The Private Files of J. Edgar Hoover

A lot of commenter's seem to focus on the fact that it was cheesy or low budget or whatever--but i thought it was a rock solid biography of Hoover's tenure at the FBI. I never knew there was rampant corruption in that bureau for years and years until he took over. (look it up its true!) Movie doesn't praise him entirely nor does it condemn him either----its a completely low key sort of monotonous look at the man's life.

There are a lot of great details that are included here along the way. A lot of moments--in fact i would say the movie is worth seeing because of these moments. The scene where Hoover mourns the loss of his mom for example...or the scene where Hoover is determined to unmask Martin Luther King Jr as a fraud (wrongly of course--but still the movie's not condemning Hoover for believing that MLK Jr was some sort of anarchist---its what the guy believed and rightly or wrongly it is what happened and makes for an amazing scene between Broderick Crawford and Raymond St Jacques as MLK Jr.) There's a fantastic scene at the beginning where Hoover is busting some gangster or bootlegger or something and the guy (and the guy's girlfriend) are insulting him relentlessly and Hoover just stands there and smirks.

Broderick Crawford actually is wonderful as Hoover---you don't realize it while you're watching it because he's so stoic and sorta stone faced the entire time--but you absolutely know what he's thinking and feeling throughout every scene that happens---and not just because of the screenplay--you're able to get what J Edger Hoover is feeling because of what Crawford is doing--weather its slumping forward or grabbing onto his longtime friend's (and possibly gay lover) hand or just staring dead ahead while receiving awful news---he really brings Hoover to life in a way that somehow merges old school acting (just the facts ma'am reeling of paragraphs of dialog at a time) with new school method acting (really projecting an inner life through reactions or body movements) in many ways Mr. Crawford's role here really intermingles the 2 styles in a way that you don't realize while watching it was pretty damn revolutionary. (and not something that George Clooney could pull off as easily in "The Good German" tho he tried really hard to.) its not a great movie by any means--its a little long...and more then a little rambling in parts--but it is a very good portrait of a very complicated individual---and i do wonder why its not better known given Hollywood's love of making biographies of every known famous person under the sun.

In a well-crafted semi-documentary style, this film traces the career of John Edgar Hoover across the 48 years of his directorship of the FBI. The drama is interlarded with genuine news footage of key events, and as a whole the movie works well as a hybrid of fact and fiction. Broderick Crawford gives the performance of a lifetime as the pugnacious, jowly control freak with a vulnerable core. The essential contradictions of the man are cleverly exposed: the 'top cop' who never really was a policeman does not scruple to violate the constitution when it suits him, and the priggish crusader against moral laxity gets his quirky thrills listening to wiretaps of sexual liaisons. The casting is inspired. Quite apart from the marvellous Crawford, several Hollywood veterans turn in first-class performances - Dan Dailey is Hoover's sidekick Tolson, Jose Ferrer is the cynical McCoy, and Lloyd Nolan is impressive as the Attorney-General. Among the younger actors, William Jordan is convincing as John Kennedy, and Michael Parks' Robert Kennedy captures the vocal inflexions of the real man admirably: it is just a shame that the 'look' isn't quite right. Bobby was nothing if not clean-cut and athletic, and Parks plays him as a slightly dishevelled, shambling figure. Larry Cohen wrote, directed and produced the film, and his enthusiasm for the project occasionally leads him into error. Hoover is given too much credit (or blame) for the unravelling of Watergate. Where the film scores highly is in its depiction of the power struggle between the young intellectual Robert Kennedy and the declining but still formidable Hoover. The movie is also spot-on in showing how Hoover clung to office long after he had anything left to contribute. The politicians left him undisturbed because they feared him. Of the presidents and attorneys-general portrayed in the film, Nixon alone fails to emerge from the shadows. This can no doubt be explained by the fact that he was still alive in 1977: all the others were in their graves: dead men don't sue. There must have been a real temptation, when putting this film together, simply to trash Hoover as an unbalanced megalomaniac. Wisely, Cohen resists that pull, and shows his subject as a psychologically-deformed man who nevertheless believed that he was holding his country together and devoted his life to the cause. Hoover comes across as a cruel self-publicist, but also as a lonely man racked with hang-ups and inhibitions. He had no private life worth speaking of. He never married and was unwilling (or unable) to retire to a life of leisure. At one point in the film, his G-men describe him as a priest. And so he was - if you consider the guardianship of a nation's dirty linen to be a holy office.

I saw this film theatrically (in a revival) and was astonished. It was an attempt to turn Hoover into Citizen Kane, with the supposed "burning" of Hoover's secret files the equivalent of the burning of "Rosebud." Crawford does make an interesting Hoover - considering he was most famous for playing America's first TV cop in "Highway Patrol," seeing him play a deliberately abusive cop is fun. But he's the only actor who pulls off his part convincingly; the other actors look distracted, like they're worried that their paychecks might not clear. The script plods from event to event - blackmail on Roosevelt, Martin Luther King and others - and gets numbing. (The film came out before revelations that Hoover may have been a transvestite and homosexual - seeing Crawford in drag might have provided an extra kick.) Supposedly, this was filmed without official approval around the original FBI headquarters in Washington, which caused some official heat. But aside from that courage, you don't get the feeling of getting inside Hoover's life, which other movies have done. You get the feeling you're being told this story by a gossipy wife under the hair dryer in a salon.

Larry Cohen's biopic of the man who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is a staccato, star-studded affair. It covers his professional life from the Palmer Raids - played by James Wainwright - to the older man - played by Broderick Crawford - as the evolution of a man from a rights-obsessed young lawyer, into an older man, jealous of his public image and power, willing to blackmail politicians and fire men who wear too-flashy ties.

Given the length of Hoover's career (52 years in total), it turns into a highlights in history affair, with long gaps. Not only are the six years between the Palmer Raids and his appointment as Bureau Director ignored, but almost twenty years between the beginning of US involvement with the Second World War and the Kennedy administration.

It has a large number of older actors, which should please fans of old movies. Its cast includes Jose Ferrer, Celeste Holm, Dan Dailey (in his last movie), Howard Da Silva, June Havoc, and Lloyd Nolan. They certainly add a luster to the production, as do the old automobiles on the streets in the early scenes, and scenes shot on actual location around Washington D.C. However, the vast array of incidents allows little depth in the story. Perhaps a mini-series is called for, if anyone still cares.

The story of the late J. Edgar Hoover, who was head of the FBI from 1924-1972. The film follows Hoover from his racket-busting days through his reign under eight U.S. presidents.

Writer-director Larry Cohen considers this his best film, and if nothing else, it certainly is ambitious. There are flaws. For one, it is more a summary of history than any real biopic, and has little meat. To tell this story properly, another hour would have had to be added -- if the viewer does not already know the history, much of this might be confusing.

We also get some strange impressions of the presidents. Franklin Roosevelt, in particular, seems pretty bizarre. But shortcomings aside, this is something of a definitive film about Hoover. If nothing else, all other films since had to either borrow or refute the topics covered.