ViewGuide

Created Nov 16, 2011 10:41PM PST • Edited Jan 18, 2021 06:05AM PST

1. Quality

2. Summary

   Good 3.0

   Clint Eastwood does U.S. history – again, here essaying one of the 20th Century’s most consequential Americans. There were times during J. Edgar when it seemed to warrant a 4 Star Great, but couldn’t maintain it, falling back in the end to a respectable 3 Star Good. Thus, history buffs and fans of Eastwood the Director will find it sufficiently rewarding. Others, not so much.

   J. Edgar paints Hoover as more villain than hero, though his heroic contributions are fascinating and well essayed: bringing fingerprints and pre-electronic IT to crime fighting, while nailing a rogue’s gallery of mobsters in the process, many of them memorably named – Baby Face Nelson, Pretty Boy Floyd and Machine Gun Kelly. Not to mention John Dillinger, a criminal so big that his given name – Dillinger – became a byword for criminal.

   Hoover’s villainous excesses stemmed from his absolute power. The movie shows him blackmailing American Presidents and heroes alike. For instance, he took reprisals against Agent Melvin Purvis because he couldn’t stomach someone else getting credit for bringing down Dillinger. (For a view of Purvis’s heroism, checkout Michael Mann’s Public Enemies.)

   J. Edgar also reveals Hoover’s secret sexuality. He’s …, he’s …, he’s … repressed. We’re talking serious Mother issues, just this side of Norman Bates-like Mother issues, more than enough to sexually constipate a fellow. His aide and companion Clyde Tolson? He’s gay, at least as played by handsome Armie Hammer.

   Finally, it’s ironic that the premiere of J. Edgar comes in the wake of Joe Paterno’s image demolition. While Paterno’s sins pale in comparison to Hoover’s, both icons operated as unchallenged paragons of virtue for half a century, ultimately to get revealed as having feet of clay. Well, Paterno’s feet are clay. Hoover’s? His feet, hands and heart were clay, or something worse.

4. Acting

   Very Good 3.5

   DiCaprio deserves credit for his brave performance as J. Edgar Hoover, one of the more distinctive and important men in American history. However this isn’t one of Leo’s more successful roles, notwithstanding that it gives him an opportunity to exercise his greatest talent: suffering on-screen. Specifically he suffers through tortured maternal and bromance relationships.

   In contrast, Armie Hammer succeeds almost completely. Only his elderly scenes fail to score. But then neither do DiCaprio’s. Hammer’s Clyde Tolson comes across as a butch queer-eye-for-the-straight-guy. Between this role and his terrific twins in The Social Network, Hammer’s ready for leading man status.

   BTW, Hammer is the great-grandson of another controversial 20th Century American: Armand Hammer, founder and CEO of Occidental Petroleum. Come to think of it, the original Armie Hammer is worthy of a J. Edgar-like movie of his own.

   Naomi Watts & Dame Judi Dench are each terrific as the two important women in Hoover’s life: his secretary and his Mother. His over-dependence on the former and fealty to the latter are used by the movie to portray him as maladjusted to normal life.

   Cameos of celebrities who passed through Hoover’s orbit are largely little more than cut-outs.

   • Jeffrey Donovan as Bobby Kennedy.
   • Josh Lucas as Charles Lindbergh, portrayed as surprisingly grounded in the wake of his baby’s kidnapping.
   • Christopher Shyer as Richard Nixon.
   • Jamie LaBarber’s Ginger Rogers doesn’t seem sufficiently glamorous.
   • Lea Thompson fares better as her Mother.

5. Male Stars Very Good 3.5

   DiCaprio Good, Hammer Great

6. Female Stars Great 4.0

   Naomi Watts & Dame Judi Dench

7. Female Costars Good 3.0

   Jamie LaBarber, Lea Thompson, Amanda Schull

8. Male Costars OK 2.5

   Jeffrey Donovan, Josh Lucas, Zach Grenier, Christopher Shyer

10. Film

    Good 3.0

    The film employs lots of time skipping: back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. This is understandable yet herky-jerky. Also understandable is for the central characters to age 50 years, yet that doesn’t work very well either. Less understandable is the melodrama ascribed to Hoover’s personal life.

11. Direction Very Good 3.5

    Clint Eastwood has now directed his second non-great movie in a row. Is he slipping or is he mortal?

    As for his U.S. history movies, J. Edgar takes a backseat to his two WWII movies (Flags of our Fathers, and Letters from Iwo Jima) and even to Changeling.

12. Play OK 2.5

    “solid weight”

13. Music Good 3.0

    Music composed by Clint Eastwood.

14. Visuals Great 4.0

    This sepia toned film succeeds grandly in celebrating some of Washington’s great buildings, including the Department of Justice and the Library of Congress. The dizzying scene in the latter is a particular highlight.

    OTOH, the old-age makeup applied to DiCaprio and Hammer barely works.

15. Content

16. Edge

    Risqué 1.6

17. Sex Titillating 1.6

18. Violence Fierce 1.6

19. Rudeness Salty 1.6

21. Reality

    Glib 1.2

    The movie is fascinating in depicting Hoover’s innovations, fingerprinting especially. Not surprisingly, old timers didn’t like the new-fangled scientific method, as most old timers resist most innovations.

    Hoover’s savvy use of mass media is also well characterized.

    BTW, Clyde Tolson’s replacement as Deputy Director of the FBI was Mark Felt, better known these days as Deep Throat, of Watergate fame.

22. Circumstantial Glib 1.5

    Fibs:

    • The movie makes much of Hoover having designed the Library of Congress card catalog system, a feat nowhere mentioned on Wikipedia.
    • The movie has Tolson admonish Hoover that he didn’t shoot Dillinger, Clyde Purvis did. In fact, Purvis didn’t shoot him either. Charles Winstead did. You can look it up. Apparently no one gets proper credit from the people in or behind this movie. What’s up with that Clint?

23. Biological Natural 1.0

24. Physical Natural 1.0