth hunting out on DVD, Blu-ray or streaming, though?
Stream it, tops.


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
It is not.


Will we disagree about this film in a pub?
This is entirely possible.


Is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
There isn't.


Yeah but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 2: Sam Rockwell is in this, and also in Jojo Rabbit alongside Taiki 'IG-11' Waititi.


And if I HAD to put a number on it…
(It's actually more like a 4/7, but I'm deducting a point for Eastwood's inclusion of the Macarena, complete with dancing. I mean I know this is a film about a terrorist atrocity, but that's fucking gratuitous.)


*1 One of which tells us that Sam Rockwell's lawyer Watson Bryant went on to marry his girlfriend and assistant Nadya Light. As if that had been some kind of tense undercurrent of the film, rather than one single shot of them kissing which has precisely zero effect on any of it because the screenwriter has taken the receptionist's character more for granted than the lawyer ever did...
[ BACK ]

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Friday, 9 February 2018

Review: I, Tonya





I, Tonya
Cert: 15 / 119 mins / Dir. Craig Gillespie / Trailer



And like that (*clicks fingers*) January's curse was broken and I'm apparently allowed to enjoy new films again. And Oscar-contenders, at that. Craig Gillespie's I, Tonya is a flippantly acerbic bio-pic of Olympic figure skater, Tonya Harding, centering particularly on the events surrounding the 1994 attack on her competitor Nancy Kerrigan. Screenwritten by Steven Rogers and based on historical interviews with Harding (played here by Margot Robbie), her on/off husband Jeff Gillooly (Sebastian Stan), her mother and manager LaVona (Allison Janney) and a few others connected with the case, the opening title-cards boldly proclaim that the film which follows is exaggerated and contradictory. Which proves to be both its trump and Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free cards...

Compiled as a faux documentary, to-camera pieces featuring each of the central characters act as frames for character-building vignettes showing Tonya's early life and progression in competitive skating, as well as her turbulent private life. It's deftly edited but presented as gritty and harsh - on everyone involved - with a scattering of fourth-wall-breaking moments in the story sections. Rogers' screenplay offers its subjects up at their worst and their best (well...) but never quite passes judgement; that privilege is placed directly on the audience.

But as impressive as the storytelling craft is (and it is), that's nothing compared to the performances. Within five minutes of I, Tonya beginning, it becomes clear that both Margot Robbie and Allison Janney are absolutely on-fire, here. The pushy parent/coach dynamic has long been a cinematic staple in sports movies, but it's rarely been brought to the screen with so much visceral, seething energy (while also managing to be far funnier than it has any right to be). Awards-buzz for this film is richly deserved, as will be those trophies which are inevitably brought home.

All of this is topped off with an immense jukebox soundtrack (much of which is diegetic) that manages to escape the trap of 'listen to how cool my favourite records are'*1 (cf). And as if you hadn't gathered from the trailer, there is a lot of The Effing And The Jeffing in I, Tonya, although a script and subject matter as direct as this earns each and every expletive*2.

As someone who neither knows nor cares about the vast majority of All The Sport (and previously knew little-to-nothing about the case in question), my enthusiasm for I Tonya has caught me off-guard a little. But as other film-makers have shown, there's a massive difference between using sport as a setting for a great movie and trying to make a great movie about the sport. Craig Gillespie has fashioned something absolutely magnetic, at any rate.

Although even I have to admit, I have no idea how the 'team-up' episode of this franchise is going to play out…

I, Frankenstein  I, Daniel Blake  I, Tonya


So, what sort of thing is it similar to?
The Wolf of Wall Street, Miss Sloane.


Is it worth paying cinema-prices to see?
It is.


Is it worth hunting out on DVD, Blu-ray or streaming, though?
Not entirely sure what the re-watch value will be for most people, but it's worth owning as a great example of screen-acting.


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
Time will tell, but it's definitely up there.


Will we disagree about this film in a pub?
Unlikely, as much as I loved I, Tonya, I know not everyone will connect with it.


Is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
There isn't.


Yeah but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 2: I'm old enough to remember when Margot Robbie played the unrequited love of General Hux in About Time…


And if I HAD to put a number on it…


*1 Because not even the most cloying hipster would playlist Barracuda or Gloria if they knew people were watching. [ BACK ]

*2 Okay, with maybe one exception, but I won't tell you where that is. Just enjoy the swears. [ BACK ]


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.