J. Edgar

J.Edgar

Well I'm back in the good old USA - so what could be more American than to take in the Clint Eastwood directed bio-film about  J. Edgar Hoover. Unsurprisingly the film is entitled J. Edgar. Eastwood's skills in directing a film are, as usual, evident. But despite the fine script by Dustin Lance Black, and a superb performance by Leonardo DiCaprio, I was less than thrilled with the film.

I think that the film is physically dark, depressing, and dull. The chiaroscuro effects are stylish but when you add in the somberness of the subject, you might come away saying that the film lacks light as well as lightness. Granted - Hoover is no easy subject. As the long time Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hoover dominated the American political scene from the mid 1920's until his death in 1972 while still on the job.
 
He was feared, and detested but he was good at what he did. This is not to say that he was honest, or played fair, or kept to a strict and righteous code of ethics that people could call equitable. In fact, Hoover was tyrannical, and a bit of monster. He molded the F.B.I. into a spiffy and polished unit at the cost of individuality. A man with a mustache is summarily fired because of his facial hair, and homosexuals were not found in the institutional corridors.

He got the radical Emma Goldman deported even though she was married to a US citizen. He took credit for arrests of criminals that he never took part in. He abused his agents by making sure that every one of the FBI agents were kept away from the national spotlight even if their careers merited it.

Finally there was Hoover's biggest secrets that were at the center of his personal life. Eastwood meets these head on then seems to back away. Hoover basically hired Clyde Tolson based on his looks - and the two were inseparable for most of their adult lives. We never see anything more than some hand holding and Eastwood and Black basically leave it to the viewers to read between the visual lines, or to make assumptions that are strongly hinted at but never confirmed beyond Hoover naming Tolson as his Number Two man at the top of the FBI food chain and Hoover's entire estate was left to Tolson. So whatever their personal reality was, Eastwood and company did not choose to add it , in further or greater depth, into the film.

Hoover was petty, mean spirited, ambitious, power-hungry, a bit of a Momma's boy, and his tactics often went outside of the law making him someone who would break the law to arrest law breakers.

Eastwood and Black have delivered J. Edgar with a familiar format of an older man dictating his memoirs to a series of writers with the ensuing flash blacks. We begin in 1919 with the bombing of the home of the Attorney General of the time, and end with Hoover's death alone on the floor of his art museum like bedroom. Before the news is even released to the news media, we see paranoid President Richard Nixon marshalling his henchman and saying - "Seal off his office, seal off his home. Find those files. I want those fucking confidential files."

The format has us going back and forth from the older Hoover, to the younger and driven Hoover with Leonardo DiCaprio nailing both roles. Kudos must be given to the makeup artists who did an absolutely astonishing job with DiCaprio's Hoover. But somehow they did a lousy job with Armie Hammer as an older Clyde Tolson. Naomi Watts is along for the full ride as J. Edgar's personal secretary, Helen Gandy. She doesn't have much of role - I mean how to do you portray 'loyalty' as an actress?

Judi Dench portrays J. Edgar's mother and she was as domineering as his Mom as he was as the FBI Director. She wasn't a monster though she appears to be the most major motivating factor in Hoover becoming the monster that he was.

My overall impression was that the film was dull - you knew the players Nixon, RFK, MLK and you knew their outcomes. Eastwood did peel back the curtains to reveal visually the Hoover that we had only read about - but the film was inert. It lacked actions, highlights, and even DiCaprio couldn't make Hoover, the man, appealing. But then again, they weren't trying to make him appealing. What DiCaprio, Eastwood, and Black did achieve was to show us that the institution called J. Edgar Hoover did in fact have humanity - however flawed it was - he was still a person. But he was a person who passed from our lives nearly 40 years ago. In one sense he is still relevant, as a historical figure who made a huge impact. But from the other side of that same perspective - today's seniors 65+ years of age and older, will have an interest in this film because they lived through a part of Hoover's life with great awareness of him, if not exact knowledge.  Younger folks may come in with an opinion that says: So what or who cares?

Others will see the film because it was directed by Clint Eastwood whose career in films is even longer than Hoover's was in the FBI. Eastwood's name on the marquee or the film poster will guarantee to draw in plenty of paying customers. But because of the distance in years to Hoover's heyday if we can call it that, to the end of 2011 is a substantial amount of time. Clint, how about Mickey Mantle next ?

Amazon.com has a list of the 10 Best Biography Movies - Shindler's List, Lawrence of Arabia, Gandhi, Amadeus, Raging Bull, Patton, Bonnie & Clyde, Goodfellas, Capote, and Malcolm X and this film isn't going to crack into that list replacing any of those films . While many critics are applauding this film with very good to excellent reviews - I'm not going there. This one wasn't even as good as Eastwood's Invictus, and in my view, J. Edgar will go down as a decent technical achievement but as a film that will leave audiences unmoved.

Recommendations: Chak De! India

Last updated: 2011-11-17 10:25:57 by JustMeMike

J. Edgar- A Dismally Paced and Unorganized Biography Picture That Suffers from Subpar Writing, Incomplete Performances, and a Directionless Plot

Fictional biography pictures are a rare breed in the cinematic genres  that always comes with an initial reaction of criticism as to who is  making the film and who will portray the historical person in question.  And for many, the name Clint Eastwood seems to evoke a profound sense of  trust in his abilities to deliver a credible film. But for those who  are actually paying attention to Eastwood’s films in the past two  decades there is little comfort that the efficiency he is known for will  grant us a quality product in the aftermath. Eastwood isn’t necessarily  an auteur, meaning someone who reflects his own beliefs or experiences  through the art of film, but rather a calculating storyteller motivated  by production efficiency rather than personal conviction. And that lack  of personal motivation is evident in his latest film J. Edgar,  which is loose and speculative biography picture about the notorious  megalomaniac in charge of the creation of the Federal Bureau of  Investigations, John Edgar Hoover. Leaving aside the rather questionable  presumptions of Dustin Lance Black’s script, the film itself is a  directionless, passionless, and overall indolent film filled with  questionable acting and pedestrian cinematography. Early conjecture on  whether or not Leonardo DiCaprio would grab an Oscar nomination this  year for another melodramatic performance is put to rest as we are  witnesses to a strained DiCaprio scene after scene struglling in a role  that seems far from completion. J. Edgar gives us serious  doubts as to Eastwood’s ability to be involved in the stories he tells  as well as giving us a clearer observation into Leonardo DiCaprio’s  limited abilities. A biography picture is meant to give us insight to a  particular individual that says something about our society as a whole  or perhaps it will pertain to something relevant in our modern day  problems. However, J. Edgar gives us nothing but simplistic  script writing, laughable acting, and a contrite walk through John Edgar  Hoover’s life that inevitably feels like it’s delivered in real time.

This isn’t the first time a film that has tried to dissect the complex  persona of J. Edgar Hoover and it certainly won’t be the last. But even  in the now dated The Secret Files of J. Edgar Hoover, there is  an obvious direction and grounded presentation to the film that exceeds  the lack of prudence Eastwood’s latest film possesses. It’s not that  Eastwood can’t give his films a planned direction but it is increasingly  obvious that he doesn’t care if they do. This conclusion is sound if  you just take a look at his last seven films and see that five of them  are mediocre at best (Changeling, Flags of Our Fathers, Hereafter, Invictus, and now J. Edgar). J. Edgar is  a meandering and directionless biography picture that resorts to  droning narration from a weak and unconvincing performance from  DiCaprio. Joel Cox’s editing abilities aren’t showcased as he merely  follows the messy script from Dustin Lance Black (Milk, “Big  Love”) that skips from different periods in Edgar’s life and focuses on  all his different relationships, including his devoted secretary (Naomi  Watts), his overbearing and demanding mother (Judi Dench), and his  number two  man and speculated lover Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer). When  you’re dealing with such profound relationships and their implications  on a man’s life that spans multiple decades it just seems an incredible  disservice to jam it in a mere two and half hours when a mini-series  would have been more useful. It’s a bizarre paradox that J. Edgar doesn’t  seem like it has enough information or deep character reflection yet is  unbearably too long to experience. All of the relationships are based  on superficial presentation and all have their flaws, whether they  become melodramatic or unnecessarily creepy. One scene in particular is  when J. Edgar puts on his mother’s dress and jewelry after her death to  mimic what she might say to him in his emotional turmoil, which is pure  assumption. And rather coming off as a mental episode of weakness, it  shares the qualities of Anthony Perkin’s as Norman Bates in Hitchcock’s  movie Psycho. Because the film lacks a core of passion and  direction, from both the screenwriter and the director, the entire film  feels superficially flat and simply doesn’t have any credible elements  to make up the ground to make it even remotely enjoyable.

There is no doubt that J. Edgar Hoover was an interesting historical  figure who had personal and professional conflicts.  Certainly  screenwriters such as Dustin Lance Black are free to speculate on the  potentially repressed homosexual tendencies J. Edgar might have had and  the strangely close relationship he had with Clyde Tolson, and this  review doesn’t criticize them for their particular stance. Rather if you  intend on tackling a subjective individual who was clearly power hungry  and complex, you must do it through a script that understands time  limitations as well as being sharply focused on what makes that  individual who he is instead of haphazardly dealing with the personal  relationships surrounding the subject, which are presented in a shallow  and unreflective fashion. None of the performances are noteworthy  through J. Edgar and it is an increasingly embarrassing  performance for Leonardo DiCaprio as it becomes increasingly obvious  that it’s an actor desperately trying to portray J. Edgar Hoover. So  when the writing is typically unsubstantial, the acting is disastrously  lackluster, and the technical elements of the film meet the mediocre  standard of modern filmmaking, who do we inevitably blame? Eastwood’s  quality of filmmaking has been plummeting as of late and perhaps it’s  time for him to hang up the saddle. Most of his career as a director is  filled with unexceptional work and occasionally has the classic gem that  fans hold up as evidence of a religious devotion. There is absolutely  nothing to admire in J. Edgar and it’s about time that Eastwood  take leave before we feel obligated to see another ridiculous display  of second-rate filmmaking.

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: Red Riding, Fish Tank , Mystery Team