Arts & Entertainment Journalism

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.

J Edgar Cert 15

J. Edgar; (15).

Dir: Clint Eastwood

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

“Nothing wrong with shooting as long as the right people get shot,” snarls ‘Dirty’ Harry Callahan in 1973’s Clint Eastwood vehicle Magnum Force.

With these words ringing in his ear Eastwood raises his trusty .44 magnum to one of America’s most infamous figures.

He takes aim; a former FBI kingpin in his sights.

Bang!  He empties his barrel.

The target is bleeding – but it is only a flesh wound.

Is he firing blanks?

J. Edgar Hoover stumbles off – with a handful of painkillers and some bed rest he should be just fine.

Eastwood stumbles back to the office, whisky on his breath, ready to receive a rollicking from the chief.

So after his sharpshooting on recent projects such as the acclaimed Gran Torino and the well-received biopic Invictus, why was the director unable to hit the target in J. Edgar?

The problem is not the direction.  Eastwood’s range of shots, colouring and the performances he draws from his cast are typically polished.

The cinematography, by Tom Stern, is painted from a rich muted palette, reminiscent of an old sepia photograph. The costuming and set design accurate enough for the era.

The calibre of the cast is also beyond doubt.

Like other recent political biopics J. Edgar features a powerhouse performance from one of Hollywood’s leading stars in the title role.

Not for the first time, Leo DiCaprio has stepped into the shoes of one of his country’s great figures. He delivers a forceful performance and for his chameleon like shape-shifting and attention to detail he deserves plaudits.

His performance as the eponymous subject is supplemented by rising star Armie Hammer, great as the young sidekick and spurned love Clyde Tolson – despite some dodgy makeup; Naomi Watt’s as confidante Miss Gandy; and Judi Dench as the domineering matriarch of the Hoover family.

The story unfolds as an aged Hoover dictates his memoirs.

We look through the eyes of the man himself as he recounts his beginnings with the Bureau through to the appointment of Nixon as President.

Along the way we see him build his great FBI from scratch – tackling prohibition crooks and the great communist threat.

Indeed it is two and a quarter hours that rolls on quite comfortably – a little too comfortably.

The dialogue chugs along unremarkably; few moments of tension pique the interest before dissipating into the ether; Eastwood’s own score is hardly noticeable until it swells to a saccharine crescendo.

Come the end, Eastwood and DiCaprio manage to sculpt a character that is both pitiful and horribly self-absorbed – but by this point nobody cares.

The movie suffers from a lack of cohesion due to frequent time jumps – Eastwood and screenwriter Dustin Lance Black must take the blame for this.

Dench, as the mother, is incredibly under used but when her accent slips so easily perhaps it is easy to see why.  In fact, the only thing less convincing than Dench’s accent was Hammer’s prosthetic face.

You could enter the cinema knowing nothing about Hoover and leave with the same amount of knowledge.

A trilogy of films about the man and his accomplishments could easily have told an interesting and cohesive story, but at the death one is more than enough.

J. Edgar (15)       

Directed by Clint Eastwood with Leonardo Di Caprio, Arnie Hammer, Naomi Watts and Judi Dench

THE NAMES Clint Eastwood and Leonardo Di Caprio are bound to pull the audiences in, and probably for varying reasons.

But make sure you’re comfortable because even running at 137 minutes this film does seem a bit long – especially near the end when it starts to drag on a bit.

J. Edgar is a biopic about the man who became the first director of the FBI: John Edgar Hoover.  Staying in the job for nearly 50 years, the film’s premise is of the title character – played by Di Caprio – retelling his story to various other agents of how the bureau became the main law enforcer in America.

The film also looks at Hoover’s personal life and the claims that he was a homosexual.  Di Caprio definitely brings out the more authoritative side of Hoover and portrays him as a man who had no other love apart from his job.

In the scenes when we see Hoover as an older gentleman looking back on his career, Di Caprio still maintains that authority just like Hoover managed to maintain his job for so long.  The work to make him look older – either through prosthetics or what I would call “Benjamin Button technology” – was well done, as you could still tell it was him rather than getting another actor to play him thus possibly confusing viewers.

The same work on Hoover’s right hand man Clyde Toulson doesn’t have a similar effect on actor Arnie Hammer though.  Not as recognisable as his more famous counterpart – it took me a few seconds to actually realise it was him in some of the scenes.

He does give a good performance in his character’s dedication to Hoover, abandoning any other life to follow and support Hoover in wherever he goes.  However one of the scenes where the homosexuality of both is explored seemed a little clumsy to me, and a bit too out of place.

Judi Dench’s portrayal of Hoover’s doting mother is also a good personal touch.  Although I can’t see a similar performance of lying in her death bed when she returns as “M” in the Bond film due out later this year.

Naomi Watts feels a little underused too, but is also more recognisable when playing the older version of her character Helen Gandy.  Maybe that’s how she was in real life.

This is a film probably more suitable to an American audience, or at least someone who has a better knowledge of their U.S. presidents and historical history rather than the casual cinema goer.

In his life, Hoover came across what we would now see as big names: Roosevelt, Robert F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon (a very different Nixon to one which appeared in an episode of Doctor Who last year).

I won’t give too much away about the ending, but it serves its purpose as a biopic showing you both what others thought about Hoover and yet still what he thought about himself.

A vital man in America’s history he may have been, but it’s not vital if you miss the chance to see it in the cinema.

J. Edgar (15)

Directed by: Clint Eastwood,  With: Leonardo DiCaprio

The film J. Edgar seeks to paint the picture of a tortured soul whose tenacity and deep paranoia helped shape the United States into what it is today. This biographical film, starring Leonardo DiCaprio as John Edgar Hoover, gives a well-rounded and disturbing account of the man long seen as the face of the U.S. Government’s Federal Bureau of Investigation. Hoover was best known for the controversial methods he used to gain and keep power but little has been known about his personal life, until now.

Although well-established director Clint Eastwood and long-time star DiCaprio seemed perfectly paired to tackle the controversial subject matter, one cannot help but wonder if the duo bit off a bit more than they could chew with this one. Both are widely recognized for their talent and versatility, setting high expectations for a film that puts all of their skills to the test. DiCaprio’s performance was no less than spectacular but that didn’t make Hoover’s 48-year career as head of the Bureau of Investigation any easier to follow.

Scenes constantly shift seamlessly from one time period to another, making a more-than-basic knowledge of American politics over the last 80 years a prerequisite to enjoying this film. Whether the Director of Cinematography, Tom Stern, or Eastwood himself is to blame for this is hard to tell. The audience is left quite uncertain of Eastwood’s intentions and is forced to judge this picture of a powerful, destructive, talented and lonely individual for themselves. Resulting in the characters themselves being much more interesting than the film is entertaining.

The performances of co-stars Armand Hammer, as Hoover’s more-than-right-hand-man Clyde Tolson, and Naomi Watts, as faithful secretary Helen Gandy, give the picture a redeeming and endearing depth. Their unfaltering loyalty is as admirable as Hoover’s blatant disregard for their happiness is despicable. The only reason one can have any sympathy at all for Hoover comes out of the hopelessly oppressive relationship he has with his mother Anna Marie Hoover, who is played with horrifically creepy brilliance by Judi Dench.

While the film is certified for audiences ages 15 and over, it is hard to see how people much older were able to sit still for the painfully long 2 hours and 17 minutes.  The soundtrack features original music by Clint Eastwood himself and, true to his style, it tends to come across a bit over dramatic in certain scenes that need no assistance.

Given the historical importance of John Edgar Hoover, it is interesting to see the impact that one man had on shaping the U.S. Government’s policy toward perceived threats both domestic and abroad. The FBI has long had a controversial reputation and getting to see the questionable ethics of the man who basically created the organization leaves no room to wonder why. Even so, as a whole the film remains mildly interesting at best and is not how I would recommend you spend one of your few days a week off.

Siobhan Synnot, film critic of SCOTLAND OF SUNDAY, has just posted on facebook about the experience of finding a London critic’s later review of a film startlingly similar to her own, previously published, notice: She says, “a very special hello to Deborah Ross of the Spectator who appeared to have enjoyed my review of W.E. so much that she repeated some of her favourite bits.

There is some strong critical language in this blog, by a drama professor and dramatist at Royal Holloway College, London, but the case he documents is simply extraordinary. Not content with rubbishing a production at a London theatre this Autumn, the Daily Mail’s critic, allegedly, then went on to phone the theatre’s private sector sponsors. Is that a critic’s job? He has denied it, to be fair – see the update at the end of the blog…

http://www.danrebellato.co.uk/Site/Spilled_Ink/Entries/2011/12/13_The_Limits_of_Criticism.html

Stimulating debate cover story from last Sunday’s Observer by Neal Gabler here. But perhaps even more interesting and useful are the varied response to the debate by some of the paper’s own critics. We’ll come to this piece and these ideas in detail in our seminars very shortly!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/jan/30/critics-franzen-freedom-social-network?intcmp=239

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/jan/30/is-the-age-of-the-critic-over

For those newly-arrived and locals alike, January-March brings three successful annual arts festivals to Glaswegians’ social calendars once again, all offering plenty to experience – and write about. Celtic Connections music festival continues every day until 30 January; the Glasgow Film Festival is at the good old GFT in Rose Street and other places in February (not one of the big ones like Berlin or Edinburgh, but with some curiosities); and then – and just announced with a free supplement and guide in today (Saturday 22nd’s) Glasgow Herald – Aye! Write, the books and writers’ festival, fills the first half of March. Download those programmes and start making plans!

I just found this facebook group tonight in Chennai, India. I like it because (a) I agree with them that Anthony Lane of the NEW YORKER is one of the best film critics around (though topped in my view here in the UK by Phillip French of The Observer), and (b) they quote his 5 very good maxims for how to approach film reviewing.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Film-Appreciators-Network-FAN-Chennai/119002074813610

There was a welcome tribute to Nancy Banks-Smith, the veteran TV critic, on the front of G2 a year ago, marking her 40 years as the Guardian’s top TV reviewer. The article itself was not that revelatory, but the selection of some her columns reprinted was a thing to behold. If you are not familiar with her work, or do not believe me, look closely at her TV column on THE DEATH OF VERA DUCKWORTH in Coronation Street. Here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/feb/04/nancy-banks-smith-classic-reviews

Go through that short piece and do three things. See how crisp and short many of the sentences are. Spot the adjectives and adverbs, go on count them, and how many (outside the quotes) are superfluous. Then, see if you can find anywhere that she explicitly express a judgement or view of this episode, either in abstract criticism, or personally. That’s right, she doesn’t. But you are left in absolutely no doubt that she regards this as a beautifully done piece of popular television. That’s the way to do it. Look and learn, team.

Blogs are to blame. It’s all our fault. Here’s what Michael Billington, veteran theatre critic of The Guardian, wrote about this hot topic over two years ago:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2007/sep/17/whoneedsreviews

Welcome to the Arts & Entertainment Journalism web log. Visit regularly and feel free to submit comments to posts.