A study of an extra-ordinary man tormented by an unknown condition

Rating: 10/10 (3 July 2013)

I remember my older brother calling me "Howard Hughes" when I was younger because I apparently washed my hands too much. I just wrote it off along with all the other name-calling you come to expect at that age. Hell, I didn't even know who Howard Hughes was anyway!
30 years later, I watched this film and it left a sour taste in my mouth. I noticed some similarities between some problems I'd been experiencing and what I was witnessing on the screen. I tried to find out what Hughes's affliction was, but couldn't find any correlation, so I left it at that.
Long story short, 6 months ago I discovered that I have OCD and have been coming to terms with it since then. The hysterical irony of it all is that a book I've been reading about treating OCD states that it is now widely believed Mr Hughes's affliction was OCD, a fact sadly absent from the previous research I'd done. So I guess everything comes full circle and I should've listened to my brother after all!
Living in a world where OCD didn't exist and you were either "normal" or "crazy", Hughes must have experienced a very special kind of private hell. Forget Melvin Udall in "As Good as it Gets" with his lovable quirks & snappy one liners; think more along the lines of a secret nightmare that constantly has you asking "why me?" and redefining the meaning of humiliation and loss. The cruelest aspect is that the harder you try to fight or control it, the more potent it becomes, until you find yourself trapped in inescapable cycles of abhorrent behaviour that you hate but cannot stop, which can consume whole days at a time, which can ultimately consume your life. So if you take a determined young tycoon circa early 20th century and gift him with OCD, well you'll probably end up with Howard Hughes's life.
Now I wouldn't expect any movie studio to fund a film that accurately depicted OCD. There would simply be too much strange & upsetting behaviour and it would be unwatchable for most. So I'm impressed Scorcese managed to include as much about it as he did here. Brave choice.
Quite possibly Dicaprio's best role to date, and I include J. Edgar, The Departed, Revolutionary Road and Shutter Island in that. Just the range of expression and emotion, much of it unspoken and under the surface. Assuming DiCaprio doesn't have OCD, it must have been hard to mimic with a total absence of the underlying mental processes that drive it. So he did a hell of a job. Incorporated into his performance was also the noticeable transition from youth into man, as well as a traumatised post accident Hughes. It wasn't all eccentric/OCD behaviour though, he allowed some of Hughes's non-OCD charm & personality to shine through which was a realistic touch. DiCaprio not getting best actor for this is as laughable as Cruise not getting it for "Born on the Fourth of July". A fine supporting cast including very believable scheming vipers from Baldwin and Alda.
The effects are absolutely stunning. Yes, I appreciate that the CGI is already dated but I personally don't get hung up on that stuff and I think it all still looks fantastic. The recreation of the aeroplanes and aerial sequences were exquisitely done. Likewise, the care that went into the set design and location scouting for the art deco clubs, offices, homes and washrooms gave this story the backdrop it deserved. In fact the work that went into wardrobe, makeup, furniture, and styling played a huge part in retelling this grand story properly. All this combined with the use of lavish colour breathed new life into a forgotten world, usually only viewed through a distorted monochrome or sepia lens.
My only dislike here was Cate Blanchett's portrayal of Katherine Hepburn. The Hepburn I remember from the movies was charming, vibrant and attractive. This Hepburn however was garish on the eye and awkwardly caricatured in speech. I suppose Kate Mulgrew(Star Trek Voyager) may have been a little too old to pull it off but she would have been an absolutely perfect choice otherwise. Now please don't get me wrong - Blanchett is clearly a very capable actress under normal circumstances and 11 out of 10 to her for effort. That's not the point though - what was required here wasn't acting, but an accurate impersonation and she was horribly miscast. This is a forgivable hiccup in a grand masterpiece though.
I thought it was testament to Scorcese's respect for Hughes that he made a point of showing how Pan Am and its political shills conspired to publicly destroy Hughes in an attempt to monopolise the airline game. This last portion of the film could *so easily* have been a freakshow about Hughes's descent into isolation or speculation about how he lived out his final years - it's the obvious crowd-pleasing move. We all know that in reality his life didn't end happily but this vindication and the flight of the Hercules reminds us that he did achieve some things he set out to do and wasn't quite the vilified freak they wanted us to believe he was. Classy touch that I thought.
All in all this is about as grand a picture as you'll get to see nowadays in terms of sets, resources, effects, acting, and recapturing a by gone age.
Seriously - the amount of research, work and attention to detail that must've gone into this masterpiece might have impressed even Hughes himself.
I have nothing but respect for Scorcese bringing this very difficult story to the screen with so much care, attention to detail and style. OK, so I guess I have a personal stake in this story but I still think it would be a disservice giving this anything less than 10 stars.