Why new Richard Jewell film is being blasted for 'misogynistic' portrayal of journalist

I'm not defending Clint Eastwood's interpretation of events but, just because someone is dead doesn't mean that you can't give an accurate portrayal of them.

And how would the editor or Clint Eastwood know how she got her story? Were they in the room with her and the FBI agent? It seems to me that people are more intent on defending or attacking a "reputation" depending on what they've "heard" rather than what's the truth.

Besides, hatchet jobs are all the rage in Hollywood and sell celluloid so, it should come as no surprise that true or not they're going to paint someone in the worst possible light which, when you think about it, is just like what the media did to Richard Jewel in the first place.

Meh. Distraction for the masses.

As long as nobody digs too deeply into the "...wrongly accused of bombing..." shit, then all is good.

Funny how nobody protested when the Oscar-winning film Argo told us the only man who could rescue the hostages from Iran was "Tony Mendez" a brilliant CIA agent. (I took that description off the DVD jacket.)

Even the far left Slate magazine knows that one was whopper.

https://slate.com/culture/2012/10/argo- ... movie.html

Don't be thinking you can fall back on rumour or artistic license if you want to suggest a gay journalist is capable of anything short of Madonnaesque virtue though.