Eastwood plays several strings: Joel’s private life, his past and present work and his struggle to clear himself of the charge of the explosion, to the cases he later filed with the help of his eccentric lawyer (and his former employer) Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell), and an investigation that included some stress and methods Opaque, FBI case officer Tom Shaw (John Ham) practiced, and leaks and methods that “contradict professional ethics” (sparked a cinematic and journalist debate in Atlanta and Hollywood after the film was shown and Etswood accused of distorting the facts) that journalist Cathy Kruges (resorted to) Olivia Wilde).
With his new movie, Eastwood reveals the danger of prejudice by taking an incident in the past in order to reflect on the bitterness of the present and its blackness. Eastwood’s cinematic skill appears in conveying a true story (all his recent films are real stories) without falling into the “pitfalls” pitfalls of the CV patterns that are used to induce emotion. On the contrary, he presented a clear movie in the form of a familiar, intimate objectively. In fact, Richard Joel’s case is a reflection of the “hero” place in American society (this ordinary man is in the midst of exceptional circumstances), and the prevailing conspiracy by the security services and the media who are willing to manipulate everything in order to obtain an outcome tailored to their needs. All this is revealed by Eastwood with usual narrative hardness, with that classic unbreakable classic.
Eastwood’s new movie is part of the director’s ecosystem. Richard Joel is another development on the issues the director is now dealing with more: the topic of the second opportunity. Also, it is a continuation of “Soleil” (2016), in which he explained the true story of an American pilot who turned from a hero to a suspect in front of public opinion. Here Joel is a strange man, who loves guns and is obsessed with protecting the nation, but he is also naive. The director is deeply concerned with the contradictions of this character who represents the American right, and we can include the character “J. Adgar” (2011) or Chris Kyle “The American Sniper” … characters and films that are not progressive but are more objective than many Hollywood titles that claim to be left-wing.
Eastwood films are rare, or we can say that his ideal narration by looking exclusively at the characters has become rare, in an era when production companies are obliging the director to give a specific style and genre to each movie. Eastwood is a classic filmmaker who narrates stories. He works as a protector of this method that is in the process of extinction. Eastwood knows his job perfectly, realizes how to pass on a true story to a simple man struggling with circumstances, and moves from a hero to a villain with a heartbeat because of the contradictions of society. Everything in Legend films is based on extreme simplicity, follows the rules and makes a beautiful movie completely different from what appears in Hollywood today. The harassment of Eastwood and still caused by his new movie by the media, was positively effective (at the box office), but we know very well how Eastwood deals with those who harass it and its films. Always present true films with great cinematic talent.
The director is concerned with the contradictions of this character, who represents the American right
“Richard Joel” is a film about an exciting personality and reality, which is a reflection of what life and society look like and the laws and how to manipulate them, and we end up influenced by what we are seeing because it carries our thoughts and fears from our society and our legal system and the way in which investigative offices and visual and written media deal in their search for Scope regardless of any transparency or objectivity.
The film relies on a wonderful introduction that defines its main characters within minutes, and from there the story enters and the rest of the characters blend smoothly, in a dramatic and comedic tone that sometimes fell into the bump of melodrama. The film remained accurate throughout, and Eastwood was clear, along with its political convictions, that the film was a commentary on world affairs. Through Joel’s case, he appears to be answering a question about how we got to the bottom. Not only does he question the press (it was recently seen in the cinema from a positive perspective), but he also questions the security institutions because of their inability to withstand the pressure exerted on them, and the lack of caution during the investigation of the issue of those “guilty” with something. The movie is always on the verge of ridicule because of the characters who approach the caricature, and this is what helped us to understand it more because, despite the strange things that happen, it is true to a great extent. Just like a cartoon, but it is a solid and decisive cartoon in which disappointment appears, but it is still possible to find light at the end of the tunnel.
* Richard Joel: Currently in the Lebanese halls