Thinking about it carefully, this may be because he has always adhered to an objective and neutral attitude (especially in his later years)-naturally you can also say that this is a precious advantage-this way of trying to display without any subjective judgment always makes people Feeling like watching the fire from the other side, in which joy, anger, sorrow, and joy have nothing to do with myself.
Objective neutrality can tell people what happened, but it is difficult to explain why it happened. This is especially true of the 2011 new work "Hoover". The film takes more than two hours to survey the legendary life of Edgar Hoover, the first director of the FBI. The Nobel Prize, the assassination of President Kennedy, etc., did not miss a single one. However, after watching the film, apart from knowing that Hoover is arrogant, moody, Oedipus tendencies, and unclear sexual orientation, you still have a hard time understanding why he can serve as Director of Investigation for 48 years, 8 presidents and 16 prosecutors. Stand firm? Why is it that many parties and even latecomers are so uncomfortable with him, but the FBI building is still called the Hoover Building today? Why is his temper so irritable and there are so many loyal followers around him? The deputy Clyde Tolson will not talk about it. You can say that it is love... What does Helen Gandy, who is willing to serve as his personal secretary for 54 years and unmarried for life, say? Not to mention that there are countless FBI agents who regard Hoover as an idol, such as Mark Felt, who is not mentioned in the film, and the deputy director after Tolson.
Of course, positioning Hoover is very difficult in itself, as evidenced by the fact that all previous presidents loathed him and did not dare to remove him. Starting from a newcomer to the Department of Justice, Hoover established a fingerprint system and a criminal investigation system step by step, and expanded the Bureau of Investigation into a frightened FBI for criminals—think about it, if there were no him, there would be no FBI and no CSI. There is no "face change" and "true lie"... but unconstrained power always tries to swallow everything. In the name of national security, the extension of "enemy" is constantly expanding. The standard of "enemy" is only controlled by him. In the name of a sacred purpose, any illegal, low-level, and dirty means are allowed. This one-size-fits-all model can be applied to anyone who thinks he has power. Outside of Hoover, there are too many familiar examples.
Hoover's luck lies in his death at the right time. He didn't wait until the president couldn't help but pull him off the horse. He didn't wait until the various conspiracies he arranged were exposed, and he didn't wait until he was assassinated by countless enemies after he left office. He died in office, and Nixon had just been re-elected in 1972. The story afterwards is even more interesting. It was this very lucky president who was too proud to appoint two new FBI directors in succession, ignoring the Hoover supporter Felt, who has always been the deputy director, and the latter became angry. I found the "Washington Post" and acted as a mysterious "deep throat", exploding the Watergate incident that horrified the world. The history of American politics and news has since been rewritten. The president, like the head of the FBI, can no longer think he has supreme power.
It's a pity that in this film, these secrets are out of the question. The audience only saw Hoover of different ages participating in cases of almost the same nature, with the same decisiveness and domineering, the same conceit and vulnerability, but the reasons and changes are hard to say. This is probably caused by abiding by an objective position, without making associations or reasoning, and only being responsible for displaying facts. This seems irrefutable, but it is actually a bit lazy. Because based on the known material, it is unlikely that the complete history cannot be derived. Or you can spell out your own logic and choose the material according to the context; or you can take the detachment of seeing through the world and overlook the event from a higher angle and a wider field of vision. Rather than counting the facts as it is now, but having no attitude. Don't talk about Chuanzhu's merits and demerits, even his sexual orientation has not been clarified-after watching the film, it is still difficult for you to judge whether Hoover is homosexual or transvestite. You can only say that there are indeed some similar behaviors.
Of course, this is demanding. It is beyond the reach of many directors to maintain objectivity and not abuse emotions. But it is because it is Eastwood, because it is the great director who has filmed "Covered Bridge" and "Million Dollar Baby", we should be exacting, and he can do better.
View more about J. Edgar reviews
