J. Edgar

A movie about one of the most renowned personalities of America's 20th century directed by one of its most respected directors made it one very highly on my 'to see' list.

The film does not waste much time in giving us a sight of what a powerful even notorious personality the homonymous character is, including his very strong anti-communist sentiments. As far as his character goes he appears as swift to respond, highly intelligent but also highly paranoid, a predator, a hawk, always switched on, always on the edge, without any peace who did not appreciate having any limitations to his authority or power. During a very poignant dialogue towards the end, between Hoover and his assistant Tolson, it becomes very clear how Hoover did not appreciate criticism and were unable to handle the truth expecting others to simply accept his version of the truth.

As we are treated to a more intimate view in his life the closeness to his mother does not go undetected and neither it should as with all personality deficiencies (in men at least) the relationship with their mother is one to closely watch. It was because of her influence in Edgar that left him with a pervasive sense of threat as well as a hunger for power, an influence that amongst other things caused him to be socially limited. Even towards the end of the film where our main character has grown much older (frail physically but not emotionally), his ways have not been altered in any way and one could even presume that his megalomania and paranoia are grown even more.

Despite the aspects of Edgar's character the audience might not come to like, Clint Eastwood does a superb job in making sure that Hoover's gifts are also highlighted which include: impressive energy levels, vigorous memory, capacity to detect patterns and an ability to receiver, process, comprehend & communicate information extremely effectively.

Though not a dark film, this biopic has dark undertones suited perhaps to the personality it portrays. There are very few outdoor scenes, little light in general, and it would also seem that J Edgar was the workaholic type who did not have much of a social or private life. Regarding his social life, he appears outgoing but not very sociable and in connection to his private life we are led to assume that he was a homosexual, which was a cause for him to suffer, perhaps loathe himself, due to the religiously incited anti-gay sentiment preached by his over controlling mother. His inability to fully accept who he was must have, beyond question, caused him plenty of frustration. On this matter, there's a poignant scene in the movie where his mother said (paraphrased): I'd rather have a dead son than a gay son.

With the above in mind, one question that must be therefore raised is whether his quest for power and authority was driven by his ideas/values for a better society or because it provided him with a sense of self worth? Why wasn't' he ever satisfied or willing to give up power? There is also some resemblance, albeit small, of 'The Aviator' another biopic with DiCaprio in the leading role.

DiCaprio gives a forceful performance and carries the film, which is part biopic & part political drama, compellingly. If there is a criticism about this movie it would have to be that it is rather slow and often made me wonder as to where it is heading with the constant interaction between Hoover's youth and later years.

This is an accomplished biographical drama/character study that although it might not be to everyone's taste, nonetheless to those with a keen interest in politics or US history in the 20th century or simply those interested in finding out more about the enigmatic J. Edgar Hoover, this is the film to watch.

Any movie Clint Eastwood makes is certainly worth a look, and Leonardo DiCaprio is entertaining in anything he does. But this version of J. Edgar Hoover's story seems superficial, and lacking meat on its bones.

That has more to do with its form – a theatrical film only two hours and 17 minutes long - relative to the length of the biography at its core. Hoover was such a complex man, and his career was so long, with so many chapters, that his story is probably better suited to a 4-to 6 hour HBO mini-series, where more of the details of his life, that this film with its short running time can only hint at, can be more completely told.

Dustin Lance Black, who wrote this film's screenplay (as well as that of Milk), is walking a very fine line here regarding Hoover's complex personality; it seems that he had a much more intricate story he wanted to tell, were it not for the confines of the feature film format. Here, broad brush strokes take the place of long chapters on Hoover's involvement with the Red Scares of the '20's and '50's, political blackmail, gambling, organized crime, and of course, homosexuality.

But if it had been made as a mini-series, it probably wouldn't have attracted Eastwood and DiCaprio, and consequently wouldn't have the high profile that this film does. That version of his story will have to wait for another time.

Eastwood chose to shoot this story in a washed-out color palette. The story jumps back in forth in time, and the closer the events of the film are to the end of Hoover's life, the more color Eastwood imbues into the scenes; the earliest moments in the time line are shown in a color scheme barely above monochrome. It's a subtle effect, but it helps the viewer keep track of where the scenes exist in Hoover's life.

That long time line necessitates that DiCaprio must be seen in various makeup schemes to convey the age of his character at any point in the story. His makeup is uniformly good; but the two other principal actors in the film, Armie Hammer as Hoover's longtime companion Clyde Tolson, and Naomi Watts as Hoover's secretary Helen Gandy, don't fare so well as their characters age. Obviously, the lion's share of the film's makeup budget was allotted to the star. Hammer, it must be said, gives a fine performance under all those old-age prosthetics. Christopher Shyer, who plays Richard Nixon in a brief scene, has the least-effective verisimilitude of anyone who has played the man in a motion picture.

But makeup alone does not a performance make. Di Caprio's ability to remain in character and "age" with him is remarkable, and transcends the work of his makeup artist. As he did with his portrayal of Howard Hughes in The Aviator, his skillful use of voice and body to stay true to his characterization of Hoover through the years is evident throughout.

One gets the feeling that much of this film was shot in front of a green screen, no surprise given the various eras of Washington that it depicts; but to a longtime moviegoer, there's a certain sadness that imparts to seeing that technique, once the province of the large-scale action film, used in serious dramas. There was probably no other way to do it in this day and age, but it just calls attention to itself in a way that gets in the way of one's immersion into the subject matter. Admittedly, that's my problem, not the film's.

So, is it worth a look? Sure. Best Picture nominee? In a field of ten, probably. Will Leo finally win an Oscar this time out? Well, look at it this way: Paul Newman gave his best performance in The Verdict, but the Academy finally honored him for The Color of Money. Leo probably should have won for playing Howard Hughes, but maybe he'll win for playing J. Edgar.

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.

Just got back from a screening in Vancouver~ Thanks to Clint Eastwood, it was almost free (only one dollar per ticket) I will try to keep my review spoiler-free~

Personally, I thought it was a great film. Not exceptional in anyway, but still great. The tone reminds me a bit of Changeling. Makes sense since the stories are from the same period. I have to say, with Eastwood, Leonardo DiCaprio and Dustin Lance Black all on board, I was kind of expecting something a bit more than this.

I thought the weakest link was the script. It was interesting, but flawed. Also, the story was not very intriguing. Having watched Milk (also written by Black) and really liked how the story unfolded, I was expecting a great story about how J. Edgar Hoover rose to power and how he gradually transformed into the monster he became in the end. But instead, the story was told by shifting back and forth in time countless times, which at some point made me feel emotionally detached from the story and the characters. The bad bad makeup (I guess we can all agree on that~) was also very distracting. The elderly characters looked like wax figures to me.

That said, I really LOVED Eastwood's score. It was moving and really fit the mood of the film. His direction and camera-work were masterful as always. Leo was very convincing as J. Edgar, although I keep on seeing bits and pieces of Howard Hughes in his performance. Judi Dench and Naomi Watts were both great, however the same thing can not be said about Armie Hammer. I thought he was much better in The Social Network. There were a few good moments between him and Leo, but his performance as the elderly Clyde Tolson was darn right awful. I blame the horrible makeup.

As for the Oscars, this film will get a few nominations, but I doubt that it would become a strong contender. Though Leo's performance was not without its flaws, I thought it was more than enough to secure his leading actor nomination. Nods for best art direction, best cinematography and best score are also quite possible.

This film had the potential to become a masterpiece, but fell short of my expectations mainly due to the uneven script. While far from being one of his best, it is nevertheless a welcome addition to Eastwood's portfolio.

8/10

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.