A movie about the world's and the protagonist's (and the director's) infatuation with Marilyn Monroe. In other words, this movie is about nothing. It's as if 40 years from now you made a movie about Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian - talentless retards/businesswomen who are only famous because of their looks (and the film excels at showing Monroe as a retard). That said, Michelle Williams does a superb job as the bombshell; she actually is Monroe. But that wasn't enough to keep me interested. If you're obsessed with Monroe, you may enjoy this; I'm not, so it wasted my time.
Mo says:
Honesty when I see sad face of Mo after watching such beautiful movie (for me ), I can’t stop laughing!
ReplyDeleteIn my whole cinematic life I never guess 1%probablity that someone may be found in the world ( A kind of mega -cinephile …sort of male cinephile ) who is not attracted to Marlyn Monro!...
And I got shocked more when you compared her with Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian …OMG.. it’s not fair! Marlyn Monro is unique...something like greek-Goddess(rab- al-noee) in Cinema and nobody has reached to her level of popularity, attractiveness and innocent childish beauty so far...to copy her and maybe never will .
I just bring Roger Ebert note about her which I read already.He described her well.
"What she has is the quality that was most appealing: She makes you want to hug her, not have sex with her. Monroe wasn't bold in her sexuality, not like her contemporariesJane Russell or Brigitte Bardot. She held it tremulously in her grasp, as if not knowing how to set it down without damaging it.
By some tantalizing alchemy, Marilyn Monroeimprinted an idea in the minds of much of the human race around 1950, and for many, that idea is still there. In the early 1950s, my friends and I required only one word to express it: marilynmonroe. It wasn't a name. It was a summation of all we yearned and guessed about some kind of womanly ideal. Sex didn't seem to have much to do with it. It was more a form of devotion, a recognition of how she embodied vulnerability and sweetness and hope and fear.
For some strange reason, there are "many" people in my life who find it funny when I'm upset about something ...
ReplyDeleteI'm absolutely not questioning the goddess-like status of Monroe in movie history (same as respecting the god-like status of Brando or James Dean). What I'm questioning is: how does that prove that a movie about being obsessed with her, would automatically be good? Even when you look at the Ebert review, he says nothing (except for Williams' performance) about the quality of the movie itself.
That's what I both love and hate about Ebert's reviews: He is so subjective in his comments and makes it so personal, on one hand we get a very good idea about how he feels about this piece of art, but on the other hand he makes any rubbish sound like the best artpiece on Earth, just because it reminds him of a fun trip he had to Lithuania when he was three years old. Hence, he gives "My Week with Marilyn" 3 and 1/2 stars. Who cares?
My meant was just about some movies when our taste are totally against each other and I strongly recommend guys around me to watch and you believe it must be avoided. Such expectrum of opinion often amused me and make me smile!That's all.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your main concept..sometimes I get crazy about subjective nature of cinema..about how many factors (logical or emotional ) are involved in making a perspective or point of view in an audience ...to some extend sometimes the reasons are just so personal that not easy to say but strong enough to overweight all other factors and creat such good or bad feeling in us at last, perhaps critics are not the exception and if they wanna ignore their real sense they woin’t be an honest artists ,at least. .