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.

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 1 (2010)

In the world of Harry Potter there are two types of people, those who can practice magic (Wizards) and those who don't have the powers (Muggles). This dual society extends to the real world as well. Those who love Potter and his adventures and those who have not fallen under the spell of J K Rowling's creation (or is it really her creation...?).

Having read all the books and seen (and enjoyed) all of the films thus far, I firmly fall within the first category. So with this in mind, there was never any danger of me not seeing this film in it's opening weekend.



Bill Nighy's Minister of Magic sets the the tone of the story, and the film for that matter, in the opening moments. 'There are dark times ahead'. The penultimate film in the series (the final book being split into two halves) is indeed the darkest yet, although I appreciate that this has been said of every sequel in the series so far. I'll do my best to avoid any spoilers, but it picks up where the previous film, The Half-Blood Prince, left off with Voldemort growing stronger and the Death Eaters seizing a firmer grip on power and stepping up their efforts to kill Harry Potter.

Although the story is familiar, this film is very unlike any other in the series so far. Fairly early on in the film, the three main characters, Harry, Hermione and Ron become separated from their protectors and consequently have to fend for themselves. This means that the usual locales of Hogwarts and the like are not seen at all and much of the film is played out in sweeping rural landscapes, beautifully presented by director David Yates (at the helm since film 5) with some earlier scenes taken place in Central London. These alien surroundings give this film a freshness and a maturity.

The action set-pieces are superbly done, including a thrilling chase through the Dartford Tunnel and a great sequence where the Ministry of Magic is infiltrated, to both comedic and exciting dramatic effect. However these set-pieces are not as frequent as in the other films with long stretches without any magic or visual effects. The reason being that at the centre of this film is the three characters and little else: by breaking the final book into two halves, the makers have been given the opportunity to use this episode to build gradually towards the finale and in doing so they can really explore the relationship between Harry, Hermione and Ron. I suspect that younger fans of the series will be disappointed and perhaps lost at the long stretches of contemplative dialogue, but in doing this, Yates and co have made a proper film. A study into teenagers growing up, adult issues of jealousy are explored, coming to terms with death and the horrible occurrences that are taking place. This really is grim stuff. We have spent 6 films with the three of them, put them through all sorts, but we get to know them more in the space of this 146 minute film that all of those put together.

The actors themselves have come a long way since being cute but annoying child actors in the Philosopher's Stone. Daniel Radcliffe is probably the weaker of the three, although he is given the worst dialogue with moany mournful lines that act as exposition. Emma Watson is turning into a very good actress. it remains to be seen whether she will continue with the craft but she plays Hermione with enthusiasm but also a sadness. One scene in particular at the beginning of the film involving her parents is particularly heartbreaking, as well as a very touching scene where Harry and Hermione dance, trying to put all the troubles to the back of their minds.  Rupert Grint is easily the most improved. Gone is the wooden, clunky delivery, he is now polished using facial expressions very proficiently to convey a frustrated teenager, struggling to understand his emotions and just wanting the quiet life. These performances have to be strong as they carry the film for the length of the substantial mid-section.

The full cast really is a who's who of British actors. Ralph Fiennes is fantastic as Voldemort, a real baddie, none of this pantomime nonsense. He really reminded me of Darth Vader with his ruthless blood lust. We are under no illusion that should Voldemort be successful, then the world will be in a lot of trouble. Helena Bonham-Carter also has great fun as the nightmarish Bellatrix Lestrange, the truly psychotic sidekick to Lord Voldemort. Plus it is always a joy to see Alan Rickman as Snape, although you don't get much of him. You can only hope he comes to the fore in the final film.

The darkness is not all about the actors though. The rise of the new Ministry smacks of the rise of fascism and it's propaganda. There are also some very tough scenes to watch that include torture, murder and pure evil. There's blood in this film, more than you would expect, and there are some properly scary moments, particularly for children. It really is not all plain sailing. As we get to the end, there is a moment that really hit me hard, proper tears let me tell you.

Ah the ending....I've heard some people call it a non-ending. The sort of cliff hanger you would have at the end of a tv

I loved this film. It really felt like a proper grown up flick, a character study, almost an art-house film. The film makers, and the cast, have done such a fine job with this film, made it with great care and good intentions, that the decision to spilt the film in two has been proved to be the right one. To have attempted to shoe-horn the final book, in it's entirety, into a 3 hour film would have meant that we would not have been taken with on the quest with Harry, Hermione and Ron and the feeling of dread as the finale approaches would not have had half the impact. This, and the decision to not make it 3D (a change of tact from the studio's original position, which must have resulted in financial loss), clearly proves that Yates and co really want to ensure that these films do the rest of series justice. They only get one shot at this.

As for the Muggles, if you've managed to resist the magic of the films and story so far, I doubt I'll be able to change your minds here. I suppose there really is no saving you.

I saw the film at the Everyman Cinema in Baker Street. First time I've been to this two-screen picture house but I'd thoroughly recommend it. Nice and comfy seats, good snacks and lovely bar to have a drink before and after. A great Central London alternative to the Sin-e-world mulitplexes.