J. Edgar Hoover undoubtedly is a prominent figure in United States history and it is rather odd that a theatrical feature about his life has only just been made (not counting the appearances in other films or the Treat Williams' TV film). Good or bad, his name still stands upon FBI headquarters and his contribution to the criminal justice system is more than all four Law & Order series combined. But as historical information shows, Hoover was an interestingly complicated man in his pursuits of truth and justice, all the while trying to uphold the sovereignty of the United States. Sadly though, while Eastwood's film touches upon these moments here and there, the rest is bogged down into questionable historical claims and silly love quarrels.
I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the events on screen but J. Edgar has an easy out: namely, the main narrative featuring the young Leo as the 1930s model Hoover is what is depicted by Hoover to his biographer. The events are not quite accurate though with a reveal late in the film in which a character calls Edgar out on his writing as he was either not present for what he claims or was nowhere near as important a figure as he recounts. Regardless, his alleged involvement in the Lindbergh baby investigation or the arrest of various evil gangsters plays well in the movie until it is undermined by awkwardly juxtaposed scenes of Hoover spelling it all out to his writer. These occur far too often which disrupt the flow of the film as it cuts back and forth between young Hoover enacting the deeds and new Hoover recounting them.
Mostly because of the awkward cutting back and forth between time periods, the entire film feels disjointed. We never really get to see Hoover on the prowl while he could nor reminisce on that time as a hardened man as Black's script seems content splitting its focus between multiple time periods without any real thought given to any of them. Since the film spans so much time also, it is necessary for the main cast of DiCaprio, Naomi Watts, and Armie Hammer to don old-aged prosthesis depending on the time depicted. Director Rian Johnson recently explained why he did not cast a younger actor as an older man saying "I don't feel like I've ever seen [old age makeup] completely work." In most cases, it doesn't work and especially here. While the makeup is effective to an extent, you cannot divorce the previous scene or two of a young Leo from the obviously inorganic older version. The effects were done well but not enough to stop the inherent distractions that come along.
Regardless of the execution and story, Leo turns in another impressive performance. You could make a drinking game out of how many times Hoover says "radical" or "communist" but his oft misguided passion and heart blasts through the script's weaknesses. Armie Hammer has a thankless character as Hoover's yes-man Clyde Tolson but Hammer portrays an unwavering dedication to his work and to Hoover. Watts and Judi Dench appear in various forms of age and give solid, if not superfluous, performances as the heart of the film relies on Hoover and his complications. The rest of the film is filled with various notable actors that reminded me of a Fincher movie with the appearance of Dermot Mulroney, Zach Grenier, Josh Lucas, and others that helped expand the otherwise narrow world of Hoover.
While I did not care for the structure of the story, Eastwood's direction is laudable as he effectively captures the feel of multiple time periods and their corresponding intricacies. Most of the film is shot with very muted colors which almost look black and white to further portray the time reflected. If not for the shoddy and disjointed script, J. Edgar might have been a contender with the big wigs. Certainly a film about a prominent figure from decades ago cannot do much wrong but when the character himself is sold short by the lousy framing of the story, he doesn't stand a chance.
Comments
Post a Comment