J. Edgar - directed by Clint Eastwood

Interesting and a must see if Eastwood is the director.

Ooooh! Are there going to be lots of boas and high heels?

DiCaprio as J. Edgar Hoover? It seems questionable casting to me.

I wonder if Eastwood will stick to the facts or include the (totally unconfirmed) rumors about Hoover's homosexuality. I believe I saw evidence of the latter in the trailer.

In fact Hollywood has borne a really serious grudge against Hoover ever since he investigated homegrown Nazis in the 1940's and Communists in the 1950's. The problem being, he found lots of both in Hollywood. The other problem being, that "outing" a gay Hollywood star then was a definate career-ender, and Hoover was fond of using this very effective tactic to elicit information from reluctant witnesses.

Hoover also was a strong opponent of pornography, which kicked off a decades long conflict with Jack Valenti, who was constantly pushing the envelope of "community standards" with his totally subjective MPAA rating system.

Perhaps the biggest problem Hollywood has is Hoover's investigation of Civil Rights leaders such as Martin Luther King. Most people need to be reminded that he was enforcing existing federal laws at the time. Those laws were then changed and Hoover enforced the changed laws, prosecuting the KKK among others.

In my view, the biggest problem with Hoover was his 37-year tenure with the FBI, which allowed him to amass too much power. That is the reason we have a 10-year limit on the position of FBI Director today.

Gary McCoy makes a lot of very good points, but I disagree with his assessment of DiCaprio. I think he can play different ages very well (e.g. The Aviator) and also will be able to mimic the looks of JEH.
I expect an even hand from Eastwood, so I'm looking forward to this film.

The Hollywood of the 40s and 50s is long in its grave.
I doubt the dead are behind this film.

If anything, it seems to be a bio of a guy who, at a minimum, was morally-challenged and a first class A$$hole.
The most powerful unelected man in the U.S. Govt. ever.
Good material for a movie IMO.

+1

And lets not forget, Eastwood is a Republican leaning toward libertarian.

This looks awesome to me. My interest in the Kennedy assassination, 25 years ago, led me to a life of reading biographies, several on Hoover among them. This will be a must see film for me.

Art

Excellent, excellent comments. Hard to disagree with any of them.

Looks very interesting. I think Eastwoods gritty style will make this be a must see.

As much as I enjoy most of Dicaprio's work, I was a little hesitant when I saw his name attached to the film but am willing to give him a pass because Eastwood is directing. Haven't been disappointed by Clint yet. Now if Oliver Stone was directing...

As a fan of both DiCaprio and Clint Eastwood I can't wait for this one. Looks like a great film and I certainly won't miss it. Besides, the music from Max Richter in the trailer is beautiful.

Jack Valenti in bed with pornography?

Regardless of the $$$ involved, Hollywood studios wouldn't (and couldn't) consider teaming up with porn.
After all, the Porn Industry was/is the direct result of Hollywood's major movie studios wanting absolutely NO part whatsoever of selling pornography to the public.

Yeah which can produce a fresh approach in the predominantly left wing Hollywood.

I don't think he was pushing x rated material as one thinks of porn today but a rather lax standards Valenti was pushing for the industry's self rating system.

The birth of the rating system was in direct response to threats from Congress to regulate the content of the movie business.
The studios were told, in no uncertain terms, to come up with a system or one would be imposed by the govt.
For better or worse, the system is still in place.

Is there anyone here who thinks movie history would have been the same if the govt. had become censors?
Same movies with the same content would have been made since that time?
I didn't think so....

The point isn't about censorship, but rather your mistaken assumption that suggested that one of the poster claimed that Valenti was for porn.

+1

Not that there is anything wrong with that. If that is factual. Someone once told me not to believe everything I read on the Internet. Now I wonder who that could be? No, not you, lwright84.

By today's standards, and I think the vast majority of people would agree, if you have two men who are lifetime companions' and they never marry, they are gay. Also, judging by the number of gay politicians that come out against homosexuality, it isn't surprising that Hoover set out to prove Valenti was gay. They make the public appearances look good and then live their lives as it suits them, which is the way it should be; just don't be hypocrites.

http://www.newser.com/story/51220/ho...n-valenti.html

How many times have we seen that those who have the most vociferous anti-gay views are themselves gay?
There is no better tactic to throw off the bloodhounds than to accuse others of one's own sins.

Mr. Hoover and his "life-long companion" have been the topic of many whisperings, for many decades.
The circumstantial evidence is fairly strong IMO.

Out of curiosity, was Hoover ever married or linked to any women?

Helen Gandy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Gandy

He never married.

-1 It may only implies that Valenti, and Hoover may have disagreed what pornography is, as you know the definition varied with the times,and even among people of the same era. Valenti might just considered a few titts ok on screen Hoover thought that was pornographic, but that doesn't mean he was for porn(as we classify it today),as you and oink suggests.

Really, is that how you wanted to be judged too, by "whispers"?

Read my posts again.
I didn't suggest Hoover or Valenti approved of porn.



I admit we don't have photos on the net of JEH blowing his buddy Clyde, but...

I saw J. Edgar last weekend and loved it. I think the only people who won't like it are those whose opinions about the man are so fixed, they are unwilling to celebrate his ambiguity. I think J. Edgar works mostly because Eastwood recognized Hoover's delicious ambiguity. There is much to admire about Hoover's career, particularly the early years, but much to detest, too, a dichotomy from which Eastwood does not shrink.

Eastwood's film reminded me of William Manchester's magisterial biography of Douglas MacArthur, American Caesar. It was clear to me at least that Manchester could not make up his mind about MacArthur, a conclusion Manchester confirmed when I had an opportunity to discuss his book with him after a banquet at which he spoke. I got the same impression about Eastwood when seeing his movie. Note that Eastwood's screenwriter, Dustin Lance Black is gay, he wrote the Milk screenplay, too, and won an Oscar for it.

I thought the film did an excellent job of suggesting Hoover's probable sexual preferences but did so in a way that honored the ambiguous nature of those preferences. I also liked the evenhanded way the film described both Hoover's brilliance, organizational ability, and political skill, while not shying away from making clear what a bully, publicity hound, and frequent trampler of civil rights he was. Like MacArthur, I believe Hoover's tragedy was that he lived too long.

J. Edgar's 137 minute runtime passed in the blinking of an eye. It is a fascinating a character study of a man who most would agree was one of the most important figures in American 20th Century history, although most would probably not be able to agree about what to make of him. 9 Stars out of 10