Review: J. Edgar

A biopic of the first FBI director, a man who traded in exposing enemies’ secrets, whilst secretly struggling with his own sexuality (which seems somewhere in between repressed homosexuality and asexuality). He was a man obsessed with bringing down enemies both within and outside of America, seemingly by any means necessary. Armie Hammer plays Clyde Tolson, Hoover’s second in command, and most treasured companion, whilst Naomi Watts plays Hoover’s trusted and long-serving secretary (the only one who has access to his ‘secret files’). Dame Judi Dench plays Hoover’s beloved mother, who warns him against being a ‘daffodil’, something that haunts and torments Hoover throughout his life (despite her being an otherwise loving mother). Smaller roles are filled out by Josh Lucas (as Charles Lindbergh), Jeffrey Donovan (as RFK), Dermot Mulroney (who scoffs at the FBI’s early adoption of forensics in criminal investigations), Ed Westwick (as a Hoover biographer), Geoff Pierson (as an Attorney-General whom a young Hoover worked for), and Lea Thompson among others.

 

This 2011 Clint Eastwood (“Play Misty For Me”, “Mystic River”, “Gran Torino”) biopic of the first FBI director is unconvincing and miscast, but it’s biggest problem might be an entirely subjective one; Are there some real-life characters who don’t deserve to be seen in a sympathetic light? I’m pretty sure we can all agree to put Hitler in that category, but as far as I’m concerned, the FBI head who holds tightly onto his own secrets and happily exposing those of his ‘enemies’, is also an unlikely and in my view, undeserving figure for sympathy. He was a spiteful man who used his power for fear and intimidation of his enemies. He was a master blackmailer. Thus, the film was always going to have a hard time getting me to warm to it, especially with Hoover narrating the film from his point of view. He’s not likeable, and although the story has interesting elements, he is a rather dull human being. Yes, even considering he was a cross-dresser.

 

Leonardo DiCaprio in the title role really doesn’t help. The old-age make-up job is hideous (However, Armie Hammer’s is the worst make-up job in cinematic history), but DiCaprio is seriously miscast and unconvincing in a film that never quite feels authentic. Leo never makes the accent work, sounding like a bad actor in a high school play rather than it seeming natural. That’s a pretty big problem for someone who is the main character and narrator of the film. In fact, he comes off somewhere in between Mayor Quimby from “The Simpsons” (isn’t that a Dan Quayle parody?) and Kevin Arnold from the episode of “The Wonder Years” where he portrayed (badly) Robert F. Kennedy in a high school play. It’s such a phony and amateurish performance that you can never really get into the film, as a result. Things get truly bonkers when Jeffrey Donovan turns up in the worst RFK impersonation since Kevin Arnold on “The Wonder Years”. Kev was probably the more convincing actor, to be honest, and he was what, 12 at the time? Donovan, who was way overboard in Eastwood’s overrated “Changeling”, is stiff and terribly cartoony in the film’s worst performance. I know it’s difficult to do the specific accents the Kennedys and Hoover had (Mistah Hoovah!), but everyone in this film seems to overdo it. I really felt like this was high school-level acting, outside of the outstanding Armie Hammer with a sensitive portrayal, though he suffers a bit in the old-age scenes (mostly because the makeup looks like a work-in-progress. How did Eastwood let this pass?).

 

Perhaps the most bizarre and unintentionally funny moment in the entire film, however, comes via a cameo by Shirley Temple, saying things that are more likely to come out of Mae West’s mouth. What the hell was up with that? In fact, whilst Eastwood captured similar period detail quite well in the otherwise unconvincing “Changeling”, it’s done in cartoony fashion here. Showing a Cagney film on a movie screen at one point is unintentionally apt. Meanwhile, some of the dialogue is awkward and lands with a thud, especially during the useless Lindbergh baby segment. Josh Lucas is badly wasted in these scenes as Charles Lindbergh, and Dermot Mulroney suffers from the stupid things his character is forced to say (playing a lawman who doesn’t believe in Hoover’s fancy newfangled methods of investigation). Character isn’t this film’s strong suit by a long-shot, with Dame Judi Dench not well-served by a frankly boring and two-dimensional role. I’m sure the director enjoyed working with her, though.

 

I’ll give Clint one thing, though, he certainly doesn’t downplay Hoover’s (and certainly not Clyde’s) homosexuality, and even has Hoover donning a dress at one point. Eastwood actually handles that with amazing restraint, too. There are no cabana boys or anything like that to be found in the script by Dustin Lance Black (“Milk”, TV’s “Big Love”), but was there ever any proof of that more salacious stuff anyway? One shudders at possibility of the over-the-top portrayal Oliver Stone (“JFK”, “Nixon”) might have envisioned if it were he and not the more restrained Eastwood at the helm. It borders on a (too) sympathetic portrayal, but Hoover just isn’t likeable enough to warrant it, he’s pathetic if anything, and that certainly doesn’t make him interesting to spend time with.

 

One thing I didn’t like was how Eastwood has Hoover bouncing from Watts straight (no pun intended) into liking guys, without any real explanation, and poor Watts ends up fading into the background. Eastwood also has cinematographer Tom Stern (“Flags of Our Fathers”, “The Exorcism of Emily Rose”, “The Hunger Games”) photograph the actress most unflatteringly (ironic, then, that her old-age makeup is the best in the film). In fact, Stern’s approach to lighting the film is very much in the ‘black lighting’ seen in Eastwood’s “Million Dollar Baby”. It served the story fine there, but is an inappropriate fit this time where most scenes are shot in upmarket offices, not dingy gyms. It proves an entirely idiotic approach when you can tell that the scene is supposed to be well-lit, as there are light sources seen in the frame, but nonetheless, we see things through darkness. Lighting and cinematography in modern movies is a source of frustration for me, especially with everything being digitally shot now (unfortunately). I just wanna see people’s faces, damn it! Is that too much to ask?

 

I’m sorry, but I just didn’t get into this. It was mostly unconvincing (playing like a high school recital, except with Oscar-nomination level grown-up actors), and Hoover I felt was such a villain that he wasn’t deserving of a sympathetic treatment of his story. He may have had personal struggles, but the bad (or boring) seemed to far outweigh the good. Thus there was a huge lack of an emotional centre, someone to latch onto. It’s all well and good to suggest that Hoover was a pathetic and uncharismatic man, but just because it might’ve been true, that doesn’t make it interesting to watch. Oh well, at least Eastwood seems to have rescued Lea Thompson from whatever rock she has been under for the last 20 years (she’s even got a regular gig on a TV teen drama now, “Switched at Birth). I wonder if Judd Nelson, Mary Stuart Masterson and Michelle Meyrink were under the same rock?

 

Rating: C