Saturday, January 28, 2012

New Release Review: J. Edgar (Clint Eastwood, 2011)

J. Edgar is Clint Eastwood’s examination of the infamous career of J. Edgar Hoover (portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio), influential in the founding of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), acting as its controversial director for over four decades, until his death at age 77 in 1972. The screenplay is written by Dustin Lance Black (Academy Award winner for Milk) and tracks both his professional achievements and his speculated private life, including his close acquaintance with Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer), his protégé, associate director, and lifelong friend.



Hoover first came on the scene in 1919 with strong anti-Communist ideologies, eventually assigned the role of the acting director of the Bureau of Investigation (which would later become the FBI) by the Attorney General in 1924. He was an innovative radical, obsessed with his job, with no social life or relationship to speak of. He was allowed to select his team, dismissing anyone that didn’t appease his desired ‘look’ for an agent of the bureau – but seemingly drawn to handsome young men like Tolson. In the years to come he was instrumental in building the FBI into an efficient crime-fighting agency, bringing scientific innovation into the justice system – including the building of forensic laboratories, and a centralized file for fingerprint analysis.

Like all powerful figures, Edgar had his critics, who claimed that he used his powers outside of his jurisdiction, keeping secret files on political figures (Nixon, according to the film, had his office searched following his death for such files), and self-glorifying his achievements publicly. He was involved in the successful apprehension of the adbuctee and murderer of the son of aviator, Charles Lidburgh, supervising the apprehension of bank robbers like John Dillinger and sending blackmail letters to Martin Luther King.



The first issue I had with the film, and this is a qualm I have with a lot of biopics lately, was the structure. Almost all of Edgar’s achievements are relayed via his personal recounts and reflections from a period near the conclusion of his tenure. Much like The Iron Lady, but vastly superior in balancing Edgar’s revolutionary innovations with his personal life – but falls short on capturing Edgar’s overall influence on the United States justice system, half of the film involves the characters entombed in old age make-up.

There are a couple of strong performances, from the SAG nominated pair of DiCaprio and Hammer, but the rest of the cast fail to give their roles any real life. Not even Dame Judy Dench, as Edgar’s hardnosed and disapproving mother, can make her marginalized character memorable. Naomi Watts, who doesn’t fare quite as bad in the make-up department as her cohorts, has little to do either as Edgar’s loyal secretary. The fine work from DiCaprio (who gives Edgar a cold-hearted ruthlessness, and convincingly conveys self-glorified delusion about his achievements as he dictates to a number of scribes covering his career in a memorial) and Hammer (looking dapper, and through his looks of infatuation, evidently loves Edgar), and several poignant moments, are undone by the often-confusing decade-spanning narrative, the aforementioned flash-back/forward structure and distracting make-up, making this a genuinely dull, tedious affair.

For a figure so paramount to the expansion of the United States Justice System, so unpopular, so controversial, and yet so mysterious, Edgar is not given the justice of a film that is even remotely interesting. Despite Eastwood’s uninventive staging, poorly lit locales and over-unsaturated lensing, this is accurately set dressed and costumed, and evidently well researched. I also thought the Edgar/Claude relationship was sensitively portrayed, and quite moving at times. But overall, this is an average filmmaking endeavor from Eastwood – beset on covering far too much of Edgar’s life, but never ensuring it is gripping or entertaining. It is so unfortunate, because this could have been DiCaprio’s year.

My Rating: ★★1/2 (C)

8 comments:

  1. Agree with the Edgar/Claude relationship, that was probably the best part of the movie. DiCaprio was great but it was a shame about the move as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really liked this film, particularly the closeted relationship between Hoover and Tolson, which I also found quite moving. Too bad they missed their Oscar noms!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Glad we're in agreement here my man.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @ Alex - Yeah, the best moments were between those two when they were younger. The old-age make-up greatly distracted me.

    @ NeverTooEarlyMP - While I thought they were both good, I'm not sure they deserved Oscar nominations. Hammer did nothing wrong, and Leo gives one of his best performances - but there were plenty better, I think. Also, they got no help from the make-up team.

    @ Sam - Yeah, to a tee. Checked our review. It's a tedious, and unsatisfying film.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you, Andy. Thank you for slogging through these biopics and reporting on them so I don't have to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, it was a slog. It had some moments but you simply end up thinking - what was the point?

      Delete
  6. I hated this movie, I thought it was God-awfully boring. Glad you follow suit!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was a snooze-fest. A few powerful scenes - but man, that make-up was awful.

      Delete