J. Edgar

[Griff Murphey]

This is a quirky movie that is a character study about a really oddball individual. To get the sexual part out early, the movie hows Hoover as a terribly inexperienced man with women. As a young DOJ lawyer, he proposed to his secretary on the third date. She rebuffed him, but worked for him lifelong. The movie shows a strange relationship with his assistant, Clyde Tolson, which was probably homosexual, or at least, overly familiar. At one point Hoover informed Tolson that he was going to marry Dorothy Lamour (!) who he had been dating and Tolson virtually assaulted him. Not pretty, like two girls in a cat fight.
Ok, so he was a mama's boy, a bit like Douglas MacArthur, but without the military time to fully ensure his manliness.
The movie opens in 1920 with Communist Anarchists blowing up his DOJ boss's house as well as senators and other Washington leaders'. This led to a life long obsession with Communism. He quickly moved to create a database of 5000 Communists in the 1920s. Several hundred were deported. The American left's involvement in
the Civil Rights movement ensured that Hoover would actively monitor and even oppose the SCLC and Martin
Luther King. In fact, Hoover attempted to blackmail King anonymously in order to make him decline his Nobel
Peace Prize.
The movie also spends a good deal of time on the Lindbergh kidnapping, and the capture of Bruno
Hauptmann, and Hoover's creation of the national fingerprint database. There is a fair amount about the gangster
busting of the 30's but it is treated very superficially.
There is nothing about the FBI's activities in WW2 or the summary execution of Nazi spies, which I had
imagined would be in the film.
Overall it is a fairly dry movie. Di Caprio is a very good actor and was very uncomfortable wearing the heavy
makeup to portray Hoover so I give him an "a" for his craft. But I don't give the film more than a star and a half
and as entertainment value I don't think it will interest many of us because it focuses so much on Hoover's personal quirks at the expense of leaving out too much of the history of the FBI in the last century.

[UUURah]

Sorry, but Di Caprio is on my list of NEVER WATCH liberals. Along with the likes of Baldwin, Clooney, and a dozen others, I cannot watch them objectively without looking at them and seeing a liberal loon.

I'm probably one of the 10 people in the world who has never seen "Titanic". That's just the way I am.

[Griff Murphey]

Certainly respect your views RE DiCaprio. There is so much left wing stuff coming out of Hollywood I cannot keep track of it all. I did look him up on Wikipedia and he is mainly involved in defense of wildlife - probably some anti-hunting, and environmental issues. He gave Obama $2300, like you or me giving a republican 15 cents. So I see your point, but where do you draw the line?

I was watching LETHAL WEAPON 4 on TV this past Saturday. In the police station was a big "BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS" poster with "NRA" in a circle with a red slash across it. Mel Gibson is no saint anyway but I guess my point is I do like his work and I think that blatant anti-gun crud in LW 4 is a lot worse than going to a DiCaprio
movie because he is a lib....

Just saying, you do what you want, but... Sam Elliott and Tom Selleck only make so many movies...

[blackhawknj]

I gave up getting my history from Hollyweird decades ago. The woman who supposedly "outed" Hoover was later convicted of perjury in another case and her credibility is pretty low. Regarding their going om vacations together, Stalin had members of the Politburo spend vacations with him. I think the Hoover-Tolson relationship was a very 19th Century sort of friendship that we are not used to today. I enjoyed Oliver Stone's "JFK", it held my attention
but I don't think "Oliver Stone Explains It All To You."

[Art]

No movie ever made, at least that I've seen, painted a 100% accurate picture of even all of the basic facts. That dosen't mean the good historical movies aren't worthwhile it just means that getting historical information from movies is not a perfect exercise in the best of circumstances.

Hoover is the poster child for the hazards of staying in power for too long. He did some very good work in the organization and direction of the FBI in it's early form but became increasingly corrupt as he got older. From the O.P. it seems that the movie tried to make at least a balanced portrayal of Hoover. His excesses at the end of his "reign" went all the way from quirky and humorous to very serious violations of crimial law and blackmail of public officials.

[Guamsst]

I'm probably one of the 10 people in the world who has never seen "Titanic". That's just the way I am.

Between you and I, we make up 20% of the ten ;)

[Griff Murphey]

The black and white one with Clifton Webb, Barbara Stanwick, and Robert Wagner is better, anyway. The real Star of James Cameron's one was the full scale mockup RMS TITANIC and the CGI work to watch it sink. I also really like the older B&W British one, A NIGHT TO REMEMBER, based on Walter Lord's book.

[blackhawknj]

J. Edgar has gotten a bad press because he's a bete noire to some people. Yes, he stayed on office too long, like a lot of Federal judges and Supreme Court justices, but they are seen as wise Solons while Hoover is dimissed as a crotchety old crank and a closet queen and an abuser of power.
No one has really investigated the question as to whether William O. Douglas's womanizing was inappropriate for someone in his position or his need to obtain additional income to pay for his divorce settlements led to him to accept money under the table and influenced his decisions.

[Art]

blackhawknj;

You are correct about Supreme Court Justices, in fact all Federal Judges and there is nothing quite as close to a King (or queen) as a sitting Federal Judge in court, especially the SCOTUS where they are truly Kings of Kings.

Hoover's personal life was never that big an issue with me. The issue with me was that In the last 20 years of his administration the Bureau became progressively more inefficient and ineffective under his watch and that he was not at all afraid to use information that was illegally obtained by his agents to intimmidate and in some cases blackmail his enemies if in his unchallenged opinion it was in the best interest of the country. His fear of having his agents corrupted, at least by anyone except him led to the refusal of the Bureau to work organized crime cases (a policy I had personal experience with.) He once stated that the Mafia didn't actully exist. My first years as a Federal LEO were the last years of the "Hoover Administration" of the Bureau and while I wasn't an FBI Agent, and looking back on it I'm glad I wasn't in that period I knew a lot of Hoover's guys both professionally and personally and many of them would agree with every thing I've said.

The Hoover bureau did do some excellent work, including the counterintelligence work during World War II, and it's operations against the Ku Klux Klan in the early to mid 1960s which I consider Hoover's last Hurrah as a truly effective agency head. The biggest contribution by far was the creation of the FBI labs, and centralized crime information system which is an unbelievably useful tool if you're an LEO today.

My last 10 years on the job, late '80s to late 90s, I worked extensively with the FBI and found it a much better, more efficient and more flexible investigative agency than in the mid 1960s to early 1970s when it had become increasingly hamstrung by Hoover's arcane rules and micromangement and at times, corruption of the agency for his own purposes.

For an excellent, and humorous, read on the culture of the FBI under Hoover I suggest William H. Schott's "No Left Turns." If after reading it you're tempted to say "that couldn't have happened" I have buddies who were in the Bureau at the time that inform me that they have personal knowledge of several events in the book that happened exactly as reported.

[blackhawknj]

I think the harshest thing one could say about Hoover would be John Connally's observation about Nixon-"He was uncomfortable with people". My observation of such people is they tend to be poor judges of character and hence either wall themselves off or surround themselves with sycophants, yes-men and courtiers who of course, tell the Boss what he wants to hear, or what they think he should.
Some of the descriptions of Hoover and his crotchety behavior-he would write on reports "Watch margins!"-are like the pedantic teacher who really doesn't understand the subject matter and who concentrates on trivia and eyewash.
I have met some lawyers who clerked for the Supreme Court. They had some very unflattering things to say about liberal icons such as William O. Douglas and Thurdgood Marshall. What was it Thurgood Marshall said-"If I die, prop me up and keep me voting!"

[Col. Colt]

As already reported, the case of whether Hoover was a homosexual is not solid, and it looks a great deal like the left's standard "deconstruction" of anyone who might have been good for America at any time, who was anti-Socialist/Communist, or might inspire respect or admiration as an American while being to the Right of center. Hoover did a lot of good for this country, and was a staunch Anti-Communist - reason enough to smear him for untold thousands of people who hate America righ here at home.

Just like Thomas Jefferson, who has been falsely accused of fathering children from one of his slaves (yes, the alleged DNA evidence was "cooked" - a more honest retraction after the "expose' " of the misleading and bogus story by the researchers was ignored by the Left Wing Press). He was also supposedly a deist, and not a Christian - and although he did change some of his views over time, as we all do - but for most of his life, he was more Christian in his outlook. The book, "The Jefferson Lies" by David Barton explains in the front of the book how the left works using minimalism, modernism, along with "deconstruction" to make sure no one in America will retain any respect for the Founders - and thus disgard and hate their beliefs a Love of God and Country. As Ronald Regan said, "Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction" - thus the schools mislead our youth.

Once everyone "knows" a lie, it becomes the truth - in textbooks and popular media. Calling a person a homosexual used to be a sure way to ruin him - thus J. Edgar was tarred - without any real proof. But hey, DHS says today that if you pay cash for your latte, you just might be a Terrorist! See Something, Say Something - Right? CC

[John Sukey]

Well the kennedys tried to get rid of him BUT he had too much dirt on that bunch that he probably would have "leaked"

[Art]

Well the kennedys tried to get rid of him BUT he had too much dirt on that bunch that he probably would have "leaked"

Actually this is true. Hoover and Bobby Kennedy loathed each other and the "Director" wasn't real wild about JFK either.

Hoover had wanted a wiretap and electronic surveillance on Martin Luther King for some time but authorization had to come from Main Justice which meant Bobby Kennedy and he wouldn't give authorization. Hoover had been monitoring the Kennedy's for years so he had plenty of information on them. He called Bobby Kennedy in for a meeting and told him that JFK had been observed with a woman who was not his wife in a situation that looked inappropriate especially since the woman in question would pose a political liability if the President were involved with her. Hoover told Bobby Kennedy not to worry because he knew the president wasn't doing anything that would compromise him and that the information was safe with the FBI. Shortly thereafter the request for electronic surveillance on King was resubmitted and this time it was approved.

Col. Colt, frankly Hoover's personal sex life means nothing to me one way or the other. I don't care if he was straight, gay, bi-sexual or a-sexual Neither does Jeffersons. In the case of Jefferson and Hemmings it is my understanding the DNA evidence was inconclusive (surprise right) and in my opinion it's only fair to give Thomas Jefferson the benefit of the doubt. Frankly, though, if Jefferson was boinking the slave help he certainly wasn't alone, the tradition of that sort of thing was extremely common continued right down to Strom Thurmond during "Jim Crow," and there are plenty of cases that are beyond dispute.

My problem with Hoover was that he should have quit in the late '40s and at the end of his career bacame an impediment to effective law enforcement and a corrupting influence within the bureau.