_
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
What
Others are Saying
Sarah Walker
There are a variety of reviews from Clint Eastwoods’s previous film, J. Edgar. Because Edgar was such a controversial political figure, a film on the FBI founder and director has many pointing figure on whether or not the depiction is correct. Most of these issues stem from the suspected homosexuality revealed in the film. Although it was not a clear fact, Eastwood portrayed Edgar as a young and old man battling with his sexuality and starting an intimate relationship with a man. The two’s relationship was speculated in reality, but never fully uncovered. Along with the other controversial truths, Eastwood has decided to uncover this as well—leaving viewers with either a negative or acclaimed view on the film. Who does the audience listen to? There fellow peers, credible newspapers or magazine reviews, or do they find out for themselves? Fortunately, we have the perspective from all.
While some feel that Eastwood has exploited Hoover’s homosexuality with his client Tolson ( Armie Hammer) too much, since it was only suspected and not a known fact, reviews like The Rolling Stones felt it made the movie more engaging, “The tabloid version of Hoover as a cross-dressing closet queen is addressed, but not exploited. Black's script isn't linear; it jumps back and forth in time with impressionistic glee, hoping to get a fix on an unknowable public figure.” Getting to know Hoover and his life was like a long-haul journalism project. He has already passed, so the film represented him in a way that could have been accurate.
Besides Hoover’s private life, the film highlighted Hoover’s greatest dealings: protecting America, yet digging into the political life with blackmail and treachery. The Rolling Stones review also agrees, “ Though Hoover did popularize fingerprinting and the collection of forensic evidence (the CSI TV franchise is in his debt), he liked giving himself credit where it wasn't due, for killing gangster John Dillinger, solving the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh's baby, and.
Jaclyn Dicarlo, a history major at Bridgewater State University, went to see the film during its opening week. Dicarlo said she was familiar with a lot of the events present in J. Edgar, “ It was a great portrayal of the different time periods. I recognized the year and dates for each different flashback with the films hints of the time.” Looking more at Hoover as a person she admits not knowing a whole lot about the man before she viewed the film, however, she commented on the man she now feels she knows a lot better, “ It really showed how much he took advantage of his power. He was really good at that.”
When Dicarlo discussed the film in her History class, she spoke of the professor regarding those who thought the film had also portrayals, “ He told us that Hoover was a sneaky man, there is no denying that. The film shows his sneaky ways and demonstrates how he used his power. It seems truthful even all the information is not right on the dot with what actually happened. No one knows what happened, but this shows us how things could have been.” When Dicarlo was asked if paying the eleven dollars to see the film in theaters was worth the price, she nodded her head enthusiastically, “ defiantly.” Dicarlo also mentioned, “I think it’s really interesting so little was known about this man, and that the film industry is deciding now to investigate him. It was a lot to take in, but that only proved how dynamic he really was.”
Lisa Macintyre, another junior at BSU and History major, saw the movie with Dicarlo the same day. Being a history major, Lisa offered her comments about the film, “To be honest I have heard of J.Edgar and I knew him with connections to the FBI, but before the movie I honestly wasn't sure what he specifically did. He isn't a name I hear often or ever for that matter.”
Like Dicarlo, she was not sure who J. Edgar really was, however, her views of the movie compared to Dicarlo’s differed, “When I left the theater I definitely thought I knew more about him as a person, and his relation with the government and the FBI. But not doing any research or learning anything prior could have changed my view. I was in one of my history classes the other day watching a excerpt from Malcolm X , one of the more accurate history movies, and the professor made a comment about the inaccuracies of some movies ,like J.Edgar, and that it is a shame because the public then is misinformed.” Macintyre’s professor’s response went against Dicarlo’s. Whereas Dicarlo’s professor was satisfied with framing Hoover’s truths, the other was dissatisfied, claiming them as inaccurate. The real truth or answer however, is that neither professor was there, and did not know the man personally. Viewing the film as historical evidence should be taken lightly—it is one angle of a man who had many.
Everyone has their own take on a film. Audience’s can use review articles to see if their thoughts clash or mold together. Others can use the pieces for decision making—whether the film is worth seeing. Students like Jaclyn and Lisa seemed to share the same interests and were good friends; however their responses were different, with Macintyre finally admitting, “ I wouldn't say it was worth the money, the worst part of the movie was the makeup of the actors, and how easy it is so focus on it which takes away from the movie. So I don't think I would recommend it, I might suggest Netflix.” Because of the diverse opinions, it seems the only way to know whether the film was solid or appeasing is seeing the film yourself.
Sarah Walker
There are a variety of reviews from Clint Eastwoods’s previous film, J. Edgar. Because Edgar was such a controversial political figure, a film on the FBI founder and director has many pointing figure on whether or not the depiction is correct. Most of these issues stem from the suspected homosexuality revealed in the film. Although it was not a clear fact, Eastwood portrayed Edgar as a young and old man battling with his sexuality and starting an intimate relationship with a man. The two’s relationship was speculated in reality, but never fully uncovered. Along with the other controversial truths, Eastwood has decided to uncover this as well—leaving viewers with either a negative or acclaimed view on the film. Who does the audience listen to? There fellow peers, credible newspapers or magazine reviews, or do they find out for themselves? Fortunately, we have the perspective from all.
While some feel that Eastwood has exploited Hoover’s homosexuality with his client Tolson ( Armie Hammer) too much, since it was only suspected and not a known fact, reviews like The Rolling Stones felt it made the movie more engaging, “The tabloid version of Hoover as a cross-dressing closet queen is addressed, but not exploited. Black's script isn't linear; it jumps back and forth in time with impressionistic glee, hoping to get a fix on an unknowable public figure.” Getting to know Hoover and his life was like a long-haul journalism project. He has already passed, so the film represented him in a way that could have been accurate.
Besides Hoover’s private life, the film highlighted Hoover’s greatest dealings: protecting America, yet digging into the political life with blackmail and treachery. The Rolling Stones review also agrees, “ Though Hoover did popularize fingerprinting and the collection of forensic evidence (the CSI TV franchise is in his debt), he liked giving himself credit where it wasn't due, for killing gangster John Dillinger, solving the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh's baby, and.
Jaclyn Dicarlo, a history major at Bridgewater State University, went to see the film during its opening week. Dicarlo said she was familiar with a lot of the events present in J. Edgar, “ It was a great portrayal of the different time periods. I recognized the year and dates for each different flashback with the films hints of the time.” Looking more at Hoover as a person she admits not knowing a whole lot about the man before she viewed the film, however, she commented on the man she now feels she knows a lot better, “ It really showed how much he took advantage of his power. He was really good at that.”
When Dicarlo discussed the film in her History class, she spoke of the professor regarding those who thought the film had also portrayals, “ He told us that Hoover was a sneaky man, there is no denying that. The film shows his sneaky ways and demonstrates how he used his power. It seems truthful even all the information is not right on the dot with what actually happened. No one knows what happened, but this shows us how things could have been.” When Dicarlo was asked if paying the eleven dollars to see the film in theaters was worth the price, she nodded her head enthusiastically, “ defiantly.” Dicarlo also mentioned, “I think it’s really interesting so little was known about this man, and that the film industry is deciding now to investigate him. It was a lot to take in, but that only proved how dynamic he really was.”
Lisa Macintyre, another junior at BSU and History major, saw the movie with Dicarlo the same day. Being a history major, Lisa offered her comments about the film, “To be honest I have heard of J.Edgar and I knew him with connections to the FBI, but before the movie I honestly wasn't sure what he specifically did. He isn't a name I hear often or ever for that matter.”
Like Dicarlo, she was not sure who J. Edgar really was, however, her views of the movie compared to Dicarlo’s differed, “When I left the theater I definitely thought I knew more about him as a person, and his relation with the government and the FBI. But not doing any research or learning anything prior could have changed my view. I was in one of my history classes the other day watching a excerpt from Malcolm X , one of the more accurate history movies, and the professor made a comment about the inaccuracies of some movies ,like J.Edgar, and that it is a shame because the public then is misinformed.” Macintyre’s professor’s response went against Dicarlo’s. Whereas Dicarlo’s professor was satisfied with framing Hoover’s truths, the other was dissatisfied, claiming them as inaccurate. The real truth or answer however, is that neither professor was there, and did not know the man personally. Viewing the film as historical evidence should be taken lightly—it is one angle of a man who had many.
Everyone has their own take on a film. Audience’s can use review articles to see if their thoughts clash or mold together. Others can use the pieces for decision making—whether the film is worth seeing. Students like Jaclyn and Lisa seemed to share the same interests and were good friends; however their responses were different, with Macintyre finally admitting, “ I wouldn't say it was worth the money, the worst part of the movie was the makeup of the actors, and how easy it is so focus on it which takes away from the movie. So I don't think I would recommend it, I might suggest Netflix.” Because of the diverse opinions, it seems the only way to know whether the film was solid or appeasing is seeing the film yourself.