by Brian Kesler
J. Edgar Hoover is one of the most controversial men in American history, and for good reason. As head of the FBI, he secretly taped conversations and love affairs of Presidents, first ladies, senators, and so on. He never released this information, but held it in his "secret files," hinting at a shrewd kind of voyeurism. He claimed responsibility for the arrests of countless mobsters in the 20s and 30s, even though all were carried out by other agents. He deported Emma Goldman and several other revolutionaries from the early 20th century, even though they were United States citizens, and (although not explored in the film) played a big role in McCarthyism of the 1950s. Amidst all this, his personal life was plagued with rumors that he was a cross dresser and a homosexual.
This movie assumes that the second rumor is true. Historically, J. Edgar and fellow FBI agent, Clyde Tolson, worked very closely, ate lunch and dinner together nearly every day for 40 years, went to nightclubs together, held hands, and vacationed with one another in shared rooms. Neither married or had children. Tolson received Hoover's estate, accepted the flag from his casket, and was buried next to him. It's safe to assume they were lovers or, as this movie suggests, celibate life partners who were clearly in love but forced to hide it from the world.
Surprisingly, it's the personal story of a man failing to denounce his own homosexuality that keeps the film interesting. The historical aspects of his career are treated so textbook and with no structure. The film moves back and forth between Hoover in the 30s and Hoover in the 60s, but does so inconsistently. 'The Godfather: Part II' is a much better film that takes place in two polarized decades. There is a scene-by-scene correlation in that film that helps us accept jumping back and forth between the two. I would've liked this film to play chronologically with, maybe, brief flashbacks of Hoover's relationship with his mother.
That's another interesting aspect of the film. Judi Dench plays Hoover's mother with as much greatness as ever. When a stuttering Hoover attempts to tell her of his homosexuality, she stops him before he gets a chance and tells him, "I'd rather have a dead son than a daffodil for a son." He worships her. Lives with her for the majority of his life. She is disappointed when he fails to find the kidnapped son of Charles Lindbergh until it is too late, saying, "That baby's blood is on your hands." She hates communists and immorality and keeps a tight grip on her son who, as she says, will "restore our family to greatness."
There are some other delightful performances, including a violent sexual release between Tolson and Hoover (played by Armie Hammer and Leonardo DiCaprio, respectively), that are unfortunately drenched in clunky dialogue. Tolson, upset at Hoover's reproach from his love, throws a glass against a wall, shattering it. Hoover says, "Pick up that glass." Tolson says, "I've no reason to." This too-formal dialogue is very prevalent, especially in the horrific voice-over narration from DiCaprio that is neither genuine nor poetic. One wonders what happened between Dustin Lance Black's Academy Award-winning screenplay of 'Milk' and this sloppy script of incomprehensible dialogue.
Clint Eastwood's direction is consistent with his direction in the past. Stark, without much style, subtle, and observant. Eastwood doesn't take sides here. Hoover is neither glorified nor vilified. We simply observe his life and some fictional assumptions. His self-penned score sounds the same as his score from 'Hereafter' and 'Changeling,' light and touching without being sympathetic or sentimental. His inability to take sides dulls Hoover's character and makes him seem less a man and more a picture from a history book.
I've one more complaint, though not about the film itself. Usually, I don't pay any bit of attention to MPAA Ratings, as they are a baseless resource of the content and context of a film. We don't put ratings on books or literature, so why do we subject film to this inconsistent form of discrimination? Anyone under the age of 17 is restricted to seeing this film because of "brief strong language," which includes one (1) usage of the word 'fuck.' That is it. For that reason this film is rated 'R,' even though countless PG-13 action films use that word at least once and go on to use many other profanities. No, the real reason this film is rated 'R,' though not stated for PC reasons, is because of the homosexual content, which includes one (1) genuine and serious kiss between two men. This is a clear indication of homophobia from the MPAA. This film, though not great, has more to say on life and humanity, and is a better influence for teenagers than the crude and braincell-killing PG film, 'Jack and Jill.'
No comments:
Post a Comment