Arts & Entertainment Journalism

Only this morning we were discussing the terrible temptation of writing a hatchet job review, how easy it is to demolish something in a review (compared to how surprisingly hard it is to write a professional review of something you admire enormously). But once in while, a demoliton job is deserved. Here’s the Guardian story on Mars-Jones’s award for a humiliating review of novelist Michael Cunningham’s recent novel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/feb/07/michael-cunningham-review-hatchet-job

BBC 1

Sunday
29 Jan  21’00

Director:
Philip Martin.

Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Lauren Lafitte, Clemence  Poésy.

The BBC co-produced this adaptation of the Sebastian Faulks’ well-known novel.  Half way between an historic epic film and a romantic tear-jerker, in two chapters this tele-film told the story of Stephen Wraysford (Eddie Redmayne), a young English
lieutenant in the French trenches of the fierce Great War.

During his period in the bloody war he will constantly remember his forbidden love affair with Isabelle Azaire (Clemence Poesy), a
married French woman who marked his life and transformed him from a lovely and naive young boy to a bitter and implacable soldier.

Part two was set in a military hospital as Wraysford recovered from his injuries. But those who had seen the first episode already
knew of his extraordinary gift to survive outrageous situations.

Due to his broken heart, once he is fully recovered, he decided to return to the trenches and fight in the harsh front near Amiens, the same location of the tragedy of his love. Stephen will embark on an internal journey to overcome the cruelty of the war and the pain of his loveless heart. With the help of Jack Firebrace (Joseph Mawle), a tunneller who saved him from death in the first episode, Wraysford will understand that he still has hope to keep breathing and live on.

The high standard of the production of this TV-movie deserves a special mention. It is obvious that the producers spared no expense to recreate the historical context of the story. The hard life in the trenches is well recreated, reminding the spectator of the intensity and immediacy of trench warfare, and marking a contrast to contemporary representations, designed as if
war could be a video-game.  The quality of the technical and special effects must be highlighted.

The cast played their roles correctly. Reidmayne performed well in his role of “handsome hero in pain”, but it is fair to say as well that he seemed to be in a constant state of dazed confusion, leading to the conclusion that his performance was a bit overacted, a bit too intense to believe. On the other hand, Clemence Poesy found her tune better, given this impression of mysterious and –perhaps- dangerous beauty.

Sebastian Faulks himself also collaborate with Abi Morgan –renowned writer for scripts as The Iron Lady or Shame- in the screenplay, making the adaptation especially accurate in relation with the original novel.

Although set against the backdrop of the hardship of the First World War, the adaptation provided entertainment as the rhythm of the story and the recreation are quite appealing. At times too gory, at times too dramatic –slightly contrived- Birdsong was
highly entertaining and a well- produced telefilm to spend a Sunday evening with.

TWITTER feeds flooded with overwhelmed fans as the new series of ‘The Only Way is Essex’ crashed onto our screens in all its trashy glory.

As tweets shrilled with glee at being reunited with their Essex TV friends, I just manage to contain myself and see past the fakery. Take away the gleaming bleached teeth, fluttering false eyelashes and you are left with utterly cheap catch phrases and beyond offensive acting.

That said, the ‘TOWIE’ crew have a way of luring you in. Favourite characters Mark Wright, Harry Derbridge and Amy Childs have all departed the show to work on other “exciting projects”. Therefore series four offers 12 newcomers in a bid to give the show
a fresh lick of lip gloss. The new kids on the Brentwood block include a Mark Wright lookalike and Joey Essex’s best mate to join in on his ‘reem’ banter.

The new characters wasted no time in stirring up the scripted drama, but even with Nanny Pat’s cheeky antics there was a definite void in the 60 minute episode.

Although I had a prominent pining for Mr Wright, the show did entertain. Ticking all the ridiculous ‘TOWIE’ boxes; monkey tea, salty girls, outrage at wearing jeans in a nightclub and a texting scandal.

In true over the top Essex style, Lydia celebrated her 21^st birthday. But problems with her childhood sweetheart Arg put a damper on the glamorous affair. It’s the on again off again relationships that often fuel the show’s drama. I foresee predictable
tantrums in other relationships as series four unfolds.

Since lighting up our screens with their orange glow in 2011, ‘The Only Way is Essex’ cast have won a BAFTA and earned enough cash to purchase some very flash cars (I’m talking white imported Range Rovers). There have been tears, laughs and cosmetic
procedures along the way but one can’t deny the sheer public hysteria surrounding the show.

The Essex crew will be sharing their ups and downs with us every Wednesday and Sunday on ITV2 over the next few weeks. The trickling introductions of the 12 newbies during the first few episodes will hopefully fill our lusting for the greats of the past.

-ENDS-

Word count: 364

…ahead of today’s assignment, for which I think quite a few of you are planning to do a TV review from this week.

TENSES:

What tense to write your reviews in? The old golden rule was, for a one-off event that has been and gone, use the PAST tense (a concert), but for something that people can still enjoy, PRESENT (a film, a book). Unfortunately, the invention of the iPlayer and other online TV on demand services has skewed this for TV reviewing, which has traditionally until recently mostly been written in the past tense. Today, TV reviews can be in either, or flip backwards and forwards between past and present in the one review. A weekly round up in a magazine or a Sunday paper will still mostly be in the past tense. So will a single-show review of a one-off programme (a big documentary film) or unrepeatable live event (X-Factor final). But everything else is up for grabs and open to negotiation.

SELECTION OF PROGRAMMES:

Generally, if reviewing two or more programmes in a review, either of one night or of the week, it’s accepted that ideally they should not be of the same type (both dramas), or on the same channel (all BBC1). But these are not golden rules. Sometimes the two things that need writing about are going to be on one channel. If not very often. The scope or palate of legitimate channels to review has widened too in the decade since Freeview, digital terrestrial, gradually became the norm. A mass market TV review can select programmes from not only the five traditional main channels – BBC1 and 2, ITV, C4 and C5 – but now also BBC 3 and 4, BBC Alba (Scotland only), ITV2/3/4, BBC NEWS, More4, E4, Film 4, and so on, although many of these are mostly repeats, so you can’t review their output anyway.

FILM AND TV REVIEWING CLOSER THAN EVER

Film reviewing requires that expertise or knowledge of at least a limited form must be shown. TV reviewing can get away without it, but that doesn’t make it right: the TV critic really should attempt to convince readers that his or her opinion is not just based on an impressionistic-only response. Where I think the two reviewing practices differ is on the status, role or expectation of explicit personal intrusion. It is still possible, if rare, to imagine and create a film reviewing voice that never or rarely slips into the first person. But with TV reviewing, the personal and informal is nigh-on obligatory at least at some place in every review. Why should this be? It’s partly to do with TV as a mass demotic, domestic medium, experienced by everyone close-up: a personal reaction is an understood element of the normal viewing relationship. But it’s also a consequence of the history and evolution of British newspaper TV reviewing practices and conventions which have emerged since the 1970s. Ever since Clive James in the Observer (his collected columns are in your reading list and in the library) invented a TV column as an opportunity for display of armchair wit and fecundity, editors, rightly or wrongly, have wanted more of the same. To argue today to your editor that your TV review should be wholly impersonal, detached and coolly authoritative, would be to invite ridicule and the end of any hope of recommission. The one exception to this rule is the great Nancy Banks-Smith of The Guardian: her voice is unmistakeably her own, and personal, but she never has to type “I”.

Hustle (BBC1)

Date: Friday January 27th

Time: 9:00pm

We’re half way into the 8th and final season of BBC’s primetime Ocean’s Eleven-esque con show Hustle, with the first two episodes bringing the series back to fine form after its break away. Last week’s episode continued the streak of quality with perhaps one of the best of the show’s entire run so far.

The third episode, entitled “Curiosity Caught the Kat,” saw the stakes just about as high as they’ve ever been, with corrupt police officer DCI Fisk (Patrick Baladi) setting his sights on our gang of hustlers and specifically on leader Mickey (Adrian Lester). Totally unaware of the fact they’re being watched, the gang target their next mark Linda Runcorn (Nina Sosanya), a corrupt internet travel guide owner. They decide to pretend she has inherited an estate and valuable jewellery from a deceased aunt she didn’t know she had.

Since the show is reaching its end point after eight years, with the first two episodes but particularly this one, you can feel that they’re really going for it as far as raising the stakes goes. Despite knowing that everything normally works out alright for the team of tricksters, the episode really turned the pressure up and made it genuinely feel like this could be the last episode ever, even if we know there are still three more cons to go before all is said and done.

This was quite a complicated episode, even for a show that thrives on being quick, witty and generally ahead of the audience until we are allowed to catch up with what’s actually being going on. When DCI Fisk throws a spanner in the works of the con by using an old friend of one of the team as a mole, things become muddy since we have so much to keep with already. But this is Hustle we’re talking about, a set of safe hands as far as necessary but not over-the-top exposition goes. By the end of the episode we’re clued in as much as we need to be but at the same time not so much that you don’t feel like you’ve done at least some of the work.

Ever since brother-sister team Emma (Kelly Adams) and Sean (Matt Di Angelo) joined the show in season 5, arguably surpassing the two previous members Stacie (Jaime Murray) and Danny (Marc Warren), there has been a lot more emphasis on humour. This has been more evident in season 8, for example last week there was a whole subplot devoted to Eddie (Rob Jarvis) keeping the gang barred from his bar until one of them owned up to defacing a prized photo of his favourite footballer . Although the comedy was less evident in episode 3 it was still there, this time it was Eddie complaining about the council forcing him to take his rubbish bags out before he opens for business each day. This gives some relief from the heavier drama and complex con going on at the same time.

The episode does everything that Hustle is known and loved for, from the usual “our next mark” con set-up to quick-witted dialogue between the team. But at the same time it throws a few more twists and turns than what we’re used to and generally gives a rare feeling that maybe things aren’t going to work out as planned by the end of the episode.

We’re almost at the finish line of Hustle and with three episodes to go the show is still as strong as ever.

BBC3 saw a whopping 50% increase for their average 9pm-10pm slot on Monday night as over 700,000 viewers tuned in to watch would-be presenter Amel Fashanu on factual documentary, “Britain’s Gay Footballers”.

The documentary explored homosexuality in football, or indeed the lack of openly gay men in British football. Homosexuality in football is still a huge taboo subject which many investigative journalists before Amel have tried, with difficulty, to explore.

It is an extremely tricky topic to effectively present to an audience for the simple fact that homosexual footballers, presuming that there are some, are unwilling to open up and be honest about their sexuality.

Upon first glance, one would be forgiven for thinking that this was just another presenter’s attempt to expose gay footballers and encourage others to show support to other footballers who may be hiding their true sexuality.

It soon became apparent, however, that Amel Fashanu had more of  a direct  relationship to this forbidden side of football as her late uncle, Justin, was one of the only openly gay players in British football history.

The documentary, for this reason, was based mainly on his life before, during and after his exposure, and until his suicide at the tender age of 37, as well as the lack of openly gay footballers in Britain.

The format of the programme was compiled mostly of interviews with various figures, including an emotional, “TV-gold” encounter with John Fashanu, where his lack of support for Justin at the time came as a shock to the 22 year old presenter.

As Justin’s only sibling and only known blood relative, John took the decision at the time not to stand by his brother’s decision to expose himself as gay to the British public.

Since the revelation in 1997, this was John’s first chance to defend his actions and allow viewers to see if he was remorseful or regretful at the treatment of his brother.  This had to be interesting, I thought.

“I’m not homophobic…I never have been.” was Fashanu’s first words to daughter Amel when she questioned the ex-footballer’s treatment of younger brother.

“But I certainly was cross with him at the time” he continued.   However, this didn’t appear to me as someone who was simply “cross” that their brother had come out so publicly.  It appeared that he definitely had more of an issue with his brother’s sexuality than he was now letting on.

As part of the documentary, she also spoke to British footballer Joey Barton, whose uncle is gay, who encouraged others to show homosexual players support.

In another part of the programme, she spoke to PR guru Max Clifford who confirmed to viewers that there are in fact homosexual footballers in Britain today who have paid for Clifford’s services to keep their truth a secret.

At the climax of the 60 minute long documentary, Clifford made a statement which, regrettably, suggests the mentality of the British football industry may never change: ”Mentally, most people in and around football go back to the Dark Ages.”

Title: David Bailey: 4 Beats to the Bar and No Cheating
Channel: BBC 4
Broadcast on: Thursday 26 January

Director: Jerome de Missolz

Mick Jagger, Lennon and McCartney, Michael Caine, The Krays. Just some of the people featured in the vast slideshow shown in documentary 4 Beats to the Bar and No Cheating, a portrait of iconic photographer David Bailey. A revealing look at the man who photographed the 1960s in the same way that the Beatles and Stones sound tracked it. When I think of Bailey, with limited knowledge, I always think of that scene in Austin Powers 2, where Powers is photographing the models and flouncing about calling everyone “darling” and “baby”. This documentary serves to dispel this impression and Bailey comes across as humble, open and well balanced individual. Most importantly however, he is shown to be an intensely creative artist.

Throughout the documentary we are given insights into the 73 year old’s artistic process, beginning with his interaction with a model in a photo shoot where he gives direction but most importantly, tries to encourage the model to be herself. No ego’s, temper tantrums, arrogance is on display, instead he puts the model at ease. Charming and eloquent, she is putty in his hands. On his own style and view on art he quotes his hero, jazz legend Count Basie, art should be “ 4 beats to the bar and no cheating.”

Art critic Martin Harrison gives a running critique of Bailey’s work, at some points with Bailey present, sitting silent next to him. This gives a surreal dimension to the documentary, giving the strange impression that Bailey has died and his ghost is sitting next to Harrison listening to a critique of his own work, the only point the documentary is in danger of straying into pretentious territory.

Bailey is arguably the most famous photographer in the world, but also shown are his sculpture and painting projects in his studio in Devon. The studio is littered with sculptures of skulls and dead flowers and strange paintings featuring both Mickey Mouse and Hitler, in jarring contrast with his iconic black and white images from the sixties.

The sixties is explored of course, his relationship with iconic model Jean Shrimpton, marriage to French actress Catherine Deneuve and friendship with Mick Jagger, best man at his wedding to Deneuve. Again though it does not encroach on the typical, “peace and love” “remember the Beatles??” territory that many documentaries covering this period do. Bailey’s survival of this decade is credited to his professional relationship with his subjects with the exception of the relationships discussed earlier.

Bailey comes across as a well-balanced, humble artist. He seems genuinely apologetic when he discusses his work in case he strays into pretentious territory. Bailey of course became as famous as the subjects he photographed, but on this he says: “I’m looking for what they have, not for what I have.”

This film managed to find what it was he has and created an intimate portrait of the 2nd most famous man in the room.

Monday January 23, 10pm, E4.

If you had hoped the gang had been conscientiously catching up with their homework in the year
they’ve spent off our screens your illusions will have been unceremoniously quashed the moment Mini announced: “Let’s get f*****.”

Chucked straight into the sensory-overdose that is Skins – with every scene drenched in bright colour and no inkling of pace – writer Bryan Elsley wasted no time wreaking havoc on teenaged lives despite losing co-creator Jamie Brittain post-series five. By the time the gang were plonked back in Bristol at the end of the episode everything already seemed broken, with medical emergencies, missing persons, potential kidnap and drug-smuggling all covered in a flash, and all with Elsley’s relatable undertone of heartache, camaraderie and coursework.

While the gang’s Moroccan expedition did seem an unnecessary excuse for a change of scenery, the episode was no less entertaining for it. The teenaged protagonists’ characteristic thrill-seeking and emotionally schizophrenic existence attracted the usual bass-pumping, drug-enhanced carnage punctuated at every natural pause by sex. Except it was sunny.

Some of the cast’s performances, including the series debut of the now formulaic evil posh one, Luke (Sam Jackson), were unremarkable. Most were simply side-lined, with their infrequent dialogue transparent as a plot device necessary to move the action forward. But in a welcome twist of fate the standout performer of the episode was Freya Mavor as Mini – the bitchy, spiteful, image-obsessed Queen Bee-type who we saw forcing Liv to down straight vodka for sleeping with her boyfriend in series five. Her new-found interest in Alo was not only funny, but sweet, yet she retained her take-no-prisoners attitude in her vicious-lipped warnings about the boys’ behaviour.

Franky (Dakota Blue Richards) however seems to have slipped from her pedestal as the token quirky-type, and was far from the intriguing, misfit girl of the series before. Instead, she immediately began what can only be described as a contrived hissy-fit – with swearing. As one of the minority of the cast who has previous acting experience (The Golden Compass, The Secret of Moonacre) I expected better, but given her worthy debut as the bullied and insular new-girl in series five it’s safe to bet she will throw off the stroppy and bored suit and strip down to some emotionally-scarred rawness soon.

Rich and Alo were just as hilarious, while the relationship between Rich and Grace following their almost-wedding had grown even more touching and infinitely more believable in their absence.

Once again, what on paper should be a recipe for disaster – insults casually blowing around like loose (fag) papers, blunt teenaged sexuality and open drug-use – actually delivered purely addictive viewing. Series six will definitely have fans coming back for their next fix.

I am indebted to my old friend Dr Ian Hunter of Leicester De Montfort University, for drawing my attention this morning via facebook to this think piece from the Guardian’s Suzanne Moore on the problems of the online “democratization” of reviewing of everything, prompted by the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority’s critical report on some reviews on the travel website Trip Advisor:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/01/tripadvisor-furore-criticism?INTCMP=SRCH

Probably a few people already know about this, but for people interested in music this might be of interest… Scottish Alternative Music Awards 2012: http://www.glasgowmusic.co.uk/ReadFeature-0000000200

Hustle, Series 8: Episode 3 (BBC One)

Aired 9pm, 27^th Jan 2012

This week our team are set for just another con – exploiting Linda Runcorn (Nina Sosanya), CEO of an online hotel and restaurant guide, who bullies smaller businesses for profit. The plan is to trick her into believing a wealthy long-lost relative has left her a fortune and then make off with the usual briefcase of cash to pay off some ‘builders fees’. However, a spanner is thrown into the works when the team discover they are being pursued by bent copper DI Fisk (Patrick Baladi).

It’s quite difficult to watch Hustle without wanting this team of crooks to succeed. The cons are clever, the characters very likable and there’s always that one little moment where you think everything has gone pear-shaped but it turns out it was all part of the plan. But this week, is it all over?

A mystery individual has paid a police officer to hunt down and put away Mickey (Adrian Lester) for good and DI Sid Fisk is ready to use all manor of corruption to achieve his goal. Unaware of this, the team pose as representatives of an heir-hunting firm, convincing Linda Runcorn that a great aunt has left her a house, jewellery and a nice lump some. Meanwhile, Fisk blackmails Kat Farmer (Skye Lourie), an old friend of Sean and Emma (Matt Di Angelo and Kelly Adams) to infiltrate the team and pass him news on the team and their con. With this information in hand Fisk begins to pick apart the team’s plans and all seems lost when Emma herself is arrested. But of course, we’re not worried because Mickey always has a plan and will save the day… We hope…

Patrick Baladi (The Office, Mistresses) is a wonderful choice as this week’s guest star – the character seems to possess no morals whatsoever and we genuinely believe that Baladi is set on destroying the team. He is sinister, corrupt and exploits ever smidgen of power in his position. Nina Sosanya (Silk, Teachers) also provides a very well played role but you’re going to have to watch to find out why!

There is little from Ash and Albert (Robert Glenister and Robert Vaughn) this week, which is a bit disappointing as these are superb characters and often provide the best laughs of the show. However, we did see a wonderful performance from Glenister last week (which can still be viewed on the BBC iPlayer, along with the rest of the series) so perhaps we’ll get something from Vaughn soon.

The fault of Hustle is that we know everything will be ok – yes, this is the final series but lets face it, we’re only on episode three! The enjoyment, most of the time, comes from the fact that we don’t know how it will be done – perhaps this week the seasoned viewer may get an inkling, but the outcome is still pleasing. It’s clear that Hustle has returned to our screens because it is a loved show (nearly 6 million people tuned in this week) but maybe it’s best that the end is nigh – perhaps like the team, we know all the tricks now.

Top Gear

BBC2, Sunday (29^th January 2012) 8pm

With: Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May

WITH the reputation that Top Gear is getting in the press, some doubted it would even return for another series.

However, with the infamous trio returning for their 18^th series of outings, it would be an odd decision for the BBC to axe one of their more successful shows.

But being successful also means it can be quite expensive.  The short preview at the start of the episode – a parody of their segment of what’s coming up in the series featuring Jeremy cycling round the track on a bicycle – will probably be seen in some episodes as they try to balance their books to afford the supercars and other stunts featured in the real preview.

This week’s supercars in question were the Lamborghini Aventador, the McLaren MP4-12C and the Noble M600.  Billed as competitors to the Ferrari 458, the trio take to Italy for a short road trip and their usual array of “challenges”.

If you’re not really a car person but still enjoy watching Top Gear for the jokes and the banter you probably had a challenge of your own watching this – as all three of the cars were exactly the same colour.

As one of the main and regular features of the programme, if you can’t tell the cars apart (especially when cars can have very similar designs) then at least you can assign each of the presenters a colour in your head.  Not so this week, for the first half of the programme at least…

Another regular feature of the show is the “Star in a Reasonably Priced Car”, with a bit of a coup this week having Black Eyed Peas star will.I.Am in the Kia.  At first I didn’t really expect much from his interview, and I wouldn’t have believed you if you’d told me before watching that Clarkson would call the rapper an “inspiration” like I’m telling you now.  But after hearing his story, I have a bit of a new found respect for will.I.Am.

Hopefully the guests for the rest of the series are of a similar standard, with Friends star Matt LeBlanc billed for next week.

Of course amongst the aforementioned challenges is a return of the Stig – or rather one of his numerous cousins, another of which will also turn up next week.

When Top Gear is one of your more successful shows, it makes sense to keep the formula the same.  Even down to lightly releasing the gag from Clarkson’s politically incorrect mouth.  Although there are another six episodes to go, he still has plenty of time to offend.

While I’m talking about the presenters I must add that Richard Hammond continues to stare in the face of precarious driving despite his much talked about crash in 2006.

On the other hand, James May looks ridiculous in a camouflage-style hoody.  If there isn’t a “Top Gear Wardrobe Department” yet then I’m sure the BBC can find some funds to afford one – just as long as they don’t cut anything good about the show.

A welcome return from the lads, sticking to what they know best.

J. Edgar (15)

Director: Clint Eastwood

With: Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts, Judi Dench.

I hold my hand up and say, ‘I did not think I would enjoy J. Edgar’. But I did. I also found it annoying and unfocused.

Clint Eastwood, perhaps known best for westerns and action movies, in this biopic gives us his portrayal of J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio), creator of the FBI, fighter against communist radicals and innovator of forensic techniques that render the existence of CSI possible. Yet this film also depicts the personal aspects of Hoover’s life; his relationships, desire for respect and constant paranoia over perceived threats to his country.

Eastwood has created a film which not only highlights the rise of Hoover to the role of Director of the FBI but gives us a glance into Hoover’s relationship with his Associate Director Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer) and his huge desire to appease his mother’s (Judi Dench) expectations.

From the offset Hoover’s strong feelings against any anti-government movements are clear, as he works to identify and catalogue all radical individuals throughout America, at whatever cost – at one point Hoover is shown handing out guns to a raid team and when asked if this is legal for agents, states there’s no law against individuals having their own.

Despite earning a large amount of negative PR for the Department of Justice, Hoover ends up in the top position, giving him full control and thus begins his struggle to enforce his and the Bureau’s image – supported largely by graduate lawyer Tolson. The Lindbergh kidnapping incentivises the development of forensic techniques allowing Hoover to press the Senate to provide the Bureau with greater federal jurisdiction, yet this devastating case only drives Hoover further into his own personal battle against communist activism.

Eastwood has chosen to depict these events through Hoover’s recital of memoires to young agents and the film jumps back and forth from past to present, the tales interjected with personal memories such as his struggles dealing with his and Tolson’s relationship, and his mother’s death.

Each of these stories is interesting and gives us an insight into who Hoover was but sadly, that’s all they are – vague glances. No one theme exists or cuts through. Politics, homosexuality, personal realisation, justice, scientific progress – they’re all in there somewhere but it is as if Eastwood could not settle on just one so we are subjected to a mis-match of stories: all enjoyable, but we are left wanting. Eastwood’s use of a prominent figure, recounting his tales for autobiographical purposes is frankly useless – the time jumps are inconsistent and often come around at a point at which I wanted to know more.

DiCaprio’s performance is not bad, but nothing special. The score, composed by Eastwood himself, seems to consist of random piano interjections and frankly DiCaprio and Hammer’s ‘older look’ is reminiscent of Statler & Waldorf of the Muppets. The film is saved by its smaller players. Armie Hammer’s portrayal of Tolson is possibly the only thing which gives J. Edgar beauty. At first his jovial acting seems ill fitting and a little strange – he is at one point seen carelessly munching from a box of cereal while wandering around the new ‘laboratory’ – but further in it is clear that this joviality is a mask. Naomi Watts, who plays J. Edgar’s personal secretary Helen Gandy, also provides a stunning role. She may not have much to say, but her use of facial expression and timing says more.

Overall, Eastwood gets a ‘Good attempt, try harder’.

J. Edgar (15) Clint Eastwood

With: Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts, Judi
Dench. (137 mins)

We all know Leonardo DiCaprio is more than just a pretty face, but in donning layers of prosthetics to morph into an elderly J. Edgar Hoover he is anything but.  Leo is becoming the preeminent actor of his generation, and that’s one of difficulties J. Edgar struggles to overcome.

It sells itself as a collaboration between a star actor and a star director, so our expectations are immediately high, perhaps too high. There are problems such as the miss-cast supporting actor, a tendency to labour the point, and the dampening inevitability about the plot.  The point is, under any other circumstances, this film would impress.  Instead, it merely satisfies.

Directed and produced by Clint Eastwood, this biopic of the first FBI director, sees Hoover, as an older man, narrate his memoirs.  Jumping back and forwards in time, we watch a young Sherlockian Hoover literally morph into the devious figure in popular culture with which he is synonymous today. Fully embracing the gay theory, the film focuses on Hoover’s supposed romance with FBI associate director Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer), which really gives the film an emotional pull.

The film rescues itself from becoming annoyingly sympathetic at the 11th hour.  Granted fact is given an artistic licence in film, this portrayal could have become sickly.  Having effectively been narrated by the central character throughout, the audience eventually comes face to face with the problem of the unreliable narrator.

Tom Stern’s low-lit scenes, coupled with Eastwood’s piano score, add to the jazz-cafe atmosphere of the piece.  Eastwood’s vision is flawless artistically but some elements, make-up especially, let the film down.  Awful prosthetics aside, Armie Hammer was slightly lacking clout in his role as Tolson, and Naomi Walsh is bland in her role as secretary, Helen Gandy.  Dame Judi Dench does add some punch in the role of Hoover’s controlling mother, but remains in the shadow of Leo.

While the forbidden love story at the heart of the film is well portrayed, some other threads were not so successful.  Arguably, the suggestion of cross-dressing had to be there, but without fully exploring the idea, the theatrical scene where Hoover dawns his dead mother’s dress seemed out of place.

Although a film of this calibre lends itself to nit-picking and overly-harsh criticism, it would be nice to see Leo out of his 20^th century comfort zone.  With four historically-based films rumoured to be in the pipeline, this may be wishful thinking.  Still, what he does, he does well.  On this basis alone, J. Edgar is one to watch.

J.Edgar (15) Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts, Judi Dench. Director: Clint Eastwood. Screenwriter: Dustin Lance Black

AS A director, Clint Eastwood is no stranger to portraying real-life figures on the big screen. Invictus (2009) saw Morgan Freeman give a brilliant performance as Nelson Mandela, and was no doubt the highlight of an otherwise underwhelming film.

In new biopic J.Edgar, Eastwood sets his sights on the infamous FBI director John Edgar Hoover (played by Leonardo DiCaprio). The myths and stories surrounding the man make for a fascinating film subject.  Just how deep was his relationship with his deputy Clive Tolson?  As FBI director was he a hero or villain? And most importantly, was he a cross-dresser?

We are introduced to Hoover in his latter days, as he narrates his rise to the top. He is credited with toppling swathes of communists, taking down John Dillinger and cracking the Lindbergh case.  Or so it seems on the surface.

Eastwood’s direction paints a sombre portrayal of Hoover, and tries to dig deeper beneath ‘the most powerful man in the world’. An understated soundtrack penned by Eastwood himself accompanies Tom Stern’s rich cinematography.

Despite the polished look of the film, Milk writer Dustin Lance Black’s screenplay swings back and forth like a pendulum, and while DiCaprio’s narrative tries to attract the viewer’s attention like a gangster movie akin to Goodfellas, it ends up feeling slightly convoluted.

Nevertheless, DiCaprio is excellent in the lead role, and shows how he has matured as an actor since his days of youthful abandon in The Beach and Romeo + Juliet.  Armie Hammer (The Social Network) is reliable as Tolson, although his elderly self is questionable due to the dodgy prosthetics. Naomi Watts meanwhile is underused as Hoover’s secretary.

Hoover’s sexual ambiguity offers an underlying and more interesting element to J. Edgar In a scene with Hoover’s mother (Judi Dench in a dodgy American accent) she tells him: “I’d rather have a dead son than a daffodil for a son.” It is argued by those who knew him that this aspect of Hoover’s life has been greatly exaggerated, even made-up. Regardless of the truth, this element makes for an interesting character study.

But J.Edgar is too caught up in detailing his life events at a rapid pace, and there are only a few flashes of brilliance, most notably in DiCaprio’s performance. The political backdrop to the film doesn’t feel intriguing, when it really could be; Hoover’s backstory could easily rival the best political dramas if executed properly.

Clint Eastwood is indeed an accomplished director.  But after his magnum opus Gran Torino, ambitious biopics such as J.Edgar fail to hit the spot. There are moments of hard-hitting drama, for instance one powerful scene alludes to Hoover’s alleged penchant for cross-dressing. It’s a burst of passion which sticks out like a sore thumb. Perhaps J.Edgar Hoover is too much of an enigma to unravel in the space of 137 minutes.

Clint Eastwood’s latest directorial effort  tackles the life of one of America’s most controversial historical figures: J.Edgar Hoover, the first director of the FBI, who served for over fifty years in the post. Leonardo Di Caprio plays Hoover, with Judi Dench as his mother, Naomi Watts as his long-serving secretary Helen Gandy, and the fantastically named Armie Hammer as his assistant director Clyde Tolson.

Stylistically the film switches between Hoover in his latter years and his early years in charge, with some questionable prosthetics involving Di Caprio, Watts and Hammer which make the latter look like the elderly Biff in Back to the Future II.

The film is nearly three hours long, with the film covering nearly all of Hoover’s tenure in charge, a period often referred to as America’s “growing pains”. From the first ‘red scare’ in the 1920′s through Prohibition to the Civil Rights Movement, just about any key event or movement in 20^th Century America, Hoover was involved.

With this in mind, it would be reasonable to think that the film would be an engaging insight into not just Hoover but all of these crucial historical events, however the narrative failed to change pace aside from the initial beginnings of the F.B.I.

The film seeks to portray the character of Hoover through his relationships with the three other central characters, particularly his mother and Clyde Tolson. However, the relationship with his mother is handled in a very derivative fashion, and other than a moment after her death when Hoover dons her dress and pearls, alluding to the rumours that the F.B.I director was a transvestite behind closed doors, there is no real interesting depth to this relationship.

His relationship with Tolson is the most interesting part of the film; Hoover was believed to have been a closet homosexual, and rumours abound as to the true nature of his relationship with Tolson. Their relationship is quite touching and almost makes you feel sympathetic towards Hoover, but his cruelty and the knowledge that he himself blackmailed closeted homosexuals makes it hard to reconcile these feelings.

His relationship with Watts is one which never really resurfaces as a central plot after their initial romantic storyline evaporates. For the rest of the film Hoover is seen shouting her name for the most part until he asks her to dispose of his secret files that she has been keeping throughout his tenure, when he dies, through fears that the new President Richard Nixon will use them to shut down the organisation. Her reasons for staying loyal to Hoover in the face of all his indiscretions, is never really explained or understood.

A more interesting narrative vehicle could have been his relationship with central political figures in America’s history like Nixon (Hoover served through the terms of eight different Presidents) but this is barely touched upon. A brief butting of heads with Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Nixon, adds up to about 15 minutes of the film thus casting aside the dynamics of his relationships with other powerful, ego-driven people. As a study of power, this film would have been far more enthralling; instead it leaves the viewer with an empty feeling inside not really knowing how to feel about Hoover. Then again maybe Eastwood’s intentions were to leave it up to the viewer to decide; irrespective of this, the film overstretches itself and would have been far better being stretched over two films, in the same way as the Che Guevara biopic was handled.

This film is by no means awful, Di Caprio is fantastic in it, but it is not essential and it really could have been.

Directed by: Clint Eastwood, With: Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer and Naomi Watts

J. Edgar Hoover was born and raised with the aim of becoming the most important man in the United Stated of America and indeed, he became the great godfather of the nation.  For him, the distinction between villain and hero was clearly marked: on the one hand, there were the good guys, the pure Americans, the straight moral men, the ones who protect the country; and on the other the bad guys, the communists, the subversives, the niggers that started the riots.

This is the first layer of Clint Eastwood´s biopic on J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo Di Caprio), the man who founded the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as we know it. However, as Mr Eastwood´s filmography has shown before (Million Dollar Baby, Grand Torino or Flags of Our Fathers) the American hero has many other layers, frequently more complex and obscure.

The film depicts the foundation of the FBI in the early nineteen twenties, charting the origins of the assembly of the powerful machine that exists today. Eastwood tell us of Hoover´s achievements to modernize the Bureau and his genius at instigating and implementing new solutions to fight against his obsession: the communist threat.

But beyond the figure of the “steel” man, Hoover is presented as a lost man, highly dependent on the strong figure of his mother (the great Judi Dench), and at times slightly sociopathic.

However, what really defines the personality of Hoover is the assumption that he holds the secret of all the secrets, the enigma with the potential to destroy his career and all his work, yet, in a context in which the rectitude is law, Mr. Hoover has to face his homosexuality.

What is captivating and compelling about this film is the portrayal of the tragedy of an impossible love between Hoover and his collaborator Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer), and the triangle with his faithful secretary Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts). Eastwood is hinting at the dark side of a personality obsessed with rectitude and control.

Leonardo Di Caprio, who has long since shed his image as a baby-faced Hollywood heart-throb, is brilliant in his attempt to capture the complexity of Edgar Hoover, as he did previously in his portrayal of Howard Hughes (The Aviator). Armie Hammer answers back efficiently to Di Caprio’s performance, managing the role of the secret beauty of the beast, maybe too much of a beauty , though, due to an excess of make –up and the overuse of the illumination to highlight his Adonis feature.

Clint Eastwood, who produced, directed and even wrote the soundtrack for this film, creates a story in accordance with his state as a bitter old man. The traditional values that underpin the conservative moral of the “pure” America are questioned during the course of the film. A vision of the American Way of Life that Mr. Eastwood seems to feel nostalgic about is presented.

J. Edgar Hoover appears to be simply Eastwood’s latest excuse to represent the idea of this moral dichotomy, as shown through his choice of certain political topics and characters in his most recent works. Eastwood’s “Captain America” ideal vision of a moral society is constantly questioned, and here thrown back in the face of American society, to remind them, and us, that everybody could hide a dead boy in the backyard.

Director: Clint Eastwood

Cast: Leonardo Di Caprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts, Judi Dench

Directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Leonardo Di Caprio as one of the twentieth century’s most vilified figures, J. Edgar had set the bar high before production even commenced.

The narrative follows J. Edgar Hoover (Di Caprio) through the definitive moments in his life as he relates his ‘untitled FBI story’. Selected to head a new division of the Bureau of Investigation, J. Edgar’s brilliant mind soon turns towards self-preservation as the boundaries blur between his day-to-day reality and the secretive, mistrusting nature of his professional life.

But if it was the prospect of 137 minutes of Leo’s chiselled features that coaxed you to the box office you’ll leave disappointed; the sight of him in his sixties isn’t nearly as appealing. His performance however cannot be faulted. While it would be easy to demonise a man who committed notorious invasions of privacy in the name of national security, he succeeds in making us empathise with J. Edgar when it counts. A rare solo scene following his mother’s death is undoubtedly the most poignant, but is interrupted by an irritatingly clichéd score which is recycled for most of the film’s emotionally-provocative moments.

Of the impressive supporting cast Armie Hammer as Clyde Tolson is the standout performer. The relationship between J. Edgar and Tolson, who is arguably the film’s only mildly likeable character, is by far the film’s highlight; Hammer could easily have overshadowed a lesser actor than Di Caprio in the lead role. Judi Dench is chilling as J. Edgar’s poisonous mother, Annie, but while Naomi Watts is convincing as loyal, career-driven secretary Helen Gandy she does not get her chance to shine. Her anti-female stereotype is conveniently side-lined for the duration of the film.

While cinematically impressive, with details as small as the colour scheme rooting the film in time and place, the disjointed way in which the story unfolds lets it down. Until characters are established it is difficult to keep a grasp on the protagonist – who at first seems to jump from old age to youth and back again without coherent explanation – and it is easy to lose concentration while as yet meaningless people drift in and out of the plot. Early events within the film, including an assassination attempt involving one of J. Edgar’s seniors and a bizarre childhood scene in which the family’s hopes are placed firmly upon his shoulders in lieu of a hapless older brother and dementia-ridden father, are barely granted a nod in the rest of the film and could easily have been omitted from its two-and-a-quarter hour running time.

While Eastwood’s final twist in the tale may have some sitting forward in their seats – probably those who had drifted off; it is relatively predictable – the majority of the film is little more than dull. Perhaps J. Edgar’s advice to “choose one name and stick to it” might be better applied to Clint Eastwood’s directorial career? The biopic was definitely a mistake.

Director/Composer:
Clint Eastwood

Cast:  Leonardo
DiCaprio, Judi Dench, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts

Clint Eastwood’s biopic of J Edgar Hoover is an absorbing film, if not a hugely exciting one.

The most controversial aspect of the movie is the fact that it takes a position over whether Hoover was gay.

The relationship between DiCaprio’s Hoover and Armie Hammer’s Clyde Tolson forms the central spine of the film.  The events of Hoover’s long and controversial reign over the FBI serve as a backdrop.

The problem with this approach is that you’re left wondering whether or not any of the exchanges between Hoover and Tolson actually happened.  There were plenty of rumours about Hoover being gay during his lifetime, but there is no conclusive evidence of the two men being anything more than close friends.

There were also rumours concerning J Edgar Hoover being a cross dresser, something that was used by humourists like Truman Capote in the 50s and 60s.  In Eastwood’s film this is treated seriously in a scene somewhat reminiscent of Psycho.

These doubts over the reality of the story are a distraction during the film, but they don’t overwhelm it entirely.

Eastwood’s direction is stately and serious throughout as all of his latter day works have been. In addition to directing and helping to produce the film, he also composed the music.  Not bad going for an octogenarian.

The story itself contains all sorts of world-shaking events, from Communist bomb scares in 1919 to Martin Luther King in the late 1960s.  These are whipped through at great speed, which can lend a slightly disjointed feel to the film.  They are merely scenery, however, and interesting scenery at that.

Leonardo DiCaprio does a great job of portraying Hoover and Judi Dench gives good value as his domineering mother.  It must be said, however, that Dench’s accent does occasionally wander off into the mid-Atlantic.  Naomi Watts is given very little to do as Ms Gandy, Hoover’s long-serving PA.

A more serious problem is that Clyde Tolson seems slightly two dimensional in the film.  This struck me as an issue with the writing as opposed to Hammer’s performance.  The upshot is that you don’t care as much as perhaps you should about the relationship depicted.

Hoover is a fascinating character, ably brought to life by DiCaprio, and the zip through the history of the FBI is interesting, but the film lacks the emotional punch to be a great piece of entertainment.

On a final note, the aging make up applied to the main characters is less than convincing.  By the end of the film Clyde Tolson’s head resembles a condom filled with pate.

J. Edgar (15)

DIRECTOR: Clint Eastwood

WRITER: Dustin Lance Black

CAST: Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts, Judi Dench.

Clint Eastwood is generally a director you can trust to deliver a well made, no-fuss film with strong performances at its centre and real sense that you’ve got your money’s worth. With the exception of his last film, the overly sentimental Hereafter, Eastwood’s 21st century career as a director has been an impressive one, with Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby standing out in particular.

It’s a shame, then, that J. Edgar is such a wasted opportunity not just on Eastwood’s part but on that of the screenwriter Dustin Lance Black (Oscar-winner for Milk) and the primary cast, which includes Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts and Judi Dench.

The film tells the story of J. Edgar Hoover, the controversial founder of the FBI who was at the forefront of crime prevention for half a century. As well as looking at his career it also explores the idea of his purported closeted homosexuality and relationship with friend and co-worker Clyde Tolson.

At almost 140 minutes you’d expect the film to offer a substantial experience but for a film of its length it doesn’t really feel like it tells you all that much. Structured in flashback form, with the older J. Edgar dictating his life story for a book, the film frantically jumps around and never quite finds a focus. In their quest to be even handed about the titular man’s life and actions behind-closed-doors, Eastwood and Black’s biopic feels altogether too safe. This reserved approach does a disservice to a potentially shocking chronicling of the eponymous man’s life.

There are also several other problems with the film beyond that, not the least of which is the make-up. Normally such a matter would go unnoticed or unmentioned but this aspect is especially important in a film where so much is told when the characters are in their old age. The make-up is distracting instead of doing what it should do which is to make us believe these people are actually older. The problem is most noticeable with DiCaprio and Hammer, both of whom are so obviously caked in make-up and prosthetics to the point where it almost seems like a parody.

This issue leads into the acting problems, DiCaprio’s performance in particular. Although it seems silly to say because this is essentially what acting is but I never felt like I was watching J. Edgar Hoover but simply DiCaprio in heavy make-up and putting on an exaggerated voice. He is normally a fantastic actor in films like Catch Me If You Can, Shutter Island and Revolutionary Road, but his performance here was misjudged.

As a whole there’s just nothing exciting or particularly engaging about Eastwood’s life-spanning biopic. It doesn’t exactly help that the whole thing is adorned with a dreary, washed-out look making for a film that doesn’t transport you back in time but is simply uninteresting to look at. There are certainly things to like here including some intriguingly suggestive scenes exploring the relationship between Edgar and Tolson, and it’s undoubedtly interesting to see how the FBI was set up. But a baggy and confused narrative, off-putting make-up and bland visuals make J. Edgar an underwhelming and unmemorable experience from a usually first-rate director.