Artsculture

'J Edgar'

Put out a manhunt for Clint Eastwood before he kills (a film's potential) again.

By Steve Burgess, 12 Nov 2011, TheTyee.ca

J-Edgar-Film.jpg

Dress for success? Leonardo DiCaprio as FBI Chief John Edgar Hoover.

Related

If Hoover was alive, heads would be rolling over J Edgar. It's not just that the late chief of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is shown here putting on his late mother's clothes in a moment of grief, although that surely wouldn't make the old bulldog happy. No, J Edgar would likely be the target of a full FBI investigation into just how director Clint Eastwood, producer Ron Howard and screenwriter Dustin Lance Black managed to take such a fascinating subject and screw it up so badly. By turns dull, grim and risible, it's another in the long line of epic biographies that manage to kill their subjects all over again.

FBI Chief John Edgar Hoover served eight presidents and pretty much invented the bureau that exists today. He battled domestic communists, leftists, gangsters, the Kennedys and Martin Luther King. He was rumoured to be a cross-dresser and the longtime lover of his personal assistant, Clyde Tolson. That's all covered in J Edgar, but I defy anyone who sits through this two-and-a-half-hour movie to give a shit.

Hoover is played by Leo DiCaprio, and there may be no more definitive way of breaking with your past as a heartthrob. He looks alarmingly appropriate as the older Hoover, although his "Bawston" accent is really no better than Mayor Quimby's. Judy Dench is young Johnny's domineering mother. Naomi Watts plays potential love interest Helen Gandy, who turns down Hoover's proposal and instead becomes his lifelong secretary, part of the triumvirate that eventually includes the handsome Tolson, played by Armie Hammer. Hammer was last seen playing both of the Winklevoss brothers in The Social Network, with the help of digital trickery. Special effects are also key to this performance, but not so happily. Aged with makeup and prosthetics for the later scenes, Hammer ends up looking like a white Herman Munster.

Can't dress this up

Gangster movies thrive on action. Hoover hated gangsters -- maybe that's why J Edgar is so static. Hoover's early battles, with both evildoers and bureaucrats, are generally played out here in dark offices and congressional hearings, all depicted in that colour-drained style that's been popular for historical flicks ever since Saving Private Ryan. A lot of movies throw in gratuitous action scenes, but J Edgar, blessed with any number of legitimate options, for the most part prefers to avoid them. This would be noble if the movie was smart and savvy enough to draw us into Hoover's world and the history of 20th century America. I suppose it tries. Fail.

In time-honoured screenwriting tradition, J Edgar cuts back and forth between eras, bouncing from the '30s to the '60s. We see Hoover working on the Lindbergh kidnapping case, then trying to get dirt on King, then launching publicity-seeking raids on the likes of Alvin (Creepy) Karpis. Hoover's mother goes from her death bed to spry, and back to death's door again. As can happen with bio pics, the historical base-touching seems rote, not to mention tedious.

There have been plenty of rumours about Hoover's private life. Here J Edgar dives right in, inventing all manner of speculative scenes including a violent lover's quarrel between Hoover and Tolson, and a scene of a grieving Hoover trying on his dead mother's dress and jewelry. In its final reels, J Edgar shoots for an emotional payoff that is as unexpected as it is mawkish. Piano music tinkles and Hammer tries manfully to emote from behind two inches of prosthetic rubber as we belatedly discover that this has been a tender love story all along.

Public ennui

The laziness of Black's script is most obvious in the treatment of Gandy and Tolson. In life, they were Hoover's brain trust. Here they flip back and forth between roles as Hoover's faithful servants and his conscience -- whatever the scene requires. In the climactic encounter, Tolson morphs into Basil Exposition as he explains to the audience that a lot of what we have seen on screen has been pure fantasy -- a jarring realization that has not really been hinted at previously.

Jimmy Cagney shows up here courtesy of film clips from Public Enemy and G Men. I'm sure I wasn't the only viewer to wish I was watching one of those classics instead. The last word on J Edgar goes to the woman sitting two seats away from me at the preview screening. "Wow," she said as the credits finally rolled. "That was the longest free movie ever."

[Tags: Film]  [Tyee]

5  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Vox.Pop

    26 weeks ago

    Very Good Movie

    Steve Burgess must be a lot younger than the four of us seniors who saw this movie on its first matinee appearance. We all agreed that it presented an enthralling & nuanced view of a powerful & controversial individual. It showed how a man who could not face his own demons (he is presented as a self-denying, not closet, homosexual) is corrupted by the biggest lie in his life that he can never admit to. It would have been so easy to make a caricature of this man.
    We were never bored once by this long movie, perhaps because we were pretty familiar with the era & many of the events portrayed.
    We did agree that maybe younger viewers would not find it as interesting. So, if you are a late-boomer or older, check out this movie, see for yourself if oscars are warranted. Otherwise, you may find yourself agreeing with this 'young' reviewer.

  • Christophe

    26 weeks ago

    Thanks for the second opinion, Vox Pop.

    De Caprio is one of the few actors with the intendsity to carry this one off. Definitel one to watch.

  • Steve Burgess

    26 weeks ago

    Dissent!

    If I was J Edgar Hoover, Vox Pop, I would open a file on you so fast it would make my costume jewelry spin. Umm, your jewelry, I meant.

  • creepingdoubt

    26 weeks ago

    Excellent Movie

    Since Mr. Burgess didn't get the movie he expected, he simply won't have the movie he got. Is Hoover's life worthy of a 6-hour TV miniseries? Yes, undoubtedly; there's a lot to cover. But Black and Eastwood have focused on one overarching feature of Hoover's character -- secrets: keeping them, inventing them, threatening to reveal them, yet not being able to face his own and what they mean to those around him.

    That's the movie's subject. We must allow an artist his subject, said Henry James, and judge only what he makes of it. And Eastwood and Di Caprio (with fine assistance from their cinematographer) have chosen to portray a man living mostly in shadows, unable to bear or insist upon the full light of day, except when exposing the secrets of others. But Tolson is there to let Hoover and us know that Hoover can't fool all the people all the time. No one can. That's our takeaway.

    That two severely closeted gay men and their secret longing for one another form the chief source of tension in the movie is to Eastwood and Black's everlasting credit. For any person, gay or straight, pain and denial seep outward and can get into all sort of areas, public and private. That's what the movie asks us to think about. It's not about Hoover's whole life. It's about what and how much he needed to hide, even from himself, in the course of his whole life.

    That herculean interior effort, the movie says, led to this too-powerful man's emotional tragedy. That may not seem rich enough subject matter for someone seeking a political history of Hoover (which indeed merits a 6- hour miniseries). But it's more than enough for those of us who wonder whether people in power are any better or more secure or honest than we are. It's a lot to think about on the way home from this excellent movie, which is wonderfully acted, directed and shot.

  • skyhunk

    26 weeks ago

    DiCaprio a "heartthrob"??!

    Wow, where have I been? This is certainly the first time I have read anywhere that this gifted actor has been deemed a heartthrob. He's certainly not bad-looking, but IMHO he does not have the chiseled good looks or any other status to qualify him for the heartthrob label.

    Sorry, Mr. Burgess, I share the sentiments of the previous commenters. I especially applaud "creepingdoubt's" take on the movie. I think there are psychological layers in this movie that went far past your head.

    I'm a "senior" and the rumours about "Jedgar" (as Lily Tomlin called him - she liked his vacuum cleaners) were rampant decades ago. True or not, for me it made a fascinating movie, never mind your seat mate's opinion two seats down.

    I say look for DiCaprio to receive a nod for best actor from the Academy.

    ps: I DO agree with your observation about Tolson's make-up. It was rather jarring to see the excellent job the make-up artists did on DiCaprio compared to the disaster performed on Hammer.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.