Author's judgement: 2/5
The true story of a security officer who manages to limit the damage of an attack during the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, USA. This is Richard jewell, the film directed by Clint Eastwood, with over 60 titles behind him not to mention Oscar awards and other international awards.
It will not be a title that will enter the history of cinema and, despite being nominated for various awards, we have strong doubts that it can be taken into consideration. The plot is simple and refers to a true event. The protagonist, during a concert, he notices a strange backpack abandoned under a bench: as soon as he warns the police there is no time to defuse it and the device explodes causing two deaths and many injuries. Initially acclaimed as a hero, shortly after thanks to the FBI groping in the dark, he is first suspected and then investigated as a possible perpetrator of the attack.
This transition takes place thanks to the journalistic greed of an editor of the local newspaper who, in order to have "a story" to tell and make a scoop from the front page he has no hesitation in publishing an article accusing Jewelll without a shred of proof but only assumptions, later revealed to be completely unfounded. The story is known and we don't reveal anything new: without even apologies Jewell is completely exonerated and admitted into the ranks of the local police to which he so aspired.
Eastwood's hand can be seen and there is no lack of rhythm. The script is sometimes weak but keeps the thread of the story well. The actors do their job, without infamy and without praise. It deserves attention the usual approach, all Made in USA, to the problems of journalism and, in particular, to their great ability to face them without going around so much. It is an eternal and apparently incurable contradiction: it often happens that American journalists (and perhaps not only them) are so attentive to the news, to reporting even the most insignificant facts and details, they are so capable of making dramatic slip-ups just to snatch some column in the newspaper.
To their credit, cinematically speaking, they are capable of fierce self-criticism and when this happens they do it well. In fact, this film it's a gigantic indictment against "the two strongest powers in the world: the United States government and the press" as Jewell's defense attorney puts it. There's no need to bother with dramatic events that have occurred on the international scene to remind us of this: just think of the war in Iraq.
In Italy this kind of film does not find great fortunes. The title that most easily came to mind and the one that perhaps best summarizes the problems of the complex relationship between cinema and information in our country was Slam the monster on the front page, by Marco Bellocchio, from 1972 with Gian Maria Volontè. Among other things, of burning relevance: it told the story of a newspaper ("Il Giornale" before it was later founded by Indro Montanelli) and how with its articles it wanted to influence the electorate close to a vote.
Since then, despite the fact that news, politics and society have offered countless stories worthy of being told on the big screen, unfortunately we have seen little or almost nothing. To remember the documentary film The Enzo Tortora case – Where were we? , a two-part miniseries aired on RaiUno in 2012 directed by Ricky Tognazzi. Even in that case, the press played a significant role in putting the monster on the front page, only to fail to apologize sufficiently, not only to the person concerned but to all public opinion.
In a moment of post-Christmas cinema reflux and for lack of anything better, Richard Jewell deserves attention.
