Ryan McNeil
During one scene in J. EDGAR, the titular character is being questioned by a member of congress and forced to admit that he is not who he purports to be. His image has been trumped up (partially by his own doing), and while he wants people to pay him his due respect, there’s not as much reason to do so as he thinks. In much the same way, this film is not what it purports to be – namely a biography of a man more powerful than many presidents. And while I deeply wanted to pay it its due respect, there is likewise not much reason to do so.
In the mid 60’s, J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) has been the director of the FBI for thirty-plus years. While reclusive and secretive, he understands the value of spin and believes that it’s time a new generation of Americans understand the truth behind what he has built the FBI into. Or at least it’s important they understand the truth he wants to sell them. Thus he commissions a journalist to ghostwrite his memoirs.
As he dictates his tale, we begin to learn that he joined the bureau as an administrator, never working as an actual field agent. His work to counter the rising tide of anarchists and communists in America gets him noticed, and in a few short years he gets appointed as acting director of the bureau. So professionally, everything looks great, but personally things are not so hot.
Hoover is a socially awkward bachelor who is deeply attached to his mother Anna Marie (Judi Dench). She helps him dress, gives him lessons in confidence and conduct, all of which help him achieve things he never could on his own. His only other attachment to the opposite sex comes through Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts). Gandy is a secretary within the bureau when Hoover first meets her, and he takes somewhat of a shining to her. I say “somewhat” because the shining leads to a date at The Library of Congress where Hoover hopes to impress her by showing her his card catalogue. While his romantic advances are rebuked, he does convince Gandy to become his assistant. Thus what would have been a bumpy personal relationship becomes a thriving professional one.
When Hoover begins hiring GI’s for his new vision of the bureau, he calls upon Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer) who is a clean-cut graduate from George Washinton University. Tolson might be applying to be a GI, but Hoover sees something more in him, and instead brings him on as associate director. While Hoover and Tolson work together on many cases – most famously the abduction of The Lindbergh Baby – it’s their personal relationship that is the crux of J. EDGAR, and just how close that personal relationship became over the years.
One difficulty that comes with creating a bio-pic is deciding what elements of the life story to focus in on. When one considers a life as storied and notorious as J. Edgar Hoover, the difficulty increases to the tenth power. Hoover was a man who was involved in so very much of America’s history in the 20th century, and was deeply responsible in building up the FBI. The man likely has enough of a legacy to fill three feature films, so narrowing his tale down to one is a tricky task for starters. On top of his professional endeavours, there is also the large undercurrent of his personal life to deal with. Indeed shaping The Ballad of J. Edgar Hoover would be tricky at best…and it’s a trick Clint Eastwood and Dustin Black don’t pull off.
J. EDGAR is structurally messy. By beginning at the end, and continuing to cha-cha back and forth through time, we’re given a device that never pays off. Very seldom does anything happening in the past balance itself with where we come back to in the present, leaving a rather large disconnect between the two points of view. Likewise, there is an entire thread surrounding Martin Luther King Jr. that feels out of place. On the page, it is likely meant to emphasize how out-of-touch Hoover became by the end of his run. However, with the rest of the story built as reflections, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to throw more antagonism into the act of the story where J. Edgar is reflecting.
What helps to distract from the poor execution is the wonderful acting from Leonardo DiCaprio. Hoover is written in such a way that allows DiCaprio a lot of very human moments. His Hoover is a person that will manipulate and politic his way into getting what he wants, but who is also too scared and self-conscious to actually articulate some of the things he truly wants. The film hands him two criteria that could cripple lesser actors – the homosexual undercurrent and the aging make-up. Impressively, DiCaprio is able to work with both. His struggle with his personal feelings for Tolson comes naturally, an expression of true love and admiration that rises above cliche. Likewise, the makeup – which only seems to look right on DiCaprio – allows him to naturally embody a character who is physically unimpressive, but has a ferocity in him that flashes for moments when the light is just so.
J. EDGAR wants us to focus on the theme of legacy. Specifically, it wants us to consider that as much as we want to hold control over what others will remember us for, that it is completely out of our control. To hammer home that point, we’re forced to listen to Hoover tell his own story and control where the focal point is. But in life, as with watching this film, such things are hard to control. This film clearly wants us to understand that in an age where homosexuals are still fighting for their basic human rights, that some very powerful people were (and still are) closeted gays. However, not to undermine that very important point, but it’s not the focal point that audiences are coming into this film looking for or coming out with. It’s an important story, and one that should be told – but if we are to focus on Hoover The Man, then it might have been better not to muddy it with Hoover The Legend.
That disconnect is what holds this film back. Many hallmarks of Clint Eastwood’s direction can be seen within this film, from the desaturated look to the jazz piano score, but while the film is reasonably handsome – it’s more than reasonably sloppy. The film wants to tell the tale of a man who wasn’t just part of history – he is a man who shaped history itself. Unfortunately, with all of its many flaws and missteps, J. EDGAR instead plays like a history textbook that’s had crucial pages torn out.
Damn. I’m not having the greatest year at picking my most anticipated for the year. First it was Sucker Punch, which was awful, and now this. Hopefully my next film, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, is somewhat better.
Anyway, I’m ready to accept that this movie won’t be that great. And it doesn’t matter since this movie isn’t released here until February, and by then I should have forgotten about it…unless Leo gets an Oscar nomination.
It’s a shame that this movie isn’t so good, since I was hoping that this would have been Leo’s time to get that Oscar. Do you think he has a chance? And also, was Armie Hammer any good? I quite like him and I think he has a bright future.
I still think Leo has a chance at an Oscar nomination. Where the acting categories are concerned, more weight is put on the performance than the film as a whole – consider flawed films like CRAZY HEART, LA VIE EN ROSE, and SYRIANNA.
When you made this comment, I had to go back several episodes of the podcast and listen to my top five most anticipated (oddly, this wasn’t on the list). One delivered (THE SKIN I LIVE IN), one flopped (THE RUM DIARY). Here’s hoping CARNAGE, HUGO, and WAR HORSE can deliver!
J Edgar was an odd bird for me. I loved the visual style and the acting of Armie Hammer and DiCaprio (I’d say DiCaprio is potentially Oscar worthy) but everything else didn’t really click for me. The story is disjointed, confusing and full of unresolved or poorly resolved plot points and everyone else seemed kind of meh when compared to Hammer and DiCaprio. I wouldn’t go as far to say phoning it in but everyone else seemed like they were just there to be there. I mean Dench was fine but you know what I mean?
Also one thing I don’t get is the time jumping towards the end of the film. In the earlier parts I get it since it’s the whole memoir thing but later on in the film it just seems to jump for the sake of jumping and that really threw me a few times.
Great review Ryan.
Towards the end I think the jumps were just there to link what was happening now to what had happened in the past. The device of dictating the memoirs had been established, so using the same trick to convey memory was Eastwood’s way of cheating somewhat. Good catch.
Yeah, besides the two male leads and Judi Dench, nobody in this film is fleshed out. Pity, since it holds the film back from getting any real weight…all I can guess is that deciding where to begin and end with additional characters was too tricky to do. Pity.
I agree entirely. It’s a sloppy endeavor – to no surprise I also gave the film 2 stars when I say it last Monday at the press screening.
Quite odd, really… I’m a huge advocate for Eastwood films. Though they typically follow the same rhetoric and push the themes at hand a bit too hard, there’s always some… purpose. J. Edgar lacked a purpose and for that matter, competent direction.
To just refute something here… Personally, I would’ve found the film far more interesting if the relationship between Hoover ant Tolson expanded a bit more. There’re unquestionably some touching scenes between the two – what comes before and after though, is disjointed
You’re right on when you talk about how it’s very difficult to concoct a bio-pic … especially of a man as grand and historic as Hoover. There’s so much one could document about his life, that it really is hard to narrow the moments and events down to a cohesive, two hour plus film.
To note on the possibility of Oscars: I don’t see it. Perhaps DiCaprio and or Hammer pick up a nomination…. But not likely.
Quite simply, “J. Edgar” is far too safe for a man who was anything but.
Nice review Ryan.
If the film wanted to expand on the relationship between Hoover and Tolson, I agree with you that the result probably would have been far better. Thing is, it would have had to set out to do that from the outset…and not concern itself with dropping in all of the references to the historical events happening around them. Somewhat like what the upcoming Marilyn Monroe film looks to be doing.
I would discount DiCaprio’s Oscar chances just yet. Regardless of how sloppy the film is, he does some fine work. There’s still a few more movies to play before we can get a read on such things, but I wouldn’t tear up his Oscar invite just yet.
Nice review. I thought this film was a repressed mess of a picture. The color palate, the soundtrack, the dialogue the sexual tension was all presented in an inhibited fashion. Also I found the old age makeup to be redonkulous. The best part of the film was my mid film impersonation of shakey Tolson. Overall a slow ponderous boring film.
Welcome to The Matinee, Gents!
It’s hard to explain why, but I was alright with DiCaprio’s aging make-up…only DiCaprio’s aging make-up. Watts’ looked half-assed, and Hammer’s looked downright laughable. Eastwood probably would have been better off casting older actors for the 1960’s scenes.
I actually dug the colour palette (looks very much like what Eastwood did in CHANGELING, FLAGS, and IWO JIMA). That washed-out, almost black and white look suited the era…so while I can pick all sorts of problems with this flick, I’ll give that one a pass.
The film may look drab and veer out of chronological order for no reason, but DiCaprio embodies Hoover. He’s an easy pick for the Best Actor race.
Lord knows I’d much rather take DiCaprio in this for Best Actor than Brad Pitt for MONEYBALL.
I’d be okay with that as well. Of course, I’d rather see Shannon or–if I enjoy Shame–Fassbender take the Oscar.
I think I liked it more than most here. It’s interesting to see J.Edgar’s position on terror and the similarity to what’s happening after 9/11. I thought the love story between Hoover and Tolson works for the most part (will get to it later) and Leo’s performance is his career best. Never easy playing a repressed, conflicted, selfish person and yet elicit sympathy from the viewers. I think Leo is very good here.
The problems I have with the movie are: 1) The time line jumps, in one scene is MLK and another JFK, and then the movie leave the thread all together never bother to tie the loose end.
2) This is the fatal flaw IMO. Armie Hammer’s old age makeup is appalling. It belongs to a low budget horror movie, it’s distracting. It took me out the movie when ever the old Tolson is on the screen. The ending should be a little more powerful, but that make up ruins it.
During my podcast episode about this movie (which you may or may not have listened to), my friend james compares Hammer’s old age make-up to the rubber mask in DRIVE.
I agree with all of your points about this film…such a wasted opportunity.
Interesting review. I’m definitely going to use that “wanna see my card catalog” line on my next date.
I didn’t personally find the jumps in the timeline to be messy, because I say them
Oops, I hit send to early…
I was going to say that I didn’t find the jumps to be messy because I saw them lining up quite nicely around his legacy– The parts that Americans have come to accept are placed in the first half, where he is dictating his story and no one is talking back, while the rumors, confusion and mistakes come in the second half, along with his less popular initiatives as director. And the whole context of the closet played into that, where at first he was in control, but at the moments when Tolsen started asking to be taken seriously in his life (both as love interest and someone who needed medical attention), Hoover was less in control.
Welcome to The Matinee NTE!
Many of the jumps lined up reasonably well, but there were a few that felt a little jarring. Heck in he opening we even take a moment and jump back to him as a little boy for no reason. That second half where w=you mention his less popular decisions is the bit I wish was more fleshed out.