King Arthur (2004) and J.Edgar (2011)

## **J. Edgar (2011)**

Bio films are one of my favorite genres of film. The film starring Leonardo DiCaprio about Howard Huges, The Aviator is one of those films that does the job. Even though, Leo's depiction of FBI founder in *J. Edgar,* was handled well, the story line left me wishing for more. Perhaps, Hoover's legacy was to grand to be told in a 2 hours and 17 minute time frame.

Still, a film about the founder of the FBI was informative and had great subject matter, I just had trouble staying awake. I think the writers missed opportunities to detail the most intriguing moments of Hoover's achievements.

The writers focused on Hoover when he was on the back nine of his life and career. If you want to tell the story of a man and his greatness or lack of. There should be more to the introduction to the story of his rise to power in order for the fall to be greater. I felt that I was rushed through the more important times of Hoover's early career and missed how this stuttering kid from DC became the most feared man in politics. If the writers didn’t narrate the story as Hoover dictating his memoirs, they might have been able to tell the story differently. Flashbacks are a necessary tool, but for a film by Clint Eastwood starring Dicaprio this method is to cliche and predictable. I would have left the secretive elements of hoovers story left for speculation rather than laying out the facts openly for you to find . By holding back some information, a reveal or twist could have been perfect for the ending. The use of mystery could have been employed by keeping Hoover's sexual preferences up for the audience to wonder.

I also felt that there were moments in the movie where I thought I fell asleep or didn’t understand the connection between scenes. I’m not sure if this is an editing problem but, there were periods in the movie that left me wondering if I missed something. The editor can only edit what they have to work with, so possibly the shots weren’t there to include. If the editor had more footage to add that will give more reason to what’s presented, then this fault is the editors. If the editor wasn’t provided these clips then this fault is the writers.

## **King Arthur (2004)**

Another great character from the annals of history is the British hero King Arthur. Set out to demystify the legend of the king hero, the film King Arthur told the story of Arthur as a slave knight for the Roman Empire. I thought the film hit all the nerves of an epic warrior tale, yet could have added more elements from the knights story to provide a twist to the plot. The writers could have explained how he became king or obtained Excalibur the sword of legend. They also could have added elements about the quest for the Holy Grail, whether it was real or not. I would have sent the knights on the quest to obtain the grail before they battled the Saxons, in order to have leverage in the ending battle. I understand, the goal was to stray from the myths of the Knights of the Roundtable, but the is legend anyways, the writers had liberty to tell the story as they saw fit. I thought the film was to predictable to more thrilling than a epic battle scene at the end. Instead of straying away from the normal story of the knights of the Round Table, the writers could have included this points to the story to give the audience an unpredictable outcome. They didn't even address the idea that Sir Lancelot and Lady Guinevere had an affair or were lovers. This was an opportunity to add a couple of subplots to tell more entertaining story. Now, one might say that plot twist or unpredictability has to room in a biopic, especially a story about well known historical figures. If the story is well circulated through education or otherwise, the viewer is to informed for the movie to bring new information to the table. Yet, I believe that’s what separates a good and bad biopic, the ability to shed light on unknowns and gives this information in an creative way. I recently watched a documentary about a singer that was presumed dead but actually just stepped out of the spotlight to assume a normal life. In the middle of the film it is revealed that the musician is still alive. I actually was getting teary over this man's life and struggles as an artist. The art of telling a story about someone’s life that’s famous is difficult because the audience already knows what’s going to happen. The secret my lie in how you present the information and how the story unfolds as it’s told.