MY WEEK WITH MARILYN (2011 - Cert 15)

I blame Judy Garland. It's all her fault.

Let me explain. Five days before my first trip to the flicks in a while (to see Marilyn) I went to Richmond Theatre to see a play that had done the rounds all over the country and a stint in the West End. It was called End of the Rainbow and shared a few similarities with My Week With Marilyn, the main ones being that they both attempted to show us a different perspective on a top female icon of the last century (Rainbow being Judy Garland and Marilyn obviously being Marilyn Monroe). Both were also set in London, chronicling a small portion of their lives as they hit the UK for work (a run of concerts and a film respectively).



Before I turn this into a theatre blog though, I must first concentrate on Marilyn and why it simply didn't work for me. I think I can boil it down to one problem, boring characters. Quite a big problem and I know what you're saying, Marilyn Monroe, how can she and the the film possibly possibly be boring? I don't think it can be blamed on the actors, Michelle Williams in the case of Marilyn herself. She certainly looked the part and sounded the part. She even moved like her, she clearly must have studied a lot of footage of Monroe as it looked very authentic. However, because the character is written without any depth whatsoever, it becomes a very flat impersonation more than anything else. We are meant to think that Monroe is insecure, delicate, misunderstood, a tortured genius. This is portrayed by us enduring what are effectively bloopers on set as she struggles with her lines without the help of a touchy feel director. Then with the kind words from fellow actors she perks up a bit. That's it. That's what the writer (Adrian Hodges) thinks counts as characterisation. Perhaps it's to be expected from a writer of Primeval. He has managed to turn a 20th century icon, a goddess into a dull, boring, woman. Then there is the other main character, the 'My' of the title, Colin Clark (played by Eddie Redmayne). Again, perfectly decent performance but the character just wasn't interesting. Much of the film is him in rooms, being told useful information by other characters, without any real explanation as to why a third assistant director on the film (effectively a tea maker) has become everyone's confidant. It doesn't feel as though he is pushing his own narrative, he is a passenger in the whole piece, but he really should be a driver. It makes his character feel bland. This consequently meant that the relationship between he and Marilyn just didn't resonate with me, it didn't work, and most importantly, I didn't believe it. There was constantly a sense that they might not both live happily ever after together, but I ultimately didn't actually care.

The two dimensional nature continues elsewhere. A whole host of good actors, Judi Dench, Emma Watson, Dominic Cooper, Toby Jones, Dougray Scott, Derek Jacobi, even my mums friend Karl Moffatt (yes, I am name dropping) try their hardest with very limited material, all figures that don't feel essential to the story, more incidental and an excuse to get another big name in there on the cast list. Only Kenneth Branagh as Laurence Olivier comes out with any real credit and satisfactory screen time.

Another problem is that it's simply too nice, too polished, not daring enough. Monroe's drug problem is shown by jars of pills by the bed, arguments are muted with lots of arm waving, no real histrionics. It feels middle of the road, lacking any punch whatsoever. Like David Haye brushing you across the face with a small bean bag. You expect more, you want more, it just doesn't deliver.

So what did Judy Garland do wrong? Nothing, quite the opposite, but that's the problem. Because Rainbow was so good, I think she may have contributed to ruining My Week With Marilyn. Admittedly the subject matter of Rainbow is a little darker in tone (it builds up to Garland's premature death at the age of 47) but it was much more subtle in it's portrayal of a fragile star, much more affecting and so much more interesting. Had I not seen End of the Rainbow, or had it not been quite so good, perhaps I would have enjoyed Marilyn more, because it's not a terrible film, I've seen far worse, it's perfectly ok, a fluffy, good looking, mildly amusing way to pass an hour and a half. Unfortunately though, it's nothing more than that.

SEX & DRUGS & ROCK & ROLL (2010 - Cert 15)

The musical biopic is one of my least favourite types of film. They tend to be predictable, formulaic and more often than not they are guilty of portraying their subject in a far more positive light than they might deserve. An exercise in nostalgic worship, which might be nice if you're a fan of Ray Charles, but it doesn't make for interesting viewing for any old cinema goer.

Ian Dury isn't someone I know a vast amount about. I know and love some of his music but I certainly wouldn't hold myself out as an expert on his back catalogue and claim him to be one of my idols. However, I have heard enough over the the years, from a good mate of mine, to know that he lived a very interesting life, had a lot to come to terms with and was a hell of a long way from being a conformist. Based on the small amount of knowledge I have, as I popped in the DVD of Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll, I was confident that there was enough in the tank to ensure that the story of Ian Dury, as told by first time writer Paul Viragh and first time feature director Mat Whitecross, was not going to be the run of mill 'journey' of a musician.



And in all honesty, that assumption was pretty much spot on. The story is cleverly set up as a Dury performance, on stage, reciting his poetry, with brightly coloured, energetic, visual imagery and animated sequences, telling the story of his life, which is then effectively portrayed to us in flashback. The film opens in darkness, with Dury (played by the chameleon Andy Serkis) walking on stage towards us, pausing, before lights flash on and he unleashes a tirade of his rhymes at us. It's a great opening and immediately has us thinking of Dury as a performer, not one of us. This portrayal becomes even more cunning when it's compared to the Dury we see in the dull tones of the flashbacks. Immediately two separate persona's are created, the on-stage Dury and the one who struggles with relationships and has to come to terms with his affliction resulting from polio. Don't be fooled, that last sentence is very much the tone of the film - this is not a bundle of laughs by any stretch of the imagination. It's another of the things I admired about the film - it isn't a vehicle solely to celebrate the life of Dury. It's a portrait of a man, warts and all, at times charming, at times repulsive. It's brave and straight away lifts it above other music biopics.

While we are on the subject of portrayal, I must get on to the performance of Andy Serkis. He obviously made headlines initially as the man behind the digital Gollum in Lord of the Rings, but he has promised a lot since then. His Dury is the moment where he really put his marker down as an acting force to be reckoned with. It's not a full on impersonation of Dury, but it's very close. I've looked at some footage of Dury and Serkis is spot on, on and off stage. The renditions of songs are particularly impressive, Serkis throwing himself into it fully - it could almost be Dury. It isn't just the accuracy of his performance though, it's also the intensity of it. Whenever he is on screen he got a reaction from me, whether I was moved to tears, anger or disgust, he had me convinced.  My favourite scene sees Dury speaking to disabled kids at his old school, one second he is teaching them about rhythm, the next he muses on the existence of God. Gripping stuff. Also, when you consider the lengths he went to when striving for accuracy (he stopped using one leg to allow the muscle to reduce so he could authentically echo Dury's polio damaged leg), making Daniel Day-Lewis and Robert De Niro seem like the cast on Hollyoaks, you have a real stand out performance of a tortured soul, coming to terms with a disability, surprisingly absent from the Bafta nominees list.

It isn't just a film about Dury though. The other important character is Baxter, Dury's son, played by Bill Milner (Son of Rambow). Much of the film centres on the relationship between father and son and how they both adapt to one another. At times it's very touching and upsetting, at others it feels slightly laboured and there to act as a device to develop the story. Milner is very good, but at times his scenes feel out of tone to the rest of the film - just padding.

It's good to see some other British actors such as Mackenzie Crook, Noel Clarke and Naomie Harris in such an interesting British production - they all turn in good showings. Ray Winstone is Dury's dad and is his dependable self, although he doesn't have enough of a part to stretch himself and show some flair. Tom Hughes, also seen in Cemetery Junction, is very good as Chaz Jankel and should have a good future ahead of him. I'll look forward to seeing what he has in store next. Toby Jones is the one that really jumps out from the supporting cast as Hargreaves, the nasty teacher at Dury's school. Its true that we always remember the bad guys but Jones loves it and is a real bastard.

Serkis, all make it very watchable. I imagine it's a must see for all Dury fans, but for any fan of well made cinema there are plenty of reasons to be cheerful.