And speaking of film, Part Deux

In which the Blob, as promised, goes to see "Richard Jewell," and discovers that two diametrically opposed truths can indeed exist on the same plane, as the philosophers or perhaps Jim Morrison once said.

Truth No. 1: "Richard Jewell" is actually a very good film, and if there is not an Oscar nommy coming for the actor in the title role, Paul Walter Hauser, a full investigation by the appropriate agencies should ensue.

Truth No. 2: "Richard Jewell' is also a cartoon for the paranoid loonies who inhabit the campaign rallies of Our Only Available Impeached President,

This is because there is nuance and texture to Hauser's role and those of Kathy Bates (Jewell's mom) and Sam Rockwell (Jewell's attorney), and none at all to those who made Jewell's life a living hell. They're just the Evil Media and the Evil Gummint, cardboard cutouts who will affirm every dark fantasy the acolytes of OOAIP have about their favorite boogeymen. There's even a quick shot of Bill Clinton on the TV in the background of one scene, just to complete the Boogeyman Trifecta.

Look. There's no question Jewell was treated horribly by all parties, and that his is a compelling story that deserves telling. But what keeps a very good film from being an excellent film is the absurd, and indeed openly slanderous, manner in which those who put Jewell through the ringer are portrayed as simply one-dimensional Evil People who decided to thoughtlessly torture a decent if naïve man.

The reporter who (accurately) broke the initial story, for instance, is characterized as such a ridiculously over-the-top Evil the Blob nearly laughed out loud at some of the scenes she's in. Olivia Wilde's character is, after all, everything OOAIP's legions imagine journalists to be: A foul-mouthed, hard-drinking hussy who sleeps with sources to get her stories and displays not an ounce of character or humanity.

 That the reporter in question has been dead for 17 years and can't defend herself makes this deliberate defamation especially contemptible. It's hard to miss the irony, too: That in defaming her, Clint Eastwood does exactly to her what he shows the media and the FBI doing to Richard Jewell.

A much better film would have portrayed the reporter who broke the story doing so the way the real-life reporter actually did, by working her sources and not sleeping with them (a complete fabrication, according to those who knew her). It would have portrayed the media and the FBI as who they are -- human beings who, like any human beings, have lives and families and sometimes make mistakes and jump to conclusions.

A better film would have portrayed the Richard Jewell saga for what it was: Well-intentioned people simply trying to do their jobs, only with unintended and cruel consequences.

The FBI, for instance, focused on Jewell not because it was trying to destroy him, but because he did indeed fit to a T an established profile. And if the Atlanta Journal Constitution broke the story (again, accurately) that set the media frenzy in motion, it was also a different AJC reporter who discovered, through literal legwork, that Jewell could not possibly have gotten to the pay phone that was used by Eric Rudolph to call in the bomb threat.

That reporter's story was the first public acknowledgment that the FBI might have the wrong man.

Of course, in the film, it's Jewell's attorney who discovers this. And that's because to portray it the way it actually happened would have disrupted Eastwood's simplistic and ultimately dishonest narrative.

That's a shame. Because, told honestly, "Richard Jewell" could have been a great film.

Too bad it's not.