J. Edgar Hoover’s long career in the FBI spanned a number of significant historical events, and the new film about the man, J. Edgar (2011), captures some of the scope of that history while trying to understand a very complicated person. In the film, we see terrorist activity from the early twentieth century through the gangster era into the Depression through the Lindbergh baby kidnapping and the Civil Rights movement through Kennedy’s assassination, until finally Hoover’s paranoia is passed onto the incoming president Richard M. Nixon. It is a big span for a movie, but Director Clint Eastwood never loses sight of its goal of telling the story of the main character.
When I first heard Leonardo DiCaprio was going to play Hoover, my initial reaction was to think he was miscast. While some critics may still believe that (and also criticize the makeup on the aging characters), DiCaprio does a surprisingly excellent job filling the shoes of the larger-than-life Hoover. DiCaprio is one of the few actors who could convincingly play Hoover at a young age and at old age.
Judi Dench plays Hoover’s domineering mother, and Naomi Watts plays Hoover’s long-time secretary. But much of the movie focuses on the relationship between Hoover and his longtime assistant, Clyde Tolson, played well by Armie Hammer. Many speculate that Hoover and Tolson had a romantic relationship, and the film focuses on Hoover as a repressed man. Whether or not they had a physical relationship, their close bond, among Hoover’s other repressions, is one of the devices used to try to understand Hoover’s secretive nature and interest in the sexual lives of others.
While not perfect, the movie was fascinating, thoughtful, entertaining, and informative. Although the movie jumps back and forth through time, Eastwood was masterful in doing it in a way that never seemed confusing. But while I was never bored, watching the film is not necessarily a pleasurable experience. If there is a weakness in J. Edgar, it is that you have to spend two plus hours with someone who is not very likeable. Even when Hoover was doing some things that benefited the country and busting criminals, he seems less like a hero and more like a troubled person who happened to do some heroic things as a side effect.
Conclusion? J. Edgar is a very entertaining film that is epic in scope but personal in focus. If you do not mind spending time in the company of an unlikeable character as long as the character is interesting, and if you are curious about American history, you will like this movie.
Check out some other reviews because why should you listen to me? The Rotten Tomatoes website currently indicates a low critic rating of 40% with a higher audience approval of 66%. Mike Giuliano of ExploreHoward.com calls the movie “a worthwhile character study that’s able to transcend its various flaws.” On Flick Filosopher, Maryann Johanson, by contrast, concludes that the film “is too staid and static, and too unfocused, to make us feel much of anything at all.”
(Some Related Chimesfreedom Posts)
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/bde8872dc5/l-dicaprio-j-edgar-parody
I can’t say as I’m too interested in the movie–though I love both Leo and Clint. It takes a lot for me to be able to get through 2 1/2 hours of drama. Especially when it’s optional and not like I have to endure it because it’s work or something! The clip above was good though, in that it was only a couple of minutes long. Better for those with a short attention span.
Thanks mh for the funny parody video link. That’s a good one. The movie does not quite reach 2 1/2 hours at 2 hours, 17 minutes, but I get the point!
Last year, I went on a J. Edgar Hoover reading binge. After learning about how mercurial, brilliant, and complicated Hoover was through Bryan Burrough’s book “Public Enemies”, I immediately read the definitive Hoover bio “The Man and The Secrets” by Curt Gentry. What fascinated me so much with Hoover was that he is such a tragic figure: his paranoia, resentments, insecurities, and other issues are what made him so powerful and influential while also holding back his growth as a human being. He did many immoral and corrupt things in his life, but my impression of him through those books was that he wanted to do good but lacked the personal skills to reflect and understand the perspectives of others to do so.
I liked Eastwood’s film, but here are some things I think the film gets wrong:
1. I don’t think Hoover’s mom was anywhere near as controlling or domineering as the film portrays her. Hoover’s father died under circumstances related to mental illness when Hoover was young, and it was Hoover’s choice to look after and live with his mother. He wanted to protect her and did not want her to be alone, and she didn’t seem to pressure him to stay with her. Hoover was ashamed of his father’s mental instability which might have been part of the reason he grew up to put success before his own emotional needs.
2. The film did a poor job of painting the dynamic between Hoover and Martin Luther King. Hoover resented King because Hoover felt King wanted to promote communist values. Near the end of King’s life, Hoover decided to give King a final chance, invited him to his office, and the two of them spoke for a long time. Hoover left their meeting thinking he had buried a grudge and made a friend. What King didn’t know was that he was being bugged by Hoover. When King went home and was asked how the meeting went, King replied “The old man talks too much” which Hoover overheard over the wiretap. After that, Hoover gave the FBI instructions not to warn King’s camps of any assassination threats which was their policy before King cemented Hoover’s grudge for good.
3. The cross-dressing scene is completely made up. I realize it was put in the film for emotional purposes, but it ignores the most profound complication and enigma related to Hoover’s files: people of power were afraid of Hoover’s files because they didn’t know what was in them and rumors started about Hoover may have been the result of that same fear. People could only live in fear of what he knew and what he didn’t know. Some historians think that the rumor’s of Hoover’s homosexuality and cross dressing are the result of rumors started to malign Hoover much in the same way he used rumors and secrets to control and bully others.
Anyway, that’s my long history lesson for the day.
Thanks Aden for the information. I thought it was interesting the way Eastwood addressed the cross-dressing rumors in the scene where he used it for emotional impact. That is an interesting story about the meeting between Hoover and MLK. I suspect that because the film covered such a broad historical period, it left a lot of things out. But I would have liked to have seen more of the interactions with MLK. Thanks again for the info