Ensign Lestat's Film Log, 31/01/2012
J. Edgar Hoover is one of the most influential figures of the 20th Century, not only in the United States of America, but in other countries as well. His ideas and techniques in forensic analysis have shaped the world that we know today. He was the founder of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and has, for all eternity, made a mark on this world.
I was intrigued when I heard that a film about the life of this man was in the works. I had never seen pictures of him, never knew anything about him, nor was ever all that interested in knowing anything about him either. But when the buzz about the film started coming from my sister I realised the film was going to be a big deal.
When I watched the trailer of the film, simply titled 'J. Edgar', I was... not very convinced. Playing the title character is Leonardo DiCaprio, who despite my best efforts, I fight a war with every time he appears on a screen near me. Blame the foolish teenaged (female) classmates I had to deal with when 'Titanic' came out. I battled in vain to convince them that 'Star Wars' was any day a better, more exciting, more intelligent, better looking film, than the aforementioned 'Titanic'. And ever since then I can't help but go to red alert whenever good ol' Leo shows up. This despite my undying love for 'Inception'.
Anyway, back to the trailer. The trailer, like the film, begins with Leonardo's voice emulating Hoover's accent and intonations. I felt, when I watched the trailer that the voice of DiCaprio was far too distinguishable and familiar to be a convincing portrayal. Aside from that, I also wasn't impressed by the glimpses of the aged make-up on DiCaprio. It appeared to look far too fake for me. Barring that however, the trailer definitely made the film look aptly dark, exciting and enthralling. So, a definite must-see.
Just before the film hit theaters I decided to read a film review of it. It was a mostly negative review (I won't blame my brain for this one - it wasn't looking for a 'hehe, you're highly acclaimed, but you actually suck' moment - I was planning to prepare my sister for impending disappointment). I won't go into the negatives the review alluded to, that will be mentioned eventually.
When the film finally reached our cinemas here we eagerly got our tickets. I was a bit surprised when the lady behind the ticket counter asked if two 18+ adults were going to watch the film. I anxiously discussed the possibilities for why it was under such a rating with my sister - nudity? torture? violence? excessive swearing? - her answer was that it was most likely because the film alluded to the fact that Hoover was gay. Right! Much simpler and practical answer (I see from the IMDb rating that indeed the 18+ rating in this country was down to his sexual orientation). It is a surprise, in fact, that the film was shown at all considering that knowledge of Hoover's homosexuality is quite well-known (my Dad was convinced the film wouldn't be shown here, till I mentioned to him it was already in the theaters - he was as confused as I am about it).
The film begins with Hoover's entry into the Justice Department, as told by an older version of him to a young agent charged with typing his memoir. Throughout the film we go back and forth, learning more about Edgar through his dealings with the agents typing his memoir (he goes through quite a few of them) as well as with the other people and situations he met when he began his career. We are introduced to Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts), who's abilities are immediately obvious to Edgar when they first pass each other that he appoints her his personal secretary. We also get an insight into his home life - he lives with his parents, and takes every word his mother (played by Dame Judi Dench) utters as gospel. This is an important facet of the relationship, as it shapes some of his future (at least in the film, anyway) actions. Edgar's rise is meteoric, and on his way to becoming head of the Bureau he is introduced to Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer) who Edgar is able to convince to join him.
The Lindbergh kidnapping plays a key role in the film, as well as in Edgar's career. To solve this mystery Edgar expands his department, appoints wood and other materials experts as well as centralises all finger-print records. This is when the Bureau becomes the most influential organisation in the US.
But tackling crime isn't the only job of Edgar's Bureau. He also has bugs and spies planted in the homes and offices of influential politicians and individuals, which essentially makes him the most powerful man during his era. He uses the (unlawfully) gained information to gain favours and to keep people quiet. It's frightening to think what an absolute terror he must have been for people back then.
The film ably tackles the extremes of J. Edgar Hoover's personality. He was finicky about the strangest things - he dictated what his employees should wear, whether they could wear facial hair, how to behave so as to represent the Bureau well. and at the same time, the same man couldn't stand up for himself when his mother retaliates against his claims that he finds it difficult to dance with women. He is a man that demands fierce loyalty to him, and is enigmatic enough to get it, but does not repay the loyalty with his own. He was a dynamic character, and unfortunately two hours of celluloid can never be enough to capture all his eccentricities.
This film, despite the review I read, did not disappoint me in any way. The review complained about the 'interview' technique used to tell Edgar's story. I agree, telling a story through an interview is utterly boring and very old-fashioned. But this film does not use it in the old-fashioned way. The stories Edgar chooses to tell give an insight into his character (proud, boastful at times). Some of the flashbacks are old Edgar's memories triggered by an incident taking place around him. My sister reminded me that the style is reminiscent of Clint Eastwood's 'Flags of Our Fathers'. I agree. I will be the first to admit that voiceover narration usually makes me want to shoot myself in the head, but that is not how I felt when I watched 'J. Edgar'.
The acting at no point disappoints either. Despite my reluctance to watch DiCaprio in old make-up, in the film the make-up succeeded and beyond. I think the make-up was most successful on Naomi Watts. I didn't find it all that convincing on Armie Hammer at first, it looked like the foundation and stuff were going to fall off, but slowly the make-up on him began to look more and more disturbing - disturbingly real that is. That is mostly because Hammer really comes into his role as old Tolson (I couldn't help but notice that old Tolson is not shown in the trailer, and that his introduction was designed to shock the audience - it worked!). Hammer is around my age and he does an eerily realistic portrayal of a man who hasn't aged well, and has gone through a recent illness. It was scary watching him, especially the way he walked and let his head shake a little. For such a young person to come face to face with what could be his future is commendable. Of course, I may just be over-thinking the whole thing, and the man is just doing his job. But it left me very impressed.
DiCaprio, and I hate to say it, is also very good. He is nigh invisible as J. Edgar and I am beyond stunned that he has not bagged an Oscar nomination for his role. I thought the Academy liked gay biopics! What the heck, people!
And speaking of gay biopics. Before the film got here, I read an article where Clint Eastwood vociferously claimed that he didn't care if Hoover was gay or not, his film was concerned with what a threat the man was to his own people. Yeah sure! After having watched the film, I'm pretty sure Eastwood said that simply to get the media and film-bashers off his back. Writer Dustin Lance Black ('Milk') and director Eastwood definitely don't hide this element of Hoover's character. There are a handful of moments between Edgar and Tolson where Edgar expresses some of his true feelings. I understand they also share a very brief moment of intimacy, but that got chopped in our theater. But even without that, there is more than enough information to tell us just how Edgar feels and why he cannot be open about it.
There is just so much to love about this film. I believe this film makes Hoover into a much more likeable character than the real man could ever have believed himself to be, but that may be because not all of his endeavours were included. That was really my only problem with the film (though there is no possible way to fix that unless I plan to sit through a day-long edition of the biopic). I felt that the character was a bit sketchy in parts but as I said, one can't condense such a long and active life into two hours without leaving out a lot. To know more we'll have to read some biographies.
I am stunned to see that the film has got no nominations for this year's Oscars ceremony. It seems the Academy just forgot all about it. I mean, when you have ten nomination slots, why only nominate nine (out of which two have received scathing reviews all-round)? It's salt-in-the-wound stuff for 'J. Edgar', which rightly should have been the tenth nomination. I fail to see the point of giving the Academy Awards credence when good work is ignored. Clint Eastwood should be picketing their offices. I'd definitely join him if he did.
J. Edgar Hoover is one of the most influential figures of the 20th Century, not only in the United States of America, but in other countries as well. His ideas and techniques in forensic analysis have shaped the world that we know today. He was the founder of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and has, for all eternity, made a mark on this world.
I was intrigued when I heard that a film about the life of this man was in the works. I had never seen pictures of him, never knew anything about him, nor was ever all that interested in knowing anything about him either. But when the buzz about the film started coming from my sister I realised the film was going to be a big deal.
Anyway, back to the trailer. The trailer, like the film, begins with Leonardo's voice emulating Hoover's accent and intonations. I felt, when I watched the trailer that the voice of DiCaprio was far too distinguishable and familiar to be a convincing portrayal. Aside from that, I also wasn't impressed by the glimpses of the aged make-up on DiCaprio. It appeared to look far too fake for me. Barring that however, the trailer definitely made the film look aptly dark, exciting and enthralling. So, a definite must-see.
Just before the film hit theaters I decided to read a film review of it. It was a mostly negative review (I won't blame my brain for this one - it wasn't looking for a 'hehe, you're highly acclaimed, but you actually suck' moment - I was planning to prepare my sister for impending disappointment). I won't go into the negatives the review alluded to, that will be mentioned eventually.
When the film finally reached our cinemas here we eagerly got our tickets. I was a bit surprised when the lady behind the ticket counter asked if two 18+ adults were going to watch the film. I anxiously discussed the possibilities for why it was under such a rating with my sister - nudity? torture? violence? excessive swearing? - her answer was that it was most likely because the film alluded to the fact that Hoover was gay. Right! Much simpler and practical answer (I see from the IMDb rating that indeed the 18+ rating in this country was down to his sexual orientation). It is a surprise, in fact, that the film was shown at all considering that knowledge of Hoover's homosexuality is quite well-known (my Dad was convinced the film wouldn't be shown here, till I mentioned to him it was already in the theaters - he was as confused as I am about it).
The film begins with Hoover's entry into the Justice Department, as told by an older version of him to a young agent charged with typing his memoir. Throughout the film we go back and forth, learning more about Edgar through his dealings with the agents typing his memoir (he goes through quite a few of them) as well as with the other people and situations he met when he began his career. We are introduced to Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts), who's abilities are immediately obvious to Edgar when they first pass each other that he appoints her his personal secretary. We also get an insight into his home life - he lives with his parents, and takes every word his mother (played by Dame Judi Dench) utters as gospel. This is an important facet of the relationship, as it shapes some of his future (at least in the film, anyway) actions. Edgar's rise is meteoric, and on his way to becoming head of the Bureau he is introduced to Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer) who Edgar is able to convince to join him.
The Lindbergh kidnapping plays a key role in the film, as well as in Edgar's career. To solve this mystery Edgar expands his department, appoints wood and other materials experts as well as centralises all finger-print records. This is when the Bureau becomes the most influential organisation in the US.
But tackling crime isn't the only job of Edgar's Bureau. He also has bugs and spies planted in the homes and offices of influential politicians and individuals, which essentially makes him the most powerful man during his era. He uses the (unlawfully) gained information to gain favours and to keep people quiet. It's frightening to think what an absolute terror he must have been for people back then.
The film ably tackles the extremes of J. Edgar Hoover's personality. He was finicky about the strangest things - he dictated what his employees should wear, whether they could wear facial hair, how to behave so as to represent the Bureau well. and at the same time, the same man couldn't stand up for himself when his mother retaliates against his claims that he finds it difficult to dance with women. He is a man that demands fierce loyalty to him, and is enigmatic enough to get it, but does not repay the loyalty with his own. He was a dynamic character, and unfortunately two hours of celluloid can never be enough to capture all his eccentricities.
This film, despite the review I read, did not disappoint me in any way. The review complained about the 'interview' technique used to tell Edgar's story. I agree, telling a story through an interview is utterly boring and very old-fashioned. But this film does not use it in the old-fashioned way. The stories Edgar chooses to tell give an insight into his character (proud, boastful at times). Some of the flashbacks are old Edgar's memories triggered by an incident taking place around him. My sister reminded me that the style is reminiscent of Clint Eastwood's 'Flags of Our Fathers'. I agree. I will be the first to admit that voiceover narration usually makes me want to shoot myself in the head, but that is not how I felt when I watched 'J. Edgar'.
The acting at no point disappoints either. Despite my reluctance to watch DiCaprio in old make-up, in the film the make-up succeeded and beyond. I think the make-up was most successful on Naomi Watts. I didn't find it all that convincing on Armie Hammer at first, it looked like the foundation and stuff were going to fall off, but slowly the make-up on him began to look more and more disturbing - disturbingly real that is. That is mostly because Hammer really comes into his role as old Tolson (I couldn't help but notice that old Tolson is not shown in the trailer, and that his introduction was designed to shock the audience - it worked!). Hammer is around my age and he does an eerily realistic portrayal of a man who hasn't aged well, and has gone through a recent illness. It was scary watching him, especially the way he walked and let his head shake a little. For such a young person to come face to face with what could be his future is commendable. Of course, I may just be over-thinking the whole thing, and the man is just doing his job. But it left me very impressed.
DiCaprio, and I hate to say it, is also very good. He is nigh invisible as J. Edgar and I am beyond stunned that he has not bagged an Oscar nomination for his role. I thought the Academy liked gay biopics! What the heck, people!
And speaking of gay biopics. Before the film got here, I read an article where Clint Eastwood vociferously claimed that he didn't care if Hoover was gay or not, his film was concerned with what a threat the man was to his own people. Yeah sure! After having watched the film, I'm pretty sure Eastwood said that simply to get the media and film-bashers off his back. Writer Dustin Lance Black ('Milk') and director Eastwood definitely don't hide this element of Hoover's character. There are a handful of moments between Edgar and Tolson where Edgar expresses some of his true feelings. I understand they also share a very brief moment of intimacy, but that got chopped in our theater. But even without that, there is more than enough information to tell us just how Edgar feels and why he cannot be open about it.
There is just so much to love about this film. I believe this film makes Hoover into a much more likeable character than the real man could ever have believed himself to be, but that may be because not all of his endeavours were included. That was really my only problem with the film (though there is no possible way to fix that unless I plan to sit through a day-long edition of the biopic). I felt that the character was a bit sketchy in parts but as I said, one can't condense such a long and active life into two hours without leaving out a lot. To know more we'll have to read some biographies.
I am stunned to see that the film has got no nominations for this year's Oscars ceremony. It seems the Academy just forgot all about it. I mean, when you have ten nomination slots, why only nominate nine (out of which two have received scathing reviews all-round)? It's salt-in-the-wound stuff for 'J. Edgar', which rightly should have been the tenth nomination. I fail to see the point of giving the Academy Awards credence when good work is ignored. Clint Eastwood should be picketing their offices. I'd definitely join him if he did.
Comments