The ripple effects of a recent interview, purportedly with Clint Eastwood, have exposed some of the less glamorous realities of film journalism. The interview, published by an Austrian newspaper, quickly went viral. This is not surprising, considering the enduring appeal of the 95-year-old film legend and his often-candid opinions on the film industry.

the timing of the interview also contributed to its popularity. It surfaced during what some consider a slow period for cinema, after the Cannes Film Festival and before the major summer blockbusters fully take hold. with “Mission: Impractical” fever fading and “Lilo & Stitch” enjoying box office success, a controversial interview with eastwood was bound to generate buzz.

The interview’s impact and Aftermath

The publication that ran the interview seemed surprised by the attention it received.This reaction highlights a disconnect between customary film journalism practices and the realities of the internet age. Manny film publications still operate under a pre-internet model,where facts moves more slowly and the same quotes can be recycled across multiple outlets without immediate scrutiny.

The newspaper has since expressed regret for presenting the piece as an interview rather than a birthday profile. This suggests a potential misrepresentation of the circumstances under which the writer gained access to Eastwood. The paper stated it would no longer be working with the writer.

However, the newspaper’s statement also defended the writer’s credentials, describing her as someone who has been in the Hollywood business for decades, conducting interviews with the biggest stars … Her closeness to them is undoubtedly well known. The statement further noted that she is a member of the Hollywood foreign Press Association (HFPA).

The Murky World of Film Journalism

The HFPA, known for awarding the Golden Globes, disbanded in 2023 after years of accusations of unprofessionalism, bribery, and misconduct. The association faced boycotts from publicists, stars, and broadcasters due to its lack of openness and diversity. It has since relaunched after issuing multiple apologies.

Many film journalists,including those associated with the HFPA,rely on access granted at film festivals. This access often involves brief, chaotic roundtable interviews with stars.As one journalist recalls:

After a bruising 20 minutes, you would be left with a challenging tombola of quotes about, perhaps, an especially niche style of cinematography, whether the star might one day visit latvia and a lot of bland waffle about how marvellous the director was. getting a question of your own in was rare. Getting a good piece out of the results was rarer.
Anonymous Film Journalist

Succeeding in this habitat requires a certain level of sycophancy and the ability to maintain favor with publicists. Some journalists cultivate a public image of celebrity worship, often posting selfies with A-listers on social media.

This type of access-driven journalism contrasts sharply with publications that prioritize in-depth, one-on-one interviews. As one journalist notes, the Guardian is a publication with sufficient leverage that it does not need to rely on roundtable access – and would generally not accept it, unless for background, ahead of a 1:1.

The Persistence of Print and the Power of Eastwood

Despite the rise of streaming and online media, the film industry remains heavily invested in print publicity. Publicists frequently enough prioritize securing coverage in physical magazines and newspapers, even though online articles may reach a much larger audience. This is as clients frequently enough value the tangible validation of a glossy print publication.

However, in this case, it was Eastwood himself who challenged the authenticity of the interview. While he acknowledged saying the quotes attributed to him, he clarified that he had not given a recent interview to the publication in question.

Eastwood’s decision to speak out may be related to his recent film, “Juror #2,” which went straight to streaming after reports of a conflict with Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav. It is indeed possible that Eastwood was concerned that the old quotes would be misinterpreted as criticism of Zaslav. Or, perhaps, as the article suggests, is he, in his 10th decade, simply paying more attention than the rest of us?