Strictly for history students
Again, this was one of the movies which came at the time when I had taken time off from movies. In spite of not so good reviews I watched ‘J. Edgar’ for two reasons. One is for nostalgia and other is for Clint Eastwood. Of course, it has Leonardo DiCaprio, who needn’t be mentioned at all as a point of interest because he automatically becomes one in whichever movie he acts. Even though I watched ‘The Great Gatsby’ too with the same mindset, it completely swept me off the floor so I was hopeful of ‘J. Edgar’ too before I started watching it.
I guess making a biography needs a separate skill set, especially of the political people. Generally Hollywood nails it whenever a scientist’s or a prodigy’s biography is made, like that of ‘The Imitation Game’ or ‘The Theory of Everything’ but when it comes to political biography, most of it falters, they try to say only the good things and mask it as if they’re being brutal, which is more annoying than being an outright fan boyish film. Guess, the only exception is Oliver Stone, who’s a master of making political biographies like ‘JFK’, ‘Nixon’ etc.
The film opens with an old Edgar trying to tell his side of the story. For some reason, most of the shots had dark lighting with very less screen visibility. Guess that’s a good way to mask the details in a period film. But the old Edgar or anyone old for that sake were high on prosthetics and didn’t look natural at all. Their younger selves were so vibrant and more importantly real when compared to the present. These two factors were a huge hindrance in otherwise mundane movie.
The movie is very much American. Maybe it wouldn’t be a big issue with people who are politically knowledgeable or at least have the eagerness to know what had happened. For others, its tough to hold the interest. When you watch ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’, you don’t feel the need to know about the person who’s in focus. May be a curious few would want to read upon the character, when they get to know its real, but mostly otherwise, they’d be basking in the glory of the filmmaking. That couldn’t be expected out of any political character because its not their duty to entertain. But generally, whenever a person is discussed, the aim of the movie should be to make people dig up the artifacts and know more about the history. ‘J. Edgar’ doesn’t put that interest in the head of people who are watching. By the time the movie ends, we feel exhausted. There is no scope of knowing more history on the subject. That, is a prime example of why the movie doesn’t work. It doesn’t make us curious, rather makes us bored. Yes, that’s the word.
The events as such too weren’t curious. It didn’t make me want to root for him or hate him. It was just like news article. No matter what happens, I couldn’t feel for the character, I was constantly disinterested. Above all, what annoyed me the most was the storytelling. When I was trying to focus so much and concentrate on what is happening, if not for the joy, at least for the knowledge, I was irritated beyond words when I got to know that the narrator is unreliable. Till then at least I could forgive it as a boring movie, but after that I couldn’t control the irritation. Guess it’s only the cast who took the film seriously and outperformed the maker of the film. If not for that, the film was a super dud.
constantscribbles 