By Jason Haskins
J. Edgar is Clint Eastwood’s newest movie and his first with Leonardo DiCaprio. When this was first announced I was more than happy because of not only the daunting task of chronicling the life of perhaps one of the most controversial political figures of our time, but because of how it was going to portray the said figure. After all is said and done, Eastwood has done a fairly good job with the subject matter, but it won’t be garnering any Oscar acceptance speeches.
DiCaprio plays John Edgar Hoover, the man behind the FBI. Through a series of flashbacks that spark you from one era to the next you follow this man throughout his almost 50 year reign as leader of the Bureau from his not-so-humble beginnings to his defense of this program and the relationship he had with Clyde Tolson (played by Armie Hammer). As you watch you are introduced to many of the ins and outs of the man, which include his keen eye for detection and early exuberance to his paranoia of enemies around every corner.
The screenwriter Dustin Lance Black also tackled another large political figure a few years ago with Gus Van Sant’s Milk. The homosexual aspects he brings to the script isn’t overbearing, but is speculative at best as he creates many key scenes of ‘romantic tension’ between Hammer and DiCaprio’s characters. A lot of Hoover’s mysteriousness is addressed, but in a very dramatic, obviously rough way that hasn’t been confirmed. This isn’t a large part of the overall plot, but Hoover’s relationship with Tolson definitely alludes to the man behind the hardness.
DiCaprio does a predictably decent job as Hoover with another great performance to add to his list, but at this points it’s almost at a point I would expect. He doesn’t really pull anything out of the bag here that I found more than satisfactory. Hammer also does a really good job albeit a little too conventional with his portrayal of a gay man. The real winners here were Naomi Watts as Hoover’s longtime secretary Ms. Gandy and Judi Dench’s powerhouse performance as Hoover’s overbearing mother. They really complement DiCaprio a whole lot and aid the movie a bunch in terms of quality.
One of the only problems I found with this movie, to be fair, was the script. J. Edgar Hoover wasn’t as interesting as the cases he was a part of. The Charles Lindbergh baby abduction aspect gets played into the film significantly, but the script avoids a lot of the gangster stuff—the allegations of Hoover denying the existence of organized crime, his frequent collaboration with Joseph McCarthy and the Red Scare, as well as the whole prohibition affair. A lot of amazing moments that could’ve been put in the script were missing and you’re left with a figure who, when all is said and done, isn’t as interesting as the things he was a part of.
Like a ton of other Eastwood-directed films, the pacing is definitely more bloated than it should be. The movie, which boasts a running time of 2 hours and 17 minutes should’ve been cut by 20-25 minutes to have remained cohesive. There were at least three or four points where they could’ve ended the movie, but it kept going and going. Other technological aspects were disappointing as well such as the cinematography and makeup effects. Tom Stern is known for being a great Eastwood collaborator on such projects as Million Dollar Baby and The Changeling among others, but here he dovetails into boring territory. Nothing really moved me here or blew me away—especially given the lighting and how it associates with the bad makeup effects at some points when DiCaprio, Watts, and Hammer are looking older. Sometimes DiCaprio looks convincing as an older Hoover, while other times he looks terrible. There wasn’t a whole lot of consistency here.
Overall, this wasn’t as turgid of an affair as I was expecting. Critics have blasted this film for the last few months and while I can see some of the reasons why this movie is tarnished, it’s definitely not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. There are some really touching moments here as you watch a once-idealistic man—a patriot who helped catapult detection and how modern criminology works now—get lost in his own mind-games. It’s a sad movie somewhat and an interesting career choice for Eastwood who has become braver in the last twenty years with his directorial projects. I’d recommend this for those interested in the man of J. Edgar Hoover, but don’t expect anything award-winning here as the filmmakers would like to suggest.
3 out of 5 stars
Be sure to check out Paco McCullough's review of J. Edgar.
More Eastwood at Cinemecca:
Unforgiven (1992)
No comments:
Post a Comment