RICHARD JEWELL

Olivia Wilde     Sam Rockwell     Paul Walter Hauser     Jon Hamm     Kathy Bates

     This is a horror story, but it’s actually a dramatized account of what happened to the security guard who recognized the possibility of a bomb being in an abandoned backpack at the 1996 Olympics Games in Atlanta, Georgia.  After being called a hero for three days, the FBI got a tip from a local college president about a security guard he had fired. It’s unbelievable that such an elite group would place so much confidence in it, but they apparently did, and Richard Jewell (Hauser) was relentlessly pursued for almost three months, not only by the FBI, but as well by media outlets competing with one another to get the biggest scoop, and in such a hurry, they did not check their sources as they were supposed to.  The film focuses on one over-ambitious reporter (Wilde) who had unethically obtained a leak from one of the agents and wrote a front-page article identifying Jewell as the prime FBI suspect.

     The script by Billy Ray, based on a Vanity Fair article by Marie Brenner, follows the true story closely and is taut and suspense-laden, but also carries with it humorous (not derisive, but sympathetic) portrayals of Jewell and his mother Bobi (Bates).  They are a Southern middle-class mother and son who live together in a neat apartment.  He has aspirations to be a police officer, but has a habit of taking his job too seriously, following the letter of the law (of which he is well informed by his own reading), without an understanding of practical/political considerations. He’s not taken seriously by local enforcement, but to their credit, when he points out a suspicious backpack, they indulge him, only to find that there is indeed a bomb inside.  The area is evacuated as quickly as possible, which does save lives when the bomb explodes.

     Along with the fine script, the actors are superb.  Hauser gives such a realistic portrayal of Jewell, the viewer is drawn in immediately with his combination of folksy charm, innocence, and commitment.  Sam Rockwell (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, The Way Way Back, Fosse/Verdon) is one of my favorite actors; he always nails whatever character he is portraying, and here he is a complex Southern lawyer with anti-authoritarian attitudes, just the right person to defend a social outcast with principals.  Kathy Bates plays Jewell’s soulful, devoted mother with just the right touches of dedication and commitment to make it believable that Richard is her progeny.  

     In his 50-year career, Clint Eastwood is a phenomenon in entertainment spanning television and movies in different roles of actor, director, producer, and even composer.   His films are generally well received, especially Million Dollar Baby, Unforgiven, Bird, and Mystic River.  His most recent films in 2018 (15:17 to Paris and The Mule) were largely panned, but it is likely that Richard Jewell will represent a comeback to his usual solid form.  It may be over the top in some places, but seems to adhere closely to Marie Brenner’s magazine article.

A story about how self-serving machinations of the FBI and media outlets can ruin an innocent man’s reputation and torture him and his family for months.

Grade:  B+                    By Donna R. Copeland

ON THE BASIS OF SEX

Felicity Jones     Armie Hammer     Justin Theroux     Kathy Bates     Sam Waterston     Cailiee Spaeney

     Two mind-boggling aspects of the film, set between the 1950’s and 1970’s, are the number of U.S. laws that favored men over women and the obstructions a gifted woman like Ruth Bader Ginsburg faced throughout most of her young career. Beginning with law school at Harvard, throughout her attempts to get a law firm to hire her, and her attempts to bring up and hold onto a major case about gender discrimination, men talk over her and the other women, disparage their comments, and often simply ignore them.  It’s a puzzle in their circles as to why RBG and her husband mix up their typical gender roles, e.g., her taking the lead in arguing a case, him taking on household and child care chores, and, above all, sharing in all their responsibilities at home and in their profession.  

     One prospective employer at a respectable law firm in New York expresses his admiration and respect for her (who graduated first in her class, even after helping her husband through law school while she was also enrolled, AND took care of their child), but he doesn’t hire her because the wives in the firm might get jealous.  (Actually, I was told exactly that and was turned down for the same reason when I was applying for my first job as a psychologist in 1979.)  RBG finally lands a job at Rutgers teaching “Sex Discrimination and the Law.”  

     On the Basis of Sex provides us with an excellent dramatic account of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s life, from the time she was a girl up to her winning a major case at the Denver Court of Appeals.  It follows the prior release of a fine documentary, RBG, by Julie Cohen and Betsy West, earlier this year.  At first, I regretted their releasing the two films so close together in time, but after having seen both, I see them as complementary.

     This film, written by Daniel Stiepleman and directed by Mimi Leder, balances RBG’s personal background—including adult family life—with arguments among colleagues and those formally presented in court.  By the end, we have a clear sense of how this woman came to be (influence of her mother), the almost unprecedented degree of support from her husband Marty, and her forging a new pathway through a male-dominated legal system to achieve what is now perceived to be  obvious rights for women.  I especially appreciated hearing some of her arguments in court, which were presented in a way that only logic is needed to understand it—knowledge of law not needed.

     In addition, the film portrays the Ginsburg family’s actual life, such as arguments between RBG and her daughter that were expertly moderated by Marty Ginsburg. As portrayed here, he could be a model for a father’s role in conflicts between a mother and her daughter. The film captures the Ginsburgs’ marital relationship, which was apparently always loving, but open to conflict and differences of opinion.  Marty is clearly a peacemaker but one with principles and loyalty to both his wife and daughter.

     As she did as Jane Hawking in The Theory of Everything, Felicity Jones captures the charming spunkiness of a woman who is well grounded.  She conveys just the right blend of feminine charm, fierce commitment, and solid logical mind that characterizes heroic women.  Armie Hammer is a master of supporting roles—for male or female characters—of all different kinds, as he has shown here, and I’m wondering when he will play a starring role; he is clearly capable.  A real winning actor here is Kathy Bates as the irascible Dorothy Kenyon, a determined social justice advocate. This is a perfect role for Bates who should receive a supporting actor nomination.

A film that addresses equality between men and women with grace.  Thank you, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Grade:  A                                    By Donna R. Copeland

BAD SANTA 2

Billy Bob Thornton     Kathy Bates     Tony Cox     Christina Hendricks     Brett Kelly     Ryan Hanson

          The perverse filmmakers must have had an uproarious time indulging themselves in a buffet of non-PC barbs, images, and insults in Bad Santa 2.  If all the obscenities and lewd remarks were removed from the dialog, there would hardly be a script—except, of course, for dear Thurman’s (Kelly) lines.  He manages to give even the crusty, hardened Willie (Thornton) pause, and the possibility for redemption.

       Filmgoers should be aware that this is a justifiably R-rated film showing risky sex, violence, crime, and alcoholism—and does not necessarily speak against it.  Willie’s mother-from-hell (Bates), whom he despises, has manipulated him back into her sphere by using Marcus (Cox) to tempt him with a $2million job.  Of course, these three cannot be in the same room together more than five minutes before they’re at each other’s throats and spouting every obscene threat that comes into their pathetic minds. 

       The setting for their non-PC operations is a Christmas charity run by the Hastings (Hendricks and Hanson), where they are dressed in Santa costumes.  It is true that the Hastings are not really admirable, but c’mon, a robbery of a charity with Santa drinking alcohol and using offensive language with the kids??  This makes me want to limit the Constitutional Amendment for free speech.

        Bad Santa 2 is meaningless, without any scrap of redeeming quality.  Even the one cheery character, Thurman, is portrayed as dimwitted, and persists even after plain good sense should tell him not to continue his pursuit of Willie as “family.”  We see no cleverness in the jokes or in the plans for the robbery (turn out the lights, open the safe, escape through the garbage chute—which is fitting).  We see the expected end result, including a slightly sheepish Willie making a turn…oh no, not making a turn.  

Tell me you don’t want to see this movie.

Grade:  F                 By Donna R. Copeland

COMPLETE UNKNOWN

Rachel Weisz   Michael Shannon   Azita Ghanizada   Kathy Bates   Danny Glover

             This is one of the most interesting, intriguing studies of identity and attachment issues that I’ve seen.  There are movies about “split personalities” and multiple personality disorder based on the unconscious, but this is different in that Alice/Jenny (Weisz) is consciously changing her name, who she is, and her history, seemingly on a whim.  Or perhaps it’s when she starts feeling trapped (an attachment issue).  She describes an experience of getting to a “blank space” in her identity that feels like a high just before she decides who she’ll be next. 

            Transforming identities becomes a theme throughout Complete Unknown (a title that may refer to a Bob Dylan song, “Like a Rolling Stone”*).  For instance, when Tom (Shannon) meets Alice for the first time, she appears to be someone else; the name on a birthday cake is misspelled; and there is a sequence in which two people misidentify who they are completely in a game-like way.  At a party, some have fun altering biographical details, whereas others see it simply as lying and become incensed at the notion of doing so.  For myself, I find some humor in it, but admit that I found it unsettling in the beginning of the film when we see the Weisz character in shifting locations, appearances, and surroundings.  Someone’s identity is so central, we get disoriented when they become something like the shape changers in mythology.

            Tom is in business with his brother and is married to Ramina (Ghanizada), a talented jewelry designer who has been accepted into a designing school in California.  Tom is clearly feeling torn about venturing out of his comfort zone (home and profession) and launching a different life in California.  He’s having a hard time even discussing it with his wife, and is clearly hoping the dilemma will magically disappear. 

            When Alice appears unexpectedly at a party and he discovers that she blithely changes her identity at will, he is impatient and judgmental (with some justification, as we see), even horrified.  But he is also intrigued, and keeps pressing her for more details.  Then, when an unexpected situation arises, and she playfully pulls him into a game of pretend, he begins to see a possibility that never occurred to his practical mind before, which will prompt an important transformational change in himself.

            Complete Unknown could be seen as a light, entertaining movie that is just for fun.  But writer with Julian Sheppard and director Joshua Marston have something in mind that is more substantive, having to do with taking risks to fulfill one’s potential, or to escape untenable circumstances, or to explore the concepts of identity and personality, and, finally, to address the ethical questions and controversy that arise when people “mess” with something that some regard as God-given, e.g., taking different personas at will, or—more topical—changing gender. 

Don’t miss the humor and substance of this absorbing film.

Grade:  A                                    By Donna R. Copeland

*How does it feel

To be on your own

With no direction home

Like a complete unknown

Like a rolling stone

Dylan, B. (2004). Bob Dylan Lyrics 1962–2001. Simon & Schuster. pp. 167–168. ISBN 0-7432-2827-8.

THE BOSS

Melissa McCarthy   Kristen Bell   Peter Dinklage   Kathy Bates   
Cecily Strong   Kristen Schaal   Ben Falcone

        The Boss is typical Melissa McCarthy fare (Bridesmaids, This is 40, Identity Thief, Tammy), and if you like those films, you will like this one.  I see her role in Spy (written and directed by Paul Feig) as one that shows her more serious acting abilities, and the direction I wish she would go in her career.  McCarthy has considerable acting talent, and I think it’s time for her to part with the slapstick persona she is known for and get serious.  She is one of those interesting women who are heavy, but beautiful and talented.  The reason I liked Spy so much is that Feig showed a blended, more complex character, with smarts overriding klutz.

     The story in this film is that Michelle Darnell (McCarthy) is a highly successful businesswoman who grew up as a foster child—one that was returned surreptitiously to the orphanage numerous times—and now has a chip on her shoulder and determined to “make it”, no matter the cost.  And she does, but along the way she allies with “Renault” (Dinklage), her “twin” in business practices (win, whatever it takes) and sometimes lover.

          When he feels betrayed by her, he gets her charged with inside trading (the reference to Martha Stewart is explicit), and while she is in prison sees that her company goes bankrupt.  When she is released from prison, she has to completely start over, and relies on her previous assistant Claire (Bell)—whom she treated very badly—to reenter society. 

      This story is very much about sociopathy—essentially using other people (in the negative sense of the word) for one’s own narcissistic needs.  So Michelle blithely barges in on Claire and her daughter, co-opts the child’s Girl Scout cookie project to form a competing organization, all in the guise of being more generous to children than the Girl Scouts.  But Michelle’s rival, Renault (Ron, really, since he is from Brooklyn) is still seething and out to get her again.

        I won’t tell you how this turns out because I don’t need to; I’m sure you’ve already guessed.  But if you enjoy these kinds of comedies, then it will be to your taste.

         I object to this kind of movie on a number of fronts.  First, it wastes so much talent (the cast is truly fine in every respect) on a story with so much potential for substance.  Second, it models really bad behaviors too numerous to list and treats them as comedic material.  Do we really want to laugh at corporate misconduct, exploitation of employees and children, and physical altercations (note that when men fight, it is admired or at least exhilarating; when women do it, it’s comedic or even sexually titillating for some).  Well, despite the considerable talent—and the obvious enjoyment by many in the screening audience—I have to give this film a thumbs-down.

Typical Melissa McCarthy fare, in which bad business practices are presented as comedy by a very talented cast.

Grade:  D+                        By Donna R. Copeland