J. Edgar (2011)

Clint Eastwood's latest film tells the story of J. Edgar Hoover, the famous director of the FBI who famously caught many of the big gangsters in the 30s and 40s. I guess a more accurate description would be to say that this is the story of Hoover telling a story, with only parts of the film being historically accurate. This has caused some debate in the cinematic world lately, as to whether or not this film needed to exist. The question is that of how important a film can be that relies on purposefully twisting historical facts. Hoover tells his life story in the film the only way Hoover could, with the majority of truth twisted in his favor and large sections left blank. We personally see some material that is not going into the book that he is dictating, most of this being his struggles with homosexual tendencies. So, you end up watching an entire film that winds up being nothing more than a collection of lies and half-truths, forcing the viewers to wade their way through all the muddled statements and try to find the truth. Most critics seem to think this is the film's weakness. I think it's a strength.

Leonardo DiCaprio stars as the man himself and gives a better performance then I think he ever has, including his turn as Howard Hawkes in Martin Scorsese's The Aviator. The film jumps back and forth between Hoover as an old man telling his story and Hoover as the young man in the story. I was surprised by the ease in which DiCaprio handles both. He is just as convincing as an old man as he is a young one, although a large part of that is thanks the make-up design that perfected the visual appearance. The farther into the story Hoover gets, the more we begin to question it. We see him being hated and slandered in many ways, while he constantly redeems himself, regularly proving how wonderfully American he is. At the end of the film, it is pointed out that there is much falsity in his biography, only citing a few specific instances, including the fact that Hoover took the credit for many big gangster arrests. There is also much questionable material brought on by Tolson, Hoover's gay assistant who reportedly shared a relationship with him. This film speculates on that subject as much as it does about anything else. The situation is handled carefully and vaguely, relying on scenes like that of Hoover's mother telling him, "I'd rather have a dead son then a daffodil for a son," suggesting that he never acted on his suggested feelings. His reported cross-dressing is also mostly ignored, with only a brief scene of mourning suggesting anything of the sort.

I find it interesting that this movie is handled in the same way one of the classic gangster films that Hoover apparently hated would have been, complete with the hero's unending devotion to his mother, his ultimate downfall/demise, and the lack of desire to dance with women. Eastwood has said he intended J. Edgar to be a love story between two men in a platonic way and that whatever they did outside of that was none of his business. That's as good a way to look at it as any, as Hoover and Tolson obviously share a strong friendship, if nothing else. This film is not concerned with scandalous sensationalism, though, instead offering a very interesting mystery movie of sorts. Like Robert Redford did earlier this year with his wonderful drama The Conspirator, Eastwood offers his audience the facts of the case and takes no sides. This is the carefully painted portrait of a man with so many morals that he must have had a dark side. Just don't expect that side to be spelled out for you.

8/10