Anybody else feel this walked on eggshells around certain topics?
Specifically the JFK, MLK, and Malcolm X assassinations.
shareSpecifically the JFK, MLK, and Malcolm X assassinations.
share
Quite true. I think that worked against the film as it tried to portray him too coyley with rose tinted hues. He was power mad, and most likely a racist. Unfortunately they decided to ignore his more negative aspects. Understandable to a degree, but you cant make a hero out of a villian. But you can make him more sympathatic and paint a fuller picture of the man behind the myth and legend.
-------------
In a fair universe, we would all be better people.
A polemic filmmaker like Oliver Stone would certainly had done the subject some justice.
Its that man again!!
"They decided to ignore his more negative aspects".
That's interesting because the J.Edgar that I saw in the film was an egotistical, manipulative, intolerant and borderline antisocial man prone to lying out of vanity and sidestepping the law whenever he could and deemed necessary. Sure, he did have some redeeming qualities as well, but the bad outweighed the good.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan
In my opinion, that's where the movie fall flat. J. Edgar was an controversial figure and instead of addressing the controversy he would find himself in Clint decided to focus more on him allegedly being gay.
shareI would have liked to see why Hoover denied the existence of La Costra Nostra until Joe Valachi's testimony made that impossible.
share