J. Edgar

Image Source

I had high expectations going in to see Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar.  Firstly because in my eyes Leo DiCaprio can do no wrong.  Sorry, I just have to admit to that bias up front.  And while Leo did come through, as this is probably one of his best performances to date, the rest of the film didn’t quite hold up to the expectations I’d set forth for it.  Secondly, given that it's an Eastwood vehicle and has gotten all the awards buzz that accompany movies, especially biopics with big names attached to them, I assumed it would be a masterpiece.

Told as a back and forth between flashbacks as an aging J. Edgar Hoover (DiCaprio) dictates his life story to a revolving door of clerks and agents who have been charged with the task of typing up his tale.  We learn about his early life as a new agent to the department of justice and how he rose in the ranks of the department from young paranoid, arrogant clerk to old, paranoid, arrogant bureau chief.  The audience is supposed to be able to keep track of different timelines, mostly, by relying on the makeup used to age the characters.  This is pretty unfortunate because the makeup was horrific, resulting in most of the characters looking like burn victims rather than old people.  The story ends up being rather convoluted and the narrative structure is more complex that it really needs to be, which is unfortunate because had it been a little more delicately handled it probably could have worked.

The movie goes on a little longer than it probably needed to, but does tell the story of a man central to shaping the America we know today, so it is an important tale to tell.  What was troubling, as is often the case with biopics, is that the lines are blurred between fact and speculation.  It has been largely assumed that Hoover was a homosexual and was in a relationship with Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer), his right hand man and close confident for decades.  I found it somewhat troubling that for something that's speculative at best, the film does its best to make you believe it was fact. While I recognize that this is commonplace with films that take on historical figures, it seemed overdone in this one.

One overarching theme that struck me as the most significant in this film is the focus it puts on Hoover’s insistence on keeping information.  To him, as he says outright, information is power.  Hoover was famous for his information collection and he would, as the movie makes clear, threaten anyone who he considered to not to be loyal or anti-American with the dissemination of the information.  In this film, and maybe he was, he comes across rather paranoid and over the top.  He even threatens Tolson, the man who has stayed by his side for years, when he accuses him of being less than honest.  Hoover's insistence on both national and personal loyalty was paramount and would not tolerate anything less.

This control of information, and the constant references to it in the film, seem to be a direct commentary on the state of our relationship with personal information in 2011.  Take the subject of another recent biopic, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in the movie The Social Network.  He too is depicted as a paranoid and arrogant guy who prides himself on the control of information and will take anyone down should they prove to be anything less than up to his standards of loyalty.  However, the main difference with this character is that his goal is to share information.  Speaking on behalf of Facebook recently, his sister announced that anonymity on the internet is no longer available.  Your information and anything you post will be subject to public viewing. They positioned it not as something which should make you upset, but just the next phase in our social evolution; it's our new reality.  Initially people might have been shocked or horrified at this notion, but it hasn't kept people from posting minute detail of their lives online.  Oversharing and publicly putting any thought, picture, or comment on display for anyone with an internet connection.  So then, is Zuckerberg the anti-Hoover as he disseminates information to the masses?  Or is the next generation of Hoover as he too controls information but is simply moderating the sharing of information in this different world?

Additionally, another relationship with modern society seems to have been made clear through the Hoover’s commentary on those who are considered to be anti-American.  In those days the threat was communism, from both abroad and domestic.  From the film, it seems as though Hoover spent his entire career keeping the communist forces at bay to keep America safe.  The idea of protecting America is once again an important social issue nearly a century after Hoover began his work.  These days we have a different enemy, but similarly the threat comes from both from outside our borders and within as well.  Now, however, those doing the accusing seems to be any news outlet who wants to boost its ratings, not a genuine interest in protecting the country.  The important lesson we must learn from this historical repetition is to not be like an opportunist as was Senator Joseph McCarthy (so stated Hoover), but to protect the country in a meaningful way.  What is not helpful is the fever pitch that has become Fox News accusing anyone who doesn’t think like them of being anti-American.

Ultimately this film set out to tell an in depth story of a man who kept secrets.  Not only the secrets of countless Americans, but secrets of his own, and secrets he never wanted coming out.  Even some of the people closest to him, and there were not that many, didn't know the true J. Edgar Hoover.  It seems as though, despite Eastwood's best intentions, while we might get a glimpse into some of his dealings, neither will we.

The Descendants

Image Source

The Descendants is the latest George Clooney movie to be making Oscar noise (don't they all though?).  Coming quick off the heels of Ides of March, this vehicle is a departure from general Clooney-ness.  As seasoned movie-goers, we’ve become conditioned to expect to see him as often the charismatic and moral center of his films.  His characters always know what to say and can generally charm anyone he encounters.  Even when he’s not being the moral center (see Ides)¸he’s still in charge and knows how to handle any situation in which he’s placed.  It’s unusual seeing this side of Clooney, the clumsy, unsure of himself and a little paunchy, it’s nice to see that he’s actually a good actor and when he stretches his characters he can thrive in that setting as well. 

Set in Hawaii, Clooney is Matt King, a 4^th or 5^th generation Hawaiian whose wife is in a coma after suffering from a terrible head injury due to a boating accident.  While dealing with his wife’s current state and coming to terms with the fact that now he will have to take a more active role in his daughters’ lives, he also learns that his wife has been cheating on him.  To add to his stress level, in the coming days he will have to make a major decision regarding the sale of hundreds of acres of his family’s land on the island of Kauai.

Things all seem to pile on him at once, and unable to handle the pressure, this actor whose characters generally take things in stride, starts to crack.  In fact, Matt is someone who didn't take things in stride, he ignored them and brushed them under the rug, never wanting to deal with them.  In one particularly intense scene he starts screaming at his comatose wife, finally expressing the emotions he's been unable to share till this point. It's interesting to see this scene juxtaposed to the one when he says goodbye to her.  It's a cinematic treat seeing the character development of a character come full circle.  

As Matt is considering the sale of his family's land at the same time he is reconnecting to his daughters and coming to terms with his wife's ultimate demise, the relationship between the characters and the land is interesting.  While creating a sense of connection between the land that, as Matt admits, has come to him through nothing he’s actually done to deserve it.  Through learning to appreciate his family, the daughters who he fully admitted to being disconnected to, he also learns to appreciate this land, as is also a connection to his family.  As a parent he fully admits to being the "understudy," the parent who steps in only when his wife was unable.  Now he must take full responsibility for his daughters.  So too with the land he must accept responsibility for a property that was placed in his lap, a responsibility which is cannot neglect nor deny. 

The runaway stars of this film are the two young actresses who play the daughters.  Amara Miller is the precocious 10 year old who is more naïve than she wants you to believe.  The Secret Life of an American Teenager’s Shailene Woodley is the other daughter, Alexandra, the troublemaking 17 year old.  Alexandra’s drinking, swearing and general rebelliousness seems to be the cause of her dad’s abundance grey hair.  However, Alexandra becomes his confidant and the one person he learns to trust throughout this ordeal.  She is stronger and more mature than he ever appreciated and turns out to be the rock he can center this new life on.  Hers is a powerful performance and I’m sure we’ll be seeing more of her in the future.

As the first directorial effort from Alexander Payne since 2004’s Sideways, this film nonetheless has all the hallmarks of a Payne film.  Its aesthetics, dark, dry humor all point to Payne.  The film also shows a version of Hawaii rarely seen, and this seems to have been a very deliberate decision as it creates a sense of realism in an world which is so often considered anything but “real life.”  By setting this film in a place which is often expected to be idyllic and paradise-like the predicament in which the characters find themselves is made more universal and relatable.  As though to say, just because something looks great on the outside doesn’t mean to say there isn’t trouble there.  This also allows the audience to accept their situations as well.  Watching this film can be a lesson to us all that while we might think all our troubles are so dire and everyone else around us has it all figured out, that is not really the case and people are struggling just like us.  Just like Matt had to learn to appreciate his family, something he had begun to take for granted, only when something tragic occurred, so too should we learn from his mistakes and appreciate what we’ve got going on in our lives.

Relying on familiar tropes of, “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger,” and “appreciate what you have before it’s gone,” I pretty much was able to ascertain a sense of how the film was going to end.  There are some twists and turns, but overall the film pretty much holds to your expectations of how a troubled family will ultimately band together to handle a severe trauma and come to appreciate each other like never before.  

Hunger Games trailer 2.0

A few months ago Lionsgate came out with what they called a trailer for The Hunger Games.  It was more of a teaser and I was not a fan (as you can read about here).  However, I woke up this morning to a new, and this time legitimate, trailer featuring all of the main players along with providing a glimpse into what Panem and District 12 will look like.  The trailer pretty much spells out the first third of the book/movie, but I guess they figure most people who are going to see the movie have read the book so they want to give fans what they think want to see.  Nonetheless, the trailer looks awesome and even though I'm still not sold on all of the casting, I'm pretty psyched to see this movie!

Enjoy!

Modern Day Fairy Tales

The Fall TV landscape this season has two supernatural and fantastical dramas based on fairy tales.  ABC's Once Upon A Time and NBC's Grimm are narratives which rely on familiar tropes and themes that have been in public parlance for decades, if not centuries.  Additionally, in another couple of months there will also be two similarly themed films coming out, both telling the story of Snow White.  I find this intriguing, but it's nothing new to retell old stories, in fact it seems as though that's all Hollywood's been doing lately. But it feels like something deeper going on here.

Fairy tales are deeply cultural and reveal many social anxieties. I have not yet seen either Snow White film iterations so I cannot comment on those, but I have been watching both Grimm and Once and have had some thoughts on them. Allow me to indulge.

Image source

In Grimm, our protagonist is Nick Burckhardt (David Giuntoli), a detective who recently learns from his dying aunt that he comes from a long line of Grimms, essentially monster hunters.  He acknowledges and accepts his legacy and fate as he has recently realized that he has the ability to see beyond the human exterior many of these werewolves, "blutbads" and other creatures that have been hiding in plain sight as humans.  The show is unraveling as a case-of-the-week serial with an overarching mythology as he explores who he is and where he comes from.


Once is similarly fantastical, although narrates through two parallel story lines rather than one linear story. In one story line Snow White and Prince Charming are forced to send off their infant daughter to escape the wrath of the Evil Queen who wants to kidnap her and kill them.  To punish them the Queen enacts an evil spell which causes everyone to forget who they really are.  Concurrently, the parallel story is about a little boy name Henry who lives in "Storybrooke, Maine" and has discovered that the evil witch has exiled of the fairy tale characters, including Snow White, to storybook and has made them forget who they are.  This little boy is now tasked with ensuring his family and those around him remember their true selves (and ultimately fulfill their destinies).

Some questions to ask include why is self-discovery such an important theme of these shows and why are fairy tales the method in which they are delivered to audiences?  Further, why are they important messages to be imparting?

Image source

Fairy tales are centuries old stories, which, for generations, were passed down orally.  Secondly, they are usually lesson-laden. Often tales of warning and caution, they reach deep into our psyches about things we fear.  Traditionally offered to children as cautionary tales, these stories are being marketed to adults. Be it regarding kidnapping (Hansel and Gretel), mommy/daddy issues (Snow White, and any other stories with a wicked step-parent), and the list goes on.  What these shows seem to be conveying is the sense that as a society we are like vulnerable children: unsure as to our place in this world and what the future will hold.  However, unlike children, we adults do not have the wide-eyed naivete that our young counterparts do.  We do not need the warning that bad things are out there; we are all too aware of the unfortunate realities that lie out there for us.

Therefore, are we as a society being infantilized by being given these once child-oriented stories?  Or are we as adults craving the comforts of out childhoods by seeking out these recognizable stories? Generally familiar stories are like brands and have a built in audience as people know what they will be getting. Studio and network heads know this, but it seems like it's popularity is relying on something a little more. They have also been relatively successful in an otherwise disappointing fall TV-launch season, also garnering some of the biggest buzz.

Moreover, and I think this is probably closer to the heart of the meaning behind these shows, perhaps these stories are currently important for adults to see to teach them the dangers of being too confident and not heading warnings.  We live in a world where the mistakes of those who were supposed to be taking care of the financial well being of the "99%" have wreaked havoc and caused immense financial breakdowns.  However, it is also the social and economic responsibility of every day citizens to care for themselves and for others in times of need.  Perhaps that is the underlying lesson of these modern day retelling of fairy tales.