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.

BLUE VALENTINE (2010)

Anyone who knows me and my taste in films will know that I really don't have much time for a happy endings (no dirty chuckles at the back there please), I hate it when everything resolved, I want to leave a cinema with uncertainty giving my imagination the chance to fill in the gaps. It's why reading fiction is so enjoyable, our own creative juices can add another few layers on to what we are shown. Blue Valentine is a film that manages to have two endings, one happy one not so happy, at the same time, both of which manage to offer resolution but no suggestion of anyone living happily ever after.



Derek Cianfrance's Oscar baiting film charting the rise and demise of a relationship has received a lot of positive press in the run up to and since it's release. One of the reasons is the structure of the film. There are two separate narrative threads (hence the dual ending) running side by side, one following the couple as the marriage disintegrates and the other showing how they met and consequently fell in love. It is pulled off very well and is an interesting concept, both strands have their share of smiles, laughs, tears and gasps. The 'early years' have some lovely moments as the couple romance one another, such as the scene in the trailer with the ukulele playing and tap dancing (a kooky scene that somehow didn't irritate me). On the other side of the coin though, the 'later years' are quite unsettling, a night away in a motel going desperately wrong for example. The format of the film also helps to keep the film interesting - at just shy of 2 hours it could become tiresome as it is essentially a character piece, people talking to other people, but the way it jumps between before and after means that it keeps rattling along with intrigue. It isn't just the formation of the film that Cianfrance deserves credit for. It's a very subtle piece, no frills, realistic looking, no splashes of colour - this is real life. This dedication to realism does make some of it difficult to watch though, scenes such as the one in a hospital pull no punches, and at timesI found myself squirming and feeling very uncomfortable. The sex scenes are also gritty to say the least, there's no polish here with romantic tunes over the top. At times it seems almost mechanical. This isn't a criticism though, it's brave to portray these themes in this way, for too long Hollywood has bottled it in it's presentation of sexual relationships. Just because it's hard viewing, doesn't mean it's wrong.

The other thing that much has been written and said about is the acting of the two leads, Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling. It's obvious that this is an actor's film. The two of them get to go through the whole range of emotions and the whole film is scenes between them both. The cameras hover on Gosling and Williams longer than they normally would giving them both the opportunity to act their hearts out. I have to say that they are both superb and utterly convincing, I really felt that I was watching two people fall in and out of love. It's worth saying that this isn't an example of overacting, the beauty of it is the subtlety of way the scenes play out. Some of the most touching and upsetting scenes have very little, or on some occasions, no dialogue (the words being drowned out by traffic or shielded by glass). It's a hell of an achievement to get this sort of reaction from me just based on facial expressions and understated eye contact (or lack of).

Neither character is completely innocent in the fall out, both have their faults and I couldn't help but feel disdain at some of their behaviour. And that is essentially the problem with the film I think. I didn't really feel sympathy with either of them, in isolation or together. With that lacking, I didn't really feel an emotional attachment to what was playing out in front of me. It was almost as if I was a voyeur watching the relationship of two people blossom and implode, leaving me to try and pick a side. Like a child watching his parents arguing, knowing I shouldn't be watching, but I can't turn away.

A compelling, excellently crafted, sublimely acted, pessimistic film about the high and lows of love. Go and see it but be warned, you come out the other end feeling as though you've been in a concrete mixer.