J. Edgar
2/4
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts, Judi Dench
Rated R for Brief Strong Language
The structure of "J. Edgar," a biopic of the man who built the F.B.I. as we know of it today, is that of Biopic 101: an elderly character reflects on the most important events in his life through rose-covered glasses. Such a choice is odd, since J. Edgar Hoover's story, as screenwriter Dustin Lance Black and director Clint Eastwood see it, is filled with darkness and pain. Surprisingly, this storytelling decision of theirs works, but it's one of the few that does. What doesn't work is an unfinished screenplay and a sorely miscast lead actor.
Shortly after WWI, there was a large Communist following in the United States that threatened to destabilize the country. The Bureau of Investigation is impotent because they cannot arrest people simply for their beliefs. But an ambitious young agent named John Edgar Hoover (DiCaprio), or "Edgar," as everyone called him, is willing to break the rules to deal with the threat. After a huge and successful crackdown, Edgar is made director of the organization that would later become to be known as the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Helping him are his loyal and faithful secretary, Helen Gandy (Watts) and Clyde Tolson (Hammer), his number two man and secret lover.
Like in most biopics, a few select events are used to explore the lead character and his impact on the organization he created. Here, it's a would-be communist uprising, the Lindbergh kidnapping, the mob, and Martin Luther King, Jr. That's all well and good, and four events is enough for a two-and-a-quarter-hour movie. Unfortunately, Black's screenplay fails to sufficiently explore all of these events and what impact they had on Hoover. Eastwood's decision to present the film out of order without clear organization certainly doesn't help matters, but many of the ideas that Black wants to present are half-formed.
Of far greater concern is Leonardo DiCaprio. I've been a huge fan of the actor since I first saw "Titanic" seventeen (!) years ago, and he has proven to be capable of giving electrifying performances. But he can't do everything, and the role of J. Edgar Hoover is outside his range. I'll give him points for the attempt, but I gotta be honest: he's rarely convincing, and at times he's cringe-inducingly bad. He's worse here than he was in "The Great Gatsby." Fortunately the same cannot be said of his co-stars. Armie Hammer is in top form. While there is one scene where he can't reach the necessary dramatic depths, for the most part he's excellent. Hammer radiates warmth and genuine feeling. The actresses, Naomi Watts and Judi Dench, have almost nothing to do (Watts especially), but as is the case with the best performers, I'm just going to keep my mouth shut and be grateful for the opportunity to see them on screen.
A word has to be said about the make-up used to turn DiCaprio, Hammer and Watts into elderly people. The decision to age them using make-up was most likely financial as well as practical, but the effects are mixed. The work done on DiCaprio and Watts is entirely convincing, but Hammer's make-up job is looks like something out of a cheesy Halloween store. It's awful and calls attention itself in the worst ways.
Director Clint Eastwood has kept the film fairly understated in terms of tone. Eastwood has always remained a relatively low-key director, and while a figure as powerful and controversial as J. Edgar Hoover probably deserves a grander and more active portrayal, such an approach is fine for what Eastwood is trying to explore. But the film lacks focus. What he is saying with each set piece is unclear. The editing by Joel Cox and Gary D. Roach is also problematic. The film is coherent enough that calling it haphazard would be unfair, but there doesn't seem to be much of a method to their madness.
There is some good stuff here. The film always looks great, and it earns most of the emotions it strives for. Plus Armie Hammer proves why he is an actor to watch. But there are far too many problems to call it anything other than "disappointing."
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts, Judi Dench
Rated R for Brief Strong Language
The structure of "J. Edgar," a biopic of the man who built the F.B.I. as we know of it today, is that of Biopic 101: an elderly character reflects on the most important events in his life through rose-covered glasses. Such a choice is odd, since J. Edgar Hoover's story, as screenwriter Dustin Lance Black and director Clint Eastwood see it, is filled with darkness and pain. Surprisingly, this storytelling decision of theirs works, but it's one of the few that does. What doesn't work is an unfinished screenplay and a sorely miscast lead actor.
Shortly after WWI, there was a large Communist following in the United States that threatened to destabilize the country. The Bureau of Investigation is impotent because they cannot arrest people simply for their beliefs. But an ambitious young agent named John Edgar Hoover (DiCaprio), or "Edgar," as everyone called him, is willing to break the rules to deal with the threat. After a huge and successful crackdown, Edgar is made director of the organization that would later become to be known as the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Helping him are his loyal and faithful secretary, Helen Gandy (Watts) and Clyde Tolson (Hammer), his number two man and secret lover.
Like in most biopics, a few select events are used to explore the lead character and his impact on the organization he created. Here, it's a would-be communist uprising, the Lindbergh kidnapping, the mob, and Martin Luther King, Jr. That's all well and good, and four events is enough for a two-and-a-quarter-hour movie. Unfortunately, Black's screenplay fails to sufficiently explore all of these events and what impact they had on Hoover. Eastwood's decision to present the film out of order without clear organization certainly doesn't help matters, but many of the ideas that Black wants to present are half-formed.
Of far greater concern is Leonardo DiCaprio. I've been a huge fan of the actor since I first saw "Titanic" seventeen (!) years ago, and he has proven to be capable of giving electrifying performances. But he can't do everything, and the role of J. Edgar Hoover is outside his range. I'll give him points for the attempt, but I gotta be honest: he's rarely convincing, and at times he's cringe-inducingly bad. He's worse here than he was in "The Great Gatsby." Fortunately the same cannot be said of his co-stars. Armie Hammer is in top form. While there is one scene where he can't reach the necessary dramatic depths, for the most part he's excellent. Hammer radiates warmth and genuine feeling. The actresses, Naomi Watts and Judi Dench, have almost nothing to do (Watts especially), but as is the case with the best performers, I'm just going to keep my mouth shut and be grateful for the opportunity to see them on screen.
A word has to be said about the make-up used to turn DiCaprio, Hammer and Watts into elderly people. The decision to age them using make-up was most likely financial as well as practical, but the effects are mixed. The work done on DiCaprio and Watts is entirely convincing, but Hammer's make-up job is looks like something out of a cheesy Halloween store. It's awful and calls attention itself in the worst ways.
Director Clint Eastwood has kept the film fairly understated in terms of tone. Eastwood has always remained a relatively low-key director, and while a figure as powerful and controversial as J. Edgar Hoover probably deserves a grander and more active portrayal, such an approach is fine for what Eastwood is trying to explore. But the film lacks focus. What he is saying with each set piece is unclear. The editing by Joel Cox and Gary D. Roach is also problematic. The film is coherent enough that calling it haphazard would be unfair, but there doesn't seem to be much of a method to their madness.
There is some good stuff here. The film always looks great, and it earns most of the emotions it strives for. Plus Armie Hammer proves why he is an actor to watch. But there are far too many problems to call it anything other than "disappointing."
Comments
Post a Comment