Let’s talk about the advantages first:
the structure of the film is very good, with a time span of 50 years, but the plot is very simple, just select a few major events in Hoover’s life: Kennedy’s assassination, Martin Luther King won the Nobel Prize two events It is an interspersed narrative, and then flashbacks to the directorship and the Lindbergh kidnapping case through writing memoirs, montages, etc., and the rest of the space is used to describe Hoover's personal and emotional world. This kind of setting and arrangement cannot but be said to be the director's shrewdness. On the one hand, it shows the magnificent life of this controversial character more comprehensively, and on the other hand, it effectively avoids the boring narrative brought by the straightforward narrative. This kind of film narrative structure is actually not uncommon, and it is widely used in mystery films and thrillers, but when it is used in biographical films, it has produced such good results. great contribution to the film industry.
The actors are also very good at acting, especially Leonardo. Hoover, a mysterious figure who has been controversial even after his death, is brilliantly portrayed. Whether it’s the arrogance of his political blackmail with JFK Jr., or his struggles with his own sexuality, whether it’s his desire for control, over-reliance on his mother’s fragility, or even his collapse during a major change and his mentality afterward. , are all performed very accurately and in place. Through Leonardo's interpretation, we can clearly see that an aspiring young man who wants to save the country, a stuttering boy with an Oedipus complex, a homosexual who suppresses his own desires, is How to grow into a hero that every president hates and fears. It has to be said that Leonardo has fundamentally completed the transformation from an idol to a powerful faction.
Let's talk about the disadvantages:
First of all, this is a movie that you can't take seriously, because whether it is the political events involved in the film or the secret life of Mr. Hoover, it is still under controversy. All the facts are as described at the end of the film. There are only pieces of debris left, which cannot be spliced and restored at all. But as a biographical film, the director must give the audience a truth, even if it is a false truth. In this regard, the director is obviously too tricky. On the one hand, the film is vague and vague about political events; This kind of double standard of avoiding the most important things can make people feel very cold, and the whole movie seems to have suddenly become a weekly gossip magazine - I dare not comment on major events, but it involves privacy, but it is spirited and made up - lowering the style. Not to mention, it also insulted the audience.
In addition, the old-age makeup of the three main characters in the film is really unflattering. The large pieces of silicone are not only unnatural, but also limit the expression of the actors.
PS: There is a very interesting little detail: in the film, Mr. Hoover wore the watch face towards the back of his hand when he was young, but turned towards the palm of his hand when he was old. Dare not to lie.
PPS: At the end of the film, it is shown that Helen's shredded document is the scandal of Mrs. Roosevelt. It was also mentioned earlier in the film. It is estimated that it is because of the good reputation and evaluation of Franklin Roosevelt and his wife, and dare not mention it in depth.
View more about J. Edgar reviews
