Hoover Dodge
Why have Warner Bros. and Clint Eastwood decided not to screen J.Edgar at both the Toronto and the New York Film Festivals? The first thought, of course, is a slight "uh-oh..." but that kind of dissolves once you think it through. This won't be the first time an Eastwood fllick hasn't made the festival rounds so it's not that big a deal. Clint has never been a big festival guy.
The fact that Toronto critics beat up Hereafter pretty badly is a possible factor, okay, but they might simply have decided it's better for the buzz to start a bit closer to the 11.9 release date. There's nothing inherently wrong with waiting for the right moment.
My problem with this film all along has been the physical disparity factor, or the six-foot-tall Leonardo DiCaprio playing the short, squat and bulldog-ish J. Edgar Hoover. The above photo makes Leo seem shorter than he actually is, and I'm wondering if somehow he's been made to look smaller through the use of large furniture and tall costars (like the 6' 5" Armie Hammer) and extra-tall doorways and all that. This was how Marion Cotillard was made to look Edith Piaf-sized in La Vie en Rose, so maybe.
Knowing Clint as I do, the Gay Edgar Hoover angle will be "there," but in a vaguely suppressed, played-down way, which of course would be appropriate for the rigidly homophobic era during which the saga of J. Edgar and Clyde took place.
In April 2010 I read and reported about Dustin Lance Black's script, to wit:
"The scenes between Hoover and FBI ally/colleague/friendo Clyde Tolson (whose last name Black spells as 'Toulson') are fairly pronounced in terms of sexual intrigue and emotional ties between the two. Theirs is absolutely and without any qualification a gay relationship, Tolson being the loyalty-demanding, bullshit-deflating 'woman' and Hoover being the gruff, vaguely asexual 'man' whose interest in Tolson is obviously there and yet at the same time suppressed.
"The script flips back and forth in time from decade to decade, from the 1920s (dealing with the commie-radical threat posed by people like Emma Goldman) to the early '30s (the focus being on the Charles Lindbergh baby kidnapping case) to Hoover's young childhood to the early '60s (dealing with the Kennedy brothers), the mid to late '60s (Martin Luther King's randy time-outs) and early '70s (dealing with Nixon's henchmen). Old Hoover, young Hoover, etc. Major pounds of makeup for Leo, I'm guessing."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 8, 2011 at 4:56 PM
comment #1
York "Budd" Durden
says ...
Even after seeing this image of Leo scrunching his neck and those other cats standing on apple boxes, I still can't see him in the part. Bob Hoskins seems more like it.
Posted by York "Budd" Durden
at August 8, 2011 5:51 PM
comment #2
C.C. Baxter
says ...
Bob Hoskins is more than 30 years too old to play Hoover at the age he is in this film. Google the younger Hoover, and you'll see that DiCaprio is just fine.
I remember when The Departed was destined for abject failure because it wasn't playing Toronto.
Posted by C.C. Baxter
at August 8, 2011 5:57 PM
comment #3
CinemaPhreak
says ...
But if memory serves, Wells had no problem with the other equally badly cast Hoover, Billy Crudup in PUBLIC ENEMIES.
The biggest problem is that we have a scarcity of good big name character actors these days. People who disagree usually can only come up with Paul Giamatti and John C. Reilly before they run out of names or offer some TV guy.
Posted by CinemaPhreak
at August 8, 2011 6:00 PM
comment #4
York "Budd" Durden
says ...
I didn't mean literal Bob Hoskins, only that body type and stature. Hell, I thought he was dead.
Posted by York "Budd" Durden
at August 8, 2011 6:02 PM
comment #5
Rashad
says ...
Leo is a national treasure. No actor has made better choices the past decade. I want to see him do this.
Posted by Rashad
at August 8, 2011 6:11 PM
comment #6
Mr. Gittes
says ...
Bob Hoskins take on Hoover in Stone's "Nixon" is pitch-perfect.
Lance Black's "J.Edgar" script is atrocious. Why he places so much of the narrative's emphasis on Lindbergh is beyond me. The Charles Lindbergh stuff just isn't interesting, especially given all the more powerful events that happened to Hoover. In fact, I think the script is nearly homophobic. To me, it's saying that Hoover was a difficult guy just because society wouldn't let him come out -- it's because he was gay!. Bull-shit. Hoover was an awful, terrible pseudo-human who should have been thrown in an overseas dungeon. Hoover's closeted homosexuality doesn't excuse him of his tyranny.
Only 2% of Hoover's FBI's "Domestic Security" investigations led to prosecutions. This is to say that 98% of those being spied on by Hoover had done nothing wrong. Lance Black's timid script doesn't go there. Fuck this script. But hey, maybe Clint overhauled it...uh huh.
Posted by Mr. Gittes
at August 8, 2011 6:20 PM
comment #7
filmsofdusts
says ...
Here, here, Mr. Gittes!
Posted by filmsofdusts
at August 8, 2011 6:27 PM
comment #8
cyanic
says ...
I feel like the elephant in the room that Jeff isn't talking about is Clint's A Star is Born project starring Beyonce.
Posted by cyanic
at August 8, 2011 6:45 PM
comment #9
buckzollo
says ...
I know Clint Eastwood has been to the Telluride Film Festival. He was likely awarded the Silver Medallion for acting. I can't remember. Less so for the fact that he has been to the fest, but more likely is J. Edgar to turn up especially if WB is using the Walk the Line playbook?
Posted by buckzollo
at August 8, 2011 6:51 PM
comment #10
DiscoNap
says ...
Hoover is not famous for being short. He's famous for being insecure, closeted, ruthless and arguably evil. Leo should have no problem. Agita about resemblance is always bullshit though.
Posted by DiscoNap
at August 8, 2011 6:58 PM
comment #11
Eloi Wrath
says ...
Clint's A Star Is Born remake is baffling. Seems strange to me that a celebrated filmmaker who is surely only a few years away from death wants to waste his remaining years on Earth making fluff like that. It's like Ridley Scott, who's in his 70s, attaching himself to Monopoly and whatnot.
Posted by Eloi Wrath
at August 8, 2011 7:39 PM
comment #12
Kakihara
says ...
DiscoNap: "Hoover is not famous for being short. He's famous for being insecure, closeted, ruthless and arguably evil. Leo should have no problem."
Implying something? ^_-
Posted by Kakihara
at August 8, 2011 7:48 PM
comment #13
Eloi Wrath
says ...
Gold medal to DZ for getting Disco's joke.
Posted by Eloi Wrath
at August 8, 2011 8:07 PM
comment #14
Phatang!
says ...
Lance Black already won an Oscar for an atrocious script. That's generally not a great way to learn your lessons.
Posted by Phatang!
at August 8, 2011 8:07 PM
comment #15
Eloi Wrath
says ...
I'm a big fan of DiscoNap. One of HE's finest posters.
Posted by Eloi Wrath
at August 8, 2011 8:08 PM
comment #16
Eloi Wrath
says ...
Milk was really good. Atrocious script? Really?
Posted by Eloi Wrath
at August 8, 2011 8:09 PM
comment #17
austin111
says ...
Yeah, Milk was good. What I heard is that the crew on J. Edgar thought they had made something pretty special. We'll see soon enough.
Posted by austin111
at August 8, 2011 8:23 PM
comment #18
Eloi Wrath
says ...
DiCaprio has excellent taste. He's more of a solidly reliable indicator of quality than most writers or directors these days. Looking forward to this one.
Posted by Eloi Wrath
at August 8, 2011 8:26 PM
comment #19
DiscoNap
says ...
Yeah I don't know how Milk's reputation has taken such a hit already. Maybe the Mickey Rourke snub? But it's a really solid movie. Obviously it's a Gus Van Sant show, but Black's script didn't really get in the way.
Also thanks, Eloi.
Posted by DiscoNap
at August 9, 2011 2:38 AM
comment #20
corey3rd
says ...
what is wrong with Hollywood sexing up Historical ugly guys? Aren't there enough ugly young actors that could have played this role? Where is this generation's Billy Drago?
Posted by corey3rd
at August 9, 2011 4:13 AM
comment #21
Robert Cashill
says ...
Check out Broderick Crawford in Larry Cohen's THE PRIVATE FILES OF J. EDGAR HOOVER (77), which is available from the MGM Limited Edition Collection. That's good casting.
Posted by Robert Cashill
at August 9, 2011 5:39 AM
comment #22
Peterzee
says ...
There's an interesting question arises at moments like this. I don't know if Leo is perfect, but I'm more than willing to give him his shot, because even if it falls on its face, it tried. That's part of it being art. Sometimes I catch myself looking for some kind of "perfectability" in casting, and I wonder if that's me cutting myself off from seeing something different or adventurous?
Posted by Peterzee
at August 9, 2011 6:53 AM