So, on Monday night, I undertook the second double movie session of the year (first was The Muppets and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, for new readers and to clarify, I do choose which two movies I want to watch if time is on my side for two). Even though I usually go in the morning for cinema releases, neither of these films was feasible for a day-time showing (one of them was a film I had planned to see on its opening day until it became apparent I would need to wait for a night off), so I chose to go last night since I had it off from work.
The second film will be covered in my next blog, but first, here's the latest Clint Eastwood film, the biopic J. Edgar.
I've never known much about J. Edgar Hoover, and I'm unsure as to whether or not any biographies have been written about him (though I'm going to assume so, he seems to be a very controversial person, even to this day, and we all know how much controversy sells), but even I know that some of what's on display will have to be taken with a grain of salt. So, we'll have to see if the film can balance out being relatively truthful, portraying the subject realistically and also being entertaining.
J. Edgar covers several points in the man's life, going back and forth through time as it needs to. From his final days (not a spoiler) and getting his memoirs done, to his starting up the FBI, and various cases along the way like taking on gangsters and trying to solve the Lindbergh kidnapping. All the while, the film also shows what J. Edgar (Leonardo DiCaprio) was like in private and his relationships with his second-in-command, Clyde Tolson (Arnie Hammer) and his mother, Anna Marie (Judi Dench).
Of all the films I've seen recently, this is perhaps the most uneven and mixed. Is it bad? Not at all, but there a few things I found myself questioning and thinking about.
Let's start with something small: the time skips. Now, being a biopic in which the subject himself is narrating, obviously most of the film is going to be in flashback form. That's fine, I don't have a problem with that. But seeing as how we bounce all over the place, and sometimes when we cut back to the present there are new people we weren't introduced to before, it gets a bit confusing and we shouldn't have to play catch-up (more on the new people later).
Also, despite one scene early on, Naomi Watts really doesn't add that much to the film as Hoover's secretary, Helen Gandy. It's a scene in which Hoover and Gandy are on a date and he proposes marriage to her after impressing her with his skills in locating a book in a little over a minute, using a card catalog system. They're on their third date and Gandy declines, citing her desire for work over marriage. Hoover is impressed with such a reaction and offers her a position as his personal secretary. While this scene works well to establish how she came to be in his employ, after this, her role is reduced to simply being... well, a secretary. I'm not going to fault the movie for that, but since all she does is announce things over an intercom (up until the very end anyway), I fail to see why you needed Naomi Watts for a thankless role. You could have just gotten someone on the production crew to do it, or left it voice only. It's almost like, if the movie itself was Hoover, like the living, physical embodiment, the film is punishing her for refusing his proposal. It's like “Turn me down? Well, to Hell with you, hussy! I'll banish you to a less than adequate supporting role!”
No, for the significant female role, we turn to Judi Dench as Hoover's mother. Now, she plays the role quite well, as we expect, though I wonder if I'm the only one who kept thinking of Norman Bates' mother whenever she spoke. Big difference here is that whereas Mrs. Bates was an abusive monster... Anna Marie was just abusive, though emotionally so. Unlike Mrs. Bates, she did love her son but she was one of those “I will not accept deviation from the norm and you will climb to the top or else kill me now because you're breaking my heart” type of people. And in her mind, not being white and heterosexual was deviating from the norm. So, when she does die (again, not a spoiler, she lingers on for a while and each time you keep thinking “aaaaand now she's dead” before the umpteenth time jump), it's hard for us to feel sorry. Or, it was for me, since she was racist and homophobic. I don't care if they were the values of the time, they've always been pathetic values since their inception and it doesn't help when later, Hoover's wearing one of his mother's dresses and breaks down crying (the only time that Hoover's reported cross-dressing is even brought up).
Now, let's go into some good: Leonardo DiCaprio is once again showing he's breaking away from the “pretty boy” phase he once went through. OK, he's been out of that for a while but it's nice to know he's not going back and his role as Hoover is filled with confidence and poise and he is the best thing about it.
Also of note, Arnie Hammer as Tolson is both extremely sympathetic and witty. Of course, the dialogue helps, but out of all the people who are portrayed as people we're meant to be sympathetic to, he is perhaps the only one who is worthy of such sympathy.
But here's the thing: throughout the film, you can see them together, while not being “together” together and while it is taken seriously for the most part, I can't help but feel Eastwood was taking the piss with some of the moments with just the two of them. For example, when Hoover announces to Tolson that he's considering marrying his current partner, Tolson loses it. Hoover tries to calm him down but Tolson will have none of it and smashes anything he can find. The two fight, before Tolson kisses him square on the lips, leading Hoover to throw him out and whispers “I love you” to himself, before bursting into tears.
What problem do I have with the scene? Well, besides all the innuendo leading up to it seemingly being played for comedy, the physical portion of the fight looks more like they're play-fighting and it kind of demeans the film. I mean, I get the feeling that Hoover was a self-hating homosexual but the film can't make its mind up if it wants to mock the two of them or be sympathetic to the two of them. When you contrast the rest of the film, showing Hoover's efforts in law enforcement, its like Eastwood was told he had to have a comedy subplot or the film wouldn't be shipped and someone thought this should be treated with humor. Seeing as how the fight is never brought up again, it feels like it should have been a verbal confrontation only, seeing as how that's handled with better judgment.
That being said, the parts of the film that do handle the law enforcement aspect are very well done, especially the section that covers the Lindburgh baby kidnapping. I have to wonder how much of this Hoover had a personal hand in, when it comes to the forensics, but it's still impressive and if you don't know the story of the child, it's actually quite gripping.
But, if there is one thing, above all else, that drags the film down, it is this one fact: the film itself decides to show J. Edgar Hoover in a largely sympathetic light. I know his legacy in real life, about how he many presidents tried to get rid of him, about all the measures he took, but rather than lay out events, the ill deeds, along with the good, and let him be judged accordingly, the film largely feels like it was written by Hoover himself, glorifying him whenever possible. As I mentioned with DiCaprio's portrayal, he's confident, always has an answer (his relationship with his mother is perhaps the one time he's portrayed as being somewhat weak) and he stonewalls everyone who gets in his way. But he still looks like the good guy doing so.
He goes through at least three different typists for his memoirs, most likely because they'll ask a question or two and his response is to just be rid of them and put someone new in. It could also be down to paranoia but the truth is, he just wanted things to go his way and didn't like defiance, even when the people in power sometimes need to be defied, like Hoover himself had done in the past.
He only gets called out for his exaggerations towards the end, by Tolson, but that never leads to anything, since Hoover dies not long after. In the end, he was as stubborn as he ever was.
In a nutshell, the film is too sympathetic to a controversial figure and I have to wonder what Eastwood is trying to say.
Still, for all its faults, it still manages to entertain and the performances are noteworthy. Weighing all the factors up, I award the film 3.5/5
No comments:
Post a Comment