'J. Edgar' Review (2011)
Thing is, J. Edgar Hoover was gay... not that there's anything wrong with that
Photo: Warner Bros.
If I had to pin down just what exactly Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar was all about, I'd say it's the story of the titular FBI director's relationship with associate director Clyde Tolson and the disapproving scorn of his mother who didn't want her son to grow up to be a "daffodil." It's a story of a man met on all fronts with barriers he must overcome to get anything done, but the one wall he was never able to break through was the one that would allow him to finally accept Tolson as a lover and not just a close friend. Too bad this is all presented in such a meaningless, inconsequential manner, and ultimately places less emphasis on what could be considered more interesting and factual aspects of J. Edgar Hoover's life.
The cast includes Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Judi Dench, Ed Westwick, Josh Lucas, Naomi Watts, Stephen Root, Jeffrey Donovan, Miles Fisher and Geoff Pierson. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"J. Edgar" is a Warner Bros. release, directed by Clint Eastwood and is rated R for brief strong language. The running time is 2 hours 17 minutes.
What's most disappointing is that the Hoover and Tolson relationship slowly becomes the focus of the film, which is to insinuate the one fact that cannot be confirmed about Hoover was the most interesting thing about him. Other aspects of Hoover's career are addressed, from his feelings toward Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., his dealings with Robert Kennedy and his meetings with each new sitting president, but most only in passing.
Obviously it confronts the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh's baby, it touches on Hoover's advancement in using science to catch criminals, bank robbers such as Dillinger and Baby Face Nelson are mentioned, but the most time is spent dealing with Hoover's secret files, an undoubtedly important piece of Hoover's legacy, but again, like his sexuality, little is known about the contents of these files so it's impossible for the film to treat their contents as fact.
Eastwood tells Hoover's story in a fractured narrative, bouncing around from his time working for Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, including the Palmer Raids in late 1919, to his promotions in the Bureau of Investigation and ultimately becoming the first Director of the FBI in 1935, a position he held until he died in May of 1972. The film unnecessarily goes back and forth between these dates as Hoover recites his memoirs, telling of past victories and shaping history to suit his image.
We are first introduced to Leonardo DiCaprio as Hoover with his face encased in latex, giving him an awkward, bee-stung wax mold appearance. In some light it looks realistic while in others it's altogether distracting. There are times I felt I'd gotten used to the make-up, but scenes change and both DiCaprio as Hoover and Armie Hammer as Tolson are made to look only like actors wearing masks, limiting any impact the scene may actually hold. For most of the film all I could do was wonder why Eastwood didn't just tell a linear narrative and cast Jon Voight and James Cromwell as the elder versions of each character rather than turn them into foam rubber caricatures.
As Hoover, DiCaprio does well, but his commitment to the character is lost. His voice affectation never quite works, especially when we move out of the 20s and into Hoover's later years and we still have the same young voice coming out of this latex composite. Same goes for Hammer, though I was hardly impressed with his performance, particularly one climactic scene where Hoover and Tolson get into a shouting match leading up to a confrontation that seems forced and never rings true.
The most affecting performance of the lot comes from Naomi Watts as Helen Gandy, Hoover's personal assistant during all his years at the FBI and keeper and destroyer of his personal files. Watts gives the most convincing performance and throughout the film offers a character with the most questions to be asked. Just who was this woman that dedicated her entire life to her career, was never married and stuck by Hoover until the end? The film doesn't care to answer these questions, but perhaps Watts' performance was never meant to outshine everyone else.
Eastwood and cinematographer Tom Stern (Gran Torino, Changeling) once again shoot the film in steely grey tones, limiting the amount of color to be seen, which becomes just one more thing you notice as the narrative offers very little to care about. Eastwood also continues to serve as his own composer, layering the film in soft piano tones just as we have heard in virtually every film he has composed on his own, which is just one more aspect of J. Edgar that feels tired and lazy, not to mention unnecessary, as delicate notes begin to play almost out of nowhere in scenes where a score is entirely needless.
In the end, J. Edgar feels like a film lacking in confidence. I saw little reason for most of Eastwood's shot choices and the editing was a muddled mess. If Eastwood and Black's goal was to make a movie that served as an actual metaphor for the character they created on screen then they have a success, because J. Edgar lacks the confidence and security just as does the Hoover DiCaprio was asked to play.
Was Hoover gay? Was Tolson gay? Did they have a close friendship or was it something more? Perhaps these questions are the key to understanding Hoover, but to make a film that doesn't know the answers and yet centers its story on the questions is worthless. Through all its attempts at subtlety, J. Edgar is an unsubtle, emotionless thunk on the head as two men in rubber masks struggle to profess their love for one another as Eastwood gently tickles the ivories and the film fades to black.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 17 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
That's what happens when they get Dustin Lance Lack to write their script. The probably just wanted an FbI-thriller, but Black came back with a story about a closetted homosexual.
I have nothing against Black, but if he really wants to prove he's deserving of that Oscar, he should be a little diverse with his writing. Milk was a fine film, but J. Edgar Hoover isn't Harvey Milk.
What next is Black going to write? A Beautiful Mind remake with a focus on his gay exploits instead of his schizophrenia? Black needs to start noticing that there are more important part of these chracters than just homosexual tendencies.
I also saw the movie last night and it wasdisappointing, but I kind of liked it. I do want to point out that old J. Edgar looked like Jon Voight. Just saying!
Just want to point out that I hadn't read the review before posting the comment. Honestly I walked out think dicaprio looked like Jon Voight.
Whoaa .. tht was pretty brutal I must say … so another review raising the point of Clint not being brave enough … I guess Clint's stand of pleasing all by taking a middle path has actually infuriated most .. whats say ? :)
And nice to hear a detailed comment about Naomi's performance which most of the others have covered in either one word "wonderful/underutilized" or at max a sentence.
But I feel inspite of mixed reviews going around … J.Edgar shd manage to feature in 3-4 nominations !!
I saw it too last night. It is a complete misfire on all accounts but the one major element that struck me was the terrible editing. It's completely all over the place. This review is spot on.
brutal. i have passes to see this tomorrow, i was really looking forward to it.
This film is really dividing critics. Although the ones that like it, think its good, not great, and the ones who didn't like it, really really didn't like it.
To me this film is living proof that Clint Eastwood should stay clear from this kinda stuff. He needs to be a director willing to take something plain and make it filled with bold flavors and make it a great movie where acting is the number one thing. Invictus, Flags of our Fathers and now J Edgar while all being very good were nothing compared to lets say Unforgiven.
Hopefully this will be the end of Eastwood's directing career. Too many of his past movies seem lazy. Invictus, Million Dollar Baby etc. have gotton good press and awards but none are as good as Unforgiven.
Million Dollar Baby was a great film. I never saw Invictus but MDB is not in the same category. Clint may have had some good and some bad films but they are nevertheless entertaining. Gran Torino was a pretty good.
brad say it an't so
That sounds really depressing. That was a film I was really looking forward to. Brad, you surely argue your case well. I wonder how so many people, who obviously know how to make a good movie, could screw it up so badly. There were so many potentially great story lines, so why focus on the relationship angle? Sigh.
Just wondering if this really is the movie Eastwood and Black wanted to make, or whether the studio axed certain parts of it…
Eastwood was only following the script
"Ultimately places less emphasis on what could be considered more interesting and factual aspects of J. Edgar Hoover's life." Can you do us all a favour and not pretend that you are a historian? You once said of Coriolanus "There is absolutely no reason to try to sell this as a modern story, nothing about it is modern as any meaningful parallels to today are non-existent," so please don't act as if you have any understanding of politics or contemporary history.
I feel the movie was kind of ok………but not one of the best of Eastwood…………poor screenplay…………….
it lacked everything that a good script should have …………thought the performances were notable……….Dicaprio,Judi Dench and Naomi Watts.
Making biopics always gets a movie off to a good start and J.Edgar was no exception.. but it never exceeded expectations.