Review of J. Edgar

J. Edgar (2011)
6/10
The Crown Weighs Heavy on This One
27 November 2011
Every director certainly has a style and while some may try to shake things up every now and again, keep people on their toes, others stay the course and deliver time and time again what you have come to expect from them. That's not always a bad thing, especially when you have serious accolades and awards already under your belt, but it can also set up a certain type of expectation about the quality and depth of each story you bring to the screen, which sometimes can be a lot to overcome. The truth is there is no end to the sophomore curse. Your last fantastic picture is always quickly overshadowed by your current less than stellar outing. Clint Eastwood is the man under the spotlight right now and what he brings to the table is another tale of power, passion and persecution, all inside one continuously conflicted person.

J. Edgar is one theory of the story behind the story, the man behind the machine that created the F.B.I. and reportedly had the skeletons of scores of American citizens, including the presidents he served under. The film follows his rise to power, his curious relationship with his number two man, and his own seemingly unquenchable need to be feared and revered, leaving a legacy that could never be tarnished.

J. Edgar offers a scenario of what might have went on behind closed doors between Hoover and Tolsen, his number two man, and what motivated Hoover to push himself as hard as he did. Much of it is based on circumstance and conjecture though, so it'd be best to view this film as an imaginative or (at best) a mildly educated guess about the truth behind the most feared man in decades.

Eastwood delivers yet again another deep, layered and complex narrative about a troubled protagonist, someone who you are never really sure whether you want to root for. The film is extremely slow paced and at times drags in its repetition, showing Hoover in one situation after another where his power is called into question. Jumping back and forth between his later life and his early years was a nice touch in the beginning, but by the end, it felt disjointed, like you were being dragged back into the past or thrust into the future just at the moment when things were getting good right where you were. I might have thought about just using the older version of Hoover as bookends to the story and play it out more along a traditional timeline, but who knows, that very well could have dragged as well.

The performances are always the most important part of these types of biopics. You need to be able to lose sight of the actor, usually someone incredibly well known, and truly see the person he is trying to represent. Look at Frank Langella as Nixon in Frost/Nixon, Will Smith as Muhammad Ali in Ali, even our man here, Leonardo DiCaprio as Howard Hughes in The Aviator, these are invested performances that elevate the movie beyond just a mere educational stroll in the cinematic park. Yet, DiCaprio falters this time in capturing his past fervor, not for lack of trying, just due to a lack of foundation underneath the moments. Naomi Watts also struggles to really find footing as the dutiful secretary, Helen Gandy. The true breakout here is Armie Hammer as Tolson, who brings a magical assured quality to his early life and a beautiful gentleness in his senior years. Hammer truly burst onto the scene last year in his dual performance as the Winklevoss twins in The Social Network, but in J. Edgar he shows he can handle much more than just overconfidence. Tolson is really the moral compass of the film and the only avenue for the audience to navigate their way in, but even with such a virtuoso performance from Hammer, it wasn't enough to pull the whole film together in the end.

Eastwood's decision to use younger actors in dramatically older roles also may not have worked to the film's advantage. I understand it allows a connection, both physical and emotional, between the two versions of the character on screen, but sometimes it can also feel jarring. While we have come light years ahead in the technology of makeup, truly transforming these early birds into aged senior citizens, the one thing that remains is the sound and tenor of their voice. There is something so unique and distinct about a voice that has been speaking for seventy or eighty years, something that is nearly impossible for these youthful actors to capture. Once again, Hammer seemed to outshine DiCaprio in this arena as well, but I still feel it might have been more powerful to have actual older actors in those roles.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed