May 24, 2013
‘J. Edgar’: Hoover’s Hubris Writ Large
Posted on Nov 9, 2011
Which rather leaves out of the picture one Clyde Tolson. He was a Mormon, an FBI agent and he is beautifully played in the film by Armie Hammer as an obliging, good-natured fellow—lovable in ways that Hoover never was. He lived with Hoover, took virtually every meal with him and every vacation too. Were they just “pals”? Or was there something more intimate in their friendship? The movie implies a sexual relationship. But again, there was something in the spirit of the times that protected them. Male “bonding,” as we’ve since learned to call it, was considered a rare, but not unknown, alternative lifestyle. (So was female bonding, and Hoover had the evidence on Eleanor Roosevelt’s lesbianism to prove it.) This was especially true in the case of Hoover and Tolson. There was nothing furtive in their pairing, rather the opposite, as the movie would have it. One would not call it redemptive, but it does render Hoover almost likable—even pathetic—on occasion.
This is a brave film. There was a time when J. Edgar Hoover was among the most prominent Americans and there was no way to make a reasonably honest movie about him. Now there is a tendency to ask, J. Edgar Who? And to wonder how so much secretive power came to reside in one man of rather limited, if dogged (and creepy) skills. And it is somewhat odd that Eastwood, not a man known for publicly espousing his political interests, has chosen to make this film at this time. And to make of it such a devastating portrayal of a rather ordinary man caught in the grips of paranoia and hubris.
Does he intend it as a warning shot, a reminder that men like Hoover are an ever-present danger to democracy, which is always looking for simplified images of muscular virtue to celebrate? It would be hard to think anything else—especially since Dustin Lance Black’s script is a model for enterprises of this kind, tracing Hoover’s rise from momma’s boy (Mom is perfectly played by Judi Dench) to a posturing machismo figure, without ever raising its voice. The hollowness of the man is suggested merely by the odd lilt in DiCaprio’s voice at certain tense or uncertain moments. Most of the time he is just calmly going about his business—which is the subversion of republic, about whose best values he has not a clue.
The danger, of course, is that Hoover is too distant a figure, too much a man of another time and place for today’s audience to forge an appalled relationship with. Eastwood, obviously, has bet the other way. With this handsomely crafted, impeccably acted movie, he is saying that it can happen here—again and again. In making this point, distance (Hoover died almost 40 years ago) lends an eerie enchantment to this tale. It helps us to objectify the man, to see that he is far from being a rare bird in our political life—just a very busy and a very dangerous one. I don’t think there has ever been a calmer, and therefore more potent portrait, of the demagogue as a tense yet serene bureaucrat.
Previous item: Saving the Rave From Extinction
Next item: The Confidence Crumbles
New and Improved Comments