J. Edgar

I saw "J. Edgar" a couple of days ago. The acting by Leonadrdo Dicaprio was great. It's the best performance I've ever seen him give. With the exception of "Blood Diamond," which I enjoyed, I am not the biggest fan of Dicaprio as an actor. In this film, however, I felt he gave an Oscar-caliber performance. I would not be at all surprised if he won his first Oscar this year. Dicaprio's performance is the strongest thing in the film. Despite this, I don't think he was the ideal choice for the role. I think Philip Seymour Hoffman would have been a much better choice, as he would have been able to more convincingly portray Hoover as an older man, and would have been better at conveying his inner demons and moral depravity. Even though I thought Dicaprio was miscast, I thought the performance he did give was excellent.

As for the other members of the cast, I thought Armie Hammer did very well, and would not be at all surprised to see him score a nomination for Best Supporting Actor. With the exception of the hotel scene, where I felt his acting was too showy and not realistic (think Angelina Jolie in "Changeling"), his is a very understated performance. He was perfectly cast in the role. Judi Dench and Naomi Watts are both fine, but mostly wasted in their roles. Neither role gives them much to do, and neither role really warranted actresses of their caliber.

Technically, I felt the film was very good as well. The cinematography and costume design were very good. The make-up for the most part was good, although I didn't feel they did a very good job with aging Armie Hammer. I think it probably would have been more realistic and believable had Eastwood chosen to use computers rather than make-up to age the characters, but that's not what he chose to do. I expect an Academy Award nomination for Best-Make up.

This film has the hallmarks of Eastwood all over it. The subdued nature of it, the washed out cinematography, the understated score, the chiarascuro lighting, and the attempt to present a balanced portrait of a very complicated man. The problems that I had with this film were in the script. It is all over the place, and the focus in parts is off. The film spends an inordinate amount of time on the Charles Lindbergh kidnapping, which is a mostly uninvolving storyline, yet gives short shrift to the Civil Rights Movement, and many other more significant historical events that are far more interesting.

Overall, I think the screenplay tries to do far too much, and it is in the writing where this film falls short. I think it would have been a more effective film had Eastwood chosen to focus on a few specific, significant historical periods in a more linear fashion. As it is, the coverage is too broad, and the events that are highlighted are not always the most interesting or important in Hoover's life. The script needed a few rewrites before being shot. I think this is a case where Eastwod's penchant for shooting the first draft doesn't always serve him. Had this been rewritten a few more times, I think it would have resulted in a more focused film.

Historically, I also had a few problems with the film. This paragraph has a few minor spoilers, but they have been written about in most of the press reports. Eastwood says that he took great pains to ensure that everything was historically accurate, but the hotel scene in particular, with the infamous kiss between the two, is not a documented evident, nor is the scene where he chooses to wear his mother's dress. The dress event in particular was only suggested by one person, who had been convicted of a crime, and had an axe to grind against Hoover. There is zero historical evidence that Hoover was a cross-dresser. Had I directed this film, I wouldn't have included either of these scenes. Both are done in a sensitive and understated fashion, but both cannot be substantiated on the basis of the historical record. I think the scene of them holding hands in the back of the limousine is fine. It hints at a possible homosexual relationship, but doesn't definitively state that one exists. I think that can be justified. There is considerable debate about whether Hoover and Tolson were engaged in a homosexual relationship, and I think it's fine to allude to that possibility in the film. I think that the scenes with them holding hands, and their demeanor together, were more than enough to convey the possibility of a homosexual relationship between Tolson and Hoover. I personally didn't appreciate the hotel scene or the cross-dressing scene. I don't think either can be proven, and I was disappointed that Eastwood chose to portray something that was not factually accurate in a film that he claims was based on the historical record.

Besides the script, which I had my problems with, I felt the music in the film, which was composed by Eastwood, was very weak. The film would have been stronger and more powerful if it had a better score, but like all of his most recent films, Eastwood chose to go with the same few piano notes played over and over again. Sometimes it works, but in this particular film, the fact that the score did not serve the film in the best way was especially noticeable.

On balance, I liked the film far more than both "Invictus" and "Hereafter," but felt that it could have been better. The film is much better than the critical reception would have you believe. As the film seems to divide people, I will very much be looking forward to hearing the thoughts of everyone who does see this film, so please come back and post your thoughts in this thread.

As for my own thoughts, with the subject matter of the film, and the importance of Hoover as a historical figure, this film could have been a masterpiece. It isn't. It is merely a very good film. One that is most definitely worth seeing, but one that misses an opportunity to define Hoover more clearly, in a way that is more focused and interesting.

Holden, what did you think of this film? As a fellow Eastwood fan, I'll be looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Where is Holden anyway? I don't see him posting anymore, and I miss his posts!

He should have cast two different actors to play Hoover and make it non linear with the emphasis on an older Hover interspersed with his younger version.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

I've seen every Eastwood film in the theatres since Million Dollar Baby. I wasn't a fan of his last 2.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Well, if MDB wasn't enough to put you off, I can't fathom how bad the last two must've been.

I hated Flags of our Fathers too. It's just a stupid thing a friend of mine wants to do. See every Eastwood film in the theatre.

I find it odd that the only two tags for this thread are "Holden Pike" and "Yoda-inspired."

I would like to see J. Edgar.

Hoffman doesn't have the box office pull that Di Caprio has. I think the film makes it clear that Hoover was chronically insecure and his decisions sprang from this. As an idealistic young Director, his motivations may have been earnest in the beginning. However, the more powerful he became, the more he took advantage of it and the film charts his creeping corruption. His secret file room had nothing to do with going after the bad guys but maintaining himself in power through blackmail and threats. Hoover was definitely self-aggrandizing, but I don't think he was morally depraved. Power corrupts.

It's hard to imagine a kidnapping becoming an important news item, but the way we can recall where we were and what we where doing on 9/11, the same goes for the people of that period when his baby son was kidnapped. Once upon a time, Charles Lindbergh was the most famous and revered person in the world. Of course, Hoover exploited this to his own benefit.

Thank God! http://edgar-hoover.tripod.com/
　
The film makes it clear again and again that anyone who stood in his way or was a threat his power both real and imagined was quickly neutralized. The film has several scenes of him waiting outside the oval office, with a thick folder of all the personal dirt he has on the newly sworn in President. The film also shows Hoover demoting or firing a number of FBI agents, simply because they did a good job and got a little good press, since Hoover thought he himself, best embodied the FBI.

The scene were he puts on his mother's dress isn't about cross dressing. His mother was a homophobe and it refers to an earlier conversation they had when they recalled a young boy in his grade school was found out to be gay. She stated she had a preference for a dead son ... rather than one who was gay. In that scene he was confronting the power she had over him (something he could have never done if she was alive) by repeating the same gesture what the young boy had.

I loved two scenes. The scene when he meets Tolson for the second time in his office is pregnant with sub-text and the balcony scene during the inauguration of Roosevelt is particularly telling.

So, what's the film about ultimately?

Definitely masculinity. The idea the film can only faintly suggest to a mainstream audience that Hoover may have been a little light in the loafers is laughable. Their unease comes from the belief that the mythic hero can't be gay. One could easily substitute Naomi Watts as his life long partner instead of Tolson and this same movie character would been accepted as a tragic American hero in the eyes of the audience.

And secondly, I may be reaching, but Eastwood seems to be drawing a parallel between an individual who joined the FBI in the 20's and slowly became a cancer within the country at the height of his powers to the current intelligence apparatus. Like Hoover, maybe they are more obsessed with expanding their power and lining their pockets with money. It's important to underline the Patriot Act with it's ability to X-ray and illuminate the secret corner of anyone's life and neutralize real and imagined enemies in a nanosecond makes Hoover's puny centralized fingerprint index and secret file room look like a can of bug spray compared to orbiting sniper satellites.

J. Edgar ~

I haven't seen it, but it sounds to me spending a lot of time on the Lindbergh Kidnapping probably is a mistake. That is a story for an entire movie. The movie is supposed to be about Hoover and what he became, not all the famous cases the FBI was involved in. Basically it is a power corrupts story, which we have seen in All the Kings Men (and in straightforward versions about Huey Long), F.I.S.T., Hoffa, Fame is the Spur, A Lion in the Streets, and others I'm sure. The Lindbergh Kidnapping distracts from the dramatic trajectory unless it is directly thematically tied in.

I'm not excited about this. I will watch it, but from what I've read online, it isn't great by any measure. I'm not impressed with Eastwood's output in the last 5 years. Guy hasn't directed anything proper good since Letters from Iwo Jima.

Which is exactly the case. The film only spends a little time with the Lindbergh kidnapping. Hoover uses it to get Congress to establish a centralized finger print system in which the FBI is in charge, and a rudimentary crime lab.

To the original poster: here is my response to your comments. I’m critical of much of your criticism, but I sense that you appreciate an honest perspective.

Yeah, and Hoffman probably would have proved less convincing as the younger, leaner, more athletic and energetic Hoover from his halcyon days.

Why was he "miscast" and how could his performance have proved "excellent" if he was "miscast"? That statement is completely contradictory and frankly makes no sense. Even if DiCaprio wouldn't have constituted your choice, he couldn't have been "miscast" if he was "excellent."

With the exception of the hotel scene, where I felt his acting was too showy and not realistic (think Angelina Jolie in "Changeling")

So to occasionally lose your cool when confronted by romantic betrayal or the loss of your child is "not realistic"? I thought that Angelina Jolie, for instance, proved quite restrained in Changeling, but on a couple occasions, her pent-up rage and distress spilled over. For such dangerous, explosive emotions to never emerge would be unrealistic and the same is true of Armie Hammer's Clyde Tolson in J. Edgar. In real life, people do occasionally lose their cool and wildly explode, but as with sports, "everyone" becomes an armchair expert regarding acting, even though 99.9% of those people have probably never even taken an acting class. I'm not saying that you're disentitled to your opinion, but the whimsical nature of it should be recognized. Anyone could find fault with any acting performance, but the major issue is whether the performer seems to be coming from some authentic place emotionally or instinctively. Certainly, I'd say that the performances in J. Edgar meet that standard.

To the contrary, their roles are very important and Watts' performance as Hoover's longtime secretary and trusted confidante, Helen Gandy, looms large. I wouldn't confuse sparse dialogue or the absence of action or overt emotion for a lack of significance. Watts, for example, conveys substance largely through her eyes, stillness, hesitations, and vocal tenor, reflecting a combination of loyalty, empathy, complicity, grace, skepticism, and submission. In effect, she serves as the eye of this film's storm, a subtle and underappreciated role, but not an unimportant one. For this type of part is what gives the diegesis a sense of realistic grounding and sanity. If the actor or actress isn't credible in this function, then the film may implode, but Watts proves quite convincing in her quiet complementation to DiCaprio's Hoover. As for Dench, her lyrical yet viciously cutting monologue about "daffodils" represents one of the movie's most significant scenes and she handles it with a blend of twisted power and frightening realism.

What happens with many reviewers, professional and amateur, is that they review matters compartmentally without much regard for the context and how the pieces fit together. So in the abstract, Watts and Dench may not have "much to do," especially compared to some of their roles in other films. But we're not talking about other films, we're talking about this one—and in this one, their roles are important and well-integrated.

Computerized effects are inherently unrealistic in the sense that they represent bytes rather than actual material. Indeed, I don't see how your choice would have proved effective or convincing in this intimate, human context.

To the contrary, the film features a parallel-track structure that is both fitting and easy to follow (at least in my eyes).

You seem to be working from an anachronistic sense of history rather than real historical understanding. The Lindbergh kidnapping and trial may be disinteresting to you, but there's a reason that they respectively became known as the "Crime of the Century" and the "Trial of the Century."

Thus when one considers the actual history of the time and not one's subjective, uninformed perceptions of what's important and what isn't, the focus on the Lindbergh saga becomes well-justified. Moreover, as J. Edgar makes clear, the Lindbergh story constituted the FBI's turning point, the pivotal event that transformed Hoover and his agency into a gloried behemoth with unprecedented jurisdiction and legal powers. And because of that ascendency, the FBI emerged as something of a domestic shadow government with Hoover serving as a shadow president, capable of blackmailing actual presidents, operating with both autonomy and impunity, and retaining power for about a half-century. To thus gloss over an event so central to the narrative and Hoover's rise would make no sense, nor does a feature film possess some sort of TV news obligation to give "equal time" to various events.

What's also important to note is that within the diegesis, the film's historical narrative comes courtesy of Hoover himself. Thus the movie focuses on what he wants to focus on—how he emphasizes or exaggerates certain matters in order to build his legend—and then undercuts Hoover’s stature through Tolson's revelations later on. The chronicles are not supposed to constitute some wholly objective presentation that provides approximate coverage to everything, for that methodology would not have served Hoover's interests and he’s providing the narration.

I disagree; along with DiCaprio's performance and Eastwood's direction, the writing represents one of the film's best aspects. It's lyrical, subtly poignant, sometimes humorous, and quite ironic. Rather than trying to do "far too much," the film retains an elegant structure (flashing back and forth between Hoover's rise to glory and his tortured sunset days in the 1960s and early 1970s) and uses that construction to tap into the character's central components.

Eastwood indeed focused on "a few specific, significant historical periods": the Red Scare of 1919, Hoover's rise in the 1920s, his breakthroughs in the 1930s, and then his nearly senile and paranoid attempts to protect and perpetuate his power a generation later. How would a temporally linear structure have proved narrower rather than broader?

And while a linear structure may have been intriguing, one would risk losing the sense of how Hoover’s earlier career impacts his later behavior, the parallels between the different historical time periods (at least in his mind), and the central motif of the unreliable narrator. Moreover, a linear structure probably would have been more “unfocused” because it would have attempted to cover a longer continuum of material. I know that some people have trouble with flashbacks, but they make sense for an introspective, historical character study.

... says you. As I've indicated, the Lindbergh crime and trial proved crucial to Hoover's ascendency and the film's explorations of his private life are critical to the movie's subversive and surprising critique of masculinity.

First, you're just speculating about the amount of work poured into the script prior to the shooting. According to Maureen Dowd's recent column in the New York Times, Eastwood even examined the historical sources of his screenwriter, the Oscar-winning Dustin Lance Black.

You probably don't know whether the script represented a "first draft" (in which case you shouldn't be offering assumptions as facts), but even if it did, the script wasn't slapdash. Moreover, whether or not you deem it discomfiting, Eastwood's methodology works given how it allows him to retain the integrity of the writer's vision rather than having it commercialized or altered in anticipation of (possibly fallacious or fatuous) critical scrutiny.

More importantly, you seem to be confusing two different issues. You obviously didn't care for the film's narrative structure, but reshaping the structure would not have been a matter of rewrites. Instead, reformulating J. Edgar's narrative and historical coverage would have probably required a different writer all together, a change that to me would have been gratuitous and possibly disastrous. Not only is Black an Oscar-winning writer, but his writing here is lyrical and literate, ironic and humorous, and as I've noted, his structure allows for meditations, parallels, and reflective narration that otherwise may have been lost or may have lost potency. The narrative composition and choices really aren't incoherent and they make plenty of sense—I'd suggest that you give the film a second screening before reaching any definitive conclusions.

I sense that you are misinterpreting the meaning of a fictional film being based on the historical record. Being based on history doesn't mean that the movie constitutes a documentary where there is unequivocal evidence for every single scene. As noted at the end of the picture, J. Edgar is based on actual historical events and characters, but some events, characters, and dialogue are fictional. The real issue is whether the movie is historically plausible and in that sense, J. Edgar passes the test with flying colors. You act as if the kiss and cross-dressing scene are historically ridiculous or implausible, but I need to ask you the following question: are you a scholar of J. Edgar Hoover, or have you extensively and intensively studied all the major books about him and his surviving documents? I doubt that you have done so and if not, what is your basis for acting so dismissively towards these scenes? I understand the point that documentary evidence for them may not exist, but again, the issue is historical plausibility. Unless, based upon your research, you can convincingly argue that the scenes in question are historically implausible or that they possess no realistic motivation or reasoning, then I don't believe that you can offer much of a case. Indeed, if you concede that the hand-holding is credible, then why would depicting a private kiss prove unwarranted? And to be clear, the movie does not depict Hoover as a chronic cross-dresser, but rather as someone who dressed as his late mother in private on one occasion (at least), a sign of his intense identification with this domineering figure.

The bottom line is that even if these scenes offer an affront to your historical or moral tastes, the way to judge a film is not based upon one's own whims. A movie needs to be respected and evaluated on the merits of its own ambitions and internal logic and in this case, J. Edgar would have been far less worthwhile without these intimate and private scenes. Without them, it wouldn't have proved so affecting as a subversive study of masculinity and ironic, romantic love. I'll quote the Economist's review:

Only I'll go one step further: J. Edgar turns out to be one of the most beautiful and affecting love stories to come out of Hollywood, irrespective of sexuality. Perhaps the film's greatest achievement is that by its end, the gay nature of the love story is merely incidental and rather irrelevant. Instead, Black and Eastwood suggest that there is ultimately no difference between gay love and straight love, that love is love even if operating in some taboo, nebulous space between homosociality and homosexuality. They also obliquely indicate that if Hoover is any less of a man, it is not because of his gayness (contrary to his mother's viewpoint) or because he may have occasionally worn a dress, but because of his dishonesty, pettiness, exploitation, egotism, and lack of ethics. In a sense, J. Edgar transcends conceptualizations and expectations of love and masculinity, defining these archetypal notions in ways that run counter to stereotypes and trappings. Hoover manipulates and hides behind those traditional facades in order to promote, perpetuate, and protect his power, but the film retains its objectivity by offering its own perspective and inverting the FBI director's (and society's) paradigm. Hoover, like conventional American culture, spends almost all of the film imagining that his manhood is achieved by brandishing and exaggerating a macho image while suppressing his homosocial and homosexual impulses or at least keeping those desires in a state of ambiguous privacy. J. Edgar, however, intimates that Hoover is ultimately a man because of the loyalty, humanity, and integrity that he privately shows to his partner or lover, Clyde Tolson, and that his lack of manliness stems from his tacky self-glorification, his commercial indulgences, and his tawdry blackmailing of greater men such as Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and Martin Luther King. In effect, Eastwood hints that integrity trumps machismo, that authentic masculinity should be defined differently from what our society formatively teaches us. In the abstract, that lesson seems pedestrian, but in the context of this film, its iconic protagonist, and his secretly scandalous behavior, that moral becomes rather audacious. One can walk away from J. Edgar with a very different sense of what being a man actually means and that point would not have proved as potent without the scenes in question.

The score complements the film very effectively. There isn't much music, nor should there be because the movie amounts to an intimate character study that engrossingly rides on its sense of disquieting quietude and ironic, literate dialogue. The music merely serves as an occasional complement to the organic atmosphere and anything more may have seemed gratuitous and forced; one of Eastwood's greatest strengths as a director is knowing how not to force matters. That said, Eastwood finds moments and scenes where he "swells" the music briefly while maintaining musical nuance, thus evoking empathy without overwhelming the acting.

As I indicated earlier, film analysis should not be compartmentalized. Examining the score in the abstract, or separate from the movie's context, is of misleading value.

I don't know whether J. Edgar constitutes a "masterpiece," but it might be one and simply saying "It isn't" is overly simplistic and dismissive. Clearly, the film failed to meet your preconceived standards, but those standards may be fallacious. Specifically, your call "to define Hoover more clearly" amounts to a refutation of the movie's ambiguity, which represents one of J. Edgar's great strengths. The film is one of light and darkness, showing perhaps the twentieth century's foremost icon of real-life (as opposed to cinematic) American masculinity to have been a manipulative fraud, but also a man of high intelligence, vision, grace, charm, tenderness, and a need for love. The easy route, and perhaps the one that you're advocating, would have been to simplify the character's definition, to present Hoover as the glorious hero of traditional mythology (mythology created in large part by Hoover himself), or as the embodiment of nihilism disguised as rectitude, or as a creepy pervert. Eastwood's film, however, avoids these convenient caricatures and simplistic interpretations, instead presenting Hoover as a complex, eccentric, ambiguous mixture of pride, shame, ambition, guile, exploitation, dignity, and idiosyncrasy. His virtues and foibles fed each other and blurred the lines so that defining where his assets ended and his defects began became difficult. He thankfully revolutionized the means of detecting and prosecuting criminality, yet in another sense, he imagined that the ends justified means of dubious legality or even illegality. Hoover became an institution unto himself, yet his insecurities proved all too human.

What we have, then, is not some falsely definitive account of who Hoover happened to be and what he represented, but a cinematic version of long-form poetry that opens the possibilities to greater thinking. As the late singer and poet Jim Morrison once stated, "real poetry doesn't say anything; it just ticks off the possibilities. Opens all doors."

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/7855.Jim_Morrison

In effect, J. Edgar performs the same function, serving as movie poetry that opens doors to a new, more diverse understanding of this male icon. Conversely, you seem to want to close the doors, to define Hoover as this-or-that and cement the discussion, whereas J. Edgar is really about unsettling people’s expectations and then allowing the intellectual and emotional ferment to percolate.

The bottom line is that at least a half-dozen worthwhile versions of Hoover’s life and career could be filmed for theatrical release. Whereas many reviewers (including professional ones) seem to judge films based on their personal expectations and presumptions, what’s important is to assess a movie based on its own basis, not relative to external preconceptions or desires. The J. Edgar written by Black and directed by Eastwood may not have been the one that many people wanted to see, but it is compelling and utterly engrossing in its own right.

That's exactly how the film functions. However, I feel that using two different actors would have hurt the continuity of both the movie and the character.

I really didn't see "Leonardo DiCaprio," though, just J. Edgar Hoover, which is a testament to his acting here. I obviously haven't viewed every movie ever made, but in my experience, the only other occasion where I felt that a star completely transcended his "persona" and rendered it invisible was Paul Newman in The Outrage (Martin Ritt, 1964). Of course, in that case, Newman is virtually unrecognizable as Newman, to the point that for a long while, I kept wondering when Paul Newman was finally going to show up.

Much of what one can read on-line is garbage, anyway. Indeed, way too many movie reviewers assess films based on their personal expectations, desires, and preconceived notions, way too many movie reviewers struggle with or dislike ambiguity and complexity, and way too many movie reviewers are looking to manipulate some trivial angle in order to make a name for themselves. Most of them have probably never taken a class in acting or filmmaking and most of them probably have never studied film history and theory in a formal setting.

The New York Times film critics, Manohla Dargis and A.O. Scott, probably do better with J. Edgar than most and their comments are worth reading (there are some spoilers, though).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/mo...sion.html?_r=1

As for Eastwood's recent output, I felt that Changeling and Gran Torino constituted masterpieces and while Invictus (especially) and Hereafter weren't quite on that level, they still made for enriching, valuable experiences. But to each his (or her) own.

I concur that the film largely constitutes a critique—perhaps a reconstitution—of masculinity; one can see my comments a few posts earlier.

In regards to the choice of Leonardo Dicaprio to portray Hoover, miscast may have been too strong, but I definitely didn't feel Leonardo Dicaprio was the best choice for the role. He was too young, he did not even remotely resemble Hoover, and his accent was inconsistent. I do think he gave a good performance, given his limitations, but I definitely think he was the wrong person for the role, and that Philip Seymour Hoffman, or someone in the same vein, would have given a stronger and more convincing performance.

As for the hotel scene in the film, emotional outbursts are part of life, yes, you are right, but applying your standard, I personally did not feel either Angelina Jolie's or Armie Hammer's outbursts were emotionally convincing or coming from an authentic place. You obviously did. We disagree. Both scenes seemed overly forced and over the top to me.

As for Dench and Watts' performances, I personally think that actresses of their caliber should have more to do than they did here. Lesser actresses could have convincingly played both roles, and it would not, in my judgment, have hurt the film, at all.

Leonardo Dicaprio's and Armie Hammer's make-up in the older scenes did not look authentic. This distracted from my ability as a viewer to fully take in and appreciate their performances. Therefore, I personally feel as if computerized imaging would have been less distracting than what Eastwood chose to do.

In regards to the Lindbergh kindapping's historical importance, I will have to defer to your judgment on that, as I was not alive during these events. I do still feel, whatever their historical importance, that there were far more interesting events in Hoover's life to focus on. Even if these were pivotal historical events worthy of so much screen time, they could have been presented in a far more interesting ways. In my view, the scenes involving the Lindbergh kindapping dragged and were the most uninvolving scenes in the film.

I felt the script was difficult to follow. You liked it. Another difference of opinion. As for your other comments, Eastwood is well-known for shooting first drafts. I've heard Lance Black, who is the screen writer, say in interviews that Eastwood shot his first draft. Lane Black did add some narration during post-production.

As for whether the scenes involving Hoover's sexuality are historically plausible, I think the possibility they may have had a gay relationship is historically plausible, but I don't think the scene in the hotel room was historically plausible. There is zero evidence that Tolson was upset about Hoover's proposal to marry a woman. To put it simply, there is zero evidence that this conversation ever took place. In interviews, Dicaprio has stated that it was Eastwood's idea for Dicaprio to state that he loved Tolson in the film. Again, this is not supported by the historical record. Therefore, because the film is a biopic, I don't feel it should have been included in the film. At best, the notion that Hoover and Tolson were involved in anything other than a friendship is speculation. Yes, they may have been, but they may not have been. The film makes it pretty clear that Hoover and Tolson were more than friends. This is historically questionable.

There is even less evidence that Hoover was a cross-dresser, either in one instance, or chronically. Here's an excerpt from just one site that I found on this topic. A simple google search will lead to more.

Most researchers, including many hostile to Hoover, say this story is ludicrous. In a 1993 Esquire article, journalist Peter Maas wrote that Susan Rosenstiel, the sole source of the cross-dressing allegations, had "been trying to peddle this story for years," apparently because she believed Hoover had put FBI agents on her tail to help her husband during their divorce. According to Ronald Kessler, author of The Bureau: The Secret History of the FBI (2002), Ms. Rosenstiel did jail time for perjury in connection with a 1971 case.

In my view, relying on the word of someone who did jail time for lying under oath is irresponsible. Someone who had been convicted of fabricating the truth would not be someone upon whose credibility I would rely upon. Her allegation is the only documented allegation. Eastwood states that he took great pains to ensure that everything in the film was historically accurate. The reliance upon one mostly discredited source is directly contradictory to that claim. Eastwood should not, in my view, have included this scene in the film. It is a clear distortion and entirely unsupported by the historical record.

As for the music, again, you thought it was just great. I didn't. Eastwood's scores often work, but for this film, I think his score did not serve the film. That's my opinion. I'm entitled to it. You're entitled to yours.

You are a very passionate advocate for Eastwood and this film. I love Eastwood too, so I sympathize with your defense of this film, but in all honesty, I do find many of the things that you've stated to be quite condescending. Are you involved in the film industry? If so, you have some basis for expressing yourself in the way that you do. If not, you are merely making blatant assumptions about what a viewer should believe, or how things should be portrayed and interpreted on film. These are your views. You are entitled to them, but your tone makes it seem like your viewpoint is the only legitimate viewpoint, and that people who don't agree with your points are somehow misguided. That, in my view, is a very condescending tone. While I appreciate your passion, I would personally appreciate it if you were a little more respectful of other points of view in the future. Thanks so much. I'm happy you enjoyed the film as much as you did, and I thank you for the time and attention given to my post.

There's no need to qualify the indefensible; "miscast" definitely represented the wrong word because you also called his performance "excellent" and "great" and the definition of "miscast" is not a failure to be "the best choice for the role." Of course, that notion constitutes mere whimsy, anyway.

One could argue that Clint Eastwood wasn't the best choice for Harry Callahan, that Lee Marvin might have been better, but the suggestion is speculative and subjective and Eastwood proved excellent in the part. Even if one still believes that Marvin would have been even better, that person surely wouldn't suggest that Eastwood was "miscast" as Callahan.

Anyone under sixty or sixty-five would have been "too young" to portray the older Hoover, rendering the makeup necessary (and I found the cosmetics more than adequate). And how, exactly, was the thirty-six-year old DiCaprio "too young" to portray Hoover from ages twenty-four to forty? In many, DiCaprio’s age proved just right.

I disagree; see this photograph of a young Hoover.

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=j.+edgar+hoover+gay&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&qscrl=1&nord=1&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS378US378&biw=1024&bih=48 7&tbm=isch&tbnid=-cm3uJnvMy7lsM:&imgrefurl=http://www.gay-sd.com/advice-from-the-beyond-with-j-edgar-hoover/&docid=1r4IFiPOO1HHNM&imgurl=http://www.gay-sd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/hoover_tolson.jpg&w=400&h=433&ei=egjbTqjWMeaQiQLb-rXBCQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=344&sig=101081748469131123848&page=1&tbnh=147&tbnw=137&start=0&ndsp=11&ved= 1t:429,r:4,s:0&tx=93&ty=64

But regardless of one's perception, a movie is an interpretation, not an exact historical recreation or a court of law. You are analyzing this film like a court case, suggesting that DiCaprio fails to fit Hoover's profile and that a conviction thus cannot be obtained. Legal values and cinematic values are not the same.

Based on what? What is your evidence or your argument? There's a difference between an argument and an assertion, you know.

By the way, are you an acting coach, a voice coach, or a drama professor? What's the basis for your supposed technical expertise on matters of acting and voice?

Then I suppose that Eastwood should hire you as his casting director, right?

By the way, who of his generation is "in the same vein" as Philip Seymour Hoffman? And wouldn’t Hoffman carry too much weight to play the younger Hoover (yes, I suppose that he could diet, but I'm throwing that physical discrepancy out there)?

And DiCaprio proved so convincing to me that I never saw "Leonardo DiCaprio," just J. Edgar Hoover.

Are you the agent of some lesser actresses? Otherwise, this point of contention is beyond bizarre; what is the problem with Watts and Dench playing these roles? And even if other actresses could have played them convincingly, they may not have filled the roles as strongly as Watts and Dench.

Maybe Eastwood should have made the whole film in CGI, then.

For the record, I was not distracted by the makeup.

I wasn't alive during these events, either, but one can learn about what occurred before one's birth. Indeed, not being alive while something took place is hardly a reasonable excuse for not knowing about it or not attempting to learn about it when confronted by it. To suggest (even accidentally) that history is an irrelevance constitutes a severe sign of contemporary narcissism.

You're entitled to your whims, but the point is to review the film on its own basis, not relative to the movie that you would have made. Let's not be narcissistic here.

Also, since you were previously under the mistaken assumption that those historical events were not very important, I question whether your presumptive fallacy may have unduly influenced your evaluation of the scenes’ attractiveness.

... such as? Again, an assertion is not the same as an argument and perhaps Eastwood should hire you, instead of the Oscar-winning Dustin Lance Black, as his screenwriter (as well as his casting director and composer).

Well, good for you. I found the climactic scene in that sequence quite chilling and gripping.

Please cite these interviews. More importantly, as I already indicated, a first draft is not necessarily slapdash; perhaps you should read Remy de Gourmont's "The Disassociation of Ideas." A "first draft" isn't a sketch and instead it can constitute a finished product, full of preparation with pre-revision and without diminished integrity.

Then I wonder if you understand the difference between the terms "plausible" and "evidence." If you acknowledge that a gay relationship proved historically plausible, then why would the scene in question have been implausible? The fight between the two is something close to a historical fact and the fight certainly could have stemmed from sexual jealousy or romantic betrayal. Indeed, you're analyzing the film like a defense attorney rather than a rational reviewer.


Then you have chosen not to read or accept my earlier comments about the difference between a bio-pic and a documentary or you just cannot comprehend the difference.

But the speculation is not baseless. To the contrary, the idea that two men over the span of decades would constantly eat lunch and dinner together, attend functions together, travel together, and stay in hotel suites together and just be "friends" is implausible. We don't know if they ever sexually consummated their relationship, but clearly, something was at stake beyond a simple friendship between two heterosexual men. Use common sense, not some sort of "beyond a reasonable doubt" courtroom standard.

You do not know whether that scene constitutes "a clear distortion," one "entirely unsupported by the historical record." Rather, the record appears unclear and while the source in question may be questionable, even dubious, you have not proved that anyone has definitively disproved it. (By the way, when citing a source, you should be clear, using quotations and providing a link rather than just blending someone else's writing into your own.)

Indeed, presenting such an absolute argument against the movie's historical representations while relying on one Internet source plucked from a cursory Google search, or even multiple (likely regurgitated) sources pulled from a cursory Google search, renders you hypocritical. You censure Eastwood for relying on just one shaky source, but then you counter with one shaky source of your own. As I indicated earlier, are you a historian, scholar, or biographer of J. Edgar Hoover? Have you intensively and extensively examined a wide range of books and documents on the man? Have you spoken with anyone who knew him or who operated in Washington during his era? Are you a professional historian or a history professor? Do you imagine that you can understand something comprehensively and definitively via a Google search? You could have at least gone to your local library and checked out every available book on Hoover before pretending that you really know what happened. Perhaps you can apply for a federal grant and spend some time researching the matter before suggesting that you know exactly what did and didn't occur in his life, either with regards to the cross-dressing or the gay relationship.

And once again, you still are failing to recognize the point that a feature film based on history is not equivalent to a documentary. A feature film will indeed invent some scenes, dialogue, and characters and employ metaphor and symbolism to strike a deeper point. The cross-dressing scene, for instance, serves the purpose of showing how this supposedly macho icon, J. Edgar Hoover, identified so intensely with a woman, namely his mother, and may have even been effeminate in certain ways. Understood in that context, the point about whether he actually dressed as his mother, even in private, becomes much less important than the theme suggested by the scene.

Firstly, I never said that the film's score "was just great." Rather, I said that it played "very effectively," with my point being one of context and audio-visual complementation. In other words, I explained my point and made my case, whereas you labeled the score "very weak" and then rephrased your point a few more times. But you never explained your point or offered an argument in support of it, which leads me to believe that you were operating on a whimsical, narcissistic, and possibly fickle level. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to present an effete, insipid argument and yet receive immunity from scrutiny.

No disrespect occurred; I never called you any names. However, I did find the nature of your criticism flawed and defective; if you don't want an honest critique, then you shouldn't post your comments in the first place. Also, don’t act as if you represent anyone other than yourself.

No, I am not involved in the film industry and most people involved in the film industry do not actually write about films or assess them on a formal, intellectual level. However, I did minor in film as an undergraduate college student and I engaged in further course work in film study as a graduate student. Overall, I've taken at least seven film classes in American colleges and I've also worked for a newspaper and taught undergraduate students. None of those facts (which, of course, I cannot prove over the Internet) necessarily grant me a superior basis for anything, but I believe that my critiques are logical and worthwhile. Reviewing a movie based on your whims, desires, and preconceived standards, or acting as if you're a historical authority about J. Edgar Hoover based on one source on the Internet (of all places), or not recognizing the context at play, makes for faulty, trivial reviewing. And if you can't see the fatuous aspects to your approach even after I patiently pointed them out, then perhaps you are too egotistical and sensitive. You find fault with my tone while failing to recognize the inherent narcissism and arrogance of your original comments, your sense that the film proved problematic just because it failed to conform to your tastes, preconceived visions, and erratic sense of history. You should really be bothered by your reviewing process, not my willingness to expose its fallacious nature. Just because you say something doesn't mean that your statements are holy and cannot be questioned.

I might also suggest that you are being condescending by writing, "I would personally appreciate it if you were a little more respectful of other points of view in the future." I possess no problem with other points of view, but I do possess a problem with points of view that do not reflect sound reasoning, logic, objectivity, and fairness. I do possess a problem when someone finds fault with a movie because it wasn't the movie that he or she would have made or that he or she wanted to see, or when someone falsely purports to constitute a historical authority or an authority on acting, or when one evaluates a movie as if it amounted to a court case, or when one reviews elements of a film with little regard for context, or when one is manifestly unable to understand the difference between a bio-pic and a documentary. You proved guilty on all those counts and although I never attacked you personally, I'm not afraid to voice my objections. The issue isn't "other points of view," but reviewing a movie from a narcissistic, illogical, or ignorant perspective. I believe that that's what you did and that I've revealed why and how you did it. If you don't want your criticism interrogated, then you should let me know it advance. I guess that I should know my place as a peasant and not criticize the emperor (even if he's wearing no clothes), or that I'm the Robert Kennedy to your Lyndon Johnson circa 1967-1968, or that I'm the Brett Baier to your Mitt Romney.

I would also argue that you are being hypocritical and self-projecting by writing, “you are merely making blatant assumptions about what a viewer should believe, or how things should be portrayed and interpreted on film.” My problem is that you are using your visions and desires as the basis for reviewing a film, an extremely egotistical viewpoint. Do you really believe that that methodology is sound?

In short, I never disrespected you, but I did find major weaknesses to your critical approach. You can accept my thoughtful criticism and seek to improve and adjust, or you can act as if you are Andrew Sarris or Robin Wood or Roger Ebert or some other famous film critic who should be above reproach. I wrote that I thought that you would appreciate an honest perspective, but I suppose that I proved incorrect.

You are entitled to your opinions and I’m entitled to believe that, much like Colonel Kurtz, your methods are unsound. Conversely, you are free to discard my assessment, but you might learn from it and help yourself, too.

This movie was A Toast for me. A great film!
Verdict: I really thought long and hard about what I should score this film because it is not a perfect movie (Clint Eastwood wrote the score for the movie and made what is probably the cheesiest music possible for the sentimental scenes). I thought that it might be a two beer movie until I realized that this movie is about two and a half hours long and it did to me what most movies that long fail to do: it pulled me through and kept me engaged the entire time.

I was never bored and was fascinated by the characters and the story. The movie has the combination of a terrific cast, a skillful and emotional writer, and a seasoned and legendary director. For me, it did not disappoint, and the only beer I felt compelled to drink was the one to toast its success.

My head hurts.

__________________
"A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer" ~ Comedian Mitch Hedberg (1968-2005)

Ashdoc's review---

This movie shows the life story of J Edgar Hoover , the legendary director of the FBI---the man who built it into the formidable organisation that it is today .

It shows how little power it had in the beginning , and how Edgar built it step by step to fight the internal security threats to the land of the free---America , what else.....

And even in 1919 , before the era of the cold war has begun , the threat that Edgar perceives to the American way is that of communism.....
For the bolshevics have taken power in Russia and are hellbent on spreading communism everywhere......
From giving radical speeches to bombblasting people , they are trying to foment revolution across the world.....

It is upto people like Edgar to protect the Americans from this danger.....
And protect them he does , by taking risks to his career as he has to bend the official rules many a time .

.......And as the great depression of 1929 strikes , Edgar moves onto facing the next danger , that of rising criminality among the population which has turned to crime as they have lost their jobs due to the collapsing economy .
What makes his job even more difficult is the fact that unlike the contempt they have for communism , common people regard the gangsters as heroes in the depressed economic times . But Edgar triumphs over the gangsters too , catching many and teaching many a lesson they will never forget.....

And as always , he bends the rules to do so.....
Which prompts some Presidents to think of removing him.....

No problem for our intrepid hero......
He uses the FBI to keep tabs on their personal lives , and if threatened with removal , he subtly threatens to expose the personal lives of the high and mighty , like President Roosevelt's wife's affairs or President Kennedy's romp in the bed with an East German communist woman......

So presidents come and go , but J Edgar Hoover is a constant , a permanent factor in the security system of the world's most powerful democracy......

And he keeps his image in the mind of the American public as a larger than life hero , by creating photo-ops and planting fictitious stories in the press about how he caught such and such criminal or how he personally fought and arrested such and such lawbreaker......

All this is fine , but there is a major flaw in the film.....
And the flaw is that the movie concentrates too much on Edgar's personal life.....

But what is so fascinating about his personal life that the movie has to change gear ??
It is the fact that the final protector of western democracy from the scourge of communism , the pillar of America's much vaunted security apparatus , his homoness....err.....his highness J Edgar Hoover is....is gay !!

And the movie spends way too much of its time in showing Edgar's lack of interest in women and his affair with his aide Mr Tolson .
And this ruins the movie as the parts showing all this move very slowly and reduce it to a personal story rather than how Edgar was in the thick of fighting America's enemies .

Also way too much time is spent in showing the kidnapping of the baby of American hero Charles Lindbergh and its investigation and aftermath .

In the end Edgar dies in office during the presidency of Richard Nixon .
But as Nixon's agents move to scour Edgar's office to find out what secrets he has kept from them , they find it empty......
All his secret files have been destroyed by his faithful secretary Miss Grandy---the old ********** ( as Nixon calls him ) has outwitted the president one last time.....

And the director of the film ( Clint Eastwood !! He should have stuck to western movies , really ) has outwitted me too---out of my money.....
......For frankly , I didn't like the film at all....

Verdict---not good .