With successes like "Mystic River" (2003) and "Letters from Iwo Jima" (2006), critics and fans have come to expect a lot from director Clint Eastwood. Thus, the hype surrounding "J. Edgar" was nothing less than lofty. Sadly, this time around, Eastwood disappointed, as the John Edgar Hoover biopic failed to meet its expectations.
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as founding FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover in a biographic tale of his rise to glory and eventual moral decline. Skipping back and forth in time in the form of a narrated biography, the film begins in Hoover's youth, depicting the Oedipal relationship shared with his mother (Judi Dench) as he strives to make a mark within the U.S. Department of Justice. The film follows Hoover as his notoriety increases over time, portraying his hunt for communists throughout the '20s, his movement to end the gang wars of the '30s and his overall lifelong effort to build up the FBI and protect the United States from radical forces.
A majority of Hoover's important relationships are explored throughout the film, including that of his long−time secretary Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts) and his closeted relationship with Associate FBI Director Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer). Much of the film is dedicated to Hoover's final years, touching on his feud with civil rights leaders and illustrating the general decline in respect he and the Bureau came to face.
"J. Edgar" was not a bland movie. In fact, it had quite a bit going on — too much, perhaps. The problem was that, although much of "J. Edgar" was done well, much more was done very poorly.
The film's main issue presents itself in its basic narrative structure. Some movies can successfully jump through time to tell a biographical story, but "J. Edgar" fails to pull it off. In trying to hit on too many points, it produces an incomprehensive, confusing and thematically incoherent piece.
Nothing in "J. Edgar" is overly subtle. The blatant, and even obnoxious, depiction of Hoover's erotic relationships with his mother and Tolson — neither of which were ever confirmed — hits the audience over the head, leaving too little to the imagination. Furthermore, instead of allowing viewers to react naturally to scenes, awkwardly placed angelic music seems to cue forced emotional responses.
"J. Edgar" also sorely lacks character development. Though Hoover, who is developed to the fullest, is the exception to this rule, he stands in contrast to each of the film's supporting characters. This bevy of one−dimensional performances makes for far−from−intriguing cinema.
The staleness of the film's characters could be overlooked if Hoover's presence had been enjoyable, but the protagonist presented to the audience is neither likable nor pitiable. Plenty of films have leads that are despicable on some level, but still likable — we have to like them, or our viewing experience is just unpleasant. The Hoover seen here is lying, friendless and rude. His only redeeming quality seems to be that he loves America more than most people — certainly far more than we love him.
That said, DiCaprio does his best with the material presented to him. Aside from his sad attempt at imitating Hoover's accent, DiCaprio manages to entertain the audience throughout the film's entirety.
But the shining star of "J. Edgar" is newcomer Armie Hammer. His flamboyant portrayal of Clyde Tolson is humorous, charming and moving — by far the movie's best piece.
Surprisingly, "J. Edgar" has quite a bit of humor. In fact, its comedic aspect is one of the film's strong points. Though most funny moments emerge in scenes between Hammer and DiCaprio, each of the supporting actors gets a laugh or two. Whether or not humor is out of place amid the intensity and seriousness of Hoover's life, however, is another question entirely.
The film does undoubtedly succeed in the visual realm. Filmed with a slightly gray tint, the somewhat drab setting and costumes feel appropriate for the movie's tone. The grim aesthetics truly root the audience in the era of the Great Depression. The dark environment's contrast with the actors' pale hues presents a consistent and appealing artistic feel.
The visual highlight, though, is "J. Edgar's" expert use of prosthetic makeup, which Eastwood chose to use instead of casting different actors to play the lead characters in their old age. His call was a risk, considering the scope of the makeup needed, but that risk paid off — the actors are seamlessly and impressively transformed into elderly versions of themselves.
"J. Edgar" was not a mediocre film because it lacked material to criticize or compliment; it possessed major highlights, but major faults as well. What many expected to be an Oscar favorite this year appears to be one of Eastwood's biggest critical failures. Even so, "J. Edgar" does have its moments.
