Posted on 12/10/2019 2:40:37 PM PST by yesthatjallen
The controversy surrounding Richard Jewell is heating up.
Warner Bros. has released a statement responding to the Atlanta Journal Constitution’s demand for a disclaimer saying the late journalist Kathy Scruggs (portrayed in the film by Olivia Wilde) did not sleep with an FBI source for information in real life.
“The film is based on a wide range of highly credible source material,” the studio’s statement, obtained by EW, says. “There is no disputing that Richard Jewell was an innocent man whose reputation and life were shredded by a miscarriage of justice. 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. Richard Jewell focuses on the real victim, seeks to tell his story, confirm his innocence and restore his name. The AJC’s claims are baseless and we will vigorously defend against them.”
SNIP
According to WB, the disclaimer currently at the end of the film says, “The film is based on actual historical events. Dialogue and certain events and characters contained in the film were created for the purposes of dramatization.”
But other journalists are speaking out on social media against the depiction, real or dramatized, of a female journalist attempting to trade sex for information, especially since it did not happen in real life.
(Excerpt) Read more at ew.com ...
I think the phrase you were looking for is, “We couldn’t exonerate her.”
I mean really, who would think women journalist or career FBI, or aspiring California AG’s, or even interns for that matter, would ever use sex to get what they want. That’s just ridiculous.
How about this timeless catch-all from former Duke University President Richard Brodhead regarding the lacrosse team: “Whatever they did was bad enough.”
I suspect they looked into her past before portraying her that way. I think there is a very good chance that her "honor" wouldn't stand up to much scrutiny.
If true, she's probably the one and only journalist who didn't.
> Dialogue and certain events and characters contained in the film were created for the purposes of dramatization.” <
The newspaper has a point. And this is something that has always bothered me. If you are going to cover an historical event as a movie, then stick to what actually happened. None of that misleading “dramatization” stuff.
Wow...I’m impressed by Warner Brothers. They must think this movie is going to bring in some bucks....I’ll bet Clint had some input in this too.
With her suing a LOT more people now know she might have “slept” with the guy.
I lived the drama and this Trollop was very sneaky and got information that was not readily available to the public.
Why did Cox pay out so much money and lose court battles? The AJC did not lose in the fact that they were charged with the wrong crime.
Well worth the ticket price (but smuggle in your own snacks).
Hey, it's up to her to prove it didn't happen. Right?
I thought the movie only portrayed this reporter as having done so. Am I wrong?
The last movie I saw at a theater was “Gremlins”.
I popped a large bag of popcorn and brought a six pack of Dr. Pepper. It was a drive-in and my Daughter and I had a good time.
It was in Garden City, KS. The theater closed a week later.
get some info and reduce your curiosity
Baba Wawa is their role model.
If you write about a real person and put in erroneous info then it may be slander.
Eastwood has an ethical rep and he should comment about why this is in the movie. Is it factual not? The paper is saying it is not.
If you read my bio, you would know i didn’t just start posting here recently. But nice try. This is what people do when they can’t address the issue, they attack k the poster.
The matter is open to speculation and the standard disclaimer language covers dramatic license. If that license is exercised in a way that casts politicians or journalists as whores, well, is that really a stretch? That's what really has the newspaper riled up - the broader inference.
They only say there is no evidence.
We know some female reporters have done this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.