Review: J. Edgar

J. Edgar

Dir. Clint Eastwood

Country: USA

Aus Rating: M15+

Running Time: 137mins

Hounded at every turn by a smothering mother, unable to freely express his love for a male co-worker in a conservative political landscape, disrespected by colleagues, and prone to bouts of cowardice at moments that called for heroics; it’s easy to assume that J Edgar Hoover lived a very sad life. None of that compares, however, to how drearily sad the film of his life, J. Edgar, is. Clint Eastwood directs his expansive tale with a wash of drab colours – the brown colour palate of Tomas Alfredson’s Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy looks positively lively compared to the metallic near monochrome colour scheme of Eastwood and cinematographer Tom Stern – and a never-ending heavy-handedness. It’s Eastwood’s second film in a year that has been suffocated at the hands of grand ambitions that failed to materialise when a more intimate approach probably would have worked better.

Coming hot on the heals of the improbable box office success of Phyllida Lloyd’s The Iron Lady, J. Edgar takes a near identical flashback heavy approach to the life of Hoover, rather lazily played here by Leonardo DiCaprio, as an older, frail man looks back over his life. While it thankfully doesn’t use that terrible Margaret Thatcher biopic’s absurd ghost motif to get from one Wikipedia entry heading to the next, it does haphazardly jump around through time and space as if at whim with little thought as to how one memory leads to another. Why do the people in these sorts of films always have such perfectly linear, chronological memory?

As if the dour cinematography, lit seemingly only by low watt lamps and natural light filtered through grey skies, Eastwood’s twinkly jingle jangle score would certainly put a sour mood over the proceedings. Perhaps he is to be commended for eschewing the traditional overwrought John Williams type of music, but those same incessant piano keys getting stroked over and over again like some villainous cat is nigh on nauseating.

Of course, as tends to happen with films of this type, really interesting stuff is either glossed over or chucked out altogether. The screenplay by Dustin Lance Black (re-using his Milk structure to diminishing returns) appears to be trying to have it both ways, dotting the script with big grand moments of historical significance alongside small scenes between Edgar and his mother, played by Judi Dench on Autopilot, and his alleged lover and Associate FBI director, a wide-eyed Armie Hammer as Clyde Tolson. Rarely complimenting each other in any way, I couldn’t help but suspect there was more interesting stuff to be said, especially since the private sequences are quite clearly just pulled out of thin air. Where was the public’s reaction to his private life? Where was the motivation behind the loyalty of Naomi Watts’ Helen Gandy? The list could go on and on. Meanwhile, a sequence addresses rumours of a fondness for cross-dressing is doesn’t feel like an organic part of the story at all, just merely tacked on for effect.

Too long, for sure, Eastwood and his editors, Joel Cox and Gary Roach, could have made the near two and a half hour length much less unwieldy by cutting out the unnecessarily repetitive scenes of Hoover recounting his memoirs to an eager fellow FBI agent (who puts new meaning to the term “paper pusher”). As DiCaprio’s heavily made-up elderly Hoover extols blank cheque platitudes about democracy, freedom and the fine line between right and wrong, it’s hard not to find the eyes rolling (or, even worse, drooping). Featuring some downright frightening make-up work on Armie Hammer – looking like some scary pod person from whence an alien entity is soon to burst free – and some truly ridiculous political impersonation – Christopher Shyer as Richard Nixon is just off the chart bad – gives J. Edgar an at times comical edge. Although I probably would have preferred some good ol’ fashioned hoots, Eastwood’s film is too much of a sad sack to let us even have that. The life of what the posters tell us is “the most powerful man in the world” has been filtered through so many sieves that it’s rendered dull. D-

Scream to Scream, Scene by Scene: SCENE 7 of Scream 3 (0:21:56-0:27:36)

In this project I attempt to review the entire Scream trilogy scene by scene in chronological order. Heavy spoilers and gore throughout!



SCENE 7 of Scream 3
Length: 5mins 40secs
Primary Characters: Sarah Darling, Roman Bridges (voice), Tyson Fox and Ghostface
Pop Culture References:

• Psycho and Vertigo (Sarah gets these two Hitchcock films confused)
• Scream 2 (Sarah is an obvious play on Sarah Michelle Gellar from Scream 2 and references to the making of Scream 2 are included)

I hope they change these establishing shots up!

I've long held the belief that Scream 3 can be read as a spoof of its own franchise. What better way to continue mocking the horror genre than to mock your own series of films that revitalised the very genre you were mocking in the first place?! It's moments like this that make me believe I'm right in a way. There's no reason for the filmmakers to throw in a scene of Sarah here being spooked by a mysterious noise in the middle of broad daylight, there's just not, and yet they have it there. The filmmakers just decided to turn their own frachise's MO up to 11 and put every single cliche in there, even when it was completely unnecessary.

"Stab 3. Jesus, I gotta get a new agent."
So, we come to the second chase sequence of the movie. Scream 3 slicks closer to the Scream blueprint here with scene 7 here coming at exactly the same time in proceedings as it did in the original, unlike Scream 2 that featured far more talk and didn't get around to "the chick who gets killed second" until the 29 minute mark of scene 9.

I've said it before and I'll continue to say it, the cinematography of the Scream franchise is always really wonderfully framed. Always used in a great way to get the viewer into the space of a scene. Think of the way Drew Barrymore looked standing in front of those big glass patio doors or the way the above-angle shots of Randy in the park provided that sense of menace. I always like how characters are framed to show any manner of places in which the killer could be hiding. Like in this shot, for instance, we have an open door right in front of Sarah or the long passageway with doors opening up on either side into rooms that could easily hide the killer. He could quite literally be anywhere.

After working on Scream 3, cinematographer Peter Deming went and made Mulholland Drive with David Lynch, which worked the LA movie world in a far different, but even scarier, manner.

"Fuck you very much."
Why didn't this catchphrase, er, catch on? Oh, that's right... it's stupid. Although, in 2011 that line probably sounds like poetry to some people.

So, I see headshots for "Jennifer Jolie", "Cotton Weary", "Tyson Fox", "Sarah Darling" and "Tom Prinze". The one for Cotton is obviously a prop since there's no way that would actually be Liev Schreiber's headshot, but the others all look legitimate and real. Do you reckon they are? Who are the others, too? Scream 3 extras? Crew who got headshots taken as a joke and used in the movie as set decoration?

Okay, so, when I went to go see Shark Night 3D I inadvertently witnessed the trailer for that new Adam Sandler movie Jack & Jill. It looks really bad. Really, really bad. There's one bit where Sandler, dressed as a woman for some reason, kicks a football (or something - I am not going to YouTube to watch it and find out exactly) and it hits Al Pacino's Oscar, which then shatters into hundreds of little pieces. I don't think Academy Awards are that fragile, to be honest. Same goes for this award, whatever it is. What is this trophy made of if it falls apart the moment it gets dropped on the ground. I'm surprised it made it out of the ceremony unharmed if that's the case (especially given some of the stories we hear about award show after parties!)

"Since I've got you on the phone, let's talk about your character."
"What character? I'm Candy, the chick who gets killed second, I'm only in two scenes."
The meta is off the chart! Jenny McCarthy who is only in two scenes of Scream 3 and gets killed second (third technically, but second death scene) playing a character in Stab 3 who is in only two scenes and gets killed second who is obviously modeled on the actress who was only in two scenes of Scream 2 and got killed second (third technically, but second death scene).

Wait, what?

"Ring ring. Hello."
"Hello."
"Who is this?"
"Who's this?"
"It's Candy. Hang on, let me put on some clothes."
Hah. Amazing. I adore the way she says "ring ring" for some peculiar reason.

"I don't understand why I have to start the scene in the shower. The whole shower thing's been done; Vertigo, hello!"
Oh Candy. I actually like Jenny McCarthy in Scream 3. She's obviously playing off of her own dumb blonde routine - but future movies like, say, Dirty Love, prove she may be aware of her image but not willing to do anything about it - and I think she looks great, too, I just have a bit of an issue with the behind the scenes metamorphosis of her character. The story goes that Sarah Michelle Gellar was a bit too hands on for Wes Craven's liking and spend much of her time on set giving Wes "ideas" for how her scene could play out. Having worked on Buffy the Vampire Slayer had apparently given her ideas on stunts and the like. Craven was probably glad she got cast as CiCi and not someone who got to stick around longer.

So, apparently Sarah Darling is highly influenced by Sarah Michelle Gellar and makes me wonder what Smidge thought of Scream 3 if she ever did see it.

"Candy. Is that like candy cane or candy apple?"
"Come on, who is this? I think you have the wrong number."
"But you know my favourite name?"
"I'm hanging up right now."
"It's Sarah."
"Roman, that's not the line."
"It is in my script."

"Has there been another god-damned rewrite? How the fuck are we supposed to learn our lines when there's a new script every 15 minutes?"

"It's not just a new script, it's a new movie."
"What? What movie?"
"My movie..."
*click*
"... And it's called Sarah Gets Skewered Like a Fucking Pig."

"Still in character... Sarah?"
Okay, so, a few things about this exchange:

Five Shots: Palm Trees

Black + White Friday Saturday: King Kong (1976) & King Kong (2005)

I wanted to take a look at these two remakes of the black and white classic monster movie King Kong. I thought it would be interesting to see if either of them lend themselves to the classical style of filmmaking that black and white photography lent itself too.

I actually had to outsource the caps used in this installment. I don't actually own either of these movies on DVD, so all images are from DVD Beaver.


Oh Jessica Lange! I can't take her seriously at all in this movie. Can you? There's something there that just turns me off majorly.


I much preferred Peter Jackson's remake, but even that had major problems and really wasn't that good. I'm not entirely convinced that Naomi Watts portrayed the character 1920s enough, but she was far better than Lange. I do hate those bloody hats though!


I just think this is a bit gorgeous.


I remember really liking this scene as I felt it actually tried to be like an old movie (unlike so many other sequences in this remake). On one hand I guess it's a good thing that Watts didn't do the same style of performance as Fay Wray did in the original, but on the other hand I sort of miss it.


Apart from the very "of the time" top that Jessica Lange is wearing here, this could conceivably be seen as a shot from an old movie. I think it's the moustache.


This image is actually quite wonderful. I thought the scene was "a bit much" in the film, but it did look gorgeous. In black and white though this actually looks more like a sketch drawing using charcoal.


She's not exactly Fay Wray, is she?


I just think this is a bit gorgeous.

I do find it interesting though that in black and white this moment looks far more ominous than it does in the colour version. All those dark clouds look far more scarier than the overly orange hues that they were before.


This is ridiculous. How is it that a remake made some 60 years after the original can have effects that are barely improved? In fact, I'd go so far to say that they're worse in this 1976 remake than the original since, at least, the 1933 version was made in 1933. This image particularly looks quite silly don't you think? What would I know though, the film won an Oscar for its visual effects so there ya go.


By far the best scene in either of these remakes was this quite touching moment on the ice rink in New York City. It looked like 100% CGI, which was one of the big disappointments of Jackson's film in general, but even that couldn't stop this moment being lovely.

Black + White Friday: Mulholland Drive

David Lynch has worked with black and white before on two of his earliest films, Eraserhead and The Elephant Man so I thought for this weeks instalment we'd test drive his magnum opus Mulholland Drive and see how it holds when given the black and white treatment.


Yup, still scary in black and white.


I must point out that the little... what you call it? Is it an apartment complex? Not really. I don't know. Anyway, whatever it is, this little enclave of sorts is absolutely stunning in colour. In black and white it reminds me so much of Sunset Boulevard, which I am quite certain was Lynch and production designer Jack Fisk's intention all along. Do these sort of places even exist anymore? I want to live there if they do.


Aaah, Gilda. One of my favourite black and white films. One of yours, too?


I chose this screenshot because it's my absolute favourite shot in the entire movie. Not exactly sure why, but it is. Doesn't Naomi Watts' skin kind of glow like it does in silent movies?


Like a Hitchcock heroine.


Jeepers creepers! Something about this amuses me so much. It's like Doris Day or Dusty Springfield. Now that's a Lynch collaboration that would've bear bizarre fruit.


Oddly, one of the film's most obvious '50s moments is this musical sequence to Connie Francis' "Sixteen Reasons", doesn't look that classic. Hmmm.


One of the best things Lynch does throughout the entirety of Mulholland Drive is mix with the identities of Betty and Rita. Constantly framing them so that their bodies and their faces have the lines blurred. Who is who and so forth. This shot was my favourite example of it. It's also quite ABBA, teehee.


The Lady in the Radiator returns! And she's singing Roy Orbison in SPANISH!!!!


Interestingly, the film's final act where everybody switches up proves less forthcoming with interesting stills, even though it is just as beautiful as the rest of the film. I chose this moment, however, because it reminded me of an old horror movie. Like The House of Usher or something, ya know? Dusty old mansions and the like.