TJE 7/31 - J. Edgar (2011)

While I'm plowing through the remainders of last year's Oscar hopefuls, it's only right that I should tackle this one too. There's a film or two every year that gets enough attention that I feel obligated to give it a watch, but I really have no interest in it whatsoever. Sometimes it's because of unappealing subject matter or the talent involved makes me doubtful. In the case of "J. Edgar," it was both. I've followed the career of Leonardo DiCaprio since his days on "Growing Pains," but in recent years, his string of dour, intense leading man roles has really put a damper on any enthusiasm I had for him. I'm especially wary whenever he tries to take on a prestige part that isn't a good fit for him, and J. Edgar Hoover seemed to be another of those.

Sometimes I'm wrong, and pleasantly surprised, but not this time. "J. Edgar" is entirely dependent on DiCaprio's performance, and he doesn't deliver. There's barely any physical resemblance, the voice is all wrong, and DiCaprio spends an awful lot of time slathered in makeup and prosthetics, trying to make himself look older and heavier than he actually is. He brings plenty of enthusiasm and vigor, but Jimmy Cagney could never play the same roles as Charles Laughton or Gary Cooper, and I have no idea why DiCaprio keeps picking parts like this that he's so ill-suited for. Then again, J. Edgar Hoover would be a challenge for any actor, particularly the way that director Clint Eastwood and screenwriter Dustin Lance Black portray him here.

I admit not knowing as much about J. Edgar Hoover, the pioneering founder and first director of the FBI, as I probably should. "J. Edgar" is a mishmash of his greatest hits, from the origins of the FBI to his fights against Communists, organized crime, and his later political struggles. It also delves into his personal life, mapping out the relationships with the people that he was closest to: his mother, Anna Marie (Judi Dench), his loyal secretary Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts), and attorney Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer), who it is heavily implied is more than just a colleague. "J. Edgar" addresses all the rumors about Hoover's sexuality, from the cross-dressing to the homosexuality, in a little too much depth. Several encounters and incidents are surely invented, and take away the focus from the more interesting true-life material, like Hoover's search for the Lindbergh baby and how he publicized himself as the ultimate G-man.

The approach struck me as oddly reductive, in spite of all the ground the film covers. Hoover, a charismatic, committed, often paranoid man, is a complicated figure in American history, and the film's idea of what was driving him doesn't ring true. Also, Eastwood never shows Hoover as a truly powerful or menacing figure, but only refers to the extent of his influence obliquely. The impact of his methods is blunted because we rarely see how they're affecting anyone else, for good or for bad. The only time we realize that he had much power at all comes in a very late scene, when Hoover realizes how much of it he's lost. I was surprised at the smallness of the picture's scale, the way we only see events play out from one or two very limited perspectives. Thanks to the flashback-heavy structure of the film, the different eras and events have a tendency to blur together.

Eastwood tears down the popular image of J. Edgar Hoover, but he doesn't succeed in replacing it with anything more likely. I can see what he and Black were going for, and I admire the ambition, but the end result is too sprawling and inert, too weirdly pieced together with unsubstantiated theories to be very convincing. There is a surprisingly sentimental love story that emerges as the backbone of the piece, but I couldn't help feeling that Hoover's devotion to the FBI should have been getting more of the emphasis and attention. I think a stronger central performance could have also helped to make the film feel more cohesive, but I've said enough about DiCaprio for one review.

"J. Edgar" boasts a strong supporting cast, but weak supporting roles. Judi Dench and Naomi Watts have little to do, but gamely play along. Armie Hammer is more promising, and manages to pull off the old age make-up much better than DiCaprio does, but Tolson is hardly more than a foil for Hoover. There are also some good cameos, but they're fleeting. Everything in this film feels too fleeting, never quite on solid ground. In the end I'm convinced that Hoover is a fascinating subject, and would love to see further exploration of his life in future films, but this particular combination of talent was not the right one to do it.
---