Ladies and germs, it’s that time of year again, one day ‘til Oscars. Last year was easy. "The King’s Speech" stood out so far above the rest of the crowd that it was quite a no-brainer to predict it would sweep the awards. And it did. But this year, it’s really a tough call. Virtually all of the nominees are very good, and there are four that are simply outstanding.
For the record, the nine nominees for Best Picture are:
The Artist, The Descendants, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, The Help, Hugo, Midnight In Paris, Moneyball, The Tree of Life, and War Horse.
As I noted last year, the Academy changed its rules recently and allowed 10 nominations in the Best Picture category even though all other categories allow only 5 and Best Picture has historically also only been 5. The Academy has always had another rule though that states that any nominee must have a certain minimum number of votes in order to make it on the ballot at all. That is why some categories have fewer than five nominees and why Best Picture this year has only nine. It has also always been an Academy rule that only directors vote for directors, only actors vote for actors and so forth. The only category that the entire membership votes on is Best Picture. That is why it is sometimes the case that a film will be nominated for Best Picture but not Best Director. It always angers people when this happens. The reaction is always, "What’s the Academy thinking? Who do they think made the film?" It happened in 1976 when Jaws was nominated for Best Picture but Spielberg was not nominated for Best Director. I remember the outcry, "What? Do they think the shark made the film?" This of course was just showmanship because they knew very well why Spielberg didn’t make. They understood even if the public didn’t. A completely different group of people voted in the Director category than did in the Picture category.
It happened again this year. War Horse was nominated for Best Picture but Spielberg was passed over as Best Director. This has happened to Spielberg a lot during his career.
But there has been one good thing about the change to 10 nominees. The ten nominees do tend to represent most of the major films that are out there, so by seeing just these ten, you have pretty good coverage. This year, it was easy. I had already seen six of the ten before the nominations were announced. But still, it’s fun to speculate on who wouldn’t have made it if the list was still confined to five choices.
So this year, I speculate as follows: if there were only five choices, they would have been The Artist, The Help, Hugo, and Midnight In Paris. I mention only four because these are the ones that stand out. All four are superb and equally deserving of the prize. That’s why it’s going to be a tough call this year. If I must name a fifith, it would be The Descendants. Marginally, in second place, would be Moneyball and War Horse. Extremely Loud and The Tree of Life both had a lot of good things in them but neither, in my opinion were Oscar-caliber and should not have been nominated. The films that should have been nominated instead are The Iron Lady, My Week With Marilyn, and The Ides of March. There were also six other films nominated in other categories that I might also add to the list except that I haven’t seen them yet. These are A Better Life, Beginners, Albert Nobbs, A Separation, and Margin Call.
With that said, I will now render my annual comments on the nominees:
Best Pic #1: "The Artist"
This has been one of the most controversial films of the year and for completely stupid reasons. It is in black and white and – horrors! -- it is also silent! In theaters all over the country, about ten minutes into the film, there has been a mass exodus of angry patrons who did not realize it was a silent film and march to the box office demanding their money back. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with people not wanting to spend money on a silent film in this day and age. But movie patrons really do have to take some responsibility for the choices they make. Did they not read a single review? Was it not obvious from viewing the trailer that the film was silent? Are these people stupid or are they just lazy? Really, I do think that this ridiculous controversy is a viable candidate for the Darwin Awards.
This French film is in fact an extraordinarily delightful and charming Valentine to the silent film era, a totally endearing story about a Douglas Fairbanks type silent film star who gets completely dissed when sound comes in and his struggles to adapt to an industry and public that forgets about him virtually overnight. Jean Dujardin is outstanding in the lead role and has been nominated as Best Actor. However the real treat of the film is the introduction to American audiences of French bombshell Berenice Bejo, who plays the up and coming ingenue to whom the silent star gives her first big break. Then she becomes a huge star when sound comes in and she, in turn, then makes it her mission in life to help the former star adapt to the new medium. I won’t tell you whether she succeeds or not, as of course history tells us that most of them did not. They have many ups and down, scenes both very poignant and hilarious. It is quite simply visual storytelling at its best. Today, the news is that it just won the award for Best Picture at the Cesars, the French version of Oscar.
It’s such a shame that people aren’t giving it a chance. It becomes blatantly obvious at about the 30 minute mark why this film had to be silent, simply could not have been made any other way and have the impact it does. This was not a case of a snooty French auteur who was making a silent film just to be artsy-fartsy. No, there was real method to this madness and anyone who can get through the first half hour is in for the delight of the year. Of course, if you have an open mind about silent films, you will be getting into it in the first ten minutes, right about the time the silent film bigots are all walking out, fuming about being conned.
Best Pic #2: "The Descendants"
Alexander Payne has never really made a bad film and he is nominated for Best Director as well, as is George Clooney for Best Actor, and Payne for Adapted Screenplay. The only real disappointment is that the wonderful ingenue who plays Clooney’s 17 year old daughter (for once a director had the intelligence to cast a real 17 year old to play a 17 year old, rather than some actress in her mid-20s the way most films do) did not make the Best Supporting Actress list.
This is a bittersweet tale in which Clooney, a crackerjack attorney, must negotiate the sale of ancestral properties after a relative, the last of a royal blood line, passes away. Clooney and his clan are the last descendants of the original king and queen of the Hawaiian islands. There is a certain emotional investment in keeping the heritage alive, and Clooney is not completely blind to this. However, most of his extended family, many of whom he hardly knows, are almost completely indifferent to this, only interested in the enormous inheritance they will receive once the vast acreage is sold off. And they have several very excellent offers. But it’s also clear to everyone that, once this happens, continuing the heritage will become virtually impossible. Clooney is just about the only one who cares.
Adding to the turmoil is his personal struggle adapting to a new life as a single dad of two teenaged girls in the wake of the death of his wife several years ago. Now he must also deal with a bunch of greedy relatives who are intensely pressuring him to just take the money and run. But he does have one big advantage. He is named in the trust as trustee, which means legally he has absolute power. He can listen to his relatives’ concerns and wishes but, in the end, it is his decision and his decision alone. This is not lost on the relatives, which is why they’re putting on the clamps. (Trust me, I could relate to that! I’ve been living this life for seven years. If I haven’t said it enough, I’ll say it again. Thank you Marijo, Tim, and John for not being like the family in this movie! Poor George!)
I’ve talked to a good number of people who were really disappointed with this film because they thought it was supposed to be a comedy. I have no idea how that impression started. It is not a comedy, it is a very heavy drama, but a very well-done drama. The story as I have described may not sound particularly appealing, but it is Clooney’s journey that makes the viewing worthwhile, not the end result. Even though he’s a shark of a lawyer, his wife’s death has given him a whole new perspective on life. He’s looking for a deeper meaning now. He has reached the point in his life that he is no longer interesting in landing the big deal just for its own sake. The tensions his new-found values bring to his life and resulting journey to find that deeper meaning is what makes this film a very rewarding experience.
I doubt it will win. The competition is just too good. But it deserves a place on the list and most definitely deserves to be seen.
Best Pic #3: "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close"
It seems that Oscar has better taste than most of the critics, as this film has been almost universally panned. It has been described as trite and pedantic, unrealistic and preachy. Some critics have even gone so far as to call it an offense to all the real survivors of 9/11. Because of this, I went to see it with a jaundiced eye. I decided that I agreed with Oscar instead. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather than being an offense, it was a tribute. Rather than being trite, it was delightful. How do you make a delightful story out of the tragedy of 9/11? Easy, you just make it a children’s story.
That’s the main point I believe all the critics missed. This is a children’s story, being told fully from a child’s point of view. So, yes, it might seem trite, preachy, unrealistic. I’m sure there are not a lot of boys out there who are like the boy in this story. But I’m equally sure that there aren’t a lot of boys out there who have been through what this boy has been through.
You all remember "Pay It Forward," the 2000 film with Haley Joel Osment playing a boy who does a random act of kindness to two people to see if they will pass it on? And the avalanche of good will that results. This is basically the same story. The wonderful new discovery, Thomas Horn, plays a nine year old whose father, Tom Hanks, is killed in the Twin Towers on 9/11. (Why the hell was Max Von Sydow nominated for this film instead of Horn?) Of course, the boy is silently traumatized and turns inside himself, shutting everyone else out, much to his mother’s (Sandra Bullock) distress. Which is why she doesn’t try to stop him when he decides to traipse off on this remarkable adventure.
In his father’s effects, he finds a mysterious key with only one clue. The envelope containing the key has the word "Black" written on it. He decides that the only way to make sense of his father’s senseless death is to find the lock that this key belongs to. He’s a very bright child and goes about his "investigation" very methodically, has a file box with an index card system you wouldn’t believe. And as he uncovers clue after clue after clue, we see him getting closer and closer to his goal. Truly, the entertainment value in this film is in the method of his investigation, which is both fascinating and charming. Still, both he and we know that this is almost certainly going to end badly. The odds of him of him finding the actual lock out of all the millions of locks in New York (and who’s to say the lock is even in New York?) is next to zero. And even if he does by some miracle find the lock, the odds that whatever is hidden there will diminish the pain of the loss of his father are considerably slimmer yet.
Still he persists, and we are cheering for him all the way, bracing ourselves for what we are certain can only be a most severe disappointment. You think there’s only two choices here: he’s either going to find the lock and discover some wonderful family secret that will allow him to live happily ever after, or he’s going to find nothing and be crushed and will have to somehow learn to live with the fact that life isn’t fair. Well, I’m going to let the cat a little out of the bag right now. No need to stop reading, this is not a spoiler. The answer is: None of the Above.
If you can accept this film for what it is, a child’s view of tragedy and his attempts to make sense of it, then it is not trite or unrealistic. It is in fact a completely realistic portrayal of a traumatized child’s view of the world. The kid’s journey is delightful and make’s Dorothy’s odyssey to Oz seem pale by comparison. That alone is a recommendation. I think it’s a safe bet it’s not going to win. I don’t even think it’s particularly Oscar-caliber. But there are many films I have thoroughly enjoyed that have not been Oscar caliber. Take it for what is and I can’t see how anyone else can fail to enjoy it too.
Best Pic #4: "The Help"
What is incredible about "The Help" is that it is set during the 1960s which, for most of us, is during our lifetime. It is such a shocking reminder of how bad things were such a short time ago for African-Americans and for any whites who were sympathetic to them and the civil rights movement. The other thing that makes this film so special is that isn’t non-fiction. I was blown away when I discovered it was based on a novel. It was so well done that I was convinced it had to be a true story.
It is a work of fiction, but the realities that are depicted were undoubtedly very common. It is the story of a very headstrong independent young lady, fresh out of college, starting her career in journalism. She comes from an aristocratic Southern family that has a long heritage in the Confederate ranks. With the Civil Rights movement now in full swing, though, there are still a fair number of whites who are resisting it, the general consensus is that the ledger has definitely finally swung over to the plus side. Blacks are no longer being mistreated, they are no longer being abused. Which is why when Skeeter (Emma Stone) tries to do a story about how her best friend’s black nanny, who has worked for her family for decades and is considered part of the family, feels about it all, she is surprised to find her tight-lipped. She wants to know how her beloved Aibileen who has always been like a second mother to her, feels about the way she and her race are treated by whites. The woman doesn’t want to talk about it.
But Skeeter persists, gently but firmly, and eventually gets Aibileen to agree to an out of town meeting where she feels freer to talk. It grows, more black domestics who are "The Help" to Southern families come forward and tell their stories. Her project turns into a book, a book with many surprising revelations. The book turns into a bestseller that turns her town upside down. The answer is - they haven’t been treated very well. They still are not treated very well.
What is so appealing about this film is not only the incredible ensemble acting and razor-sharp script, but how clever it is. This is a Schindler’s List for the civil rights era, only it’s done with a good deal of charm and humor. It’s fascinating to see how resourceful and intelligent these domestics are, quickly learning how to eke out a reasonably comfortable existence in an otherwise very unpleasant environment. There is a particularly telling scene in a flashback where Minnie Jackson (Octavia Spencer), another housekeeper, describes her first day on the job back in the 50’s. No sooner is she hired than the older housekeeper takes her aside for her first tutorial. "Whatever you do, never strike one of the children. White people are funny that way. They like to do their own spanking." This was indeed sage advice during the 1950s. I would imagine that a black domestic disciplining a white child would have been considered no minor infraction, definitely a firing offense, probably worse. And this was just one of many examples of how the help learned to adapt and make the best of a bad situation.
It is the story of an entire culture in transition, a transition that took place in a surprisingly short period of time. It is captivating from beginning to end, definitely one of the finest dramas of the year.
Best Pic #5: "Hugo"
This 3D extravaganza from master director Martin Scorsese is one of the most loving tributes to the silent film era that has ever been put on film. It is worth seeing for the fabulous 3D visuals alone, but it is so much more than that. It is the story of a young boy who in the 1920s lives with his father inside the walls of the Paris central train depot, where his father is employed to maintain the depot’s gigantic clock. When Dad is killed in a fire, the boy goes to great lengths to remain hidden inside those walls so as to avoid his fate in an orphanage. In his subterfuge, he befriends a grouchy vendor who turns out to be none other than the great silent film director Georges Melies, long since presumed dead. Once France’s premier filmmaker, in fact was single handed in the way he invented his own cameras, built his own studio and practically created the entire French film industry during the period from 1900-1920, making hundreds of great films, but alas now long since bankrupted when the Germans destroyed most of his films and all of his studio during World War I. And why? If you can believe this, they needed the celluloid to make Army boots!
No one has heard from him in years, the French film community assumes he’s long since dead, probably killed in the war. But the boy befriends him and even gets invited to dine at his house, where he becomes even more friendly with Melies wife and niece. The boy is very bright (his father was an inventor and so is he) and he quickly puts two and two together and realizes who the man really is. When he attends an archival screening at the Paris Cinemateque that features "The Man In the Moon," Melies best and one of the few surviving films, he lets the curator in on his suspicions. The rest is history.
But this is not just a lesson in film history. It is also a delightful Disney-like adventure as the boy cleverly eludes the long arm of the law, a particularly nasty gendarme (played so delightfully by Sacha Baron Cohen) who is constantly trying to capture the boy and send him to an orphanage, and how the Melies family joins the boy in the conspiracy to prevent this. Ben Kingley is also an absolute wonder as Melies. This film has many layers to it, and it works beautifully on every one of them.
And here’s the kicker. It turns out the whole story is true with the exception of the character of the boy. Hugo was fictitious. But everything else happened exactly as depicted. There is even a subplot about a way-before-its-time automaton that the boy’s father invented before the fire. The boy rescues the automaton and it proves to be the critical device that breaks Melies down and prompts him to accept the boy’s friendship. As it turns out, even the automaton was real. In fact, it is currently an exhibit in a Philadelphia museum. The father was fictitious. The machine was actually built by a Swiss watchmaker. But Melies really was bankrupted when the Germans destroyed all his work, he really did become a vendor in a Paris train station, he really did live with his wife and niece in a small Paris flat, and he really was discovered late in life by a Parisian film archivist who proceeded to reignite his reputation and his fortunes.
A total joy in so many ways, made all the better by the fact that most of it was true. It certainly deserves to win all the Oscars. It’s so nice to have a year when you can say that about more than one film.
Best Pic #6: "Midnight In Paris"
Woody Allen has been reborn. I’ve already devoted another very extensive blog posting to this wonderful film so, instead of repeating everything I’ve already written, I simply direct you to my entry from 6-28-11 entitled "The Ultimate Writer’s Fantasy." This marvelous romantic comedy about a jaded Hollywood screenwriter vacationing in Paris who is magically transported back to the 1920’s where he is able to rub elbows and commiserate with some of history’s greatest writers, artists, and filmmakers, all members of what became known as "The Lost Generation," makes any artist want to run right out and book the first flight to Paris in the vain hope that you too can walk the same streets and experience the same magic that Owen Wilson’s Gil was privileged to. More importantly, even though Gil is a jaded writer and is obviously Woody’s alter ego, the film itself is downright optimistic, perhaps the first film Allen has made in his career where his message is not cynical. Critics and fans agree - Woody Allen seems to be entering a whole new phase of his career. We can look forward to many more fine films, kind of a nice place to be at the tender age of 76.
He definitely deserves another Oscar for this one. Sunday night will tell.
Best Pic #7: "Moneyball"
I doubt this film would have made the list if it was limited to five. Still, it is a thoroughly entertaining true story of Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) who in the 1980s as general manager of the Oakland A’s baseball team, is given an impossible task. They have just lost their four best players to other ball clubs who offered much more money. This has rendered the team impotent. Beane must rebuild the team without any money. He is given a budget roughly one-tenth that of other clubs its ilk. With that, he must recruit and manage. The owners don’t even want a winning team, they just want to survive until better times. So the strategy they decide upon is to play it safe, manage by convention, just win a few but don’t worry about a championship. We can’t afford what it would take to win one.
This is unacceptable to Beane. His job is to win games. He cannot accept a business plan that practically requires him to lose on purpose. So against all convention and all orders, he is forced to make do with what he has and that means getting creative. He cannot hire the best players anymore, so if he has any hope of winning, he has to go against convention. How do you create a winning team with no money? You have to hire tomorrow’s greatest players today. You have to find the stars before they become stars so you can get them cheap. To do this, to find his crystal ball, he literally has to reinvent the entire game of baseball.
So where does he put his money? Not on the players. Instead he hires an economics and statistics wiz straight out of Yale, played beautifully by Jonah Hill who is also up for Supporting Actor. Hill’s Peter Brand invents extraordinarily complicated mathematical algorithms that identify all the unknown players who will be tomorrow’s stars. Of course, this approach meets stiff resistance from just about everyone and Beane not only stands poised to be fired on any given day but is constantly fighting off mutiny from his own staff. But he refuses to accept mediocrity. He will create a winning team or go bust trying. He hires a lot of new cheap unknown players who are mostly considered losers. Only he sees their potential. But everyone else is very nervous about these very unconventional tactics. Their fear is that the gamble will bankrupt the team and make it very difficult for any of them to be hired by other clubs. They are all circulating their resumes.
The courage, persistence and raw nerve displayed by Beane and Brand is most inspiring and it is very entertaining to watch this scheme play out, which is really the sports equivalent of starting Apple Computer while it was still operating out of Steve Jobs’ garage. Lots of risk, very few people who believe in it, lots of pressure to grow up and get a real job! Beane is somewhat of a nut, but most visionaries are. He is also nicely balanced by Brand’s supreme confidence and calm. How does it turn out? Read the Wikipedia entry on the Oakland A’s. Whether they succeeded or failed at that particular time is irrelevant. Most major league ball clubs since the 1980s have since adopted the business model that was invented by Beane and Brand.
I doubt there are any awards to be had here, but it certainly is a very good baseball movie. And this is coming from someone who doesn’t even like baseball.
Best Pic #8: "The Tree of Life"
This has been the second most controversial film of the year, with audiences walking out and demanding their money back. This time it’s just because they find the film so boring they can’t stand it. Again, it’s stupid. Anyone who goes to this film without knowing of director Terrence Malick’s reputation deserves what they get. He is a master filmmaker who has done only five films in his 43 year career. He averages five to ten years on each film. "The Tree of Life" was seven years in the making. He is probably the most cerebral filmmaker in the business.
This film can best be described as a 2-1/2 hour meditation. Audiences are walking out mainly because the first 30 minutes is an almost non-stop light show of images not unlike the climax of 2001: A Space Odyssey. The middle hour focuses on a rather thin story of a 1950s couple, played by Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain, raising their three young sons. The father is abusive, both to wife and boys, so there is a bit of drama there. Then the final half hour is more light show, ending the same way it began, on an image of a solar eclipse quite reminiscent of the image of planet Earth that serves as Kubrick’s closing to 2001. Sean Penn appears for a few minutes at the beginning as some sort of business executive, and then again for a few minutes at the end. I really don’t have a clue as to what his character was doing there.
I don’t pretend to fully understand what I saw but I was fascinated by it. Unlike other audiences, I didn’t find it at all boring, but then I’m also familiar with Malick’s reputation. Without knowing anything else about the film other than that Malick made it and it was a Best Picture nominee, I knew going in that it wasn’t going to be your typical Hollywood studio production. My best speculation as to what Malick was trying to accomplish here is a contemplation on life and creation. Malick’s films are not about story, they are about theme and imagery. He has one of the best eyes in the business and his visuals are completely breathtaking. You don’t go to his films to be entertained, you go to be moved. I did find "The Tree of Life" moving.
I think most people do. I saw it a couple nights ago at the Emagine Novi and I could tell that most of the audience was genuinely enthralled. I assume they were probably film buffs who also knew of Malick’s reputation. There were three women in their 70s sitting next to me who went through the whole film making snide remarks, groaning through much of it, and cheering at the end, "Yay, it’s finally over." I felt like asking them why they came. But I could sense the annoyance in the rest of audience, a couple people even tried to shush them. It was clear that the rest of the house wished these uncouth women would just leave. After they did finally depart the theater, I heard several people commenting how much they liked it. In fact, when I saw "The Artist," I heard several comments from the audience that, as much as they enjoyed the French film, they thought "The Tree of Life" was the best film they’d seen all year.
Well, it arrives via Netflix tomorrow. I’m anxious to see it again and understand it better, maybe even figure out what Sean Penn was doing there. I’m hoping there’s commentary that will help me out. In any event, if anyone’s looking for a film that is not at all Hollywood, this is definitely it. I can’t believe it will win anything Sunday night. I’m surprised a film this obtuse even got a nomination. But I’m glad I saw it. I can’t give it either a thumbs up or thumbs down. I’ve described it as best I can. You can make your own decision.
Best Pic #9: "War Horse"
Another winner from Steven Spielberg, dripping with sentimentality and charm. At the start of World War I, a near destitute English farmer in need of a plough horse instead gambles everything he has on a thoroughbred. When the crops fails, he is forced to sell the horse to the British cavalry, which promptly ships the animal to France and the fighting. The story follows the animal through the entire course of the war as he comes into the company of various people, British, French and German. The British troops love the horse, then it’s captured by the Germans, it escapes and is adopted by a young French girl who is killed by the Germans the next day. The horse keeps finding himself between the British and the French and the Germans throughout. Most of his adopted owners are killed within a day or two of finding him.
Spielberg tell us the story of World War I from an animal’s eye view and shows the perspective of virtually every country and culture that was fighting. And like any good lost dog story, circumstances happily converge to bring the horse back to England, the farm from whence he came, and the boy who loves him. This is a big flashy entertainment that pushes all the right buttons, orchestrated by the master button-pusher himself. It is "Saving Private Ryan" meets "Lassie Come Home." I doubt it will win anything, but it does make for a very satisfying night out. It’s not even one of Spielberg’s better films. But then, Spielberg at his worst is better than most other directors at their best.
Honorable Mentions:
I must conclude my annual Oscar essay by briefly mentioning two films that I really feel should have been Best Picture nominees.
"The Iron Lady" is a superb bio of Margaret Thatcher’s career, showing how this massively intelligent and clever woman used her wits and her wile to climb right to the top of a male dominated government hierarchy to become Britain’s first woman prime minister and, by many accounts, its best prime minister. Its uniqueness is that the story is told from the point of view of an elderly Thatcher who is very much in the depths of dementia. I understand her family dislikes the film, feeling it was disrespectful to focus the story on her failing health. But I think they miss the point. The film is not about Thatcher, it’s about dementia. It’s about the reality that dementia is a completely equal opportunity employer. It does not afflict just the complacent and those who don’t take care of themselves. Ronald Reagan was proof of that. If ever in world history there was a person who was completely self-reliant, self-made, and "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" kind of person it was the indomitable Margaret Thatcher. And yet even she, with all her vim and vigor, could not stave off the curses of old age.
No, this is not disrespectful at all; it’s a Valentine. Meryl Streep, who is nominated, is superb and gives a performance that oozes with admiration for the character she plays. I was deeply affected by it. Her Thatcher reminded me an awful lot of Ruthie. I wanted to jump into the picture and take care of her. As I watched this stunning performance, the last seven years were very much on mind, watching the Thatcher children deal with their mother, and once again feeling so grateful that I was able to be there for my own.
Another outstanding bio that deserved a nod was "My Week With Marilyn," a true story based on the memoirs of Colin Clark and his experiences being Marilyn Monroe’s confidante during the making of the film "The Prince and the Showgirl" with Laurence Olivier. Michelle Williams, one of my very favorite actresses, completely becomes Marilyn Monroe. I would say she’s a shoe-in for Best Actress except that I could say the same thing for every other nominee.
Colin Clark, fresh out of university, lucks upon a low level assistant’s job with Olivier Productions after a chance meeting with Vivien Leigh at a show biz party. He wants a film career but really doesn’t know anything and is in constant danger of being fired until Marilyn comes on the scene and takes a shine. He’s warned not to be flattered, that she takes a shine to every young man. His young boss even tells him, "I even had a week with her. That’s longer than most of her boys last." But an affair that was supposed to last a week instead survives the entire months long length of the shoot because Colin is literally the first man in her life that sees her as a person rather than an icon. Colin understands something no one else does – not her husband Arthur Miller, not even Olivier. What Colin gets that the rest of the world does not is that Marilyn Monroe does not exist. She is a figment of the studio’s imagination. The woman who does exist, the woman they are all working with is Norma Miller. Marilyn too understands that nobody gets that. She lives with this terrible burden that all of her colleagues and friends, even her husband, thinks she’s Marilyn Monroe, and when they finally discover that there is no such person, they will lose interest. Which they do.
What is truly mesmerizing about this film is the way Michelle Williams portrays this sex symbol who really did have a genuine brain and understood much more than anyone ever gave her credit for. But she is very wily and eventually wins everyone over. Everyone, including Olivier (especially Olivier), who looked down their noses at her at first because they saw her as nothing more than a talentless bimbo, by the end truly admire her talent and her professionalism. Colin of course rises to the very top of the Olivier hierarchy as he becomes the only person Marilyn trusts, the only person who can get her to the set everyday and get her to do her scenes. Colin has the "week" of his life, but have no doubt, Marilyn benefited as much from the tryst as he did. It may have been the only time in her life she was truly happy.
By the end of production, Colin has also won the confidences of Olivier himself and can basically write his own ticket. In the final scene, they’re both watching rushes and Olivier is gushing his new found admiration for Monroe, as he calls her "a once in a generation talent." Colin says, "You should tell her that, Larry." "Oh, I have my young friend," Olivier answers. "Of course, she didn’t believe me."
And that, in one line, is everything you need to know about Marilyn Monroe.
Go Michelle on Sunday! And Rooney, Meryl, Viola, and Glenn, good luck to all of you too!
No comments:
Post a Comment