The movie Paul Newman only made out of spite: “I was savaged”
Spite can bring us to do a lot of things that we probably shouldn’t, but sometimes it can be used as a force for good, because if not for spite, Paul Newman might not have starred in a certain film, which proved to be a commercial and critical success.
The actor was an icon of the silver screen, emerging towards the tail end of the Old Hollywood era, and by beginning his career at such a transitional period for cinema, he was able to spread himself across many major moments in the medium’s history, from co-starring alongside Elizabeth Taylor in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, entering the New Hollywood era with Cool Hand Luke, and even lending his voice to a classic 2000s animation, Cars.
He might have had an illustrious career as a Hollywood star that spanned decades, but Newman still let his emotions get the better of him at times, even allowing them to lead him to specific projects. So, in 1981, furious with the way the media misconstrues and misrepresents facts, Newman decided to appear in a movie that attacked the corrupt side of the journalism industry – Absence of Malice.
Newman explained to The Christian Science Monitor, “I was savaged by some papers after Fort Apache the Bronx. I was most offended by the New York Post. But journalists and newspapers protect each other, like doctors do. They won’t name the paper that did these things. They’ll only say ‘Mr Newman has attacked at New York newspaper’.”
This dissatisfaction with the way his film had been treated was a contributing factor in his decision to star in Absence of Malice, with the actor continuing, “That’s too bad, because if some papers are not accurate in their news stories, and report events that didn’t occur, it damages the credibility of all papers, through guilt by association. It’s unfortunate when responsible newspapers won’t take the irresponsible ones to task. So I felt I’d like to do a picture about media abuse.”
This wouldn’t be the only time that Newman would spar with the media, though. The actor actually put $500,000 on the line when the New York Post claimed he was shorter than he was. Adamant that he wasn’t five foot 11 as he claimed, the outlet offered to pay $1,000 for every inch if they were proved wrong.
Seeing this as a lousy bet, he put $500,000 forward for charity if his measurements proved that he was over five feet eight, and while the measuring contest never actually came to be, it’s a prime example of Newman finding himself at odds with the media yet again, believing that journalists just don’t know how to tell the truth.
So, Absence of Malice was Newman’s statement on the importance of truth in the media, and it’s even used today as a case study in journalism courses, because the New York Post journalist who claimed Newman’s height was only five feet eight without any evidence to prove this should’ve watched the movie and learned not to publish anything without solid proof of its accuracy.
Especially not a man’s height.
