J. Edgar (Eastwood)

[Dukefrukem]

Lots more pics here (http://onlocationnews.photoshelter.co m/gallery/EXCLUSIVE-Leonardo-DiCaprio-as-J-Edgar-Hoover/G0000HSQxwGDSuOc/)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/coolproduction/ckeditor_assets/pictures/610/original/leohoover.jpg?1297277515

[baby doll]

Great, first he ruined Scorsese's career, and now he's gunning for Eastwood.

[megladon8]

How did he ruin Martin Scorsese's career?

[soitgoes...]

Great, first he ruined Scorsese's career, and now he's gunning for Eastwood.Was Hereafter really that great? A couple years ago Eastwood was just another Hollywood hack to you, now his career's in jeopardy because he's utilizing DiCaprio?

[MadMan]

I doubt this will touch upon the fact that Hoover was a cross dressing douchebag who spied upon everyone and built an epic sex files collection that kept him in power. Instead it will be about his earlier years, of course. So pass.

[number8]

I doubt this will touch upon the fact that Hoover was a cross dressing douchebag who spied upon everyone and built an epic sex files collection that kept him in power. Instead it will be about his earlier years, of course. So pass.

Err, it's written by Milk writer Dustin Lance Black, and the entire movie is specifically about his crossdressing and closeted homosexuality.

[megladon8]

Err, it's written by Milk writer Dustin Lance Black, and the entire movie is specifically about his crossdressing and closeted homosexuality.


That's news to me.

Last I heard (several months back, around the time Leo originally signed on) Eastwood and Leo were saying that this movie wouldn't feature any "Hoover wearing womens' garments".

[baby doll]

Was Hereafter really that great? A couple years ago Eastwood was just another Hollywood hack to you, now his career's in jeopardy because he's utilizing DiCaprio?Well, I also really like Gran Torino. As for this wrecking his career, I was being glib; I don't think this will substantially alter Eastwood's position within the industry in the same way that Gangs of New York did for Scorsese, since he's been moving back and forth between big-budget films like Flags of Our Fathers and more mid-range works like Gran Torino. However, I can't say that I'm overly excited for this film, despite the subject (dresses or no, I can't imagine that he'll give Hoover the same pie-eyed treatment he gave Nelson Mandela), just because it seems as soon as DiCapprio is attached to any project (to say nothing of a period biopic), it has to be a massive blockbuster. I wonder if there are days where DiCapprio longs wistfully to do a small, personal project again before banging his supermodel girlfriend on top of a pile of money.

[baby doll]

How did he ruin Martin Scorsese's career?Well, to be fair, Scorsese's career had been going in that direction since the early '90s. After Goodfellas, he alternated between big-budget blockbusters (Cape Fear, Casino) and more personal, mid-range films (The Age of Innocence, Kundun, Bringing Out the Dead). But after Gangs of New York, it was all mass audience blockbusters all the time.

[megladon8]

But how does making mass audience blockbusters equal "ruined career"?

[megladon8]

Well, I also really like Gran Torino. As for this wrecking his career, I was being glib; I don't think this will substantially alter Eastwood's position within the industry in the same way that Gangs of New York did for Scorsese, since he's been moving back and forth between big-budget films like Flags of Our Fathers and more mid-range works like Gran Torino. However, I can't say that I'm overly excited for this film, despite the subject (dresses or no, I can't imagine that he'll give Hoover the same pie-eyed treatment he gave Nelson Mandela), just because it seems as soon as DiCapprio is attached to any project (to say nothing of a period biopic), it has to be a massive blockbuster. I wonder if there are days where DiCapprio longs wistfully to do a small, personal project again before banging his supermodel girlfriend on top of a pile of money.


You seem incredibly bitter towards people with any kind of popularity.

[baby doll]

But how does making mass audience blockbusters equal "ruined career"?He can't take the same kind of risks he did in the '70s and '80s with films that might not be super popular (The Last Temptation of Christ being the most obvious example), because his movies cost so much to make now.

[megladon8]

He can't take the same kind of risks he did in the '70s and '80s with films that might not be super popular (The Last Temptation of Christ being the most obvious example), because his movies cost so much to make now.


That still does not mean that he cannot make quality films.

Bigger budget =/= automatically inferior.

[Milky Joe]

Bigger budget =/= automatically inferior.

Actually it does, on a fairly consistent basis. There are exceptions, but not many.

[megladon8]

That's silly.

[soitgoes...]

Honestly though, my favorite films generally have a smaller budget. A few big-budget films here and there sneak their way near the top, but I don't necessarily disagree with what all baby doll's saying. I do disagree that because a film has a bigger budget it is doomed to fail. That is wrong.

[baby doll]

That still does not mean that he cannot make quality films.

Bigger budget =/= automatically inferior.Yeah, I quite liked The Aviator for its almost reckless over-ambition (though I could've done without the childhood flashbacks that bracket the film, especially after all the sub-Oliver Stone Oedipal nonsense in Gangs of New York), but as I've said around this forms before, while The Departed and Shutter Island might've been entertaining B-movies at ninety minutes, at two and a half hours, they just seem needlessly over-inflated.

[megladon8]

But really, with directors like Scorsese or Spielberg, I think they are about as close to carte blanche as you can get, even with a big budget.

I think the (arguable) decline in quality with Spielberg's work over the last decade or so has little or nothing to do with him working with big budgets. He has always worked with big budgets.

And how is Cape Fear an example of Martin Scorsese doing a "big budget crowd pleaser"? It cost $35-million. That's not exactly tent-pole blockbuster extravaganza money.

[megladon8]

Yeah, I quite liked The Aviator for its almost reckless over-ambition (though I could've done without the childhood flashbacks that bracket the film, especially after all the sub-Oliver Stone Oedipal nonsense in Gangs of New York), but as I've said around this forms before, while The Departed and Shutter Island might've been entertaining B-movies at ninety minutes, at two and a half hours, they just seem needlessly over-inflated.


OK but this is a completely different argument.

You felt that the movies did not warrant their lengths. That's different from your original insinuation that Scorsese can't make great movies with big budgets.

[baby doll]

And how is Cape Fear an example of Martin Scorsese doing a "big budget crowd pleaser"? It cost $35-million. That's not exactly tent-pole blockbuster extravaganza money.It was one of his most expensive, most commercially successful films up till that point, and it's more of an impersonal genre assignment--essentially The Departed in embryo.

[megladon8]

It was one of his most expensive, most commercially successful films up till that point, and it's more of an impersonal genre assignment--essentially The Departed in embryo.


But why does that make it inferior?

Again, it seems you have some strange disliking of anything successful.

How do you determine when something is "too expensive or commercially successful" to be worthwhile? It seems pretty arbitrary to me.

"Well if Scorsese makes a movie for more than $30-million and it does well at the box office, it's no longer a quality work. As for Spielberg, if he does a film for more than $80-million and it makes double that back, then it's not as good as his lesser known fare."

I really don't understand this line of thinking at all.


Why can't you just like a film because it was either good or bad? Because you enjoyed it or you didn't?

If I thought Michael Bay's Transformers was awesome I would have no shame in saying so just because it's popular or cost enough money to pay off the national debt. It just so happens I didn't like the movie.

Why do you have to take these things into account before decided whether or not you enjoyed a film?

[baby doll]

OK but this is a completely different argument.

You felt that the movies did not warrant their lengths. That's different from your original insinuation that Scorsese can't make great movies with big budgets.The two aren't mutually exclusive. The reason those films are so long is in order to justify their budgets. You can't make a 100 million dollar film and have it be a fast and dirty genre film, like the original Infernal Affairs. It's much cheaper to shoot a film in Hong Kong with local stars (Tony Leung is a big star, but he doesn't get paid twenty million a picture) than it is to make a film in the US with Leonardo DiCapprio, so there's more pressure on Scorsese to justify the expense of his film.

[megladon8]

The two aren't mutually exclusive. The reason those films are so long is in order to justify their budgets. You can't make a 100 million dollar film and have it be a fast and dirty genre film, like the original Infernal Affairs. It's much cheaper to shoot a film in Hong Kong with local stars (Tony Leung is a big star, but he doesn't get paid twenty million a picture) than it is to make a film in the US with Leonardo DiCapprio, so there's more pressure on Scorsese to justify the expense of his film.


This just isn't true.

Hancock cost twice the amount that The Departed did, and it was half the length.

On the other side, David Lynch's Inland Empire was nearly 3 hours in length, and I doubt it cost half as much as The Departed.

[baby doll]

But why does that make it inferior?

Again, it seems you have some strange disliking of anything successful.

How do you determine when something is "too expensive or commercially successful" to be worthwhile? It seems pretty arbitrary to me.

"Well if Scorsese makes a movie for more than $30-million and it does well at the box office, it's no longer a quality work. As for Spielberg, if he does a film for more than $80-million and it makes double that back, then it's not as good as his lesser known fare."

I really don't understand this line of thinking at all.

Why can't you just like a film because it was either good or bad? Because you enjoyed it or you didn't?

If I thought Michael Bay's Transformers was awesome I would have no shame in saying so just because it's popular or cost enough money to pay off the national debt. It just so happens I didn't like the movie.

Why do you have to take these things into account before decided whether or not you enjoyed a film?My point with regards to Cape Fear is that Scorsese's position in the film industry was fundamentally different. He had just made Goodfellas, a big, Oscar-nominated movie, and had signed on with Disney. Making movies in the United States has become more and more expensive over the years, and there are different demands put upon Scorsese than there were in the '70s and '80s in order to deliver the goods in a commercial sense. That said, in the '90s, it was still possible for him to make a film like Bringing Out the Dead, which is not possible for him to do today because it wouldn't be economically viable to make that film at 100 million dollars.

[megladon8]

But Bringing Out the Dead didn't cost $100-million in the first place, so I don't understand your point here.

Are you saying that Martin Scorsese would simply not be allowed to make a movie with a $35-million budget anymore (as was the budget for Bringing Out the Dead according to IMDb)?

If so, I have to disagree and say what I said earlier, that I think a director as prolific as Scorsese could, if he wanted, get that movie made easily.

He is, right now, making bigger budget films. But I do not see that as:

a) meaning they have less merit than his smaller films

or b) meaning that he cannot ever make a smaller film again

Let alone that if he did make a smaller-budgeted film it would, because of that simple fact, be better than anything he's done with more money.

[soitgoes...]

I think it's a bit unfair to pick on Scorsese. He has made like 4 documentaries over the past 10 years. Their budgets were in the neighborhood of a couple million. They are films. They are also things most directors wouldn't touch.

[baby doll]

But Bringing Out the Dead didn't cost $100-million in the first place, so I don't understand your point here.

Are you saying that Martin Scorsese would simply not be allowed to make a movie with a $35-million budget anymore (as was the budget for Bringing Out the Dead according to IMDb)?

If so, I have to disagree and say what I said earlier, that I think a director as prolific as Scorsese could, if he wanted, get that movie made easily.

He is, right now, making bigger budget films. But I do not see that as:

a) meaning they have less merit than his smaller films

or b) meaning that he cannot ever make a smaller film again

Let alone that if he did make a smaller-budgeted film it would, because of that simple fact, be better than anything he's done with more money.My point is that if he made Bringing Out the Dead today, it would cost twice as much as it did in 1999 (Box Office Mojo has the production budget at 55 million, and that leaves out a lot of expenses), just because making films has become more and more expensive--Scorsese's in particular because of his working relationship with DiCapprio. If Scorsese wanted to make a smaller movie, he'd have to cut him loose.

[baby doll]

This just isn't true.

Hancock cost twice the amount that The Departed did, and it was half the length.

On the other side, David Lynch's Inland Empire was nearly 3 hours in length, and I doubt it cost half as much as The Departed.In the case of The Departed and Shutter Island, the length and expense of the films creates the impression that this is an "important" film by an "important" filmmaker, especially in the former, which is self-consciously operatic to the point of self parody. I haven't seen Hancock, but I don't think it tries to make the same claims for itself.

[megladon8]

I really don't see the length and budget of those films trying to give off the impression of "importance".

[Adam]

Ya, Shutter Island is pretty bonkers at times. I don't think it's making any great claims of importance, but I essentially get what baby doll's saying.

It's just common sense that working with such gargantuan budgets carries more responsibility to reach a broader audience. But it's not Scorsese's fault that those hugely expensive movies are now more economically viable to studios than mid-range budgeted stuff is. For what it's worth, Gangs of New York was a hugely personal project for Scorsese that he had wanted to make for 30 years. Anyway I think on the whole '00s Scorsese > '90s Scorsese so I'm not really complaining

[baby doll]

I really don't see the length and budget of those films trying to give off the impression of "importance".There's no reason for these movies to be that long, so the only other possibility is that now, having final cut on his movies (does he have final cut?), he doesn't know when to say when. In any case, all the operatic stuff in The Departed gives the impression that Scorsese had temporarily taken leave of his senses. Or maybe it's just the negative influence of The Godfather on the crime movie, so now every one has to be a two and a half hour epic.

[megladon8]

Or they thought it was a great script that warranted a film of its length?

[baby doll]

Or they thought it was a great script that warranted a film of its length?Clearly they thought wrong, because Infernal Affairs did it in just over half the length, and wasn't so laughable. (Then again, that movie did inspire two sequels, neither of which I've seen.) I haven't seen Heat, but I know Scorsese put it on his list of the best movies of the '90s, so maybe this was his attempt to do a crime picture on that scale. Personally, as a rule, I like my crime pictures like I like my sex: fast and hard and dirty.

[soitgoes...]

Clearly they thought wrong
Obviously. Critically and commercially this film was panned.

[Raiders]

Watching The Departed again not too long ago, I do kind of have to agree with baby doll that it is a bloated film that could have done with a little more grit and editing. I also could have done completely without Farmiga's character.

Then again, as baby doll himself has noted, I do not understand cinema, so maybe he'd rather I not support his position.

[Adam]

This is a terrible title, by the way

[number8]

That's news to me.

Last I heard (several months back, around the time Leo originally signed on) Eastwood and Leo were saying that this movie wouldn't feature any "Hoover wearing womens' garments".

I misremembered a bit. Black was going to focus on the crossdressing aspects, but in his research, he couldn't find any concrete evidence that Hoover actually wore women's clothings. Apparently it's mostly hearsay that he's a crossdresser, probably stemming from the idea of him being gay. So Black decided not to put it in, which I think is wise. But it's still going to portray his homosexual relationships. Black said Leo has a ton of kissing scenes with Armie Hammer.

[Morris Schæffer]

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/i/2011/08/11/Edgar-Leonardo-Dicaprio_510.jpg

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/i/2011/08/11/Leonardo-Dicaprio-Edgar_510.jpg

[baby doll]

I'm guessing those are publicity stills and not frame enlargements. In any case, I'm already getting annoyed just looking at Leonard DiCapprio's stupid face. It's like he's trying really hard to sell us on the idea that he's this intense leading man, but he's actually at his best when giving relatively a laid back performance, as in The Aviator (a three-hour movie about a spoiled rich kid playing with his toys that's burdened with unnecessary psychological baggage), and to a lesser extent, Catch Me if You Can (which is able to coast for most of its length on DiCapprio's charm before getting bogged down in unnecessary psychological baggage). But seriously, it's like he choses scripts based on how much emotional baggage his character has. "Sorry Chris, I'm not really feeling this dreams-within-dreams stuff. Could we give him a dead wife?"

[Qrazy]

Personally, as a rule, I like my crime pictures like I like my sex: fast and hard and dirty.

There's your problem.

Personally I find tantric crime films much more enriching.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm guessing those are publicity stills and not frame enlargements. In any case, I'm already getting annoyed just looking at Leonard DiCapprio's stupid face. It's like he's trying really hard to sell us on the idea that he's this intense leading man, but he's actually at his best when giving relatively a laid back performance, as in The Aviator (a three-hour movie about a spoiled rich kid playing with his toys that's burdened with unnecessary psychological baggage), and to a lesser extent, Catch Me if You Can (which is able to coast for most of its length on DiCapprio's charm before getting bogged down in unnecessary psychological baggage). But seriously, it's like he choses scripts based on how much emotional baggage his character has. "Sorry Chris, I'm not really feeling this dreams-within-dreams stuff. Could we give him a dead wife?"

Dude, you're trying way too hard to hate him. I understand teh ability to pick out overacting, but in stills?

[Ezee E]

Trailer (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/jedgar/)

Blegh... Awful makeup job too.

But, what's the piece of music at the beginning called? I remember it in a bunch of NBA highlights.

[megladon8]

There's a thread for this already. (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=3398)


Looks bland as heck.

[Henry Gale]

Why does Eastwood insist on making the colour palettes of his films so shitty these days?

[B-side]

No thank you. Still love me some Leo, though.

[Ivan Drago]

It doesn't look that bad. It just feels so artificial, from the color scheme to Leo's accent to that thing resembling a makeup job. . .yeesh.

E, the piece is "Fly" by Ludovico Einaudi.

[transmogrifier]

They really have to stop making biopics that cram in the whole life. Select a single event from that life and use it as a microcosm for the rest of it.

This just looks tiring as usual for this sort of thing.

[Grouchy]

They really have to stop making biopics that cram in the whole life. Select a single event from that life and use it as a microcosm for the rest of it.
I remember Tarantino saying something to that effect.

This looks terrible.

[Glass Co.]

They really have to stop making biopics that cram in the whole life. Select a single event from that life and use it as a microcosm for the rest of it.

This just looks tiring as usual for this sort of thing.

They always become so stretched to the point that they all end up telling really similar stories out of the necessity of plot. You've gotta wonder how many end up portraying the whole life for exactly this reason though, to have a mass appeal.

[Dukefrukem]

They really have to stop making biopics that cram in the whole life. Select a single event from that life and use it as a microcosm for the rest of it.

This just looks tiring as usual for this sort of thing.

This. I was about to rant about how much I hate biopics... but it's Eastwood so I'll see it.

[Irish]

Flashbacks to Nicholson in Hoffa.

Was that the Burn Notice guy playing Bobby Kennedy?

[Morris Schæffer]

Flashbacks to Nicholson in Hoffa.

Was that the Burn Notice guy playing Bobby Kennedy?

Yep. he was also in changeling. He's to Eastwood what DiCaprio is to Scorsese. Yin and Yang and all that shaaet. :)

[Briare]

Crappy hollywood biographies are something of a guilty pleasure for me, but I've stopped trying to trump them as extraordinary pieces of film making but I'm not sure what to make of this one. The casting seems daft to me for some reason, almost entirely. I'm having doubts about DiCaprio... and whoever said that the title is ridiculous is completely right.

[Irish]

What's wrong with the title? It's not poetic or active but it gets the job done.

Leaves me thinking, what if other directors helmer this? What would it be called? Eg:

Zack Snyder: "G-Man" ... simple and tough. Slangy.

John Waters: "Panties" ... no explanation necessary. Now it occurs to me I'd much rather have seen Waters make this than Eastwood.

[megladon8]

This looks terrible.

That voice/accent and the old age make-up...DiCaprio was so very wrong for this part.

Looks bland as hell, with some all-out badness thrown in for good measure.

[Briare]

Flashbacks to Nicholson in Hoffa.

Was that the Burn Notice guy playing Bobby Kennedy?

Jeffrey Donovan, while not a poor actor by any means is so totally wrong for that part. I think the casting is pretty out there as a whole, actually. This is without seeing it of course, but I'll probably see it just out of curiosity.

The title bugs me, its just blah. I'm sure they could've come up with something else. Having the person's name as the title is already lazy writing.

[number8]

Leaves me thinking, what if other directors helmer this? What would it be called?

Stone = Hoover.

Scorsese = The Director.

Ron Howard = A Free Mason.

Soderbergh = Bureau.

Coens = Responsible Citizenship.

Ratner = Crossing the Line.

[Irish]

:lol: damn, number8, those are perfect.

[Morris Schæffer]

http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/55041.jpg

[Winston*]

Wtf?

[Dukefrukem]

Wtf?

what?

[number8]

That's a fucking awful poster.

[Morris Schæffer]

That poster, though admittedly deceptively bad, becomes a whole lot better once you realize the reason for DiCaprio's hungry expression is because of something he spots beyond the confines of the courtroom's window. Eastwood basically confirmed it.

http://www.fairytalebriefs.com/images/pink.bra.jpg

[Ezee E]

If there's a scene of him getting angry about women using bras as slingshots, I'm going to waste two hours of my life to see it.

[Winston*]

what?

The poster is terrible.

[Dukefrukem]

I don't mind it.

[Yxklyx]

I ended up seeing this awful thing last week. There's really nothing good about it at all.

[Rowland]

I'm just satisfied that the lack of much significant buzz for this has liberated me from feeling obligated to give it a chance, because I was really not interested whatsoever.

[MadMan]

I went into this with rather negative expectations and came away thinking it was pretty good. Mostly due to the cast, and while the movie was engaging it does kind of follow the standard typical biopic format.

[baby doll]

This really needed a Marco Bellocchio or Peter Watkins--that is, some one willing to call a fascist a fascist. But even accounting for this being an Eastwood film (the FBI as an institution is above criticism, communism is evil, and Hoover is presented in conventional Hollywood bio-pic fashion as a great man whose accomplishments have been clouded by missteps he made later in life, such as blackmailing Martin Luther King), the energy rapidly diminishes in the second hour. And remember, I'm the dude who likes Hereafter.

[Bosco B Thug]

No one really saw this, huh? I liked it. Eastwood's thought to be a pretty dry filmmaker, but his camera can get pretty fanciful. No exception here, where his unpretentious dramatic intuitiveness surprisingly fits Dustin Lance Black's screenplay of Todd Haynesian camp poeticism. And he really can pound the conceptual motifs of history in cycle/progression.

More existential reverie couched in history than plodding biopic, thanks to Black's achronological structuring and concerns of the more personal, emotional, and philosophical nature. Not too political, then, but it's clearly critical of the man and wary of the systems he helped create, if not in the scathing and comprehensive way the historical figure may have deserved.

My favorite DiCaprio performance, not because it's perfect, but because he's given a real opportunity to disappear into a role and he gives it his all. Noami Watts kind of steals it, though, giving a really affecting performance in a very minimal role. Hers and DiCaprio's make-up jobs aren't bad, contrary to reports - just Armie Hammer's is (though he also gives a fine performance).

[Pop Trash]

I just don't understand why, when most of the film is old J. Edgar, they don't cast an older actor. It just smacks of H-wood telling Eastwood "yeah we'll finance it, but you need a name actor." Beyond that it was pretty dry and stodgy, with Black's screenplay hopscotching around in time for no real reason.

[Bosco B Thug]

I just don't understand why, when most of the film is old J. Edgar, they don't cast an older actor. It just smacks of H-wood telling Eastwood "yeah we'll finance it, but you need a name actor." Beyond that it was pretty dry and stodgy, with Black's screenplay hopscotching around in time for no real reason.
So you didn't love all the match cuts??? If I knew someone who spontaneously orgasms every time they see a match cut, I'd show them this movie.

I liked the use of match cuts. The growth and stagnation of institutions. Blah de blah.

I wasn't blown away by the movie, but I find Eastwood generally very consistent. Gran Torino's pretty campy you know. Then again I didn't rush out to see Invictus, nor have I seen his war films. Hereafter looks pretty highfalutin, though, maybe I'll join baby doll.

[Bosco B Thug]

Oh, and about casting an old actor, there's something to theatricality and sacrificing that extra production value of great double-casting to the experiment of the make-up job.

Plus simple reasons like wanting to keep the actor-aura personality throughout the representation of the character.

[baby doll]

I just don't understand why, when most of the film is old J. Edgar, they don't cast an older actor. It just smacks of H-wood telling Eastwood "yeah we'll finance it, but you need a name actor."You should see The Tulse Luper Suitcases.

[Pop Trash]

You should see The Tulse Luper Suitcases.

Por que?

[Pop Trash]

Gun Crazy (Joseph H. Lewis, 1950) / **1/2


Also: fuck this rating.

[baby doll]

Por que?It's a movie where the same "historical" character is played by different actors at different ages (sometimes in the same shot).

[baby doll]

Also: fuck this rating.It struck me as being fairly by-the-numbers. Certainly nothing to rival They Live By Night.

[Pop Trash]

It struck me as being fairly by-the-numbers. Certainly nothing to rival They Live By Night.

Funny that you mention that since both John Dall and Farley Granger were in Rope together. :crazy:

[Dukefrukem]

They really have to stop making biopics that cram in the whole life. Select a single event from that life and use it as a microcosm for the rest of it.

This just looks tiring as usual for this sort of thing.

And this is the outcome- very tiring and very convenient on how the plot rolls along. One of Eastwood's worst.

[Dukefrukem]

Err, it's written by Milk writer Dustin Lance Black, and the entire movie is specifically about his crossdressing and closeted homosexuality.

Which is covered in all of about one 5 minute scene.