tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-494160638739613756.post8984060089203148104..comments2024-03-28T02:30:08.913-04:00Comments on Not Just Movies: J. Edgar (Clint Eastwood, 2011)Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09078001374402400232noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-494160638739613756.post-55011986287064488862012-06-25T09:43:08.558-04:002012-06-25T09:43:08.558-04:00"You'll get no argument from me that Scor..."You'll get no argument from me that Scorsese's "Oscar-baiting" films are much stronger and sharper than Eastwood's."<br /><br />Mugs, the pair of you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-494160638739613756.post-87528067985415221442011-11-20T13:11:28.974-05:002011-11-20T13:11:28.974-05:00Well, we'll see on Hugo. The marketing, at lea...Well, we'll see on <em>Hugo</em>. The marketing, at least, sure isn't positioning it as "Come see a picture about Melies!" Which isn't to imply that it couldn't be that through and through and be Oscar bait simultaneously.<br /><br />In a few days, we'll find out!Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-494160638739613756.post-83094184186747616912011-11-20T09:26:47.561-05:002011-11-20T09:26:47.561-05:00Hugo doesn't look Oscar-friendly at all. It...Hugo doesn't look Oscar-friendly at all. It's a tribute to the beginning of cinema under the guise of being a family film. And Shutter Island is a self-contained cat-and-mouse game that isn't trying to be some kind of big awards picture. It contains one of Scorsese's most overt Powell & Pressburger nods and largely functions as a love letter to Hitchcock. They aren't passion projects, but they get back to the idiosyncratic tastes Scorsese showed in the '90s with his highly varied work during that decade. I mean, compare a kid's film about George Meliès to The Aviator, which could have been a project perfect for Scorsese if he'd left in all the darkness in Hughes' life instead of skirting the issue.The latter feels like an awards grab. <br /><br />My response to Shutter Island was that it was an artist getting back into his stylistic groove. Not on the level of Bringing Out the Dead or After Hours, sure, but one of Scorsese's "watch me flex my muscles" pictures is always a delight. And Hugo seems to be getting a response well outside the usual milquetoast Oscar speculation (though it's gotten its share of that too, I'll admit).Jake Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15532951308638768249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-494160638739613756.post-44158956365597491212011-11-20T08:48:17.734-05:002011-11-20T08:48:17.734-05:00Wait, so the "two highly personal ones" ...Wait, so the "two highly personal ones" are <em>Shutter Island</em> and the not-yet-released <em>Hugo</em>, the latter of which looks plenty Oscar friendly to me, based on the trailer? Or am I not following the math?<br /><br />You'll get no argument from me that Scorsese's "Oscar-baiting" films are much stronger and sharper than Eastwood's. But on the whole he's been given a pass. Of course, with his multiple early successes, he earned it, I suppose.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-494160638739613756.post-79264296849153228892011-11-20T00:51:23.591-05:002011-11-20T00:51:23.591-05:00I'll have to check out your review, Jason. You...I'll have to check out your review, Jason. You are the only other blogger with whom I converse who regularly takes Eastwood to task too, so I'm interested to hear what you saw in it. As for Hoover's sexuality, it's the way the two men don't even try to act like "just friends" in public I find weird. And like I said in my review, the fact that no one dared call him on it suggests a link between Hoover's sexuality and his blackmailing nature the film is too scared to make.<br /><br />As for Scorsese, I actually think of him as the opposite of Eastwood. Scorsese spent a decade chasing his Oscar with increasingly flat pictures (I still adore Gangs, though), only to make two highly personal, vividly cinematic pictures after finally getting one. And with his long-gestating Silence on the way, I'm really psyched about Marty again (that Sinatra biopic does put me on guard, though). Eastwood, on the other hand, got his gold and then...proceeded to keep chasing more. He's gotten greedy on the adulation, and his films feel less and less connected to any real emotion as it hits marks. That's why I liked the deeply flawed Invictus; as much as there is to criticize about that film, it actually gave half a shit about something, and it was the only Eastwood film in the last decade I've liked save the masterpiece Letters.Jake Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15532951308638768249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-494160638739613756.post-82566351585335962182011-11-20T00:38:07.719-05:002011-11-20T00:38:07.719-05:00Oh, one more thing: I'm no Hoover expert, but ...Oh, one more thing: I'm no Hoover expert, but my understanding is that his homosexuality was a fairly open secret. So I don't think it was career threatening at all ... not least of which because he was Hoover and had a hell of a lot of power.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-494160638739613756.post-8864332884078962822011-11-20T00:37:09.542-05:002011-11-20T00:37:09.542-05:00Well, I'd much rather watch J. Edgar again tha...Well, I'd much rather watch <em>J. Edgar</em> again than sit through any other Eastwood film in the past few years; maybe the past decade. Of course, I've loathed pretty much every Eastwood film in that span, so the bar is low. And while I don't find the film nearly as offensive as you do, if you took out the name of the film and replaced it with another Eastwood picture, it would sound right-on to me. Which is to say that your review doesn't seem totally unjustified even as I disagree with much of it. <br /><br />It's been interesting for me to watch critics finally turn on Eastwood at a time when I, quite naturally, found myself pleasantly surprised by his film. I think after the streak of <em>Changling</em>, <em>Hereafter</em> and <em>J Edgar</em>, there could be no dodging the mediocrity. But, again, critics raved about <em>Gran Torino</em>, and as horrible as the makeup on Hammer is in this film, it's less offensive than the acting in <em>Gran Torino</em> (and don't get me started on the themes).<br /><br />I think Eastwood has too often gotten a pass, probably because the subject matter is supposedly admirable (<em>Flags</em> and <em>Letters</em>), touching (<em>Million Dollar Baby</em>) or nostalgic (<em>Gran Torino</em>). Of late, they've turned on him as his subject matter has become less 'uplifting.' So I think <em>J. Edgar</em> is suffering the build-up of frustration a bit. But, hey, so it goes.<br /><br />I wonder if the same thing will happen to Scorsese ...Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.com