J. Edgar, the Movie / True Nelson Comments

I went to see Clint Eastwood’s recent movie last night – J. Edgar.  I’m not going to write a motion picture review.  There are so many good reviews already; the consensus being good acting, bad movie.  My impression was that it was too long, too disjointed, and quite frankly kind of boring.

In that I entered on duty as an Agent in 1971, right before J. Edgar Hoover died; I do have some personal thoughts.  Hoover had many faults.  And, I think that any FBI Agent, who served during that period, if they are being honest, would agree.  However, without question, he almost single-handedly brought law enforcement into the modern age.  He created the most highly recognized law enforcement agency in the world – and the most respected.  He promoted / created the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC), the centralized fingerprint system, the FBI National Academy, as well as the FBI laboratory for scientific and forensic investigations which was the precursor to every CSI organization, real (as in actual law enforcement) and imagined (as on TV) that have become so familiar to all of us.  He was a remarkable man.  His achievements were legendary.

That said, his life was that of a bureaucrat.  In that he was very good at that particular function explains how he was able to survive as Director for nearly fifty years.  Did he at times try to manipulate others in that Washington circle for his benefit and his agency’s benefit?  Of course he did.  Was he unique in that way?  Of course not.  Washington DC is and was dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest, where nice guys finish last.  In protecting himself, he protected the Bureau.

Personally, my contact with Hoover was limited to seeing him walking down the hall of FBI headquarters, generally in the company of his friend and immediate subordinate, Clyde Tolson.  I had heard all the stories about Hoover’s alleged quick temper and capricious decisions, so I knew he was someone to avoid unless it was absolutely unavoidable.  Was he gay?  Was Tolson gay?  I don’t know.  I’ve talked to many who knew Hoover well and worked closely with him – and they don’t know.  It doesn’t really matter to me.  Sadly, however, I imagine that it would matter to Hoover and Tolson.

For so many in our society, motion pictures are history.  Many are too lazy or too preoccupied with their personal lives to ferret out the truth.  If truth be known about Hoover – it would probably make a rather boring movie.  Eastwood tried to jazz-it-up, Hoover’s life that is, and it was still pretty boring as far as I was concerned.  If Eastwood had focused on one aspect of Hoover’s career, like the Lindbergh kidnapping case, he probably could have made a pretty good movie.  For me, I was initially very interested in the Bolsheviks’ influence in the United States, but the movie quickly moved on to other issues.

J. Edgar, the movie, finally evolved into the suspected relationship between Hoover and Tolson – all pure speculation – without a single witness to anything along those lines that were portrayed – pure fiction.

Men, it seems, can not work closely together, and be close confidants without being suspected of being homosexual.  Mark Felt, former Associate Director under Hoover (and later ‘outed’ as Woodward and Bernstein’s ‘deep throat’ in the Watergate investigation) described Hoover and Tolson’s relationship as “brotherly,” which sounds plausible to me.


Women, on the other hand, mostly get a pass in this sexual orientation area; which prompts the question:  If Hoover was gay, does that mean that Helen Gandy was a lesbian?  After all, she never married; and, reportedly, in her retirement she liked to go fishing.  I guess we will never know for sure.

On the bright side, I understand that some ‘progressive’ elementary and secondary schools are now teaching classes in gay achievements in history.  Well, that’s nice.  Perhaps, Hoover will finally get some positive and untainted recognition.

True Nelson