J. Edgar could have been a better film especially as it is speaking of the history of security in the United States of America through the eyes of John Edgar Hoover, the 48 year director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I). The film starts promisingly as Mr. Hoover tries to explain the formation of the Bureau from the year 1919 and its progression through to the year of Nixon’s ascendancy to the presidential post in the early 70’s. It falters however for it seems to stop midway, by focusing on the kidnapping and murder case of Charles Lindbergh’s daughter, and then switches to an older Mr. Hoover who is caught up in his isolation due to the machinations of power and his homo erotic relationship with his male partner associate director Clyde Tolson. It should have stuck to the issue of crime and security and then Mr. Hoover would have seemed to be more of the enigmatic and influential individual that he was for that 48 year period as head of the F.B.I. By the end however they make Hoover seem wiser than he really was in his prediction of the future insecurity of America. This is done by having Hoover make prescient statements that many Americans or those culturally aligned would be able to identify with. I am sure Hoover did not make these statements but it is done in an effort to make him seem relevant. The film is not very objective or does not strive to be especially as it has Hoover narrating his own history to several clerks or interns that transcribe his words on the type writer. The film lost its way by focusing increasingly on Hoover’s approach to crime and avoided highlighting the approach of the criminals to his organization such as the mafia etc. The impression you get is that Hoover strengthened the F.B.I by being involved in the famous Lindbergh case and allowing federal jurisdiction over all kidnapping cases however it does not emphasize how the criminals responded to this new development and how it forced Hoover to adjust. One would expect that the criminals would have to adopt new techniques when breaking the law especially as local law enforcement, limited to the state, was always more than insufficient in tackling subversive elements in the state.
The film does feature a strong performance from Leonardo Dicaprio as Hoover however he will not win the Oscar (probably get a nomination) for this or he should not because his performance does not blend sufficiently with the film. The focus on Hoover by the screenwriter (who scripted Milk) and all the personal elements, such as his domineering mother and his so called lover associate director Clyde Tolson, in his life does not allow for an appreciation of what made this man truly famous. One would get the impression that Hoover was a sort of mysterious godfather to certain political and social elements however this fascination is not created for the viewer. You are therefore able to see Leonardo Dicaprio under the makeup because you are not seeing him immersed in the environment. A proper context should have been created so as to make Hoover loom over that landscape despite being attached i.e. he would standout based on his abilities as head of the bureau and the mystery of his personal life.
The film could also done well with some diffusion that is making other characters give their views about the character or having someone opposed to him such as the criminal network especially with regards to his hold on power and the increasing shallowness of his vision.
The verdict is still out as to Hoover’s sexuality and his cross dressing craze. In this film it is clear that he was a homosexual although those claims have not been substantiated. This is where the screenplay misfired for instead of creating the mystery around his apparent homosexual relationship with Clyde Tolson and his apparent cross dressing there could have been an air of mystery created which would add to the legend while still leaving clues that he could have or could not have been. The screenplay capitulates and indulges in these rumours without suggesting otherwise. In this film it is claimed that he is a homosexual and that he was a cross dresser. This film loses credibility because of this. Why would they get the man who scripted Milk to do this film? In this film everyone is a homosexual even J.F.K. (where did the film come up with this information especially as most of Hoover’s secret files were never found) This film is too libertine in its approach and not even Clint Eastwood could save it.
What’s good about this film?
The performance of Leonardo Dicaprio as Hoover is the best element in this film. Dicaprio plays him with his usual verve and with the aid of make up so that he can portray an older Hoover. As an older Hoover he is less convincing because it becomes too clear that he is wearing makeup and the fact that we never a get a sense of the passage of time from the young Hoover to the Older Hoover that narrates the events. There is a missing link here and so we are not immersed as we should be in Dicaprio’s performance especially the older version. He may get nominated for the Oscar but he will never win because of these flaws. We are not even sure if he is actually portraying Hoover as he really was since there is no historical footage in the film to support Dicaprio’s claim, as an actor. The supporting cast does fairly well particularly Naomi Watts as Hoover’s permanent secretary, Armie Hammer as Clyde Tolson and Judi Dench as Hoover’s mother. His performance is unduly influenced by some moments of caricature and this only serves to undermine his portrayal of Hoover. The scene with the lovers’ quarrel is one such scene between Hoover and Tolson is one such example.
The other more important element is crime fighting for which Hoover is known for. Hoover interested me since he was the one responsible for gathering evidence against Marcus Garvey on a charge of mail fraud for which he was deported back to Jamaica. The sources in this film speak about him gathering information on Martin Luther King Junior as a so called subversive element but the precedent was set when he investigated Marcus Garvey. Garvey might not have been mentioned but his defeat by the authorities was instrumental for people such as Hoover and his ascendancy in the ranks of the Bureau of Investigation. Garvey’s deportation is mirrored in this film because Hoover is responsible for the deportation of several key individuals accused of being communist rebels some who are even United States citizens. It was a cost Hoover was prepared as he acted on behalf of his superiors. The suppression of the so called communist element sees Hoover climb up the ranks until he is appointed director by the Attorney General. It was good to see the initiatives introduced by Hoover in making police crime investigations more effective through scientific methods such as the development of a forensic lab and the creation of a finger print database. His dealing with Lindbergh case is also well done as it shows how Hoover was able to make the Bureau of Investigation become a federal institution as a result of the public outcry over the kidnapping.
There are other notable elements that are historically accurate regarding Hoover’s reputation. Hoover was not responsible for the actual arrest of the notorious criminals brought down by the F.B.I. He was jealous of other agents who took the spotlight as a result. His relationship with Clyde Tolson is mentioned although it is given too much weight and then becomes excessive. The truthful elements are mentioned however such as the two men attending the horse race circuit, the nightclubs and going on vacations together. Whatever else is mentioned in the film is false or cannot be proven. This could have added to some mystery about the character. His relationship with his permanent secretary Helen Gandy is developed however questions as to whether he asked her to marry him after a few dates is suspect and this seems to be a common element in the film: misrepresentation. Hoover clearly did create a lot of files on prominent public figures and used this as a tool for bribery and so forth. There is an astonishing claim made in this film that J.F.K was a sodomite caught having sex with a German communist. I never heard of that before although it has been suggested in the film J.F.K (1991). The only issue that I had was the issue of Hoover’s files not being found after his death. This suggests that most of the claims made in the film are conspiracy based and nothing more. It may or may not be true.
What’s bad about this film?
There are a lot of bad things about this film particularly the screenplay which is very excessive in its portrayal of Hoover. I will not dwell long on this issue however his portrayal as an homosexual robbed the film of any sort of mystery considering that the verdict is still out as to whether he was or not. The script could have included elements where it could be suggested that Hoover was a homosexual and elements that would suggest otherwise. Instead they have Hoover and Tolson engage in a cat fight that seems pathetic. There should have been some level of tension generated between the two which would give the performance some depth. These instances of subtlety are missing and so Dicaprio’s performance comes off as a caricature in some parts. There is also no proof for the use of the tapes as a means of bribery since this is all based on conspiracy and that most of his files were never found. It can only be assumed so instead of having Hoover state outright that he caught J.F.K having sex with a German communist it could be implied in some scenes where Hoover would enter the office of the attorney general who happens to be the brother of J.F.K and the nature of what is said remains a mystery. They did this when he goes in to see Nixon but when he goes in to see Franklin Roosevelt he comes out saying that he frightened him with tapes about his wife’s purported lesbian liaisons. When it comes to homosexuality this film holds nothing back and everything is laid on the table with no hint of subtlety especially as the files were never found. This is the same with Martin Luther King jr. who is accused of attempting to organize a sex party. Most of his tapes seem to be focused on who was a sodomite since homosexuality was a taboo subject during this period. This is why Hoover should have been challenged about his sexual orientation and have him debate whether he is or not or what he saw himself as etc. He is only forced to address these issues when he has a cat fight with Tolson. The views of other characters should have been taken into account so as to give the issue some perspective which would include what others thought of the issue. It would be more balanced and add a sense of mystery to the issue. The film is so plain that gives in to the rumour that Hoover was a cross dresser simply because he missed his departed mother. After his mother’s death he puts on her clothes which is probably in homage to Psycho (1960). As this was not proved it could have been implied so instead of having him put it on you could simply have him press the dress against himself such as one who wants to see if a certain pair of clothing will fit without trying it on. Have someone come and see him with the dress pressed against him, but not really sure of what they are seeing since this is the mighty Hoover. It could implied in such a fashion instead of having him literally dress up as a female.
The focus on the homosexual elements takes away from the focus on actual crime fighting and the F. B. I as an institution. After the Lindbergh case there is no more insight into the procedures adopted by the F.B. I when tackling crime. There is mention of the mafia but there is no insight as to how the F.B. I tackled them. It is only assumed that the mafia is defeated and as a result when they jump from the Lindbergh case to Hoover as an old man there is a sense that some intermediate link is missing and so the back and forth pacing does not add anything new to the Hoover story with regards to crime fighting. I would have liked to see how he tackled the mafia or how he became increasingly removed from crime fighting duties and became obsessed with power. There is no sense of his upbringing that would reflect on his attitudes towards certain things such as the communist element. The issue with regards to Hoover’s accumulation of power is not sufficiently addressed although it is mentioned when one of the clerks, narrating his account of past events, asks when the institution is no longer defined by the man. Hoover response is that the man makes the institution and then the institution makes the man (something like that). This should have been developed some more however it is a missed opportunity because it is here other views could have been taken into account such as J.F.K who considered dismissing Hoover or anyone else that could have spoken more about the nature of power. It could be in the form of an omniscient narrator but one should give a proper perspective to Hoover’s aspirations. This is why Hoover narrating his own history seems suspect. There is nothing wrong with him narrating his own history however there needs to be a balance in the form of another perspective: it could be in the form of a criminal network headed by the mafia or in some one that challenges his perspective which would make us realize how full of himself he was. While he is narrating the omniscient narrator could have said Hoover was obsessed with leaving behind a noteworthy legacy which is why he would exaggerate his memories. It is implied here but not fully developed. The film also tries to add to Hoover’s legacy by having him make prescient statements such as the need that America must defend itself from internal and external threats. I am sure Hoover never said it in such a fashion. It is said in such a way that he could predict that Americans would become too lax in their defenses thereby exposing themselves to the enemy. He also makes some of these prophetic statements concerning individuals such as Nixon.
This film could have been so much better.
No comments:
Post a Comment