The Failed Story of America's Most Controversial Man
I was very excited to watch the movie "J." Edgar was not filmed by anyone, but by Clint Eastwood himself! And the main role is not anyone, but Leonardo DiCaprio himself. And the film is dedicated to one of the most controversial people in history – the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, John Edgar Hoover.
The man who on the one hand saved the United States from gangsters and anarchists; reduced the number of crimes during the Great Depression; created a crime investigation bureau from scratch. On the other hand, he turned the United States into a police state, because in fighting crime, he did not shy away from such methods as wiretapping, collecting dirt, often unfair arrests, discrimination against citizens with wrong political views. And at the end of his life, he collected so much dirt on American politicians that the whole White House feared him.
Personally, Hoover always reminded me of the American version of Stalin (although he himself would be offended by such a comparison), because they were both ready to achieve good goals, all sorts of cruel methods, which they both justified by the tranquility of their native country and did not pursue money (and also because they both gratified their thirst for power).
In short, the film about this man was supposed to be a real political thriller. In fact, the film is not a nightmare, but rather weak.
Of the advantages, it is worth noting, as always, the chic game of DiCaprio, because even in the image of the all-powerful Hoover, it also looks great in terms of character and appearance. The first half of the film is very interesting and intense.
Minuses:
1) Almost 95% of the film is shot either in dusk or in the dark. At first, I welcomed the decision because Eastwood was clearly filming noir, and in the context of the Hoover biopic, that's acceptable. But I think Eastwood overreacted. Because by about the 20th minute, it was already infuriating when the FBI stormed the anarchist warehouse and they were in total darkness, so you couldn't see anything. Or when Hoover comes into a restaurant and the whole building is in pitch black, even though it's a restaurant. There's actually a scene where Hoover is in the Bureau building talking to his subordinates and they're standing in the light, and Hoover is in the dark, so you can't see his face. Even when the action takes place in the apartment or in the office, it is still in the dark. It seems that on the set, the electricity was turned off for non-payment and had to be removed by the light of flashlights from phones.
2 Bad makeup. I mean the old Hoover. Yeah, I said DiCaprio was good in his image, but when he's old, why does he have such bad makeup? Not only does the old DiCaprio not look like the old Hoover, so the makeup is put on so you only see DiCaprio with a swollen face who looks more like Arnim Zola from The Avengers.
3 The first half of the film is interesting. An elderly Hoover dictates his memories to a young agent and the whole film is his memories of life and work. It's not bad, but in the middle of the film, the memoir ends and we just show the life of young Hoover and the life of old Hoover at the same time. This has already caused a misunderstanding – are we watching a film about Hoover in old age, who remembers his life or a film about a young Hoover, who for some reason is diluted with flash forwards? You don’t really understand the other half.
4 The most important. Why is the biography of Hoover depicted so poor and poor? The first half, yes, very interestingly shown how he creates the FBI, hunts anarchists, expels Emma Goldman. Then they show him investigating the disappearance of Charles Lindbergh's son. Okay, that's interesting, too, and warm-up before his other business. But the movie is in the middle, and Hoover is still looking for Lindbergh’s son’s kidnapper. And then he's old, and it's just mentioned that he also caught gangsters.
It's kind of miserable. Why, of all Hoover's cases, only the Lindbergh Jr. kidnapping is filmed in detail? And in passing, Goldman's deportation and the pressure on Martin Luther King. Hoover had a lot more work to do:
- Why is his hunt for gangsters not shown at all (he only shows movies and arrests some second-rate)? That through Hoover's efforts, the FBI eliminated John Dillinger, Nelson's baby, Bonnie and Clyde, put Al Capone in jail. If anyone thinks that it was easy to do and therefore does not need a film adaptation, watch "The Untouchables", "The Chase of Bonnie and Clyde", "Johnny D."
- It is not mentioned that in 1942. The FBI detained German saboteurs who tried to enter the United States through Florida and New York.
- There is absolutely no coverage of the era of McCarthyism and the witch hunt in the United States, after World War II. When, with Hoover’s help, trade unions were closed under the pretext of fighting the Communists; all those who did not sympathize with the left ideas, but only those who were suspected of it, were arrested, lost their jobs and deported. Under suspicion fell Charlie Chaplin (and Hoover personally obtained a ban on him to visit the United States), Dalton Trumbo (disqualified from work), Albert Einstein, Orson Welles, Paul Robson, Bernard Shaw, etc.
- Not without the participation of Hoover, the physicist spouses Rosenberg were executed for espionage for the USSR.
- It is not mentioned that Hoover offered Truman during the Korean War to arrest 12,000 people whom he suspected of disloyalty to the United States.
- It is not mentioned that Hoover fought against “rock and roll”, considering it a threat to young people because of which he tried to arrest journalist Alan Fried, spied on Elvis Presley and tried to prevent the Beatles from coming to America.
- The pressing of King is mentioned, but for some reason it is not mentioned that the FBI pressured an even greater radical – Malcolm X.
- And also confused the dialogue with the agent, about the assassination of Kennedy:
A. The President was shot, he was taken to the hospital, he died.
G. Who knows about this?
Ah. Nobody. I was the first to tell you before the press.
What do you mean, nobody?! Kennedy was killed in front of a huge crowd and dozens of journalists, and died almost instantly. How can anyone not know about this?
What's the movie about? Mostly about Hoover's relationship with his lover Clyde Tolson. That’s great, but it seemed to me that Hoover had gone down in history.
Conclusion: I can’t call it a bad movie, it’s not bad in some places. But I am disappointed that the film does not cover the really interesting biography of this controversial man. One thing, and the rest is homo-relationship. It feels like the film was made for an Oscar and it’s ironic that it’s been completely ignored.
Clint Eastwood extracted from the biography the most important aspects. Two storylines capture an aspiring clerk in the Ministry of Justice, who dreams of change, offers revolutionary solutions. The second line opens to the viewer an experienced warrior. Respected, rude, serious John Edgar Hoover, who sends stories about his rise. Two storylines, constant flashbacks and flash forwards, one beautiful DiCaprio. Time jumps immediately came to mind "Dunkirk" Christopher Nolan.
The picture touches on the main historical problems in the United States. Post-Cold War crime, fighting communists, conspiracies and child abduction. Slowly but surely, the main character conveys his ideas to the leadership, puts the debt to the country first and proposes to create a file with data from the whole country - complete information about citizens, with fingerprints. Eastwood evenly distributes the enthusiasm of the young Hoover and the grumpy old man. Even the transition in one episode from the real scenes to the past is perfect, but like the young, energetic Hoover in flashbacks, so is the plot of the past. The present time is slow and calculating.
The film is full of fighting for the right cause. Internal conflicts and political strife always put a stick in the wheel. Interest in the tape awaken the inability of the unit to act independently. The laws of America do not extend the powers of all states to some federal bureau of investigation. In this vein, namely in flashbacks, lies the beauty of the biographical epic. Small shootouts, bomb blasts, child abductions – what more must happen for the government to give special powers to Edgar Hoover’s team?
Constant skirmishes for a place "in the sun", attracting scientific and technical specialists, only to enter the investigation in their own way. It is a purposeful, patient organization that slowly but surely achieves its goal.
Early on, the director shows Hoover both the good and the bad. It seems that all actions are aimed at the common good. Just like Gellert Grindelwald, but the methods of achieving results are dirty and sometimes illegal, leading to blackmail and compromising on the powerful. Parallel to external investigations, the film reveals Hoover’s relationship with his loyal friend and colleague Clyde Tolson performed by the Unbanned Armie Hammer. From a simple assistant to a close friend. Thanks to constant time jumps in the biography, you can see how friendship began and what it led to. In addition, it is worth noting the beautiful makeup of Leonardo DiCaprio and Armie Hammer - the elderly Edgar and Clyde looked impressive.
From speeches at political councils to personal conduct of business: this story first elevates Edgar, and then boldly throws him into the abyss of lies, blackmail, threats. Communism is over, but more dangerous things lie ahead. The Great Depression, the re-election of Richard Nixon, the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The picture in its style is very gloomy, in addition, dark tones seem to say that nothing positive is planned.
Shifts from the past are now accompanied by close communication between Hoover and Clyde, which translates into spectacular drama and an amazing acting duet on the screen. Of course, all aspects of the life of John Edgar Hoover will not be covered in the biopic, but the key details contained in the two plot lines still showed the audience what this man is like. Manipulation and reaction. Impeccable awareness of Kennedy's "dirty" affairs and a gaze on Martin Luther King. And it all began with the creation of a file library in the bureau, similar to the library, in order to have dossiers on all in the future.
The picture is not for all viewers. Beyond American history, the film slowly and stubbornly develops two storylines. But this is the creation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, this is what all American blockbusters are so used to emphasizing that the Russian layman seems like the bureau for the sake of a tick. It wasn't here!
If this film had originally been declared as some “fantasy” & #39; about what Hoover’s personal life really could have been, then while remaining as sluggish and boring, this film at least looked more honest in the eyes of the audience.
I liked 'Harvey Milk', a well-made political gay drama for which Black won his Oscar, but in this case, the opportunity to see in the cinema a really striking biography of the all-powerful Hoover, actually turned out to be a banal ostentatious to spin in a movie quasi-love drama about a heavy gay lot.
No, there were really heavy rumors about Edgar’s unconventional orientation and this is still a researched American urban legend, but with the same logic you could promise a biopic about Byron, which actually turned out to be an incestuous drama that ignored the poet’s rich life.
The film focuses so heavily on this element that virtually all we get from the FBI's father's real life is his cartoonish hatred of communists and cursory authoritarianism. Conspiracy theories about his involvement in the Kennedy assassination, McCarthyism, more than a scandalous fight against opposition movements, all this is at best awarded a brief mention in 1-2 sentences.
The authors had a biography of one of the most iconic and scandalously famous American politicians, but all this, I repeat, was simplified to a small background of author’s speculations about Hoover’s personal life. The only things that were satisfied with any attention were gangsters (because it needed a lure in the form of an intriguing first act), threats to Robert Kennedy (Kennedy is always hype), and bisexual infidelities of Roosevelt’s wife, which received special attention in the film only to place accents on the already mentioned gay line between Hoover and his assistant.
And as I already 'transparent' hinted in the introduction, the film is not even interesting as a gay drama. The homoeroticism of the protagonist’s relationship is absolutely not subtle, but since a more detailed study and the boldness of speculation would obviously scare the public away, this is not even a romantic line. Just two-thirds of the film, two men seem embarrassed to admit to each other that they are ' more than friends' and in the third part we get only a few short ' not very thin' scenes for a couple of minutes.
This is even a biopic is difficult to call, a short article in Russian Wikipedia and even more informative.
Having mastered the directorial filmography of Clint Eastwood, I never thought that I would encounter a film so ideologically biased that I would not be able to watch it – it turned out to be J. Edgar, a film about Hoover. I expected to see something like Nixon or Bush Stone (a picture of fairly objective political leaders) or at least something reminiscent of The Power with Christian Bale, but not what it turned out to be – a chamber-room drama about the opposition of tough strongmen to the communist threat. Even in American Sniper, Eastwood’s right-wing views didn’t cut their eyes as much as in J. Edgar.
Not saving the situation, even as always excellent game DiCaprio, who two years before the “Wolf of Wall Street”, creates the image of an unscrupulous villain, but at the same time charming, muscular and sexy. The interpretation of the image of Hoover, which was undertaken by the creators of the picture, is distinguished by contradiction and apparent versatility: this is latent homosexuality sublimated on a giant scale of work (more than a controversial statement), this is valor in the fight against communism, which threatens to “destroy” the United States, this is undoubted patriotism, and toughness in the treatment of people.
It is not surprising that Hollywood figures, more gravitated in their views to the Democratic Party of the United States than to the Republican Party (leftists like Michael Moore and Oliver Stone - not counting), took into bayonets such an interpretation of the image of Hoover as a complex, but generally good guy. For some time Eastwood’s traditionalism and conservatism failed here, for it was no longer based on the bizarre combination of Nietzscheanism and humanism, but on the pure, undisturbed use of the ideas of the author of Zarathustra. Nietzsche, as you know, divided people into extraordinary and herd, it is the latter that appears in J. “Edgar” the American people, following the lead of any ideologues, like a blind beast, which Hoover leads to the “light of democracy.”
Of course, readers can tell you how you can judge a movie without watching it all the way to the end, but only half of it. But I venture to assume that the second part of the more than two-hour picture is no different from the first, it also unfolds in offices, filing cabinets, houses and tries to bring to light God’s undercover game of the head of the FBI. Often, when viewing “J. Edgar” one gets the impression that the tape was created with the funding of the FBI itself, so valiant, although tough, its employees. It is important that there is no personal life, family context in the film, the characters are entirely in the work, and the director likes such workaholism (although we recall the diametrically opposite placement of accents in his recent “Drug Courier”), so the viewer has nothing to cling to, in the heroes of “J. K. K. K.”. There is nothing human, only superhuman.
In short, even in the career of a master of fascinatingly crafted existential dramas like Eastwood, there are palpable miscalculations and outright failures. It just seemed to me that they were concentrated in the first twenty years of his work (all these propaganda “Fire Foxes” and “Broken Heart Passages”), however, sympathy often catches your eyes and interferes with objective analysis. One should be careful, expecting directorial failures even at the late, seemingly wise Eastwood.
The film is about the head of the FBI, who opened his famous bureau, the story of one of the most influential and controversial people in the United States - John Edgar Hoover. This biographical adaptation of the life of this man is shot by the respected director and actor Clyne Eastwood, well, most importantly, that Leonardo DiCaprio plays the main role here, so the film attracts attention around the world.
Hoover is a powerful and controversial personality, and that’s exactly how the film turned out—controversial and as controversial as the main character himself. That's the paradox and the coincidence. I liked something in this picture, but not at all. I will try to explain it.
We see the story of the life of the head of the FBI, J. Hoover: his career began to the very end. We see how he lived his work, and the work of his life was everything for this curious and extraordinary man. We see a loud investigation and the most piquant nuances of his life. A dizzying career and the bright and dark affairs of Hoover. As well as his warm and deep relationship with Clyde Tolson, the only one Hoover trusted in this life besides his mother. . .
39: Love is the greatest force on earth. And it is stronger than hatred or unnatural alienation.' (c) Hoover.
Of course, he was prominent in American history. Hoover headed the bureau for half a century, and in his lifetime he had both those who respected him and those who hated him. He was out of reach as long as he was alive for presidents who came and went, and Hoover was all on duty. The story of his life is interesting and exceptional, therefore, interest in the film.
Eastwood is good, but this film is not a masterpiece or a failure, so I say that the picture is controversial. I like DiCaprio's game, it's a separate conversation. Leo played immaculately well, and the scenes with his partner here, Armie Hammer, are the deepest and strongest. Here, DiCaprio played particularly posh.
As for Hammer, the future star 'Call Me by Your Name' played Tolson also well, and the choice of this actor was successful. As a mother, it was nice to see the regular Judy Dench. I also liked the depth of the story and the ambition of the director here.
Let’s talk about what I didn’t like. The makeup was ridiculous. That's what spoils this movie. I have no idea why this was released, and did no one notice the obvious: the makeup was poor. DiCaprio and Armie Hammer made up in old age disgustingly. There was no sense of reality, there was falsehood.
I also didn’t like the grayness and dampness of the film. Everything was done too in a dark atmosphere, dull tones. This style was used by Cleen Eastwood in ' Substitution' but it was all a success. Not here. It also repels the viewer when watching. There is not a single ray of the sun natural in the film: everything is too dull.
I didn't like Naomi Watts' game. Nothing she singled out her heroine, and everything was ordinary. It seems that if this role was played by another actress, no one would notice the difference.
The story of an American statesman who served as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is certainly worth appreciating, but the film itself could have been better, especially since such famous and talented people worked on it.
'J. Edgar' is a 2011 American biographical drama. The result is an ambiguous movie that I personally feel neutral about. Of course, the story is deep, so personal and with its secrets, secrets, but something else I wanted from directing. Therefore, the rating is neither 'da' nor 'net' but somewhere in between.
39 When morality is low and the good guys stand aside, evil flourishes. A society that does not want to learn from the examples of the past is doomed. We must not forget history, we must not lower expectations. – John Edgar Hoover
A biographical film about the man who literally created the Federal Bureau of Investigation and headed it for almost half a century. The story of how, under the auspices of the interests of national security and the protection of the nation, almost unlimited influence and powers were achieved, attorneys general and presidents changed, and Hoover remained at the helm, keeping them on a short leash. About a man whose attempt to resolve internal contradictions and prove to himself that he is not who he feels himself is resulting in false manipulations for the sake of external adoration on the scale of the whole country. The story of love, in which you are afraid to confess even to yourself, driven deep from the eyes of others, and raging there like a stormy underground river. The more I learn of such stories, the more firmly I become convinced that a long time in power over a large number of people is impossible without a fair amount of psychopathology.
From the technical side, this is more like not a film, but a solo performance by DiCaprio, and the play of the passage where he plays routinely, not particularly straining. I liked the manner of performance in the form of interweaving the beginning and end of the story, their cross-exposition, when the actor needs to show not the metamorphosis of the character in its development, but the end points - who he was and who he became, as if he depicts two different people, but who are one whole.
I will not say that I liked the film very much, but it is worth watching from a meaningful position, not a visual one.
Baiopeak? No, a story of same-sex love. I didn’t know about it before watching it, or rather I forgot it. It seems that the postponement of the film in a long box is connected with this fact. I mean, who wants to watch a biopic about two old people who are passionate about tender feelings for each other, even though the film was pitched as a story about the formation of the FBI. At first it does not catch the eye, but gradually everything falls into place. I mean, who can be a person who likes to dig through other people's dirty laundry, dominate employees, trample women, mortgage and report on anyone who crossed the road? Of course, a hidden gay. Such people hate absolutely everything - communists, women, intrigues, blacks or anything. Public pressure affects the perception of reality by such people, who resent everything and look at the whole world with anger. In those days, and in such a situation, it could not be otherwise with Edward. Is it compassionate? That's not good. And of course, the other problems of the film are the strange darkened picture and just incredibly poor makeup. The first one looks strange, the second one looks terrible. Directed by Clint Eastwood. Sometimes Eastwood falls into some senile melancholy, and shoots an absolute bottom, like “Miracle on the Hudson”, and sometimes a strong multifaceted powerful film, like “Sniper”. We failed this time. Sometimes stories about people with a non-traditional orientation get some respect, if the person is good, I mean the biopic, sometimes you just accept the film because you respect one of the actors, like in "Flawless" with De Niro. This film does not reach the first or the second. The film itself puts everything in place, revealing the character in the end as an empty place, but he considers himself great to the last. The cast.
DiCaprio. The seeker of the holy grail in acting shines as an odious figure, the world’s first agent with a bias toward non-traditional sexual orientation. Of course, diversity significantly affects the receipt of the prize for work, and Leo took this into account, but even in this endeavor he flew. At least in Total Eclipse, he didn’t agree to that. So, no Oscars. No, that's all.
Armie Hammer. Unbearable grandfather. And makeup is even worse than Knoxville. Well plays a toasty young agent, but the role of an aged old man merges like the last potz.
Naomi Watts. Here it is, here it is not.
Other people who are not remembered.
Drive. I mean, conclusion. Even if you put aside the sensitive subject... the movie still sucks. There are no accents in the narrative, there are no remarkable stories, the drama is stretched, the makeup, as already mentioned, is terrible, and even the blackout did not save. Eastwood did not try, it is noticeable from the first to the last frame. DiCaprio tried, but it doesn’t help the movie. Empty uncomplicated film, paying a lot of attention to the character, which in principle is not able to like, so other holes gap even more clearly. Strange reckless talent wasting film. If you don’t have tolerance, it’s just plain nonsense.
This film has been in my collection for a long time. Not just by accident, but by Clint Eastwood and Leonardo DiCaprio. Only now the time went and went, and did not come to view. In the yard of 2017, the landmarks changed, decided to look today. Now due to the growing popularity of Adam Driver, who, as it turned out, starred in "J." Edgar at the dawn of his career. That was interesting. By the way, before viewing completely forgot who is the author of the script. The final credits made it clear why the film didn't like it.
Movie "J." Clint Eastwood is a very subjective view of the life and career of one of the most famous people of the XX century. When you expect to see a paranoid drama about a powerful and powerful man whose long career can not help but amaze, you end up with a homosexual detachment. I do not deny the same-sex relationship of the head of the FBI with his deputy and do not want to pretend to be a biographer or historian. However, I personally did not like Dustin Lance Black’s approach. That's right.
Yes, Dustin Lance Black received his “Oscar” for the gay drama “Harvey Milk”, because because of the personality of the main character “love for boys” in his script looked organic, you can’t argue with this. But when there are so many options to tell about an extraordinary man, the choice was decided on the color blue. And the expressive scene in the hotel room with the fight and made his mouth open. The reason is not genius, but total failure. Is this John Hoover that frightened every American? Is he the master of destiny?
On the other hand, of course, there are positives in the film. Here is the scene of the last conversation of the head of the Bureau with his deputy, when it turns out how pathetic the hero Leonardo DiCaprio was. And a very ambiguous scene with Richard Nixon, when during a mourning speech with pompous words, his henchmen tried to quickly get to the secret files. And some footage of the appearance of the FBI technical laboratory, in which bright minds studied evidence from crime scenes.
In terms of directing, Clint Eastwood is still on top. He got a hand in creating strong male dramas. But John Hoover’s sentimental last words about love and lips, as well as the central storyline in general, spoiled the impression. After all, it is not the historical personality over whose orientation one should build conjectures and theories. What about Adam Driver? He played in a tiny scene, but his character gave an important lead to catch the criminal, who played a prominent role in the formation of the FBI. But the color of the sky distracts from everything.
5 out of 10
There are no greater righteous than former sinners, and no greater transgressors of the law than their immediate guardians. The further they go in purifying the world from the contagion of immorality, lawlessness and the preaching of true values, the more we can be sure that the hands of these saints are already up to the elbow in someone’s blood. Who knows but J. E. Hoover, the all-powerful and permanent director of the FBI, right? His heyday fell on the most wet and obscurantist years of the formation of the American punitive and supervisory system, and, moreover, he acted as one of the main propaganda and reactionary ideologists of it and a crusader in the fight against communism, which he imagined everywhere.
Clint Eastwood, whose youth coincided with the heyday of the FBI, is largely a product of the Hoover era – a kind of capital American patriot, whose films are often impossibly stuffed with pathetic “American true values”, which he himself imbued through so much that he now nostalgizes for them in the film.
Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio), all composed of complexes (a kind of “Coriolanus syndrome”), which are raised in him by his dominant mother, naturally for good reasons, and constantly feeling hysterically insecure in any situation uncontrollable by him, maniacally seeks to subordinate and catalog everything – information, criminals, life problems, his own life. And even someone else’s mustache and costumes must be strictly in accordance with the rules. In the rhetoric of this person, only slogans such as “for the good of the American people”, “I will save the country”, “a threat to national security” and other things are constantly heard, behind which the personal ambitions of the speaker are most often behind. Nothing new in terms of “good intentions, with which the road to hell” Hoover, of course, did not come up with, but reached the level of hypocrisy in this, when the mask fuses with the face and you can tear it off only with meat.
And like any categorical person with an iron will, a lust for power and a crocodile grip, he has a weakness. Absolutely innocent. His assistant, and then first deputy, is Mr. Clyde Tolson. Beautiful as the dawn, faithful as a true friend and even more, who is allowed everything. And only he is able sometimes to lower his boss from the cold sky-high heights of his own infallibility to the ground. But only sometimes! And more often than not, loving eyes are rarely too critical. Armie Hammer as Clyde Tolson is impeccable, at least there is no question why at first sight Hoover understood the promise of this partnership. But is there enough courage?
Unfortunately, the “older” part of the lives of both characters looks less convincing, because their “senile” makeup looks too conditional even for the theatrical stage, and in the feature film more like masks from a science fiction film like “Planets of the Apes”. However, this does not change the reality.
The film surprisingly gracefully skirts all the political angles and contexts of the era (apparently fulfilling Hoover’s wish for political independence verbatim), which is by definition unthinkable for the FBI. Therefore, the “bads” with the next president look like an unlucky setback on the way to the next stage of glory, where the maximum discrepancy to the ideal image in the written autobiography are mere trifles, for example, someone else, and not personally Hoover arrested numerous criminals and potential murderers, as the press wrote about it, but it is clear that it was our hero who directed the operations, and not some pawns in his game. Even the need to do dirty things for another president finds an excuse in the form of an argument “otherwise he will create a different structure for this, much better myself.” Of course, who can organize surveillance more effectively than not an experienced “Mr. I must know everything.”
Invited to the role of Hoover, Leonardo DiCaprio, as usual, is extremely confidently prattling on his favorite skate of a “big genius”, that is, a person who is ready to sacrifice with impunity anyone and anything for the sake of his ambitions and vanity. And although it is difficult to see behind the perfect picture of the true fighter for law and order J.K. Edgar Hoover, at least some professional or human flaw, to complete the picture, we are periodically shown evidence that he has a heart. But in both cases it manifests itself only as an indicator of the impossibility of being oneself.
As a result, the version of his life told on behalf of the hero himself does not look completely harmless and toothless, like any nostalgic thought that “the grass was greener and the sky blue.” However, in the case of Hoover, this approach seems amusingly naive, because this character clearly could demonstrate something more in terms of personal and professional methods than the director’s perfect FBI dossier, which does not need to be destroyed by his faithful secretary because everyone in it is strictly within the framework of the front portrait.
Big Brother is watching you... Well, well, well, the family is not ...
As a rule, any biographical film passes through the prism of the director’s (producer’s) perception and evaluation of historical events, unfortunately / fortunately (depending on the personality) the result may be far from reality, and on the screen we will see an extremely romanized (simplified or exaggerated) story of the true person. The situation is fraught with the fact that if we already knew little about the documentary life of the character, the distorted representation of the filmmakers, occupying an empty niche, forms a defining opinion about him in our perception. Biographical films are an extremely powerful tool for shaping public opinion, and in fact myths about episodes and personalities of previous eras. However, initially the goals of the creators of the screen version may be different: to recreate the story of real life on the screen, bring a different look, revealing new or opposite aspects of the personality, fantasize on themes of alternative history (with the true personality of Shakespeare, for example), or just parasitize on the names of famous people without any value to attract the viewer and increase the box office (a number of screen versions of the life of Steve jobs, for example).
Shifting the above to J. Edgar, Casting, the epic narrative, the composition of the plot and the personality of the director lead us to the idea that the purpose of creating a biopic is the desire to reveal the entire controversial figure of the first Director of the FBI, showing it from different sides in different life situations. As far as the creators of the film coped with this task, everyone will answer for himself the question, as for me, then strongly bent with thickening of colors.
After the film, a rather unpleasant residue remains, a kind of “Freudian dismemberment” is shown on the screen, something usually hidden and unconscious emerges here in all its unsightly glory. In fact, this is not a whole person shown before us, it is a set of nervous disorders: the Napoleon complex, narcissism, paranoia and a number of others. And the question is not that such a person could not create such a complex machine as the FBI and successfully manage it for 48 years, most likely, only such a person could, but that in the course of the narrative, faith in the biography of this film, in the reality of what is happening, and searches on the Internet are in vain to subvert much of what was shown. This idea is unwittingly supported by the plot composition, which is not a coherent narrative that chooses a certain problem, the solution of which reveals the character, but a set of flashbacks mixed with the reality of that time.
The undoubted plus of the film is the cast and their play, but let’s take a closer look at Leonardo DiCaprio, of course he is good in his role, but Caesar is Caesar, as they say, and let’s judge him about his level, the high bar that he set for himself and here, his role is not so impressive. This is especially evident against the background of his neighboring films, the previous – The Beginning, the subsequent – Django Released. All the same can apply to the game of Judy Dench, this role, you can say, the logical continuation of M from James Bond, if she had a son there, she would also play and raise her son in the same spirit, a joke, of course, but still. In general, this film did not open new facets of acting for them. But in Armie Hammer, who played Tolssen, the role turned out to be very bright; which is essentially a kind of opposition to the intemperate Leo, his calmness and prudence remain in memory better than the hoover-di caprio.
As a result, we had a rather one-sided description of Hoover’s personality and just a good performance of outstanding actors. Much of this film is relatively good, but is it an assessment for Clint Eastwood, Leonardo DiCaprio, Judy Dench and others, who have taught us the highest quality of their work?!
However, the ideological task of almost any biopic is to interest ... the film copes, and this is already a lot!
John Edgar Hoover was the head of the Bureau of Investigation from 1924 until his death in 1972 (the Federal Bureau did not become Federal until 1935). It is impossible to fit the entire career path of a man who has survived 8 American presidents in a miserable 2 hours of timekeeping. So it's no surprise that screenwriter Dustin Lance Black, the Oscar-winning author of "Harvey Milk," has come up selectively with coverage of Hoover's biography. But even from the material selected for the script, only some of the events are based on real facts; the other part is based on rumors and speculation. In addition, the situation is complicated by Hoover himself in the film: in the 1960s, telling young agents sent from the public relations committee about the power of the Bureau in the 1930s, he liked to embellish the facts in his favor. It is here that the idea creeps in that the director Clint Eastwood paired with the screenwriter Black could not chase for credibility, and presented to the audience the public image of the head of the FBI, formed by the media. At the end of the day, showing the public what they want to see is an effective way to increase ticket sales for their own movie!
From the point of view of Eastwood-Black, one of those who had a great influence on the worldview of the young Edgar (Leonardo DiCaprio) was his first chief in the Department of Justice – US Attorney General Alexander Mitchell Palmer (Jeff Pearson). Palmer, though a Quaker, understood that strength and resolve were sometimes needed, particularly against the pervasive red threat. When one day Hoover arrives at the scene where one of the bombs in a series of acclaimed anarchist explosions in 1919 went off earlier than expected, he is upset by the way the police behave: scraping the remains of the intruder into buckets instead of collecting them; throwing his gun away instead of taking prints. In those days, there was no forensics, no special forces, no FBI. After the bomb attacks, the miners’ strikes in Chicago and the massacre in Centralia, 24-year-old Hoover, on the initiative of the Attorney General, heads a unit to combat communist radicals and participates in the infamous Palmer Raids. At the same time, the US Department of Justice is trying to enlist the support of the Ministry of Labor in the deportation of foreigners who promote radical ideas. After the raids and the sensational trial of the ardent anarchist Emma Goldman (Jessica Hecht), Palmer is released from his post. In 1924, the new Attorney General Harlan Fisk Stone (Ken Howard), appreciating the unshakable convictions of the young Hoover, appointed him acting director of the Bureau of Investigation.
Another person who greatly influenced Edgar was his mother Anne Marie Hoover (Judy Dench). Like Nixon’s mother, Anne Hoover has been instilling in her son since childhood the idea of his future power. Turning to a doctor and curing Edgar from stuttering, his mother also developed in him self-confidence, discipline, education, accuracy. All those qualities that the future director will give preference to when selecting agents for service in the Bureau. The second most important woman in Edgar’s life was Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts), a young careerist who rejected Hoover’s offer of arms and hearts, but happily accepted the position of his personal secretary. Their first date took place in one of the most unusual places, the Library of Congress, which Hoover helped organize. It was here that his craving for systematization, rigor and order was revealed, the key principles that would later form the basis of the FBI.
During the Great Depression, the Bureau of Investigation faced a new threat: bank robbers, car thieves, kidnappers. Bugs Moran and Al Capone became enemies of the N1. Nevertheless, Americans looked upon the gangsters with admiration as they boldly challenged a system that condemned many to hunger and poverty. However, the authors of the biopic did not hide the fact that Hoover also diligently worked on his reputation, taking part in the creation of a radio show, as well as the release of comics. Although in the pictures he was portrayed as a hero without fear and reproach with a machine gun, it is known that during the capture and detention of known gangsters, the head of the FBI was absent. However, when Black’s script becomes more focused, the main character immediately has a high-profile case for investigation: in 1932, the young son of the legendary American pilot Charles Lindbergh (Josh Lucas) was kidnapped. On Hoover’s initiative, Congress quickly passed the Lindbergh Act, which makes kidnapping a federal crime. On the site of the smoking room at the Bureau, Hoover equips an expert laboratory, where he attracts diverse specialists to study the evidence. At the trial, the FBI provides scientifically based evidence against the suspect, so no one remains in doubt about his guilt.
When the story turns to Edgar’s personal life, the authors of the biopic set foot on shaky ground. In the film, he almost never parted with his closest companion and “right hand”. Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer): They dine together, dress together in expensive boutiques and bet together at the racetrack. Tolson's grave is a few yards from Hoover's grave at Congress Cemetery. The piquancy of the situation is that in real life, the pair were often seen together, which is why rumors about a possible non-traditional orientation of Hoover spread in society. Periodically, the media skipped shocking publications that compromised the head of the FBI as a hidden homosexual and even a transvestite! Although during the 1940s and 1950s. Edgar scooped up pretty actress Lela Rogers, he was never married and lived all his life with his mother. Despite the fact that there is still no direct evidence to incriminate Hoover in homosexuality and even more transvestism, Eastwood still listened to the rumors and portrayed Hoover as a person who is afraid of his inclinations and tries to keep them deep inside himself. First of all, because of a mother who once said that she would rather have her son die than turn into a “narcissist.” In the film, Hoover’s romantic relationship with Tolson is more platonic, which reaches a maximum of a sucker kiss.
The storyline of the 1960s is not as fascinating as memories of the past. After gathering dirt on John F. Kennedy and his affair with alleged Nazi spy Inga Arwad, Hoover warns the president's younger brother, Robert F. Kennedy, of a possible scandal. In fact, there has never been such a scene. The feud between him and Martin Luther King is also shown in a slightly exaggerated light: it is unlikely that the head of the FBI himself wrote that threatening letter on the eve of the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to King. Makeup is also depressing: if you still believe in the aged Hoover DiCaprio, then the aging Clyde Tolson, who looks like Lord Voldemort, causes only rejection. And finally, the film seems to only win if the story about the main man in the FBI was a little bit brighter. Literally.
The task of a biographical film is primarily to tell the viewer a story. Real. The real story of someone. And immediately the question arises in my head ' why exactly he?', so the writers need to skillfully and briefly explain to all of us what this famous man did, since they decided to make a film about him, and Eastwood chooses the easiest way - to make up DiCaprio in an old and infirm man, telling about his stormy youth.
The film is about a rather complicated American period of the early 60s, which is quite remarkable, because the scenery there is at the appropriate level, and it immediately catches the eye. We see a very powerful man working for the FBI. His way of speaking, his way of moving - all this is so natural and genuine that you believe every word, every monologue one hundred percent. As you watch it, you realize that the actor really got used to the role of the first director of the FBI. We can observe that he enjoys ' demand' in people, causes them trust and respect, he speaks so that everyone listens to him, open their mouths.
At times, Hoover was cruel, dramatic, with too much blood on his hands.' Can I wash it away from all the oceans of the planet?' At the same time, Eastwood shows us that this ambitious personality isn't that cold after all, like the scene with the dress by the mirror. However, Hoover shows ambiguous ' unconventional' feelings towards his protégé, played by the charming Armie Hammer.
J. Edgar is Oscar-honed, it has everything you need for the Academy, but at the same time, the film has its own style, which is very valuable in any cinema. Separately, I would like to note the composer and screenwriter, they did everything at the highest level, because in the film there were no moments when I wanted to hide my face from shame and die from terribly worked out dialogues and scenes.
After watching this movie, you want to learn more about the real Hoover, their relationship with Tolson, and the demons that lived inside him, tormenting him more and more every day. He wanted to appear a strict dictator, but the world feared and admired him at the same time.
A classic of modern cinema, after which you can move on to more complex and refined biographical paintings.
Very, very serious large-scale projects, heavy roles, luxurious film adaptations. Sometimes it seems that you are lost in thinking about what DiCaprio wants to say with such a vector of his creativity. The fight for the long-awaited Oscar, the desire to remain in history a great talent and a solid actor or a purely spiritual whim.
How to know what is happening in the heart of the idol of millions and what thoughts about his filmography he is guided by?
J. Edgar Hoover.
He was an FBI sheep to the bone. He was a true careerist and guardian of a happy life in his country. He was destined from heaven to become the great chief of one of the most powerful intelligence services in the world. He raised this special service from an embryonic level to unprecedented heights thanks to his perseverance, faith in the highest justice, workaholism, reckless love for his coat of arms and flag.
Great people have never been representatives of the gray masses and have always made sacrifices for great causes.
He was one of them.
Due to the peculiarities and all the seriousness of his profession, he had to give up a lot of people – ordinary and ordinary for billions of people. But he didn't mind, because it suited him.
He could seduce many women with his charm and high position. But he had the only love of his life that he never changed. This is love for America.
He saw his goals clearly and achieved them in any way.
He was eloquent, charismatic, sometimes cruel and very demanding. But without these characteristics of his personality, he would not have earned the respect and fame that has haunted his whole life.
His successes he owes not only to himself, but also to his mother (Judy Dench), as well as to the categorically loyal team, which he pieced together himself.
He trusted few, and he believed in himself and the bright future of a country that owes him much, if not all. And if it were not for this faith and dedication to the benefit of many generations of Americans, he would not have achieved any goals.
But he did. Because I did.
A film about J. Edgar.
In a nutshell, he's great! Personally for me, because it is simple, understandable, moderately complex, professionally played, confident that it is true and based on real events. Because after watching, you want to be proud of this person. Because all his life he gave his beloved business and his love.
The film, despite the fact that gray and very dark, is really beautiful and stylish.
DiCaprio is adorable, but will anyone be surprised by this?
The film tells about the events that took place over the years, where J. Edgar is at different ages, so hard work makeup was not to pass. But no matter how far technology has gone in the XXI century and no matter how professional Hollywood make-up crews are, when you look at Hummer and Leo, you are well aware that this is make-up. And this fact is a sharp needle in the address of the filmmakers.
The props and furnishings do not allow to doubt that the film does not take place in the 30s or 60s.
The film is consistent and coherent. And this is despite the fact that events of different ages change each other throughout the film.
Very curious and brilliantly played, masterfully brought to his demonstration on the screen theme of forced homosexuality of the characters.
It is noteworthy that the film mentions such a landmark event for world history as the murder of Kennedy.
Result.
I don’t know why the generalized score on Kinopoisk is so low (something like 6). Perhaps because of the hatred of the Communists, which saturated the whole film. Personally, I'm not interested. I'm looking at something else.
I look at the fact that the film, despite the lack of any movement and bright events, holds, interesting and simply pleasant.
I don’t see any flaws in it...
Eastwood didn't make a bad movie ... or a good movie. Such a film cannot be judged. Eastwood made the Eastwood movie, an Eastwood movie. That's all. Labels of this movie: wise simplicity, lack of formal twists, directness, truthfulness, honor, calm confidence in what was said and shown, patriotism, and what rarely, exceptionally rarely appears in art - "the pathos of the finder" (as Nikolai Gumilev once said about the poems of Nikolai Klyuev). Everyone understands art mainly as a search, the absence of ready-made truths. But wise in life, rich in faith, faithful to the truth that has already been found, artists are distinguished by this rare pathos – the one who found. And thank you to all the cinematic gods that Eastwood does not cry about what he found with clubhead hysteria, as if tearing his last hair and shirt on himself (some scenes of the late N. Mikhalkov, apparently, finally found the true Russia, carry these feelings).
What exactly is "our"? Eastwood found?
America.
He just knows what kind of country it is, how ideal, free, clean it can be, and what exactly prevents it from doing this.
He's wise. He realizes that it will never be a paradise on earth, neither Columbus nor Christ. But a politically correct civil paradise, a paradise of internal and external freedom, a paradise of solid legal foundations. All of his films are trying to give you a recipe for how to do that. It is either direct or opposite.
And Hoover knows how. But he knows wrong. For what is awarded a terrible dead mask (remember what a hero is in old age?), a mask of pride and false grandeur, attached to the civilian face of a once sincere defender of the freedoms of some from the freedoms of others.
Ivan Karamazov, tempting his brother Alyosha, his faith, his “found”, shouted: “Imagine that it is you yourself who builds the building of human destiny with the aim of finally making people happy, giving them peace and tranquility, but for this it is necessary and inevitable to torture only one tiny creature, this very child who beat himself in the chest with a fist, and on unavenged tears to found this building, would you agree to be an architect on these terms, say no lies!”
- No, I wouldn’t, Alyosha said quietly.
“I agree,” Hoover replies, “the ideal architecture of the building of freedom is more precious to me than the grief of a family that lost a son.”
The crushed skull of a child, the contemptible face of his father, who does not want to give his hands to the meticulous and insensitive careerist-borer from the FBI, turn out to be nothing compared to the opportunity to make a name for himself and his offspring on all these tears and thereby strengthen, protect, rebuild, turning his country into an example of perfection. And to please your mother...
Oh, Hoover! You wanted to be a hero to your mother!
And you became a hero. For half a century, no one dared to challenge this status, to take it away from you. Even the 8 presidents you've outlived. Yes, you've done what most people can't do, but all of your actions are not out of love for them. Hoover, you can only become a hero by giving your blood for them, for everyone, for everything. And you sacrificed someone else more often. And he decorated his accomplishments with it. And your power is not merit, not freedom, not even a dream that has come true for your mother, but deception and captivity. Tlen. Chains.
“Every book of poetry has its own feat,” Gumilev said. Movies, too. What is Clint Eastwood's film about?
The Grand Inquisitor of Dostoevsky said to Christ: “There are three powers, the only three powers on earth, capable of conquering and capturing forever the conscience of these feeble rebels for their happiness – these forces are miracle, mystery and authority.”
Christ rejected these three powers, because only weakness is needed in their presence.
And Hoover gave for them (the miracle of influence, the mystery of his longevity, the indisputability of authority) and life, and love, and happiness. And the truth, freedom... What he has defended all his life.
And Eastwood did not say to him, You lie, you lie. He said, You're being deceived.
And sympathetically covered with a blanket... of death.
1. The plot is a biography of one of the most influential people of his time - FBI head Edgar Hoover through the eyes of Hoover himself. The inside view of Hoover’s activities has its secrets, of course, but speaking of the originality of the plot – they expect these secrets, except of course quite intimate. (1)
2. DiCaprio is as good as ever. Leonardo is brilliant at solo numbers. The only drawback may seem to be the lack of excessive rigidity in communication, which was characteristic of Hoover. (1)
3. Musical accompaniment of the tape at height. Particularly felt emotional nourishment in scenes of psychological revelations. However, you will not find any special musical equivocas here. The music is mostly heavy and intense. (1)
4. But the costumers did. The picture completely transports you to the atmosphere of post-war America and I want to take Thompson and ... (2)
5. If you want to fly high, don’t be afraid to take risks. (1) .
Human heritage is not always what is visible to everyone.
John Edgar Hoover. The mere mention of this name causes serious interest from the public, whether the joke is the head of the FBI. And of course, from the film, which positions itself as the autobiography of this famous man, you expect behind-the-scenes intrigue, mental and sometimes physical confrontation of people, explosions and shootings (Ultimately, what year did Hoover live?) and ... you get not what you expect. No, of course, the film is about Hoover, that's it. Yes, and Clint Eastwood ate the dog on dramas capable of taking it alive, but what a thing, this film is difficult to call a drama in the usual understanding of the word. This is the story of a man who loved his country with all his heart and wanted to protect it from enemies, both external and internal. Oh, yes, it was the first step in turning America into a police state and a powerful hook on the left on their values, whether freedom of speech or democracy, but what can we do if Americans have never been particularly tolerant of those who think in different categories, whether they are Indians, Negroes or other Americans (Civil War, aha). The story that will be told in the film is rather uneven, for the simple reason that the hero Leonardo DiCaprio is constantly taken from extreme to extreme - then he is a devoted friend, and then a hysterical girl, ready to hang her loved ones on the nearest lampposts, then he is a failed Casanova trying to roll over to a pretty girl, or he builds eyes on one of his employees. And it seems that this should make the image of Hoover whole. He is complex, and if so, then his character cannot be described in a couple of sentences, but the problem is that this does not happen. It seems that we have four different people in front of us, each of whom is great, no, no kidding, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, but he did not succeed in a solid personality. And the problem is not in the actor, it is in the script.
What's wrong with the script? Maybe it's because Leonardo DiCaprio couldn't make a decent party? After all, if John Hoover represents order, then someone must have represented chaos, but what a thing, all those scoundrels who are caught by the FBI, even the memorable German who kidnapped the son of a powerful man, are impersonal. It is good if these guys for the whole film will say a couple of sentences that do not carry a special semantic load. There will be no pressure from the higher echelons of power, or rather it will be, but again all this is shown too superficially.
John Hoover, I don't like what your bureau does.
- Go where the horse will not pass!
- All right. You're free.
Yes, I may be exaggerating, but most conflicts come down to this, and therefore the feeling of complete immersion in history does not arise. Yes, the Communists blew something up, and the gangsters shot someone there, but if this is taken for granted in the film itself, then how will the viewer relate to what is happening, mm?
Yes, of course, in this film feels the hand of Clint Eastwood, whether it is a contrast, when from the screens of cinemas Hoover says that we need to fight crime, and the audience shouts – “Get this clown out, now there should be a movie about gangsters!” Or that the feelings and emotions of the characters do not look pretentious or inappropriate in this situation. In all this, however, “J.” Edgar is not even close to the dialogue film “White Hunter, Black Heart”, let alone the more “strong” works of Clint Eastwood. "J. Edgar" is not a bad movie, but it's not a good movie that I can confidently recommend to you, dear viewers. I can only recommend this film in three ways: if you like history, if you are interested in the personality of Edgar Hoover, and if you like Leonardo DiCaprio. Here in these cases, you will most likely like the movie, although I will not give an absolute guarantee. In other cases, I would still recommend refraining from watching, since nothing really remarkable was noticed in this film. I wish you luck anyway.
The new theme for i-gency Movie Battles was very exciting for me. There's a place to go. Many popular actors decided to take the director's chair, and someone even significantly succeeded in this direction. It was difficult to choose a particular person. I considered as possible candidates such debutants in directing as Angelina Jolie or Joseph Gordon-Levitt. But at the last minute he took the last Clint Eastwood movie. If anyone has made a breakthrough in this direction, it is undoubtedly him, having received two Oscars for directing.
The biographical drama J. Edgar has long been recommended to me, but then it did not arouse much interest. I don’t really like the 20s and 30s. But if Eastwood’s Replacement was a nice exception, why not try? Especially with such a cast led by Leonardo DiCaprio and beloved Naomi Watts in the background. And after the trailer, I generally anticipated an interesting, and most importantly informative film about the first Director of the FBI, who proposed to introduce a file with fingerprints, which was a significant breakthrough in forensics. Well, I'm not going to slander my heart and admit that the piquant details of Hoover and his protégé intrigued me as much as his services to American society. I'm sorry to be curious.
Unfortunately, I was disappointed. I can't say the movie is bad. John Edgar Hoover is an interesting and controversial personality. It seems that he did a lot of good for the development of forensic science, but at the same time he often exceeded his authority, kept a secret dossier on high-ranking officials and was not ashamed to use compromising materials for selfish purposes. And rumors about his love affair with FBI Deputy Clyde Tolson may well be true. Moreover, it is known that Hoover left him all his fortune. But the story of Edgar’s life is presented so blandly as a dry newspaper clipping that, together with timekeeping, simply kills all interest. There were no fascinating investigations, no high-profile court hearings, no melodrama. Just a dry chronicle of life.
I have no complaints about directing. Eastwood knows how to convey a time epoch for sure. I didn’t like the color scheme of the film. It's too dark and monotonous. I don't see anything to do with Harvey Milk. Leonardo DiCaprio plays well. It’s funny that the film industry ignores him. He played a gay man, a monarch, and a madman, but always ends up in the air. I didn't even notice Armie Hammer. He seems to be one of the key characters, but he is too mediocre. Naomi Watts’ talent deserves more than a secretary. This is not Reese Witherspoon, but a great dramatic actress! It's kind of hurtful for her. In general, a very long and boring movie. If someone asks me what it is, I can only say, “Leonardo DiCaprio was once again cast at the Oscars.” Sorry, Eastwood, but this time our tastes diverged.
5 out of 10
Well, it’s probably one of the most controversial films I’ve seen, so I’m going to split the review into 3 parts to take a closer look at it.
The positive part is that I cannot but praise Clint Eastwood for his exquisite style of painting. The picture itself was dark, which was very intertwined with the time period of the narrative, personally I even gleaned a hint of noir. In addition, Clint Eastwood once again showed us the story through the prism of a person who has gone through a significant part of the twentieth century, which is very useful in cultural terms. Many people talked about anti-Soviet propaganda. It's not that clear. If you change the titles in the first part, you will get a story about a Soviet agent in the 30s of repression. This, too, can be interpreted with such a reservation.
The neutral part is no matter what, John Edgar Hoover was a significant person for history. He changed a lot, which speaks to his strength. Leonardo DiCaprio again played a very ambiguous role, which indicates his acting courage, Armie Hammer assisted him well, and Naomi Watts was noticeable even though she was given a fairly small role.
The negative part. And yet as a man, John Edgar Hoover was terrible. This is a subjective judgment, but still his eternal nagging about absolutely everyone around him reached the point of total paranoia. I don’t even want to talk about the Hoover-Tolson storyline, it’s repulsive, in the end you could invite an unconventional actor, it was difficult for me personally to watch one of my favorite actors kiss a man. It's a very subjective judgment, but I'm sorry, I didn't want to see it. It's a bit of a shame for socialists/migrants/African Americans. They have been made universally evil, although in my personal opinion each of them is at least slightly more right than the white conservative. I sincerely did not understand the claims against Martin Luther King, whom I greatly respect.
As a result, the film has a very strong first half. Its style is really to see, it has a significant cultural value. But the second half, to be honest, I didn’t understand.
America's N1 Man, Head of the Federal Bureau, who survived 8 presidents and 3 wars. He was ruthless and a hero. Through the eyes of Hoover shows us his private and public life and relationships with people around him.
Who do you think came up with fingerprints to speed up investigations? Yeah, it's Jack Edgar Hoover. Over the years, he ruled the FBI and destroyed his own life. He hid his life and did not admit his homosexuality. But it was a rumor. Who did he love the most in his life? His mother, after whose death he wore a dress. Truth or lie? Who knows about his life? Is he really that secretive?
Leonardo DiCaprio said in an interview last year: “It was my dream to play such a colorful American character.” Of course, he did his part. He even got a Golden Globe nomination. This character, played by DiCaprio, is one of the best roles in his life. Armie Hammer was also cast as Hoover's deputy. He was loyal to him until his death. I loved him in the truest sense of the word, but love was unrequited. Because Hoover loved his job and nothing else. Last year, when I first saw the movie, I noticed Armie Hamer and said, ‘I’ll take a note of it,’ because the guy was just amazing. He played Kyle Tolson well in his old age and especially in his youth. Of course, ladies Judy Dench and Naomi Watts played well. But my interest in DiCaprio and Armie Hammer was greater.
The phenomenal film captures its cleverness of the plot, in which you can not even believe. He is such a man and he is... Writer – Dustin Lance Black – who has already won an Oscar for the screenplay of the biographical character Harvey Milk. The director, producer and composer is Clint Eastwood, professional work is visible for 120 minutes.
After seeing a lot of questions, how about without it? No one knows his personal life except himself. The hero's homosexual behavior is also unbelievable, though maybe it was, or is it all Dustin's false storylines? Oh, watch this movie, you should like it if:
1) You like American politics and want to know more about its structure
2) you are a fan of DiCaprio
3) you don’t want to miss Armie Hammer’s film, which has already blown up Hollywood and is now a phenomenal and sought-after actor.
I’ll revisit it one more time.
When Clint Eastwood won the Golden Globe for Letters from Iwo Jima, it became clear to me that this man is almost not afraid of anything and is ready to respond to the most unexpected challenges. But it is one thing to discuss the issues of the past war, which has already resulted in more than one action-reconciliation. And quite another thing to shoot a biography of one of the most influential people in the United States of the twentieth century.
Hoover was never an American president. From 35 to 72, he was director of the FBI. This means that all the most iconic things for America could not happen without his attention. And we are talking about the war with gangsters, World War II, the murders of two Kennedys, the search for serial maniacs. But Eastwood did not endorse any conspiracy theories.
From this film, we learn only the facts. It is known that Hoover conflicted with Kennedy, exceeded his powers, called others’ merits his own. One might speculate here, but Eastwood does not develop seemingly obvious assumptions. This is not caution at all, but authorial correctness.
It is due to the correctness of the film that we do not learn the unequivocal conclusions about the personal life of the hero. Except that the attachment to the mother will be very detailed. But there will be no direct statements about the relationship with the secretary and deputy. It's not necessary.
It seemed to me that the second half of the tape was darker and crumpled. The ending seemed particularly inconspicuous - the final thirty minutes. Perhaps the editing had to be done taking into account comments from influential people or relatives of Hoover.
Otherwise, the picture seemed very solid. Thanks to constant retrospections, we travel with old Hoover through his biography, and at the same time touch on the most important historical events.
The actors played well, but I would not say that these roles will be a significant stage in their career. To my taste, Philip Seymour Hoffman would have looked more interesting than DiCaprio. And the role of Armie Hammer could be more vividly played by Matt Damon.
Clint Eastwood once again makes another film about the “lord of his fate” and “captain of his soul.” Good actors and a very correct scenario, more smoothing sharp corners than provoking
Historical personalities to whom films are dedicated, figures noticeable and known to a certain circle of people. Not everyone. I do not dare to judge whether this is bad or nothing terrible in it, but this movie may not be suitable for everyone. It is necessary to know the history of America, America of past years and centuries, with their puritanical attitudes and views. Alas, it's not for everyone. Sometimes, unfortunately, you do not know the history of your homeland well, and sometimes you begin to forget. Personally, I was just interested in watching. A man, a legend, who left his mark in history, who found his place in the life and life of other people and people as a whole. To see and understand that once such a person was, and held a special place for his country.
Starting his activities with the crime investigation bureau, Hoover eventually became one of the most prominent figures in the political environment of the country. With all this, no matter how it appears to the viewer, the film conveys that this man is the simplest, with his weaknesses and characteristics, like any of us with you.
Leonardo DiCaprio showed the image of a strong, adult man. And confident. It seemed to me that the confidence of the character stung. The actor over the past few years is not the first to embody such images, and it is glad that he managed to move away from the regular “sweet boy” from “Titanic”. Army Hammer played a controversial hero. Also devoted and loving. But was there an opportunity for real feelings in Edgar, when your thoughts are not occupied by people who are constantly around, but by your favorite business?
Separate words should be sent to the address of Clint Eastwood - a person taking on non-standard projects that are already sculpted by Hollywood studios. In every story, be it “Grand Torino”, “Substitution”, “Million Dollar Baby”, he wants not just to tell something, but to do it in such a way, getting to the bottom, lifting from the bottom those details that you will not immediately pay attention to.
It is quite difficult to objectively evaluate historical and biographical films due to the fact that in our time history is rewritten as they want and as it is convenient for whom, often people who “order music” do it. It is doubly difficult to reason and speak with confidence about the personal and especially professional life, of course outstanding, but at the same time very mysterious personality of John Edgar Hoover.
But to pass by this picture is simply impossible.
The first-person film tells the story of the life and formation of John Edgar Hoover, the man who created, and later for 48 years led one of the most powerful agencies in the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI's work and methods have been, and remain, quite contradictory and ambiguous. The activity of this department causes a stormy reaction of the public to this day. Apparently, only such an agency could have been created by a person as controversial as Hoover. The person who had his own “casket full of skeletons” and who collected in his piggy bank these “skeletons” on all prominent figures of the United States, including the presidents, later using them for their own purposes. But at the same time, a person who loved his country and cared about its security. The film covers the entire career of Hoover since he began his work in the US Department of Justice in 1917.
Director Clint Eastwood took on the film, which embraces seven decades and can be said that overall he coped. I am glad that such a venerable director as Clint was entrusted with such a project. Of course, there are many contradictory historical and moral moments in the film, which are difficult to both maintain and refute. But in terms of directing, Clint did.
The film has a rather strong cast, led by DiCaprio, whose roles do not cease to please. Naomi Watts, as Hoover’s secretary and personal assistant, is always sweet and charming. For the role of Clyde Tolson perfectly selected Armie Hammer, who, in some ways, similar in appearance to his prototype.
The timing of the film is perfect. The plot of the film tries to describe all the significant moments of the Hoover era, although I personally expected that the topic of the assassination of John F. Kennedy would be covered more broadly.
In general, the film is worthwhile and worthy of attention.
I knew very little about this movie before I started watching it.
This movie, something new and something I can't define. It shows how the man who directly influenced the system of fighting crime, which we see now. It is also a story of true love.
One can say that we are trying to fully imagine a man who is inscribed in the history of the world, showing us how he is arranged, what motivates him, how his thought goes and how passionately he goes to his goal. And each of these details, conveyed in full by the actors and those people who put the picture.
I'd like to think I understood something about love. I used to be mediocre about same-sex relationships, and I can't say I understood. I can now say that people who think differently and firmly believe that they are right within themselves rarely find support in the opinion of the majority. But as life does not turn us, people will always appear on our way who think with us in the same tune. Although you never meet people like that. It’s about how many people you can meet in your life. In this story, the protagonist found a man who supplemented his confidence with a mindset similar to his, and it became the intellectual admiration of two people who no longer felt alone in society. That was the birth of a love that is not understood and worth admiring.
"J." Edgar" was alerted by American film academics when handing out the 2012 Oscars. The film was criticized for poor makeup and dim lighting. At the same time, the drama of Hoover’s personal life (sociopath vs. sociopaths), effectively revealed by the screenwriter, and a high level of acting work were noted.
Clint Eastwood made a decent movie, first lifting the figure of Edgar Hoover above everyone, and then crashing it into pieces with just a phrase by Clyde Tolson.
Very coolly, this shows the perception of the communist threat among certain segments of American society, built on the contrast of laughter/fear. It's like playing with light and shadow. The anti-hero could become a hero at any second, and this is very well reflected in the film.
'J. Hoover' in some ways resembles a neatly folded house of designers of different sets. So, for example, the mentioned game with the elevation to the rank of hero and momentary debunking is walls, the foundation is the past / present, and the roof is a beautiful play of a magnificent cast.
Only the makeup didn't impress. Two actors played one role because makeup inhibited Leo’s facial muscles, and Armie Hammer seemed to have similar problems.
And all the trouble is in the makeup, because without him he was absolutely charming smile.
In short, Americans are lucky in terms of reflecting their history in art cinema. It is a pity that our country is not engaged in propaganda of really important things, and there are simply no people who could pull it all on themselves, on their own behalf.
Oksana Bayrak continues to shoot melodramas for housewives on a cheap camera, and Americans get excited about absolutely beautiful films, remembering how everything was decades ago.
Yes, I did not confuse the films, that’s how I call the main character of John Edgar Hoover, and how else can you call a man who is practically subordinate to all power, a man who blackmailed presidents, a man who was the director of the FBI for 48 years.
The film is very controversial and makes you think about the personality of this American. On the one hand, we have a man fighting with all his heart against internal enemies, a true patriot of his country. On the other hand, an inferior person who does not tolerate criticism, does not know how to dance, dresses his mother's clothes and constantly says: "Be strong Edgar."
Yes, the man is strange, but what else can he be, to create one of the most authoritative and secret organizations to this day. What we know about the FBI now is the brainchild of Hoover, with the basics and criteria that he set for 48 years, without him the bureau would not simply exist, they are united, he devoted his whole life to fighting threats, both real and contrived, often breaking the rules protecting his fellow citizens from danger. He was respected, he was feared, he had fame, he was the great that he always wanted.
We have an example of a man who has achieved everything in his career, but is it necessary? All his life was surrounded by three people: his mother, assistant and secretary. He lived his whole life fighting for his ideals and defending his principles, but why such a life deprived of ordinary human joys, family, friends, because we are not some programs (antiviruses) fighting the enemy?
Clint Eastwood's directorial work is very good, the actors' play is on top, the makeup is super. So I suggest you take a look.
The position is high and requires a flexible mind is much easier to occupy than to keep.
The status of the cult personality Clint Eastwood is not subject to any doubts, he is loved both as an actor and as a director, however, as an actor he has not appeared on the screen for a long time, but as a director continues to work for the benefit of cinema, releasing pictures with enviable regularity. Since 2004, his name has remained in the tabloids, and critics have noted the great value of his work, but for us as an audience there was a turning point. It has long been proven that there are moments of incredible rises in the world, after which there is a fall until the moment of stability, that’s why Clint Eastwood’s comparative moment of decline has now come: in 2010, he releases the film “The Otherworldly”, which causes ambivalent feelings among fans of his talent and for the first time in many years, Eastwood’s work causes negative emotions among critics. Painting "J." Edgar can be called an attempt to rehabilitate, but we can already say that it was unsuccessful.
The whole point is that J. Edgar" leaves the feeling split into parts of the tape, where there are no binding materials, except for the general line about the life of the creator of the FBI John Edgar Hoover, that is, the film does not leave a holistic feeling. Clint Eastwood shows us the extraordinaryness of this man, but there are storylines that, frankly, evoke a terrible antipathy not only to the Hoover himself, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, but to the whole story set forth by screenwriter Dustin Lance Black.
It was disgusting to watch the strange relationship between John Edgar Hoover and his close friend and associate Clyde Tolson (Hermie Hammer), where we are explicitly hinted at their homosexual tendencies. Was that really necessary? No less disgusting is the strangeness of Hoover's relationship with his own mother (Judy Dench), a rather domineering woman, but if we were given a reason to think about their incest, I would not be surprised. The only episode that interested me a little bit was how the child abduction investigation was initiated and completed, when new methods of investigation were tried, when we were told when and why these innovative ideas were introduced. But isn't that enough for a two-hour biopic? It seems to me that very little.
When it comes to acting, it is depressing. I can’t understand the presence of Naomi Watts in the film, as well as the influence of her character on the life of John Edgar Hoover, everything is crumpled and indistinct. However, like Judy Dench. Hermie Hammer was wildly disappointed, especially his weakest game in the image of an old man, at the rest of the time I would call his performance static. Leonardo DiCaprio is also unlikely to attribute his role in this picture to his best, rather vice versa. He seemed to be the most emotional and saturated character (well, in principle, it should be), but compared to other roles of this magnificent actor here he looks like a faded shadow of himself.
Only out of respect for Clint Eastwood do I make the following assessment:
When I started watching Clint Eastwood’s new film about the life of the famous head of the FBI, I was surprised that the first hour of the movie was shot almost entirely in dark colors. Beautiful costumes and scenery of the 30s (namely, for the most part at this time and the action of the picture) at least somehow brightened up the dull narrative of the film. It is worth noting and good camera work, in the best traditions of detectives.
What can we say about acting? Of course, as always, the excellent role played by Leo DiCaprio, who managed to completely reincarnate into the arrogant, but at the same time serious, purposeful, all his time devoted to the work of John Edgar Hoover. Disclosure of his character is essentially dedicated to this biopic. Living with his mother in adulthood, avoiding female intercourse in every possible way and welcoming same-sex love (which is also revealed by his assistant Clyde Tolson), DiCaprio’s character is both attractive and unpleasant.
Many of the reviews on the site were about complaints about the wrong chronology of events in the life of Hoover, I would just ignore it. Irritating, perhaps, only the most leisurely narrative, just an incredible amount of dialogue and almost complete lack of action.
As a result, we have a strong biopic that tells the whole life of the legendary John Hoover, a man who devoted 48 years of his life to the service of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Not DiCaprio's best film, but not a failure. People with higher legal education and starting a career in the FSB look first.
8 out of 10
I do not think that it makes sense to write, and especially for most people to read, long reviews, behind which sometimes the simplest and most obvious escapes.
Speaking of this film, I think it is necessary to mention the following:
- The acting was not impressed, DiCaprio in his other recent works looked much more interesting, Naomi Watts was not visible at all, there is simply nothing to say about others.
- The plot is smeared, about nothing, the story of Hoover is interrupted as quickly as it took.
- The film for the majority of Russians who know history and who is generally D. E. Hoover, will not be of interest (especially with such a plot), it is only for domestic — American hire.
- And in the end, look at the anti-communist racist "baiting" M. L. King, who suffers from many complexes, social and living conditions, is a homosexual, and at the same time elevated to the rank of one of the greatest people of the 20th century in the United States – a healthy mind is not so interesting.
2 out of 10
(2 points for technical work on the film, 0 for everything else)
J. Edgar is the most disgusting movie I've seen in a while. There are a lot of pluses in it: it is perfectly shot, the actors are amazing, the play of Leonardo DiCaprio is amazing, the makeup of actors at the highest level, and the story about Hoover is not bad, but I did not like the main character (Edgar), I have goosebumps from one of his appearances in the film. This disgust began when I learned that Hoover is not a standard orientation, and when at the end of the film they also show his second nature, some of his tricks and so on, you begin to understand that he is not so perfect after all.
After this film, I didn’t have a very good impression about this character, it still had black sides, but not all of us are as good as we would like, including Hoover. He is not so brave and honest, since in retelling his life, he has awarded himself many good merits of other people. And the fact that he was so strict about any sexual relations in his office (and not only) and immediately fired and disgraced, ridiculed these people, while he himself sinned with this case.
In general, the film is well shot, very well shown the power of Hoover, great actors, etc., etc., but I have a distaste for the main character and nothing I can do about it, but as a test the film is worth trying, I think many will like it.