So Long "Sopranos"

Spoilers everywhere, for the last season of "The Sopranos," and everything that came before.

I still don't like the opening sequence of "The Sopranos." By 2007, when the final episodes were rolled out, it must have looked dated as hell. However, I can't find much about the last super-size sixth season to complain about. Okay, the Vito storyline was a little ungainly, and Melfi dropped Tony from therapy awfully fast. However, there was so much else that was so gratifying to see. Season Six, particularly the second half of it, saw the house of cards that was Tony Soprano's mafia operations crumble at last. More than that, we saw every bit of bad karma and divine retribution that these guys had coming to them finally being meted out. I knew from the beginning that Christopher was going to die, having stumbled across an impassioned reaction to his death a few years ago, but I didn't know the circumstances. I didn't know about Bobby or Sil or Johnny Sack. I expected Junior to go a few seasons ago, but his ultimate fate turned out to be much, much worse.

And I didn't know anything about AJ, and that was the storyline that really caught me off guard. I ignored or got annoyed with the kid in past seasons, but his last arcs really drove home a lot of the show's major points - ignoring problems until it's too late, inheriting your parents' sins, and the bad consequences of taking the easy way out. I loved how they insinuated right at the end there that AJ might be just as much of a psychopath and a manipulator as his father. It's just that up until now he's been a really bad one. And then there was Janice turning into Livia, trying to keep her kids from running away from her, and Meadow finally revealing that in spite of her successes she's also been deeply shaped by her family. Tony and Carmela carry on as they always do, but in the face of all the mounting crises they seem more petty and self-deluding than ever. They divert AJ from the military, where he might have had the chance to really grow, in favor of a low-level job at an entertainment company that they control.

The scope and depth of "The Sopranos" is something I haven't seen any of its imitators or its progeny match up to yet. There's the multi-generational aspect, and the cultural heritage aspect, and the mob aspect, and the suburban aspect, and the spiritual elements, and the morality tales, and the pop culture critique, and the state of America, and so many different character studies. I still don't find the show particularly entertaining, except for the few really big, cathartic episodes where there's a real crisis going on. I don't particularly empathize with the characters, though I appreciate the hell out of the better performances. Intellectually, though, it hits all the right buttons. It chases after all these big ideas and themes and really has something to say about them. It gives us all these characters who could be good people, who are all perfectly redeemable, but they give into their worst impulses over and over again until every chance at turning back is gone. Melfi's the only one who gets away unscathed, who drops Tony and doesn't go back on it, finally. And yet, her reasons are awfully selfish in the end.

I was impatient with "The Sopranos" at the halfway point, wondering if Tony was ever going to change and learn the lessons that Melfi and a string of dead associates kept trying to impart, or conversely when he was ever going to get what was coming to him. The long, slow burn was often aggravating, but I guess that was the point. It took me much too long to realize that "The Sopranos" is largely about the inaction, about letting things slide, and being content to follow in the footsteps of all the bad that came before. And ignoring and rationalizing the worst bits. I loved that little irony that Tony thinks that his gambling luck has changed for the better thanks to Christopher's death, right before things really go bad. All these awful consequences kept looming on the horizon, but they weren't as important as the build-up to it. The famous final scene of the very last episode encapsulates this. I'm pretty damn sure that Tony's dead, but if the show had ended with his death, it would have been too conventional, too easy. Just showing the minutes leading up to the end is what made that scene such a shocker and a cultural touchstone.

I never really rooted for Tony Soprano, but in the end I felt sorry for him. He does learn and he does change, just not in a way that does him any good. He sends an old associate back to prison rather than let him become another Richie Aprile or Ralph Cifaretto. He stops sleeping with women who remind him of his mother, or at least has a hell of a lot more doubts about it. He's nicer to his wife and opens up more to his son. However, at the core of him is still the guy who murders Christopher out of paranoia and mistrust. The show never explains why he did it. The excuse is that Tony suspected he might have flipped to the FBI. But that's the excuse. Maybe Tony was just tired of dealing with Christopher's endless screw-ups and junkie habits. Maybe he was resentful of the distance that had come between them, or that he had moved on to Kelly after Adriana. Maybe Chris was just the most convenient outlet for Tony's frustrations at the moment. We'll never know.

The last run of episodes were more melancholy than exciting, despite all the action that was happening onscreen. While it wasn't the grandiose downward spiral that I had been anticipating, there was a definite sense of decline and uncertainty, a bleakness that had been a long time coming. It still retained that wicked humor from the beginning though, that cynical, black-hearted wit that gave us Bobby's death cross-cut with a toy train derailing and had Tony go out on "Don't Stop Believin,'" of all things.

And this post has gone on much longer than I originally intended, so I'll just wrap up by saying that I'm glad I watched "The Sopranos." Sometimes it was a slog, and but it was worth it. The show genuinely surprised and impressed me in ways I wasn't expecting. It wasn't afraid to show the truth and the ugliness of life. And it wasn't afraid to make us hate it, once in a while. And it was great TV.
---

Read More

What Show Do I Watch Next?

Well, I'm done with "The Sopranos." This leaves me with a little dilemma again. What show do I want to watch next? The next obvious one is "The Wire," but having just sat through eighty-something hours of Tony Soprano and his crew, I think I need something lighter and ideally shorter. So no "West Wing," no "Six Feet Under," and no "Battlestar Galactica" for now. A couple of possibilities below:

"Deadwood" and "Carnivàle" – two short-lived HBO genre series that aired during the run of "The Sopranos," one a gritty Western and one centered around a Prohibition-era travelling show with some supernatural elements. Both had their vocal fans, but neither had the ratings to save them from cancellation. This left both shows technically unfinished, which might be a little unsatisfying, but I've gotten a lot out of cancelled shows before. "Firefly" and "Twin Peaks" come to mind.

"Once Upon a Time" – I watched the pilot episode last fall and didn't like it, choosing to follow the other fairy-tale themed freshman show "Grimm" instead. However, I've been hearing lots of buzz about "Once Upon a Time," with a lot of people describing it as good guilty pleasure viewing. And I'm definitely not opposed to guilty pleasure television. I'm only one season behind, so now would be a good time to give this another try and determine whether or not I want to catch up.

"Downton Abbey" – In addition to winning practically every television award on the planet, this British period piece is relatively short, with two seasons of eight episodes apiece. Maggie Smith is in the ensemble, and has gotten a lot of press for playing the sharp old Dowager Countess. However, I'm really not much for soap operas, which I suspect "Downton Abbey" really is. On the other hand, because the series is so brief, the storylines and relationships aren't going to be dragged out forever.

"Jekyll" – There's short and then there's really short. While I'm waiting for the return of "Doctor Who" and "Sherlock," maybe I should check out the Stephen Moffatt scripted 2007 drama series "Jekyll," a modern day version of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." It's only six episodes, and I've heard nothing but good things about it. Apparently it was shown in the US on the Syfy, but it remains awfully obscure and never attracted much attention Stateside. Maybe that's for a reason? Only one way to find out.

"Modern Family" – This is one of the most acclaimed modern comedies of the recent past, and I still haven't seen a single episode. I think I was initially a little turned off by some of the blander marketing, but I've clearly misjudged it. I'm very curious to see what I've been missing, but the show has never really been a priority for me. I think part of me is a little worried that it won't live up to the high expectations. Or I'll love it so much that I'll turn into one of those fans.

"The Tatami Galaxy" – This recent anime series is the latest work by director Masaki Yuasa, best known for working in the "super flat" style on projects like the experimental feature film "Mind Game." I've really loved his other work, like "Kemonozume" and especially "Kaiba." "Tatami Galaxy" aired as part of the Noitamina programming block on Fuji Television, which is devoted to animation for older audiences. I may have outgrown a lot of these shows, but once in a while I do still like a good anime.

"Adventure Time" – And speaking of cartoons, this Cartoon Network show has gone and become a massive cult favorite while I wasn't looking. I occasionally see some love aimed at "Regular Show" and "Flapjack," and of course there's the whole "My Little Pony" phenomenon that's still going on, but the "Adventure Time" fans are another breed. Stills of the colorful show don't seem to do it justice, so I know I've got to go make time to sit down with a few episodes and see what all the fuss is about.

And I still need to finish watching "Spaced." And I still need to watch the second season of "Louie." And I never did catch up on the rest of "The Big Bang Theory." And "House." And "Nikita." And there must be at least two seasons worth of "South Park" I've missed by now. And hasn't "Futurama" started up again?

Okay, I withdraw the question, guys. I have way too much to watch.
---

Read More

About NBC's Terrible Olympics Coverage

After reading countless write-ups and rants about NBC's coverage of the London 2012 Olympics, I'm starting to wonder if my disdain for sports is really a disdain for the American coverage of sports. Sure, I watch the Olympics every time they come around, and I cheer on the Americans when I'm supposed to, and ooh and aah at the spectacle, but it often feels like a chore. And as I was watching the gymnastics coverage a few nights ago, I realized that the whole vibe of NBC's coverage made it feel like I was watching a reality show. There were the pre-written narratives, the simplified caricatures foisted on the real-life participants, and a breathtaking amount of selective editing. I wasn't watching the Olympics. I was watching the American version of the Olympics, which was vastly different from what most other viewers around the world were seeing. And it's infuriating.

I skipped the opening ceremonies for various reasons, but I wasn't surprised to learn that one of the slower numbers had been excised so that NBC could show Ryan Seacrest interviewing Michael Phelps. Or that they let Meredith Viera and Matt Lauer chatter incessantly through the whole production, making awkward comments about other countries left and right. Opening ceremonies are pageantry and self-importance, and there's usually nothing special going on aside from stargazing. However, I didn't expect that the coverage of the competitions themselves would be so heavily manipulated. Admittedly I'm not watching the live streams of the events online, so I don't know if that coverage is any different, but the Olympics I'm seeing broadcast on my local NBC affiliate is essentially one long highlight reel.

I honestly don't mind the tape-delay, because I'm used to it, I guess. Avoiding the spoilers is a pain, if you really care about going into the experience not knowing the results, but at least the delay is only a few hours. I can understand being selective about which sports to highlight, about giving more attention to the athletes who are attracting more attention, and even some of the stupid mistakes like promoting a medalist's morning show appearance before the audience is supposed to know that they won. The Olympics are a broadcasting challenge, and I completely understand NBC needing to turn a profit on the event, trying to maximize their audience size at peak viewing hours. They're not the BBC or the CBC, who have more resources and don't rely so heavily on ratings. NBC paid for the exclusivity, so of course they're going to take advantage of it.

What I do mind the way that NBC stays so doggedly focused on the Americans that we keep missing big moments in the competition that involve other countries. I don't watch the Olympics just for the Americans. In fact, I love it when some of the underdog countries like Venezuela run off with the gold - for fencing this year, their first gold medal since 1968! And I really hate the way that they try to turn major rivals from Russia or China into outright antagonists sometimes. Even if you do only root for the Americans, the media's approach is often incredibly off-putting. Reporters asking inane and insulting questions are becoming a norm. Woe to any athlete who doesn't live up to expectations, or fails to conform to the narrative that has already been laid out for them.

But the absolute worst trend is the attempt to generate false drama by omitting parts of the competition. During the gymnastics team finals, the fall of a prominent Russian gymnast was one of the major shocks of the night. NBC claimed time constraints were to blame, but since the fall removed any doubt that the American team would win gold, and was certainly more newsworthy than some of the routines that they did show, I'm doubtful of the explanation. Then at some point they stopped showing the standings of the teams and the scores for individuals, which NBC has provided no excuse for. How is a viewer supposed to follow what's going on if they don't have basic information like scoring? Of all the things to skip, that should be at the bottom of the list!

The fun of the Olympics, of all sports and live events really, is the lack of predictability. Even if the odds are stacked in a way where the outcome seems inevitable, there's always a chance that something won't happen the way people expect. The networks don't like this, and tend to package and neuter every candid moment, turning them into reality television, which is of course heavily controlled and anything but real. Sometimes they're very good at it, so good that I forget there's any other way of doing it. Sometimes they're not, as is the case with NBC and the London Olympics.

The amount of negative feedback NBC has been getting is probably less about the manipulation than the network's sheer clumsiness at it, bordering on incompetence. The first rule of controlling the narrative is to not make it seem like you're controlling the narrative, and NBC has totally failed at that. Its actions have called attention to a slew of lousy practices, and given a focal point for fans who have been frustrated by them for years. I'm glad this is happening, but I doubt it will effect any real change.

Because NBC 's coverage has actually been a runaway success, Their ratings are through the roof. This year they stand to make money on the Olympics after a string of losses. NBC has no incentive to change their tactics because these tactics have paid off for them. It's infuriating, but what can you do?

I don't know. Not care so much about the sports, I guess.
---

Read More

A "Hobbit" Trilogy is a Bad Idea

I may be repeating myself from previous posts, but this needs to be said again. Splitting up a story that could be told in one film into multiple films is not a good idea. "Harry Potter" did it, and got away with it due to the strength of their fanbase, but I don't think that series was improved in any way by the split. "Twilight" and "Hunger Games" will try next, and they'll probably be passable too. However, here comes Peter Jackson, who wants to split a single book, "The Hobbit," into three movies. I don't care how much supplementary material he's managed to find. I don't care how big and impressive he's going to make the battle scenes or what kind of cool cameos he's planning on. "The Hobbit" should not be three movies. Making it into a trilogy is only going to complicate and ultimately diminish a nice, simple, straightforward story that only needs to be told in one movie.

I know this because there has already been a good "Hobbit" movie, the wonderful animated 1977 Rankin/Bass feature that covered all the major points of the book in less than eighty minutes. It could certainly be improved upon, and I'm sure that Peter Jackson and his collaborators are up for it. However, I see absolutely no benefit in dragging out and expanding upon parts of the story that don't need it. I wasn't thrilled with how Peter Jackson handled parts of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, especially in "Return of the King," where some of the most important sections of the book were greatly diminished in favor of beefing up the action scenes. "The Hobbit" has its share of big battle sequences, but they could end up overwhelming the story. What I absolutely do not want to see is "The Hobbit" movies being structured as a prequel to "The Lord of the Rings," and used to lead into the trilogy. Unfortunately, from the initial trailers that have been released, which include shots of the shards of Narsil in Rivendell and a meeting between Gandalf and Galadriel, this may be exactly where "The Hobbit" is heading.

"The Hobbit" was written first in 1937, and stands very much alone from the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, that came later in the 1950s. Most editions run barely over three hundred pages, which is shorter than any of the individual volumes of "Lord of the Rings," and it was meant for younger readers. The narrative is nowhere near as complex, and it's filled with more creatures and monsters and small-scale threats. It's an adventure story, but it's not that kind of sprawling epic that Jackson seems to want it to be. I can already see the additions that he's likely to make to the story in order to make up the difference. Gandalf disappears from the book at times, so I bet we're going to learn what he was up to during those absences in considerable detail. Minor characters like good old Radagast the Brown will see their parts expanded. There are also a load of cameos expected from actors who appeared in the "Lord of the Rings" films, including Orlando Bloom as Legolas, and Cate Blanchett as Galadriel. Neither character appeared in the book, of course.

I had all of these reservations when "The Hobbit" was supposed to be two films, "An Unexpected Journey," and "There and Back Again." Now they're going to be three, and Jackson has stated that the yet-to-be-titled third film is going to rely heavily on the appendices from "The Return of the King." The appendices are all well and good, and Jackson got some great material out of them for "Lord of the Rings," but I expect that a lot of the story will end up being invented out of thin air. And that's treading on some dangerous ground. It just smacks of artistic compromise and the studios trying to squeeze as much money as the possibly can out of this franchise, no matter what the negative effect may be on their end product. If Jackson wants to make more movies set in Middle Earth, why not do something really ambitious and tackle "The Silmarillion"? Or "The Book of Lost Tales"? I think "The Lay of Luthien" would make a great movie.

I followed the development of the "Hobbit" films for years through all the delays and the MGM bankruptcy and the labor dispute and the changing directors. I was always sure that seeing "The Hobbit" on the big screen be worth it in the end, but now I'm not so sure. After the mixed response to the 48 fps experiment, and now learning about the trilogy plans, my hopes are wearing very, very thin. I'll be in line for the first movie in December, for Martin Freeman as Bilbo if nothing else, but it won't be with very high expectations.
---

Read More

Sight and Sound's Latest Poll Surprises

After fifty years, "Citizen Kane" has fallen. Yes, the latest once-a-decade Sight & Sound poll from the British Film Institute, that asks international film professionals to choose the best films of all time, has elevated Alfred Hitchcock's "Vertigo" to the top spot. "Citizen Kane," has moved to second place, followed by Ozu's "Tokyo Story" and Jean Renoir's "The Rules of the Game." It's an announcement that means a lot to film historians and academics and the people who like talking about films as art. I'm sure it means very little to the average movie viewer, who hasn't heard of most of the films on the new Top Ten list, which includes entries like Dziga Vertov's experimental film, "Man with a Movie Camera" and F.W. Murnau's "Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans." The most recent entry is from 1968: Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey."

This makes sense, though. If you're looking at the development of film art since its inception, you have to take into account the innovations and impact of each film on the others that came after it, and the earlier ones made greater strides comparatively to the ones that came later. One of the reasons that "Citizen Kane" is so highly regarded is because it pioneered or popularized a large number of film techniques that are still in use today. The more recent films are harder to evaluate because it's not always so clear how they contribute to the art of filmmaking, or how they embody its best qualities. Sight & Sound also released a Top 50 list of the runners up (really 52, because of a three-way tie for the last spot), that includes only two films from the new millennium, "Mulholland Dr." and "In the Mood for Love."

Why is this poll such a big deal, though? There are a lot of different organizations and publications that run similar movie polls. The prestige of Sight & Sound's Top Ten comes from its exclusivity and its longevity. The poll has been run every ten years since 1942, and provides a great snapshot of what the major film critics and historians of the day use to measure everything else against. We can see different trends come and go as different films move up and down in the standings. The only film that has been on all seven lists has been "The Rules of the Game." "Battleship Potempkin" is six for seven, edged out this year, but only just. It's currently sitting at 11, and I'm sure it will be back in future lists. Meanwhile, the winner of the first poll in 1952, "Bicycle Thieves," disappeared entirely from the Top Ten after 1962. It came in at 33 in 2012.

There were some other developments that are unique to this particular list. A tweak in the rules required that films that are part of a series should be considered individually, so the first two "Godfather" films," which came in fourth place in 2002, are now 23 and 31 in 2012. The number of participants in this round has also increased dramatically, 846 in all, compared to the 145 who voted in the 2002 poll. We don't know who all of these people are, but the sheer number of new voters suggests that the 2012 list might be a better indicator of critical consensus than some of the lists that have come before. It's hard to be certain without more information, and I hope we get it soon.

So what do I think of the latest poll results? Well, I'm not much of a fan of "Vertigo," and I don't think it's in any way superior to "Citizen Kane." So much of the the film's reputation for greatness seems to be coming from critics hellbent on taking it apart and sussing out meanings that may or may not actually be there. I certainly agree that "Vertigo" is a great film, but I don't buy that it's the best of all time. If I had to pick a Hitchcock film, there are plenty of other contenders. It's hard to argue with most of the other entries. "Rules of the Game" is beyond reproach. I would have preferred a different Murnau, but I understand why "Sunrise" is there. Ditto "8 & 1/2" and "Tokyo Story."

However, I've always disagreed with the amount of praise for "The Searchers," and the newest addition, "Man with a Movie Camera," strikes me as very odd. Sure, it shows off a lot of different film techniques and uses them to enliven its documentary narrative, but it comes across as so gimmicky. If you're curious, back in May I wrote up a post with my own picks for the the new list, the movies I would have voted for. I ended up with two films in common with Sight & Sound, "The Passion of Joan of Arc," and "2001: A Space Odyssey."
---

Read More

The July Experiment is Over!

Okay, so what did we learn from writing an 800-word movie review every day for a whole month? Well, there are a whole lot of movies that I didn't think I could write reviews for that it turns out that I could. The older films, the films that I was ambivalent on, the films that bored me to tears, the weird and unconventional films - I got through a lot of self-imposed barriers doing this. I stress that this wasn't all the films that I watched during the month of July. I left out a few that I didn't think I had enough information to properly evaluate, like "Once Upon a Time in Anatolia," the Turkish crime film that won last year's Gran Prix at Cannes. There was too much culture-specific material I'm not sure I entirely comprehend. However, I did write about "Goon," "Keyhole," and a lot of other films I wouldn't have under normal circumstances.

The lineup of reviews was not planned in advance. Mostly I posted reviews a day or two after I watched the films, which I picked at random. I threw in the extra "Dark Knight Rises" post and the pre-viewed "Hobson's Choice" and "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" in the mix to give myself a bit of a break, but they're still full reviews that I wrote during the month. I think this is actually a pretty good snapshot of my usual viewing patterns - a few films in theaters, and a pretty even split between newer rentals and older, more obscure films. You'll notice I'm still catching up with the last awards season, and I will be for the next few months, as the last couple of titles trickle out on DVD. I think the biggest ones left on my to-watch list are "A Separation" and "The Lady," the Aung San Suu Kyi biopic, which should be out by the end of August. No guarantees as to whether I'm going to write up reviews for those or not, because I might be otherwise occupied.

I don't know if the reviews themselves have gotten any better, but I am figuring out how to deal with some of my problem areas. I'm less hesitant to add more historical and cultural context to reviews for the older and more obscure movies, because viewers often need it, frankly. You can't recommend a Guy Maddin film without explaining who Guy Maddin is and what he does. A film like "Baraka" needs to be introduced properly so the audience won't be confused for the first twenty minutes, waiting for a non-existent narrative to kick in. I'm also finding that writing for myself is much more rewarding than trying to write for a fictitious general audience. Maybe I should write myself a manifesto of principles, the way that I've seen a few other reviewers create, just to remind myself that I do have a point of view that's worth sharing. I feel confident in saying that my opinion is an well-informed one, or at least well-informed for a non-professional hobby blogger who's doing this purely for her own enjoyment.

What I did not like about the experiment, at all, was that it took up so much more time. Thirty-one posts in the month instead of my usual twenty-five meant that I didn't have the opportunity to write up posts on other subjects, which I was originally planning to do. July was a pretty eventful month for media, and I missed the chance to be topical on several items - the Aurora tragedy, the Olympic opening ceremonies, Peter Jackson's really sketchy plans for a third "Hobbit" movie, and of course everything that happened at this year's San Diego Comic-Con. Some of these posts will still be written, or the material will be folded into other posts, but I still feel a little frustrated about the lost opportunities. In spite of my rarely being current with anything, I like to stay at least a little topical.

It also got kind of predictable writing reviews day after day, when usually I have to weigh a whole bunch of factors deciding what to write. Has there been too much movie content? Too much TV? Can I bust out a Top Ten list again? Some of my best posts (and some of the worst), have been written on days where I started out drawing a total blank. So it'll be nice to get back to the occasional opinion pieces and catching up on television. I did manage to finish "The Sopranos" during the month, so expect that last write-up soon. Actually, expect mostly TV-related content for the next week or so, because there's a lot of TV I'm going to need to get out of my system.

All in all, though, I'd say the experiment yielded good data, so I count it as a success.
---

Read More

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.
---

Read More