J. Edgar (Clint Eastwood, Warner Bros., 2011)

Opaque could easily have been the title to J. EDGAR (Clint Eastwood, Warner Bros., 2011), a film barely penetrated by any light source. The narrative provides no real or lasting insight into the man, the cinematography seemingly uses no lighting whatsoever and even the events of the narrative are shrouded in a layer of undetermined validity. This is not to say the film isn't good or enjoyable. Quite the opposite I was intrigued throughout the film, learning a marginal history of the man and the institution he created. Once I grew accustomed to the cinematography I actually thought this was an amazing decision and realized they had achieved remarkably with this choice. I think I just felt the film could have delved deeper, expended itself showing the man more. The film didn't make me have any feeling other than ambivalence and for a film to be about such a powerful and important figure in the American history and provide that level of emotion is sad. The film should've been much more powerful. From the beginning of the film the cinematography is bathed in darkness. As I mentioned once I realized the film was trying for this effect I didn't mind it and started to really like their choice to shoot the film in this manner. The darkness to the cinematography of the film signifies many things. The film depicts a period of time where America loses it innocence, stepping into the darkness. The events of the 20th century fully brought this loss of innocence to America and the lighting in the film reflects this. The darkness of the film shows a man, and by extension his country, traveling down a road with questionable morality, resolve and character. It is an America opening the proverbial Pandora's Box, making choices and using tactics that are often questionable at best. The cinematography of Tom Stern also shows the dark side of Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) the man as he dealt with his own inner demons. This won't make sense, but the lighting for the film was amazing. Dark and foreboding and used to great effect to propel the narrative. Overall the narrative to the film was rather weak. It never delved too deeply into Hoover. Here was one of the prominent figures of the 20th century and we never saw what drove him to the levels he achieved, we never saw much of what made the man tick and we never saw reasoning or explanation for his personal life and the choices he made therein. It marginally touched his career, landing on the highlights naturally. I particularly liked that the film deftly handled his closeted homosexuality and cross dressing tendencies. It would have been rather easy to paint him as a twisted and depraved figure, a slave to his proclivities. Still the overall content to the film was superficial at best. I rather liked learning the history of the FBI and the events that surrounded its evolution, as shrouded in mystery the validity of the events may be. The FBI seemingly has always been a thriving department to us in contemporary America so to see its infancy is revelatory. Its ties to the rise of the gangster and Prohibition; the role it played in early crime cases such as the "Crime of the Century". The evolution of the institution was fascinating particularly knowing one man was the driving force behind it. And of course the obvious parallels to the two political machines it was created to fight, communism and fascism as well as the criminality in its techniques makes it a fascinating study. Technically the film makes a decent if flat biopic. I loved the cinematography. I always like the directing and musical choices Eastwood makes. The same goes for the acting of DiCaprio. I did not care at all for the prosthetics and makeup applied to DiCaprio and Clyde Tolston (Armie Hammer), and I didn't like the casting of Hammer at all. He honestly was just too young for the role. Overall the film is solid, but man it could have been so much better.