With J. Edgar, Clint Eastwood and Leonardo Dicaprio set out to bring one of the most prominent and controversial figures of the 20th century to life. In doing so, the duo produced the season’s most polarizing film.
J. Edgar has some critics up in arms, unsatisfied with the missed potential and others praising the biopic as unique and even-keeled. The film has garnered a meager 41 percent on Rottentomatoes.com’s freshness scale. The movie experts at Flixster, cite “confusing narrative and humdrum storytelling” amongst the list of Edgar’s shortcomings. On the other hand, Roger Ebert, resident movie know-it-all, admires the film as a “masterful” biopic.
As a critic, I even found myself polarized by this piece of cinema. Going into the theater I expected to be knocked out of my seat by Eastwood’s mastery of J. Edgar’s story and completely engrossed by Dicaprio’s performance. At the movie’s conclusion I voluntary left my seat unimpressed and a little surprised. Admittedly, the film had me fooled.
But this was Eastwood’s intention. In his life, Hoover was a polarizing figure exciting mixed emotions from audiences. So it is only fitting that a J. Edgar biopic should do exactly that, polarize audiences. His public life was a façade masking the controversy and paranoia present in his private corridors. His public image was maintained at all costs and he was a steel-minded moralist who protected his beloved FBI until his death. Hoover launched a publicity machine that portrayed him as a man without a fault, a super hero of sorts. His public image was built on the foundation of the Bureau and vice versa. He refused to allow his image or that of the Bureau to be tainted.
A film with the glamour of J. Edgar and the topic of a man of Hoover’s stature would appear to jump off the screen. The final product comes across as flat and “unengaging.” But this is Eastwood’s thematic approach to the film. Eastwood is out to set the record straight about Hoover. For a man of Hoover’s stature he was relatively uncharismatic and anything but engaging. In opposition to his controversial public life Hoover lived a private life that flew under the radar. This is the story that J. Edgar is telling.
Initial reactions to the film have critics citing boring narrative and empty storytelling. But Ebert recognizes what few critics haven’t been able to understand.
“Eastwood’s film is firm in its refusal to cheapen and tarnish by inventing salacious scenes,” Ebert said in his official review of the film.
Eastwood is not in the business of creating a story that’s not there and it’s not fair to ask him to do so. He and Dicaprio portray Hoover in a light of honesty that is unique and courageous and you must give them credit for staying true to the story. The final image is a multi-faceted, complex, controversial yet monochromatic and barren character. Not much is known about Hoover and not much is said in this biopic. And there lies the narrative, a polarizing story of the most interesting boring man in America’s history. Ebert said it best.
“It’s a nice touch, the way Eastwood and DiCaprio create a character who seems to be a dead zone and make him electrifying in other actors’ reaction shots.”
But how do Eastwood and crew pull this off?
Technically the film does not miss a beat. Eastwood and crew effortlessly bridge over seven decades. It’s brilliant, almost a little ridiculous. The intention to detail is unrivaled and every bit of the story’s setting is absolutely believable. Set, props, clothes, lighting and make-up, J. Edgar covers their bases and creates an aesthetically pleasing film. This is indeed a masterful biopic. The flashbacks are stylized and necessary and although the pacing is somewhat mangled, the film stays true to itself.
Dicaprio is undeniably pursuing his ever-evasive Oscar. His portrayal of Hoover is epic. The accent, the delivery, the attention to detail, Leo proves he is able to adapt and exceed expectations. J. Edgar Hoover was a staunch and determined man but a man of little charisma. As such, Dicaprio’s brilliance could easily be missed. However, it is evident that he is an actor that studies character and immerses himself in his role.
Armie Hammer portrays Hoover’s lifelong companion and rumored partner Clyde Tolson in the film. Hammer, of Social Network fame, delivers an extremely believable performance. The combination of Dicaprio and Hammer makes for a tour de force in acting. Their chemistry is electric and the two propel the film.
The relationship between Hoover and Tolson is one lathered in rumor and intrigue. The two are thought to have been romantically involved and privately homosexual. When Dustin Lance Black, “Milk” screenwriter, signed on to write the script for J. Edgar many thought Eastwood’s film would be the portrait of a gay man. Intriguingly this is not so. Although the film hits on the issue it is more concerned with Hoover’s relentless protection of his public image.
The most shocking bit of it all is that Eastwood suggests that Hoover was to be taken at face value and he was simply misunderstood. He was exactly this: a man larger than life but smaller than the Bureau that built him. The intrigue and controversy that surround him have been speculated and researched since his death in 1972. But what we thought we knew about Hoover may in fact not be true. I think Eastwood would agree with his critics, the narrative is indeed empty. The intrigue and controversy may be empty claims and the smoke and mirrors may be exactly that. Hoover was the head of the FBI through eight presidents. He is arguably one of the most powerful men in American history but its what we don’t know about him that makes him so intriguing. And that’s what makes the story worth telling. Whether the film is worth seeing is up to you.
Cinema and Culture 