J. Edgar
I saw “J. Edgar” at a coincidental time. On November 9th and 10th, I had watched two other films by two-time Oscar winning director Clint Eastwood not knowing I would see “J. Edgar” on the 11th. That was opening night for this movie and it was also Leonardo DiCaprio’s birthday. The movie has some good points but it was not dramatic enough for me. I could not emotionally connect with the protagonist and the homosexual angle was a bit bothersome for me. The non-linear story structure was well used but not as effective as on Eastwood’s “Flags of Our Fathers”.
The best quality of this film is its acting. Three-time Oscar nominated actor Leonardo DiCaprio did a great job in portraying J. Edgar Hoover. The accent and speech mannerisms really sell his performance. The only thing lacking in DiCaprio’s performance was that as the aged Hoover, his voice still sounded a little young. At first, I did not recognize Armie Hammer without a clone of himself standing next to him. I was impressed by his performance also. Hammer’s acting of Clyde post-stroke was very well done. Before the stoke scene, Hammer’s performance as the elderly Clyde still hinted that in truth there was a young man doing the acting. I liked Naomi Watts in “King Kong” and she was great in this show. I believed her acting with and without makeup. I believed her performance the entire film. I didn’t recognize Lea Thompson in the film as Lela Rogers and I wish I had. I wish the actor playing Nixon was a little older but at least Christopher Shyer had Nixon's mannerisms down. I wonder whether in real life Nixon let on to Edgar just how power hungry he was. I also wonder whether Nixon did raid Edgar’s office after Edgar’s death. The costume designs on this film were great too but many viewers feel that the makeup artists went too far. In hindsight, I agree with the masses. The makeup problems stem from the fact that these young actors were not just aged but disguised to resemble their real life characters as they appeared in the 60’s. On top of that, the make-up still retained glimpses of their younger, cinematic selves. Elderly J. Edgar in the movie for example still resembled Leo. I like the intercutting between the 1930’s and the 1960’s such as at the horse races. I also enjoy how the how scenes from the 30’s are replicated towards the end of Edgar’s life. One example is when Edgar is watching the two inaugural parades and another is when Edgar goes to meet the new presidents. I don't quite see how that helps the story though. I remember Dustin Lance Black’s Oscar acceptance speech and when I found out that he had written this film, I investigated further and became less interested to see it. Black’s speech on Oscar night in 2009 portrayed my religion in a bad light. In my viewpoint, my church does not discriminate against LGBT people but rather speaks out against those kinds of acts and lifestyles. The LDS church condemns the sin and not the sinner but people living those lifestyles tend not to see a difference. I am uncomfortable with the gay angle on this movie and so I choose not to address it very much. I am glad however that the film was not as vocal about this angle of the story as it could have been.
Due to Armie Hammer’s role in this film, I was comparing its story to that of “The Social Network” as I watched it. Just as Mark Zuckerburg was not truly happy at the end of that film despite his money and success, J. Edgar Hoover didn’t appear to have lived a happy life by the time he died despite his success. One might say in response that he would have been unhappy even if he were straight but that is not the message I got from this movie. It wasn’t his discrimination that brought him sadness; it was his struggle with temptation that brought him hardship. Putting that angle of the movie aside, “J. Edgar” was not an awful movie. It had great acting and other well-done cinematic elements. The story however was not dramatic enough. Even before the gay themes emerged in the movie, I had trouble connecting with the protagonist.
3 Stars