tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post6941338038380709667..comments2024-03-10T07:42:17.071-04:00Comments on The Film Doctor: Citizen Hoover: 7 notes on Clint Eastwood's J. EdgarThe Film Doctor http://www.blogger.com/profile/03073505923746994988noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-33465805498666814382011-11-26T21:43:29.505-05:002011-11-26T21:43:29.505-05:00"I still couldn't get all that caught up ..."I still couldn't get all that caught up in Hoover's story because of the film's problems with characterization, and the way DiCaprio's acting look strained and unnatural. When has DiCaprio ever had to live with the deprivations that defined Hoover's whole life?"<br /><br />I think that's the point of DiCaprio's acting, whether you enjoyed it or not. Hoover was so repressed, straining so hard to hold back (who he really was) that this performance makes all the sense in the world to some of us. And when has any actor actually had to live with the deprivations defining any particular character's whole life? That's quite a nonsensical expectation as far as I'm concerned. On the other hand, I think what really interferes with critical response to films or any art form is that viewers have a set expectation before they even see it. It does take awhile for some things to settle and thought processes to peel away certain prejudices and/or biases or just to clarify. Many critics tend to write over what they just saw with what THEY wanted to see, which means they actually weren't looking very deeply at what was right in front of them.sheila kindnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-76784798181787586552011-11-26T04:53:18.606-05:002011-11-26T04:53:18.606-05:00I agree, Maurice. Any movie that makes so many ov...I agree, Maurice. Any movie that makes so many overt references to classic films also runs the risk of looking like a cheap variation. <i>The Social Network</i> is good enough to legitimately invite comparison with <i>Citizen Kane</i>. <i>J. Edgar</i> isn't.The Film Doctor https://www.blogger.com/profile/03073505923746994988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-92201075548603135942011-11-25T22:12:46.009-05:002011-11-25T22:12:46.009-05:00Sounds like this film owes a debt to a lot of clas...Sounds like this film owes a debt to a lot of classic films.Maurice Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15338165486757095191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-78324987778811763282011-11-15T09:54:58.253-05:002011-11-15T09:54:58.253-05:00Thanks for your thoughts, Jason.
You are right ab...Thanks for your thoughts, Jason.<br /><br />You are right about the way Hoover's public relations campaign shifted popular interest from the gangster to the G-man, but I didn't find it as compelling as you did. I try to imagine what drew Eastwood to this material--the way Hoover foreshadows our era's fascination with surveillance, the way public relations dominates our tail wagging-the-dog discourse, the nature of the entrenchment of bureaucracy over time, but I still couldn't get all that caught up in Hoover's story because of the film's problems with characterization, and the way DiCaprio's acting look strained and unnatural. When has DiCaprio ever had to live with the deprivations that defined Hoover's whole life?<br /><br />When I asked why couldn't Hoover enjoy his transvestism, I was thinking of the film's gloomy veneer. Everything has to be made to look tragic, serious, intense. <i>J. Edgar</i> couldn't be an award-winning film otherwise.<br /><br />Craig,<br /><br />Thanks for your points about auteur-oriented criticism. Bad makeup is a "symbol for Hoover's decay?" That's astonishing. Who would write such a thing? I agree with you that Kael was especially good at exposing the pretensions of auteur-worship. I imagine that she would have had fun with <i>J. Edgar</i>.The Film Doctor https://www.blogger.com/profile/03073505923746994988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-25636388020571788322011-11-15T06:51:03.326-05:002011-11-15T06:51:03.326-05:00For example, there's no bad acting? Huh? What?...<i>For example, there's no bad acting? Huh? What? Does that mean there's no good acting? And thus is there no acting? And is he advocating that we try to evaluate movies on some mathematical assessment of whether the director succeeded in his/her intent?</i><br /> <br />He's occupying the last refuge of the auteur: If something in a movie made by a great director is bad, then the director made it bad on purpose. I've heard this argument more times for more filmmakers than you might think, including most recently regarding the makeup job in "J. Edgar": It's Eastwood's symbol for Hoover's decay.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-40266620549754914442011-11-14T20:16:10.236-05:002011-11-14T20:16:10.236-05:00One quick note on Brody: I don't read him enou...One quick note on Brody: I don't read him enough to have an opinion. However, I did read his recent post on <em>J Edgar</em> and I found passages that resonated and, alas, just as many where I had no clue whatsoever what he was trying to tell me. (For example, there's no bad acting? Huh? What? Does that mean there's no good acting? And thus is there no acting? And is he advocating that we try to evaluate movies on some mathematical assessment of whether the director succeeded in his/her intent? Because if it's the latter, then shouldn't 50 percent of the movies today simply be evaluated by their box office intake?)<br /><br />I need someone smarter to explain that post to me.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-82351105242389507492011-11-14T20:13:05.054-05:002011-11-14T20:13:05.054-05:00I meant to mention it in my review, but the Cagney...I meant to mention it in my review, but the Cagney scenes are yet another clever way that this film suggests the massiveness of Hoover's reign: at first Cagney is playing one of the bad guys, and he's cheered by the crowd; later Cagney is playing one of the feds, because now they're the ones being romanticized.<br /><br />That's the kind of stuff that made me enjoy <em>J. Edgar</em> much more than I thought I would. And I'm sure there's something to that. The trailer made the film look pathetic to me, and although I hadn't read any reviews I knew the buzz wasn't favorable, and, well, I've hated just about every Eastwood film of the past 15 years. So I had very low expectations. But while I'd cringe through certain scenes, I'd gladly watch this again; and, yeah, I'm kind of stunned to write that.<br /><br />A few other thoughts ...<br /><br />* <em>Why couldn't they allow Hoover to enjoy his transvestism?</em><br /><br />That's a very interesting question! The answer, I'm sure, is that they were trying to offset Hoover, to give his character something that he couldn't handle. It works as that; but it doesn't mean it's real. And it's interesting to wonder: If Hoover had been allowed to enjoy his "transvestism," wouldn't that then have played as another evil character trait, and thus wouldn't have that been un-PC? That might have had something to do with it, too.<br /><br />* <em>J. Edgar also suffers from that compressed feeling...</em><br /><br />I can totally understand that argument, but it didn't feel compressed to me, mostly because of all the timeline jumping, which made it feel more like an examination of a man than of the man's history, if you understand my meaning.<br /><br />* <em>Otherwise, the color was so washed out, the film might as well have been in black and white.</em><br /><br />Eastwood has been filtering the color on most of his films for years now. It's annoying. But the slate gray feel worked for me for this film (relatively speaking).Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-32878078859743120812011-11-14T13:21:29.126-05:002011-11-14T13:21:29.126-05:00Well, to each his own on Brody, like everyone else...Well, to each his own on Brody, like everyone else. Personally, I don't think there's <i>enough</i> glib snarkiness nowadays when addressing "serious" movies. That's why Kael was so indispensable. As she would say: "They think they deserve awards for serious intentions."Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-15341685747596401132011-11-14T12:14:21.476-05:002011-11-14T12:14:21.476-05:00Craig,
I was surprised by your characterization o...Craig,<br /><br />I was surprised by your characterization of Richard Brody as a "crashing bore" in your review of the Kael biography. I mostly know of Brody's work on his blog, and I liked his Godard book. His appeal intrigued me because I wonder how much one's reflexive glib snarkiness can become a problem when reviewing serious movies. It doesn't hurt to try to keep in mind Eastwood's purposes (not that I necessarily succeeded in that in my review).The Film Doctor https://www.blogger.com/profile/03073505923746994988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-76074695019238797402011-11-14T11:56:28.061-05:002011-11-14T11:56:28.061-05:00Always gotta love Brody's ceaseless appeals to...Always gotta love Brody's ceaseless appeals to authority, starting with the premise that we're dealing with a great director and must bow our heads and genuflect with respect rather than look directly at the screen.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-57461685802585192492011-11-14T08:41:45.539-05:002011-11-14T08:41:45.539-05:00Thanks, Hokahey,
Yes, that stroke scene is a perf...Thanks, Hokahey,<br /><br />Yes, that stroke scene is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. <i>J. Edgar</i> also suffers from that compressed feeling one gets from biopics and novels squeezed into film form (such as the recent <i>Jane Eyre</i>) where every scene has to lead to something significant. There can be no dallying, no sense of leisure. DiCaprio scarcely ever gets to lighten up. I prefer him in more relaxed, easy-going roles. Philip Seymour Hoffman would have suited J. Edgar better. DeCaprio just seemed to be doing everything in his power to look miserable. <br /><br />Otherwise, the color was so washed out, the film might as well have been in black and white. The fashion sense struck me as <i>Mad Men</i> redux. Just as J. Edgar appeared hyper-anxious to maintain his power, so does the movie seem on needles and pins to keep its Oscar-bait status.The Film Doctor https://www.blogger.com/profile/03073505923746994988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-89906973517530944992011-11-13T20:29:49.312-05:002011-11-13T20:29:49.312-05:00Yep, I'm with you on this one. The puffy, past...Yep, I'm with you on this one. The puffy, pasty-white old-age makeup turned some of the scenes into ready-made parody. The stroke at the horse races was just a silly scene. I was mostly interested in the scenes in the farther past with the formation of the FBI and the Lindbergh case, but the film persisted in spending too much time with the old odd couple, and the old Naomi Watts, as well as with the cardboard portrayals of RFK and Tricky Dick.Richard Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12397053921647421425noreply@blogger.com