J. Edgar

J. Edgar tells the story of the man and his agency. J. Edgar Hoover for better or worse shaped the history of the last century as few others have. He was a pioneer in the field of law enforcement a reformer who made the Federal Bureau of Investigation free from political corruption, gave it modern crime fighting methods, and near deity status among the masses. I've always maintained that had Hoover just retired at the end of World War II his historical reputation would be much higher today. But as he points out in this film no one shares power in Washington, DC and few ever give it up willingly.

All this and at the same time being a frightened man, way deep in his closet's closet as a gay man. Most gay folk will tell you now even in this post Stonewall age the hardest part of coming out is to family. In Hoover's case it was his mother played here by Judy Dench who was an imperious Southern bred lady who tells Leonardo DiCaprio as Hoover that above all she does not want to have a 'daffodil' for a son. The gay in him is pretty much repressed until he meets Clyde Tolson who becomes Deputy Director and Hoover's silent partner for decades.

In real life Tolson who is played here by Armie Hammer was something of a stabilizing influence on the real Hoover, many times talking to him or even subtly countermanding moves that would be public relations disasters for the image conscious Hoover. In his life few knew of his role in the agency and fewer in Hoover's personal life.

The other key player in Hoover's life is Naomi Watts as personal secretary Helen Gandy who was that for almost his entire time with the FBI. He tries clumsily to get a romance going, but settles for her just being the woman who kept the secrets for the man who held all the nation's secrets.

Director Clint Eastwood who will make fewer and fewer appearances in front of the camera at his age gets some great performances from his cast in a story that takes up the middle of the American 20th Century. Leonardo DiCaprio is so good you absolutely think you are looking at Hoover himself. Helping in that is one of the greatest body and facial makeup jobs the cinema has ever witnessed.

Henry Kissinger once said of Richard Nixon that he was a brilliant man who might have not fallen or even done the things he did good and bad if he ever felt loved. That could easily have been J. Edgar's story as well. One wonders also if Hoover had been born three or for generations later to see the Stonewall Rebellion in his youth how that might have shaped him as well.

J. Edgar is one remarkable film from the remarkable team of Eastwood and DiCaprio.

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.

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.

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 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.