Director Clint Eastwood’s “J. Edgar” was supposed to be a key Oscar contender this awards season.
Instead, withering reviews and audience indifference have all but killed its chances at significant honors. That hasn’t stopped critics from soft-pedaling their critiques to support the film’s gay agenda, according to Andrew Klavan.
[youtube vD99zwj-ZUg nolink]
The film more than suggests J. Edgar Hoover (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) had a gay relationship with a fellow agent via clumsy dialogue and cliched confrontations. It’s precisely the kind of ham-fisted storytelling critics are supposed to call out. Klavan says critics like Manohla Dargis of the leftist New York Times instead chose to ignore such obvious flaws in their reviews:
“The tenderness of the love story in “J. Edgar” comes as a shock.” “Mr. Eastwood, working from a smart script by Dustin Lance Black… takes a dynamic approach to history (even as it speaks to contemporary times…)” “[Eastwood’s] handling of Hoover and Tolson’s relationship… lifts the film from the usual biopic blahs.”
Okay, you may read this nonsense and say, “Ah, well, there’s no accounting for taste.” But I think a more plausible explanation for it is that Ms. Dargis is full of crap. I do not believe she found the tenderness of the movie a shock, or the poorly constructed script smart, or the antiquated handling of the story uplifting. I believe she said those things only to tout a film with a pro-homosexual agenda. (I say this as a gay-friendly libertarian.) The Times is infamous for this sort of thing, as documented in William McGowan’s book “Gray Lady Down.” The paper lies to its readers, in other words, to promote those cultural productions that support their favored causes.
You can read the rest here: