“Schizophrenia”, as defined in the Merrian-Webster dictionary:
(1) any psychotic disorder characterized by loss in contact with the environment, by recognizable deterioration in the level of operating in everyday life, and by the corruption of personality expressed since disorder of feeling, considered (as delusions), perception (as hallucinations), and behaviour; (2) contradictory or antagonistic traits or attitudes.
“Paranoid Schizophrenia” as described from the identical source:
(1) schizophrenia is described especially by persecutory as well as grandiose delusions or hallucinations or by delusional envy.
These definitions, figuratively, basically and meta-textually, describe “J. Edgar”, written by Dustin Jugada Black and directed by Clint Eastwood. The story centres on the life of FBI CEO J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) in a nonlinear manner, jumping between time periods featuring the most important moments of his / her life as well as his interactions with his mother Annie Areas (Dame Judi Dench), life long secretary Helen Gandy (an almost unrecognizable Naomi Watts) and second in command/lifelong companion Clyde Tolson (Arnie Hammer).
Now, it would be gentler, perhaps more “PC” to convey that the overriding theme of the particular piece is duality, naturally epitomized by the eponymous figure. After all, here was a person who, according to reports, believed in the particular Machiavellian ethos of “the ends justifying the means”, often circumventing the legal guidelines he was sworn to protect as a way to safeguard the country. He was a new fastidious man who sought the adulation of the people regardless if he was quick to imagine them of treachery.
He/she tried to project heroic masculinity even as he hung and also had other agents do the actual grunt work, all the while waging an internal war within him or herself regarding his sexuality. Seeing that Hoover, DiCaprio walks a gruelling tightrope between empathy in addition to loathing in the viewer. Connections, he portrays the FEDERAL BUREAU powerhouse with single oriented, dogged devotion to his / her profession. DiCaprio’s Hoover is definitely genuine, despite his never-ending vindictiveness. A crusader with youth, a Gollumesque electric power monger in old age, DiCaprio’s Hoover is a study connected with contrasts.
But then, so is actually the movie. For a film in relation to one of the most powerful voyeurs our country has ever had, this celluloid treatise seems oddly basic. The film examines Hoover’s life but offers simply no judgments nor conclusions. It gives hints at the origins regarding aspects of Hoover’s life who have become a legend. However, your delve too deeply directly into its more controversial factors. For example, it does postulate an excuse for Hoover’s penchant regarding cross-dressing but results in it there. While insinuation is a powerful storytelling application, here it seems almost cloying; as if shying away from the dispute.
The film implies that Haier saw the world in grayscale, and Eastwood films this as such. Even scenes placed in broad daylight are offered muted, even greying, shades; a panorama of inside that makes up the film’s basic feeling. Some scenes are usually filmed with a documentary graininess while others with a muted quality as if to emphasize the docudramatic nature of the piece. Sad to say, there is little drama to be enjoyed.
The time-jumping structure basically undermines moments that could include heightened actual drama, for example, a physical altercation between Areas and Tolson. As preceding scenes have established the attachment between the two characters is definitely lifelong, the confrontation loses any dramatic heft it could actually have had. While their romance is a matter of historical actuality, much of the movie-going open may not be aware of it. So, a key dramatic moment is definitely lost; one among many in this movie. Eastwood’s direction is definitely serviceable. The film for a narrative whole is, overall, flat.
This is not to say the film does not have power. The strength lies in the performances. Since Annie Hoover, Dench tends to make MI-6’s “M” look like an I implore you to den mother. Her characterization makes it understood how Haier could be construed to be a “mama’s boy”. Hers is also efficient of duality: Her small stature belies the cool steel she is. Her shipping and delivery as to why a childhood friend of J. Edgar’s has been called “Daffy” are among the most chill expressions of racist homophobia ever filmed due to its wintry, matter-of-fact banality.
Naomi Harris’ Helen Gandy is a cypher. Early on in the film when they engage in a first date, Gandy tells Hoover that jane is loyal to her profession, along with the film affirms that report. However, there always is very much something going on in Gandy’s eyes, a hint that your girlfriend devotion to Hoover is definitely beyond the professional even with it being presented seeing that totally platonic.
Arnie Retracted is an actor to watch. At this time best known for his actions as the Winklevoss twins with “The Social Network” in addition to soon to mask in Disney’s adaptation of “The Lone Ranger” alongside Ashton Depp’s “Tonto”, Hammer provides the film with an emotional core. His Tolson is arrogant, closeted charm with main character good looks and a ready charming smile, yet he naturel it with the sense which he really does care for Hoover, throughout the professional and personal perception.
Despite the arguably horrendous getting older make-up (though arguably our reaction to the make-up could be due to the dramatic difference involving the character as represented inside two stages of life), it is when he plays the particular older Tolson that Retracted truly shines. He normally takes risks with the character, revealing a dignified vulnerability and having minimal effort.
So good is definitely his performance that the visitors feel his pain although he attempts to masque it, to the point that one moviegoer at the screening I went to yelled an obscenity to help Hoover on Tolson’s benefit. DiCaprio and Hammer’s hormones, despite dangerously teetering in octogenarian caricature at times, are indeed spot-on believable it takes in one in.
This series of working vignettes is fine in an anthology film. However, these elements do not make “J. Edgar” any cohesively satisfying whole. That is a weird instance where the propagation leads to a quotient. “J. Edgar” does not know what that wants to be. Like the motion picture itself, I am torn. It truly is likable but not engaging.
That somehow sterilizes a subject matter that ought to be rife with intrigue and also titillation. It’s a film that will seem to go far more time than it should but provides the audience with very little to ruminate on. As engaging currently at times, “J. Edgar” as being a film is as clinical the dissertation as a cold situation file and just as not satisfying.