criterionforum.org

Never Cursed wrote: Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:16 pm Richard Jewell

I am amazed they didn't name the movie 'Fake News'.

So this is about classic Hollywood? The hunt for ambersons?

The RKO Story (The complete studio history, with all of the 1,051 films described and illustrated) by Richard B. Jewell (1982-08-27) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N40G9YL/re ... LDbMHM9P87

The Golden Age of Cinema: Hollywood 1929-1945 (Paperback) - Common https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00FDVU1RS/re ... LDb2S59FJN

I legit thought Jewell had made a film about Clint Eastwood and wondered why the thread title had gotten switched

There might be an interesting movie to be made about this, but Eastwood's not the director to do it.

The real bomber's motivation was that he was angry about abortion and gay people and proceeded to commit multiple bombings (Three people died.) to this effect. The reason the Olympics were targeted were because he believed and I quote, that they promoted "global socialism." Jewell was hounded because he supposedly fit the profile the FBI laid out, and well the media being the media decided he was guilty. Naturally this destroyed his life.

I'm unsure if I'll be getting good Eastwood or bad Eastwood and well I don't really have high expectations.

Hauser was amazing in I Tonya and BlacKkKlansman but something tells me this isn't going to be that type of a role for him

Big Ben wrote:Jewell was hounded because he supposedly fit the profile the FBI laid out...

Sounds like a better topic for season 8 of MINDHUNTER than a Clint Eastwood movie.

I dunno, I think this looks great! I am entirely unprepared for Eastwood to pass away. Can't believe how quickly he works, and the comparative quality level of his output. Yes, he's become a bit crusty around the edges with regard to his politics, but the guy is a tremendous example of what a long career can be

I think he'll live, and work, to be 100. His mother lived to nearly close that, and he has lived a pretty clean life for someone of his celebrity.

I certainly can appreciate that, but around 1 in 6 men aged 85 and older die each year, I wouldn't go placing a bet that anyone's going to live to 100

This is like if Clint Eastwood did an American Crime Story. I'm down..

Why are all of his movies docudramas now?

He's an 89 year old man who's made 8 movies in this decade (7 of which are true stories, like you say) ... obviously he doesn't feel like wasting precious time coming up with an original story himself.

He never did! He's always been a director of other folks' screenplays. But his wheelhouse has shrunk considerably, for good or ill.

He's seemingly taking a "ripped from the headlines" approach, compared to someone like David Fincher or Michael Mann who similarly have taken on less and less original work in the last 10-15 years, but put in the kind of legwork to make it all feel more lived-in and credible. They also aren't making films this quickly and don't have the cache with a studio like Clint still has with WB either. Not sure where I was entirely headed with that comparison, honestly but it has some merit in this discussion.

Fincher and Eastwood are literally polar opposites. Fincher's films are very fussed over. Eastwood's are artisanal. Their style of shooting reflects their end products. For me Eastwood, with his 1 or 2 take method achieves some of the rough and tumble of real life - the imperfect line readings, flubs, uncertainty and spontaneity. His shooting style is of the matter of fact, get the job done variety giving his movies a somber feel and their essential sense of sobriety. Eastwood's films convey a clear-eyed worldview - such is life, warts and all and people do what they have to do. I don't want to call his view Tolstoyan but its similarly observational and in a way non-judgmental. His gaze is calm, his style bracing.

All this might sound very old-fashioned and lackadaisical and less rigorous compared to Fincher but Eastwood's style is equally as rigorous and disciplined. He might not have the fancy shots or the studied camera movement, but the rigor is in his unsparing approach to narrative of showing life as clearly as he can show it.

Sometimes that results in very good films, sometimes it does not. But the style remains compelling. I think that is the eventual value of his films. Even in this late period. In a cascade of overdirected overedited overwrought movies, the equanimity of Eastwood is very attractive.

Actually Eastwood does use a lot of 'fancy shots' such as split diopters. He's just not showy about it.

If there's anything I've learned from played-out hipster restaurateurs,"artisanal" is synonymous with "fussed over." Eastwood is a craftsman, like a Ron Swanson. Sometimes his chairs are challenging, sometimes comfy, seldom both. Sometimes he just talks to chairs as if no one is watching.

Well, this thread certainly has jumped the Gran Torino.

Nasir007 wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:19 am Fincher and Eastwood are literally polar opposites. Fincher's films are very fussed over. Eastwood's are artisanal.

These are the same things! Words mean something! You can't just pretend they mean the opposite of what they actually mean! Why am I yelling?!

Nasir007 wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:19 am I don't want to call his view Tolstoyan

Yes, please don't.

Reviews seem standard for late late-period Eastwod - respectful but unenthusiastic.

Still looking forward to it.