J. Edgar

The best that can be said for this film is that it got made. The subject matter, about the life of a dreadfully dull and stodgy old bureaucrat from a bygone era, is not in line with Hollywood's usual mass-produced action films aimed at brash young boys. I credit Director Eastwood and lead actor Leonardo Di Caprio with enough star power to convince the money-men to fund this project. And it turned a profit.

But there are plenty of problems with "J. Edgar", not the least of which is a script that flips back and forth too much between the 1960s and earlier decades in Hoover's life. A lot of time is wasted on the gangster era of the 1920 and 30s, possibly because Di Caprio is so youthful looking, he fits a younger image of Hoover, in contrast to an aging old man in the 60s. Almost nothing is included about the JFK assassination and follow-up investigation despite the fact that Hoover played a central role in marketing the "lone-gunman" theory.

Throughout, Hoover comes across as bureaucratic, rigid, moralistic, self-righteous, incapable of changing with the times, dishonest, and a hypocrite. Absent from the film are any virtuous qualities he may have had.

As Hoover, Leonardo Di Caprio gives a better performance than I would have predicted. But the script does Di Caprio no favors. The dialogue for Hoover consists largely of platitudes and pronouncements. Hoover doesn't talk with people so much as make little speeches to them. And Di Caprio's monotone voice exaggerates this talking down to others effect.

Hoover demanded loyalty from his staff. As his private secretary, Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts) is an interesting study in forced loyalty. Ditto Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer), as Hoover's sidekick.

Cinematography is quite dark. Colors are heavily muted, almost monochromatic. Costumes and prod design are convincing across five decades. But makeup for an older Clyde Tolson is horrid; his face looks like a wax figure that's about to melt.

"J. Edgar" could have been much better, had the script focused more on the sixties and shown Hoover's working relationship to the Kennedy's and Lyndon Johnson. And though I appreciate Di Caprio's efforts to get the film made, a different actor might have been more convincing in the role of Hoover. Still, the film is a reasonably good effort. It's worth watching once, if for no other reason than because it's a true story about a real-life historical figure.

The infamous words spoken by Pilate to Jesus of Nazareth come to mind when one ponders the life of John Edgar Hoover. Was he a genius or a tyrant? A patriot or a dictator? A cross dresser or an uptight man with no sex life? Nobody knows for certain, and director Clint Eastwood does not offer a definitive answer to any of these questions, which is exactly as it should be. Life is rarely cut-and-dried, but moviegoers seem to have forgotten that fact in the face of media that state speculation as fact on a regular basis.

I find it not only surprising, but distressing, that a major criticism from those critics who panned the film is the lack of closure on Hoover's private life. Unless they are truly obtuse, they must realize that no film could possibly do such a thing, since his files were destroyed at his own bidding. All is speculation, and a fine speculation it is. Leonardo DiCaprio is superb (as usual) in the title role, never revealing more cards then he chooses to at any given moment. He receives fine support from Armie Hammer as Clyde Tolson, Hoover's Second in Command/Rumored Lover, and Naomi Watts as his endlessly loyal private secretary Helen Gandy. At a time when "red fever" ran high, Hoover's relentlessly tightening control on government investigations is shown in flashbacks that only underscore how supreme power can corrupt even the noblest of intentions.

In the end, the film answers none of the questions that seem so important to the very critics that disliked it, but in my humble opinion, a well made film is one that inspires debate or discussion rather than simply hand down a definitive 'this is the way it was' with an imperious gavel. With "J Edgar", Eastwood and his cast have succeeded well.

Greetings again from the darkness. The best place to start with this one is by saying what it isn't. It is not a documentary. It is not a very detailed history lesson. It is not the best biography of the man. It is not a behind-the-scenes of the FBI. What it is ... another piece of quality filmmaking from Clint Eastwood. It's an overview of J. Edgar Hoover and his nearly 50 years of civil service under 8 U.S. Presidents.

The screenplay is from Dustin Lance Black, who also wrote the script for Milk, based on the story of Harvey Milk (played by Sean Penn). Clearly, Eastwood and Black had no interest in setting forth an historical drama that couldn't possibly be told within a two hour film structure. No, this is more of a fat-free character study that hits only a few of the highlights from an enigmatic man's fascinating career. With so few available details about Hoover's personal life, some speculation is required ... but Eastwood walks a tightrope so as to make neither a statement nor mockery.

Therein lies the only problem with the film. While hypnotic to watch, we are left with an empty feeling when it's over. How can that be? This man built the foundation of the FBI. He instigated the fingerprint system. He armed the secret police. His agency tracked down notorious gangsters. He led an anti-communist movement. He was in the middle of the investigation for the Lindbergh baby kidnapping. He supposedly kept secret files on most politicians and celebrities. He viewed the security of Americans as his responsibility. He was smack dab in the middle of almost 50 years of American history ... all while being a power-hungry, paranoid mama's boy who may have been, in her words, a daffodil.

An elderly Hoover's own words tell his story as he dictates his memoirs. We are told that his memories of these stories are blurred and he takes a few liberties to say the least. He longed to be the comic book hero like his own G-Men. He longed to be recognized for his contributions, even to the point of desiring a level of celebrity. In his mind, he was the face of national security and the hero cuffing many outlaws. In reality, he was also the black-mailing schemer who so frightened Presidents with his secret files, that all 8 of them backed off firing him. He could be viewed as the ultimate survivor in a town where few careers last so long and cross party lines.

The film picks up in 1919 when Hoover is a youngster making a name for himself as an all-work, no play type. That reputation stuck with him until the end. When he was first promoted, he hired Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts)to be his secretary. In one of the most remarkable hires of all time, she sticks with him until his death in 1972. Staunchly loyal to Hoover and totally dedicated to her job, Ms. Gandy helped Hoover with decisions and processes throughout. The other member of his inner circle was Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer). Tolson was Hoover's right-hand man at the bureau, his trusted adviser, his daily lunch partner, and speculation never ceased on their personal ties.

Judi Dench plays Annie Hoover, J Edgar's controlling mother, who he lived with until her death. She was also his adviser, supporter and probably a factor in his stunted social skills. We also get glimpses of how he dealt with Robert Kennedy (Jeffrey Donovan) and his overall lack of respect for John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Richard Nixon. The Lindbergh case plays a key role because Hoover used it to gain more power for his bureau and increase funding for weapons, forensic labs and resources.

As for Leonardo DiCaprio, it's difficult to explain just how outstanding his performance is. It could have been a caricature, but instead he affords Hoover the respect his place in history demands. The 50 years of aging through make-up can be startling, especially since the time lines are mixed up throughout. His speech pattern mimics Hoover's, as does the growing waist line. There are some Citizen Kane elements at work in how the story is told and how it's filmed, but Eastwood wouldn't shy away from such comparisons.

If you want real details on Hoover, there are some very in-depth biographies out there. The number of documentaries and history books for this era are limitless. What Eastwood delivers here is an introduction to J Edgar Hoover. It is interesting enough to watch, and Leonardo's performance is a must-see, but the film lacks the depth warranted by the full story.

It doesn't take an American history buff to be familiar with a figure such as J. Edgar Hoover, founder of the Federal Bureau of Investigation... and a little more on the political chessboard. Anyone who've watched enough political movies would know a little about that rotund man who seemed to oscillate between the good and the bad side depending on protagonists and circumstances. Played by Kevin Dunn, he was the man behind the long exile in Richard Attenborough's biopic "Chaplin", Bob Hoskins played him as a conflicted string-puller who posed as an ally to "Nixon" not without reluctance... and his long-time relationship with Clyde Tolston wasn't cut out. In "Mississippi Burning" he was almost the 'Big Good' as the FBI agents were dismissed as Hoover boys by the local racists... finally, if you're a fan of Looney Tunes' cartoon, you might recall his cameo in "Hollywood Steps Out".

J. Edgar Hoover was one of these historical figures so larger-than-life history had no choice but "invent" them; his career spanned more than four decades and covered every major sequence of the 20th century: the rise of anarchist movements after the Great War, gangsterism during the Prohibition, the Lindbergh baby kidnapping and the ensuing 'Trial of the Century', the Kennedy presidency and his rivalry with the little brother Bobby and Nixon... perhaps the one adversary he wouldn't have the luxury to witness the downfall. You can't write America's history without having a few alineas linking back to Hoover, the man who created the FBI, revolutionized the method investigations, pioneering forensic and the classification of fingerprints at a time they were deemed as speculative science. And yet for some reason, he was always relegated to a secondary even tertiary level, there's no film about him as the leading role and maybe that says a lot about the paradox of the man, so present and yet absent, using secrecy as a sword and as a shield.

Making a film about Hoover was the challenge raised by Clint Eastwood and it wasn't an easy task. Through a rather well-structured albeit austere script, he manages to paint a rather interesting portrayal of a complex man, one who insisted to make America as secure as ever, driven by a fear of anarchy, yet driven by his own insecurities; who insisted that every recruit should be irreproachable and yet lived as a bachelor officially married to his job... but officiously living with the same man for more than forty years. Not the least of his paradox is that he wanted to offer the real alternative to the then popular gangster figure while he was like his enemies, a momma's boy who had too much to prove, a gangster on the right side of the law. Hoover had his secrets, like everyone else. Yes, it is highly plausible that Martin Luther King wasn't a saint, nor was Gandhi and that any good man had secrets that could potentially ruin their legacy, let alone not-so good men.

The script from Dustin Lance Black takes us back between the present where Hoover dictates his memoir to the various events that shaped his convictions. We see the evolution of the man from a bigoted Conservative to a patriotic enforcer, at times he's playing the bad role, at others, he's indeed a superhero going into a legitimate crusade against crime his finest hour being his role in the Lindbergh case, its resolution... and resolutions. Whether he's the unreliable narrator of his deeds (he exaggerated a little) or if he was driven by ego is besides the point, he orchestrated the Baby kidnapping investigation like a badass hero. I doubt Eastwood would hold Hoover in high esteem but he'd just reveal the layers without trying to force us to take a firm stance and that's all to his credit, he makes his Hoover controversial enough not to make his film an act of rehabilitation but develops so many intimate scenes that we can at least makes hints of connections.

On that level, the scenes between him and his mother and moral conscience provides a few hints and the botched romance with Mrs. Gandy his secretary might look like the catalysis of a life of so-called secrecy. Judi Dench and Naomi Watts are effective as the two women behind the (great?) man. Now ,the real challenge was to turn Leo into a convincing Hoover, his handsomeness is somewhat a drawback because it's hard to believe this dashing young man would be so awkward with the ladies, the performance was excellent and he's strangely more convincing as an old man but sometimes he's just too looking to let his image overshadows our vision of Hoover who wasn't exactly a handsome playboy. As a matter of fact, Kevin James would have made a more convincing Hoover. Arnie Hammer is also remarkable as the one man behind the man and their chemistry provides the same kind of behind-the-scene intimacy that reminded me of Joan Allen's performance as Pat Nixon.

The trick is to make the whole movie engaging and on that level too, the film is a semi-success, there's a feeling of strange emptiness when the film concludes, Eastwood embraced the man's shadow so much he made his film rather moody and depressing. I was just watching "The Untouchables" and I regretted that Eastwood had to make his Hoover in such a somber and gloomy mood. More was needed but as far as the portrayal of the man is concerned, the film does a good job to the degree it gives you the general idea about Hoover, whether twisted, misunderstood or legitimate, the man had ideals and abhorred ideologies... an attachment to security and so many insecurities, a living paradox that called for a more lively film.

Maybe Eastwood didn't relate much to his own protagonist and so the heart wasn't in it, maybe this is the kind of material more suitable for a director like Oliver Stone, who knows... the film is a good biopic but not in Eastwood's Top 10 Best... or Leo's for that matter.

J. Edgar (2011)

This is a particular kind of movie--the based on fact biopic--done with great attention to period accuracy. If that's what's important, getting a bit of American history into a vivid big screen format, then this works pretty well. On top of that, Leonardo DiCaprio is excellent, very professional.

But "J. Edgar" not a terrific movie. If a movie is meant to be gripping and moving and beautiful and fun and all those things, this is none of those. It isn't boring or tepid or clumsy or insulting--but not being those things isn't exactly a compliment.

And the reasons for this are clear. Mainly there's the format. Between Dustin Black and Clint Eastwood a decision was made to "tell" the story by means of the character, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, literally telling the story to a typist. This is a dry and painful way of any kind of drama. It's even a boring way to teach a class, and sometimes you get the feeling we're being "taught" things about our history we need to know.

Be careful, if you watch only half the movie, you'll be filled with misconceptions that the movie itself corrects, in the last few moments during a final important conversation. That problem of course is a new kind of "unreliable narrator," since the story is being told by the protagonist himself. And no one is very honest, truly, in an autobiography. In a way that makes the movie the most interesting it can be. I'm also not sure what the director and writer really feel about Hoover's sexual orientation, at least as it applied to his doing his job.

There are some familiar Eastwood slants on content that might irk a few of you familiar with his politics. For example, he makes very public his appreciation for civil rights and equality, but in a way that's so showy you begin to suspect the motivation (that he believes what he preaches but he also wants you to like him for it). But then he also has little to say about the heavy handed FBI (and pre-FBI) days when lots of innocent people got followed and railroaded and jailed and worse. The mood is set that in those old days things were different and we really needed a megalomaniac at the FBI to keep this darned country safe from the Commies. Something like that.

As a drama, which is maybe the secondary consideration, the plot moves between a present day 1960s crisis (between the Kennedy and Nixon years) and the early days. It flips back and forth a lot (too much for me) and keeps DiCaprio's narration flowing right through a lot of it in part to hold it together. The result is fragmented as a story, and stilted as a dramatic flow.

Just a heads up on the format and the flow. Again, if it's content you want, and you can enjoy the way it gets cobbled together, there's a lot of stuff here to sort out.