Review of J. Edgar (2011) by Kilo D — 23 Oct 2012

I have not seen a high profile biopic in recent memory that was to be destroyed by foolish critics and an audience that never was in some time. It is too funny to know pretentious nonsense like "Million Dollar Baby" won every award it wanted. And so we have Clint Eastwood, who likely was behind the camera with several guns, and . . . Dustin Lance Black, the outstanding writer, whom we need to keep an eye on, of "Milk" fame who penned the script and this pairing, The Man With No Name meets a homosexual playwright - I can only imagine the fear Mr. Black had going in. Nevertheless, their collaboration worked so forget the critics. Let me explain quickly-.

I have to submit my dislike and disillusion with Clint Eastwood as of late. He has not made a good film in a long time - has not made a masterpiece since "Unforogiven". To say nothing of his immoral Super Bowl commercial in which we see the auto industry and America prospering. Well what one may have missed is Mr. Eastwood and GM blurred the myriad protestors' signs and turned it into a rally for the auto industry. This is a licentious decision and blow to unions and I do not think I can forgive Mr. Eastwood after the advertisement. And yet here is "J. Edgar", Eastwood's best film in years and I loved it. Granted, arguably, the movie could have been better with a different director. Not to say the movie is not powerful as is.

There is an emotional ocean that is present in almost every scene involving Mr. Hoover's psyche and development into a monster perhaps only rivalled by Noble Peace Prize winner Henry Kissinger, a man who won the prize in 1975 for ending the Vietnam war only there is the problem that the war did not end until a few years later and Kissinger is a war criminal - much like president Obama; that is another issue - and J. Edgar was a racist, kidnapper, fraud, and so on. The problem with Mr. Hoover is that America as a nation should be very joyous in that Mr. Hoover never received more power for if he had more power America would be under totalitarian rule instead of the fascist government currently in place - look, fascist is an overused word; look at a dictionary. Furthermore, all of Mr. Hoover's crimes, and there were a great many, have been overshadowed by an adroit script that is not interested in telling a typical biopic story, rather what we get is a character study and I venture to guess this may be why it failed at the box office.

Moving on to Dustin Lance Black who does a wonderful job at invading the human side of Mr. Hoover rather than reproducing the same biopic on a political figure we see a half-a-dozen times a year. And it is often painful and touching in the way the screenplay shows what, in this version of history, made J. Edgar the undiagnosed - one can assign a great many diagnosis but they are a tar trap of idiocy resulting in a waste of time - mentally ill tyrant who had far too much power. It rings too true when the one likely reason for his paranoid racism is his isolation from the world and a disdain for anything unfamiliar - it applies to women, too, who he knows most through his Ed Gein-like obsession and love for his mother and his trustful friendship with his secretary, played by an unrecognizable and always reliable Naomi Watts. Then, of course, there is J. Edgar's life-partner, played with great charisma and heartbreak courtesy of Armie Hammer, who leveled me in "The Social Network" and does so here - Mr. Hammer is a serious talent one can only hope that he will be more recognized. Furthermore, this moviegoer was surprised by how well Leo DiCaprio played J. Edgar - in another Oscar-Bait role, or a continuation of his performance in "The Aviator", right? This criticism is absolutely false in almost every way. For once we do not see Leo in the performance we simply see J. Edgar. It is a thrill to watch as DiCaprio brilliantly has J. Edgar down to the smallest details and when delivering sparkling monologues it is exhilarating. Do not write off Leo's performance too quickly, it is his best, well, since "Shutter Island" but here he ups the ante.

Now, I know, the cinematography. "It's too dark, cannot see anything" critics complain and I cannot help but laugh at their naivety. Firstly, "The Godfather" was dark, critics complained about that as well, and yet it is considered by the critics that hated "J. Edgar" as one of the best American movies and that is not to compare this movie to Coppolla's film; secondly, think of when this movie is set and tell me it was a well lighted era - it was not; thirdly, why in the name of all that is not holy would anyone want a bright movie on a dark subject, that to me spells out a bias towards Eastwood that is all too hip today. Another complaint is the makeup. Well, pardon me but Leo's makeup was solid so the only questionable makeup is that of an aging Armie Hammer but one can overlook this surface problem if they would simply pay attention to all that is right about "J. Edgar". Moreover, I do agree with the critics who pointed out that some of the flashbacks are reminiscent of a History Channel special and while this is true to a degree, Eastwood's flashbacks do not damage the overall picture.

If one watches "J. Edgar" expecting a history of Mr. Hoover's racism and a slew of other horrendous, immoral positions that helped kill MLK and many other innocents, they will be overwhelmingly disappointed. "J. Edgar" is a gripping, intriguing study of a complicated and complex man. And while Mr. Eastwood's biopic does suffer from numerous problems they simply cannot damage what is essentially a heartbreaking, awkward, well-written and acted biopic of the human side of a man many consider a tyrant. This movie adds to the sparse library of biography we have on the man with a sincere conviction to try to rectify the events that created J. Edgar and the FBI.