King Leo...

Rating: 8/10 (20 December 2004)

i originally did not want to go see this movie, but on a cold December (20th) Monday, off we went. at one point in time, i was totally infatuated with Howard Hughes (HH), & read everything i could about his life. so, i assumed the movie would be not only full of distortions, but also "thought" Leo was a terrible choice.
1st, the bad news, Scorsese did the requisite surface research, but, just did not seem able to capture the magic of Hughes's essence. the "rosebud" theory re: HH's slide into germ madness via his mother's influence was never really explored accurately, just little bits & pieces, haphazardly strung together at different parts of the movie, that come across as a convenient lazy way to attempt to explain Hughes inner depths & subsequent slide. in fact, it was both his mother & relatives who re-inforced his awareness of germ spread, as well as the premature deaths of both his parents, the smothering of his mother, & other personality-forming events from his 1st 18 yrs that may have equally contributed to his later madness. no one really knows. Scorsese's appearance of 1sthand knowledge of HH's relationships, scenes, & conversations with Hepburn & Ava appears to be too much artistic interpretation of HH's Hollywood yrs. Scorsese seems to accept too much of the hearsay as gospel & the relationships come off as affectations of the director, unfortunately. movie biographies are incredibly difficult to bring to the screen, & to bring someone as complicated & larger-than-life as HH's early yrs to the screen is particularly difficult. its too bad, Scorsese is not as attuned as this story demands, but given the amazingly difficult subject matter, he "sort of" tells the story within a framework that gets "close, but only 1/2 a cigar".
on the positive side, i must "eat my hat" & anyone else's who does NOT think that Leo was not an inspired choice! he was perfect! he was sublime! just as i became an early believer in Brad Pitt's terrific acting, i am now a believer in Leo's! he no longer has to prove himself. to say he "nailed" HH would be an amazing understatement. it was eerie watching his performance - he WAS HH. from his boyish good looks, just as HH's was, to his appearance before the congressional committee, to taking up the controls of the "spruce goose", he actually made you feel as if HH had come back to star in this film. an earlier review could not have been more wrong. anyone who has taken the trouble to read & view photos from these several periods in HH's life would HAVE to agree there is a remarkable similarity. capturing HH's obsession with the aerial scenes in "hell's angels", Russell's bra n "the outlaw", the aviation speed records, the undertaking of building the largest aircraft ever, the appearance before the congressional committee, the treatment of subordinates, the phobias, the obsession with details was sublime. as i said above, Scorsese does get close. maybe it was just too difficult.
in conclusion, with someone as brilliant, as complicated, as mad, as HH; it is virtually impossible to capture these nuances & transfer to the screen. "Hollywood" always errs in translation, then excuses itself for failing by falling back on the tried & true "entertainment for entertainment's sake", a la Oliver Stone unfortunate falsehoods wrapped in sincerity. on the other hand, no one should ever go to the movies expecting the truth. so therefore, Hollywood's ultimate contribution is story telling. knowing this, "the aviator" could have been made somewhat more interesting, less boring, & certainly shorter. true, it was too long, true, a number of scenes were unnecessarily long, as many in the audience expressed leaving the theatre. however, i did not share that sentiment. why? because, in spite of everything i have said, this was a good "movie"! i believe Leo nailed the role better than Scorsese's direction, & a long movie was necessary to tell the story. wishing for a more factual rendition is probably too far beyond the talents that believe they have more talent than they actually have. if i had not been so mesmerized by Leo's unbelievable performance, this movie would not have been as entertaining. BUT, due to Leo's performance, the movie does take on life, & makes you believe what you're watching IS the early period of Hughes's life. the theory that the story is always the main feature is mostly a truism; however, every once in a while, an actor comes along that is able to "lift up" an endeavor, & we should all be appreciative.
as for HH, on the whole it was a sad life; however, for his 1st 45-47 yrs, he was a truly brilliant American pioneer who captured the public's imagination with his derring-do, warts & all! although the "warts" did not surface til later. one can say whatever they want, but his 1st 47 yrs could not have been more exciting or more magnetic.