J. Edgar

Watched J. Edgar last night.

This morning when I got up, the movie was still on my mind. Foremost were two questions: What is this movie inviting me to think about, and How much of what I saw is reliably true?

The second question bears considering first, as it plays into the first.

I watched the credits in their entirety to gain some insight – hoping to see something about the sources, their reliability, etc. Of course, this is a movie, but based upon history... What did come up was standard boilerplate: “Although this movie is based upon historical facts, some scenes were dramatized...”

Which is very disquieting in terms of uncovering how we should view this movie. There are many, many scenes which involve J. Edgar alone, or J. Edgar and one other person, very often another person who was considerably loyal (and unlikely to record separate notes on what took place.) So, every scene with just him and his mother, just him and his friend Clyde, or him and his secretary Helen becomes suspect as to its accuracy, and without additional confirmation, we have to take the information portrayed and, if not discount, at least tend very carefully to its influence on our thinking.

So, for instance: We cannot take at face value the movie's assertion that his mother was his rock, his mentor until her death (when Hoover was well into adulthood, perhaps his 40's, the exact timing of certain events was difficult to ascertain giving the movie's habit of jumping back and forth in time), that he had not 'grown up' until then and was instead still in some Freudian relationship. Maybe, maybe not. We cannot trust the exact nature of his friendship with Clyde, either: so much of what was portrayed takes place behind closed doors – certainly Clyde never spoke of it to another? That their friendship was profound, that they placed almost complete trust and gave complete loyalty to one another we can see, but...again, the intimations, giving from two un-verifiable scenes, one with his mother discussing a childhood friend, the other in a hotel room of a fight with Clyde, we cannot take as true.

Which leaves us to contemplate the remainder comprised of stuff that certainly is true: That J. Edgar oversaw and drove a burearu from its nascent, 1919 form to the powerful entity that it was in the 1960's. That he was both instrumental to its success and prone to exaggerate his own importance. That he surrounded himself with two individuals who appear to have had a like-minded pursuit of the work they were in: That catching criminals and preventing a radical take-over of America took precedence over all else in life. That he was profoundly paranoid of that possibility.

Which I think is the invitation the movie gives us: We are to consider the differences between the as portrayed useful paranoia of J. Edgar which drives him to ask of congress for more power for the Bureau, for the ability for its agents to carry guns, for Bureau jurisdiction of kidnapping, and retention of all fingerprints, and the establishment of a well-staffed and well-funded forensics lab; and the as portrayed over-blown paranoia which drives him to write an inflammatory letter to Martin Luther King, to keep his own set of 'confidential' files on the private doings of others in power, to exaggerate his participation to his memoirs, and to stoop to blackmail when he sees his or the Bureau’s power threatened.

The fact that the two levels of paranoia co-exist and exert themselves throughout his life is an interesting insight into the complexity of Edgar Hoover and his actions. We can see, wrapped up in a single individual, a drive that gives him insights and the will to pursue them that is beneficial, at the same time the very same forces are driving him beyond to actions many would consider self-serving and to a degree contradictory to his mission (for blackmail and un-warranted eavesdropping are certainly illegal activities.)

Finally, the movie, in an amazingly neutral manner, does give us something to think about: J. Edgar Hoover was certainly participating in pre-emptive surveillance; intelligence gathering of the individuals who may or may not prove a threat to his power or the nation, individuals who had committed no crimes other than show that they had a following, individuals both within and without government. That he used that information a few times is certainly true, but what should give us pause as to its true purpose: He commanded (and it was apparantly carried out) of his secretary to destroy the files if ever anything became of him.

That level of paranoia certainly is not healthy for an individual, or a nation.