My Week with Marilyn (actual review)

 

Yay, at last a film I actually wanted to see! This has to be the simplest out of the three so far, but it has been the most enjoyable. I'm not sure what that says about me. Anyway, this is a really lovely film. The acting is superb, the cinematography is glorious and its really well written. There isn't as much substance to it as Shame, which was throwing symbolism at the audience, and it's not as long and boring as J.Edgar, but it is a well made film and I would reccomend to anyone who's interested. 

The best films about famous dead people, I have found, are the ones that focus on a single event or aspect of that persons life. While this isn't always the case, and there are exceptions to both sides, this film is is definitely one that works well. Instead of trying to tell the detailed story of Marilyn Monroe's life, instead we are given a "montage" of the time she flew to England to star in The Prince and the Showgirl with Laurence Olivier, narrated by his third assistant director, Collin Clark, who kept a diary during the shoot. This is a very effective way of telling the story, as Marliyn's private life was very much in shadows while she was alive. But you can instantly tell that this was based on a diary, because in every scene Collin is there, showing that all this is from his perspective. This may account for the melodramatic acting and scenes that occur sometimes, usually at the hands of Kenneth Brannagh. 

Marilyn's past is not exactly addressed. There are lots of hints to the tough childhood she had, mainly through little phrases here and there in the script. Match this with Michelle Williams' amazing acting, and the end result is truly astounding. Williams actis the pants off everyone on the screen, looking and recreating Marilyn as if she were alive again. She has subtlety and depth, and especially the recreated scenes from The Prince and the Showgirl. You really do end up believing that she is in fact Marilyn and the actress disappears. 

With the other actors and characters, Judi Dench is of course brilliant. Though none of the other characters are in it as much as Marilyn and Collin, each of them do leave a lasting impression. Except for Emma Watson, whose part is so small she may not have even been in it. The rest of the roles, even the small ones, are made up of those faces so familiar to British film and TV. Toby Jones, Zoe Wanamaker, Derek Jacobi (just to name a few) all pop in and out. The only real problem I have with this is that all the other characters are so looked over in favour of Marilyn, but I suppose that happened because it is meant to be more of memoir film and the narrator was mostly concerned with Marilyn herself. Dominic Cooper's accent however, is quite awful at times. His voice moves all over the place and he comes off the worst out of the bunch. 

But Kenneth Brannagh is really the one who overacts the most and the best in this film. Playing Olivier, he relishes the role and you can tell he is having the most fun out of all of the cast. Newcomer Eddie Redmayne is also good as Collin. He's sweet and kind, and you can see his character grow in confidence throughout the film. 

And that's it really. No seriously. Like I say, this isn't a complicated movie, there isn't that much substance or symbolism, the acting is amazing and the script is hardly cliched at all. I know this may seem like a short review, but there isn't really that much more so say. But I will say this. Actors should see this film. They should see it to find out how to successfully portray a real person, they should see it to find out how to overact with out becoming laughable. They should also see it as a warning to not let fame rule someones life, and to not create a character that you can't live up to. 

That's it from me. Go and see it! NOW!

Shame (actual review)

 

In all honesty, I wasn't surprised that this film was on the list for the course. It's one of the biggest artsy films out at the moment, and it is laced with symbolism, metaphor and those long lingering camera shots from a shaky cam that people have to come to love so much. The plot of the film is not that important. It's more a character study of Michael Fassbender's character Brandon, and his sexual ... urges. Yeah, this film is rated R for a reason. Within the first ten minutes you are greeted with a naked Michael Fassbender. And I mean naked. 

But as I say, this is a detailed character study of a man who seems disgusted by what he does yet can't help but do it anyway. He shares a love/hate relationship with his sister, Sissy (Carey Mulligan), and it is when Sissy reappears in his life that the plot takes over. Their relationship is the centre of the film, and it is left ambiguous as to what their past relatioship was like. We don't get much back story whatsoever, it is all left behind doors that are only left half open. The siblings' relatioship is also quite ambiguous as to whether there is anything sexual between them.

The film portrays Brandon like a man with a disease that he is trying to overcome through the course of the film. We don't see him 'enjoying' having sex or masturbating (except from the obvious 'sexual enjoyment' we all get ;) ), to him it just seems like a chore almost. The films whole view of sex left a little confused at times. It was condemning Brandon for having casual sex instead of having long term relationships, and yet doesn't question Sissy's life. This might be because the film is from Brandon's perspective and that, while Sissy has serious issues, she is more accepting of her lifestyle. The whole film goes back to the character of Brandon, and how he can't accept who he is. 

When he does try to have a more meaningful relationship, he is unable to go through with it, which seems to say that he is unable of understanding and committing to love. Indeed, his relationship with his sister seems to support this fact. While he loves her, he can't stand to be around her because she reminds him of himself, and his own 'shame'. And yet while he harbours this great shame at what he does, hiding it away from his public life and acting almost prudish (one example is when he changes his sheets after his sister has sex in his bed), she is mostly fine with the life she lives, what Sissy really wants is the love from her brother that he refuses to give her. Sissy is a tragic character, and when she does try to reach out to her brother, he finds himself repulsed by her and to a greater extent himself. 

This film also deals with double identity, and how appearances can be deceptive. Brandon's boss and work colleagues have little to no idea about the sorts of things he gets up to in his spare time, and are almost shocked to think of him being a sex addict. There are moments throughout the film when we see that he is a pretty decent guy. He harbours this great problem inside himself, like someone with a drug or alcohol addiction, and it is with the arrival of his sister that this resentment for what he does finally opens up in a frenetic climax.

The acting is exceptional, with both leads working off each other and giving incredibly moving performances. This is a film that uses looks more than dialogue. In one of the best scenes in the movie, Carey Mulligan 'sings' a sparse and discordant version of 'New York New York', with Michael Fassbender looking on. The scene is just made up of close ups of their faces, but the emotions they betray makes it the most moving scene in the film. In fact, if Carey Mulligan is mouthing it, then it makes it an even more incredible performance. To be able to perform so perfectly such a moving piece without actually performing it is an amazing feat. Michael Fassbender also gives a masterful performance, and by the end, he seems to have visibly aged fromt the events in the film. 

Tech wise, the lighting and music is perfect, highlighting the emotions of the scene and creating a hostile atmosphere for the characters to interact in, and the music especially fits seemlessly into the scene. Most of the sets are white, or with bland colouring, giving a stark hospital-like quality. The shaky cam is used here, but it is used in a more natural way (as opposed to the rushed usuage in J. Edggar) and it enhances the understated performances.

There is a lot of sex, and quite a bit a lot of nakedness, but if you ca survive that (and are at least 18) then it is a good film to see. Don't be too put off by the R rating, but I would advise most to waituntil they are older to see the film. I felt my immaturity coming into some scenes, and there are some very uncomfortable moment. But all in all, it's a beautifully tragic film with outstanding acting and will leave you pondering it ages after.

J.Edgar (actual review!)

OK, so today I saw J.Edgar as part of this short course I'm doing at the CAE, and I thought I might share some of my thoughts on what I thought about it... And I will try and do this for the rest of the films I have to go see. So, for 6 weeks or so, expect to see some proper reviews, not just the shitty lists you're used to!

Anway, on with the review!

So, let me make it clear that I didn't really want to watch this film. It's ok, but it looked very samey for a biopic, even if it is Clint Eastwood. And my not very high expectations were met. It was pretty much what I thought it would be. It presented some of the higlights of the life of J. Edgar Hoover, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), but like most biographical movies, the events in his life seemed to be presented in a more romantic light, rather than factual. I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert on this man, but that is what it seemed like.

The difference between this film and most other biopics about notorious government officials, is that in this the audience seemed to be asked to make up their own mind about Hoover and his ruthlessness to get what he wanted. By the end of the film, there were a few points that I wanted to furthere research. The problem is that the film focused on the private life of Hoover, which would've been fine if his private life was ... private. What I knew about Hoover was just confirmed in this film, and I found I had no intrigue into his personal life, at least in the parts they showed. Also, a lot of the time there were many melodramatic moments at crucial parts that were meant to be taken seriously, and it might just be because I'm naturally cynical, but I was almost laughing at some of the 'heartbreaking/warming' scenes. For example, right after Edgar and Clyde's fight in the hotel room when Edgar whispers "I love you" I found incredibly over the top. I would've laughed, but I don't think the old ladies in front of me would've appreciated it.

But the over the top moments were nothing compared to the technical failings. The lighting was so dark at times, that some of the actors faces were completely covered, making the lights look clumsy.
Also, during the 'action' scenes (if you could call them, it was usually Leo running around with a gun in his hand) the shaky cam was so nauseating. It looked as though someone had given one of the actors the camera while they were still in the scene! Either that or the camera guy was on steroids.

The acting was fine, and its no wonder why everyone is saying that this is Leonardo DiCaprio 's movie. But for me, the one who kept the whole thing together was Naomi Watts. Her role as Helen Gandy was understated, diginified and even though her role wasn't big, it was almost vital to the film. The other actors were good, especially Armie Hammer as Clyde Tolson and Judi Dench as Hoover's mother (with whom he had a very strong and almost creepy attachment to). The thing is though, when it flashed forward and we saw the old versions of each character, the make up was so fake!! Like, obvioously fake! Especially on poor Clyde. He looked like something out of a horror film!



The other shortcoming of the film was the length. It was too long. It really didn't need to be as long as it was. At times, I found my mind drifting because it took such a long time for one thing to happen. In the end, there was too much time taken to tell not much at all. Also, the flashbacks were more interesting than the 'present day' scenes, but they felt almost rushed over. The use of narration and the various writers as a frame worked well, but I think it would've been better if we followed a more linear retelling of Hoover's life.

In the end, this was fairly standard biopic fair. It wasn't bad, except for a few technical difficulties. The sepia looking colours make this visually stunning, but my cynical nature got in the way of me fully enjoying this film. The acting was good, though the script was cliched at times. I'd recommend for those who are intensley intersted in J. Edgar Hoover. Or a die hard Eastwood fan.


Fun Fact: Clint Eastwood wrote the music. It was actually pretty cool!