1. My Week with Marilyn (2011), dir. Simon Curtis

[strange_complex]

I saw this, my first film of 2012, today with ms_siobhan and planet_andy at the Hyde Park Picture House, and we all really enjoyed it.

I'm by no means an expert on Marilyn Monroe, so can't judge how accurate this portrayal of either the week in question or her character more generally was, but I am particularly interested in biopics at the moment because of an article which I am writing about screen portrayals of the emperor Augustus, so I watched it partly from that angle. I've been reading a rather good book by Dennis Bingham on the biopic as a genre, which emphasises how very much the biopic intersects and overlaps with other genres, and also argues that the lives of men and women are treated so differently in biopics that they virtually need to be understood as different genres themselves. Bingham suggests that biopics of women frequently view their lives in terms of suffering or victimhood, and particularly portray them as struggling (usually unsuccessfully) to negotiate an irresolvable tension between their public role and their personal life. All of this is easily identifiable in My Week with Marilyn - hardly surprisingly since it is central to her life-story anyway, at least in the mythologised version which most of us know.

The decision to focus on a short snapshot of her life was more interesting and innovative. Obviously, from the point of view of Colin Clark this was determined by the circumstances of his encounter with her, but the success of his memoirs and the decision to make it into a film say a lot about how effective this format can be for a biopic. It dispenses with the expectation of a comprehensive coverage, allowing the story to allude to earlier events and point the way to future ones as much or as little as suits it, while concentrating instead on drawing a rich and vivid character. I felt this worked very well here, especially combined with the use of Colin Clark as a point-of-view character who begins with a highly idealised view of Marilyn, and gradually moves to a much more real and intimate knowledge of her.

The cast was a veritable feast of British character-actors, many familiar from the small screen (My Family, Downton Abbey, Poirot), and they all deliver - but perhaps especially Kenneth Branagh as a wonderfully irritable Laurence Olivier. The script is sharp, and does a good job of exploring relevant issues such as the objectificaton of women, the effects of ageing, and the tension between the British theatrical acting tradition and the Hollywood screen equivalent. Colin Clark is very obviously a privileged posh-boy who gets where he does thanks to family money and connections, despite his protestations to the contrary, but that's not glossed over, and nor does he get away entirely without being criticised for it.

If you like biopics, Marilyn Monroe, portraits of the film production business, pretty scenery or British character actors, this one's for you.

Click here if you would like view this entry in light text on a dark background.

Comments

Controversial Historical Figures in Biopics

[la-guapita.livejournal.com]

Hey. Two last comments! One - I just remembered a quote Clint Eastwood made about Angelina Jolie which summed up her predicament as a beautiful woman. After directing her in Changling, he described her as something like "a great actress trapped in a beautiful woman's body". So, I guess at least it's a recognised problem. Also, I am enjoying this thread as get to put in another of my obsessions but you mentioned about controversial historical figures such as Augustus in biopics and, of course, Marie Antoinette sprang to mind. I've seen quite a few films about her and the variation in the way in which she is portrayed is very interesting. The two most recent ones I saw which, interestingly, were not by French Directors portrayed her quite sympathetically and accurately (from what I have read about her - and again, this is quite a lot!!) but earlier ones I have seen all portray her as a greedy, shallow queen and show her supposed lesbian affairs as a terrible vice. Thought this might interet you x

Re: Controversial Historical Figures in Biopics

[strange-complex.livejournal.com]

That's interesting about Marie Antoinette. It sounds like the trend with her has been to move away from stereotypical portrayals as a villainness, and towards something more nuanced and realistic. The Bingham book I'm reading has a detailed discussion of the 2006 film about her starring Kirsten Dunst, which I haven't read yet, so I'll take a look at that and see if he sees the same trend, or thinks it is part of a larger pattern. If it is, that could be interesting for my arguments about Augustus too.

Re: Controversial Historical Figures in Biopics

[la-guapita.livejournal.com]

Oh do tell me what Bingham says. I'd be very interested. The 2006 film actually got booed at Cannes and I still can't understand why to this day. There were some anachronisms but they were only in terms of costume and music and I thought they made it a very post-modern look at a historical figure - ie. history is not necessarily an accurate art and can be as much about feelings as minute, accurate historical details. Anyway, apart from Kirsten Dunst's american accent, I loved it and it was pretty accurate in terms of its portrayal of her - I read the Biography by Antonia Fraser on which it was based. Yes, that does seem to be the trend with portrayals of her but I also wondered whether there was a Franco/Other nations dichotomy which is why the French booed it? She's still a controversial figure in France. Interestingly, Nicolas' Mother went to see a play recently about Marie Antoinette where the audience got to vote on 2 endings - one where she survived the Revolution and another where she was beheaded. It said in the programme that more often than not they choose the latter ending so she's still pretty unpopular. Interesting idea for a play though - serious power in the audience's hands! Anyway, I'll try to stop but I am very much enjoying this thread as get to talk about things I love! I always used to try to put Wizard of Oz references in my essays at University where possible (or Marilyn Monroe ones) so maybe you could squeeze in a Marie Antoinette comparison somewhere!!

Re: Controversial Historical Figures in Biopics

[strange-complex.livejournal.com]

Hi! I have read that section of the book now, so can report on what it says. Bingham seems pretty impressed with the 2006 film of Marie Antoinette. According to him, it takes some important steps away from typical female biopics by a) portraying Marie Antoinette's life from her point of view, rather than the (more dehumanised) point of view of outside observers, and b) showing her as coming into conflict with whole systems (e.g. the expectations placed upon her in her role as Louis' wife), instead of simplifying those conflicts into melodramatic fallings-out with specific individuals (as earlier films have often done). He also thinks that the film places a very feminist emphasis on the way she is made into a scape-goat for economic problems and a system of rule which were not personally her fault. But I will have to let you comment on whether that's a fair assessment or not, as I haven't seen the film!

Meanwhile, the play which Nicolas' mother saw sounds excellent. What a fascinating approach, and I wonder whether the script is tries hard to ensure that she gets at least a reasonably favourable hearing? It must keep things more interesting for the actors, too, by giving them a little bit of variety each evening.

Re: Controversial Historical Figures in Biopics

[la-guapita.livejournal.com]

Hello. I would entirely agree with what Bingham said. I hadn't thought about the film in such a sophisticated way but I am pleased to hear positive remarks about it and it all certainly rings true. However, I would argue that part of the credit really has to go to Antonia Fraser who wrote the book upon which it very heavily draws. I love her style of writing - she is truely objective whilst writing in a very readable, entertaining way. She gave Marie-Antoinette a very fair appraisal, pointing out for example that she hadn't actually spent any more from the royal coffers than any of her predecessors. All the same, Sophia Coppella also deserves credit for having chosen an excellent source. It's funny as I'm reading another historical biography of Boucher (court painter for Louis XV) and it's by an amateur historian from the 1960s. Without meaning to be scornful or patronising as I am learning a lot, I can't help but much prefer the moderm day historians I read like Antonia Fraser as she's so much more objective, seeing macro rather than micro issues (as you said in the film). This current author is too opinionated and relates too many tiny details (like historical figures FEELINGS) as though they are fact when he couldn't possibly know. Have you noticed that sort of difference in approaches over the past 50 years? I like your learned photo with your post of Christopher Lee!! Very intellectual. Anyway, you should come to Warwick one time and watch the film with me - it's one of my favourites and I have it on DVD. The other one I really enjoyed was a film made by a Quebecois team for French TV which documents her life based on her letters. It claims that everything in the film is based on either recorded documents or her letters and it does tie in with Antonia Fraser's book which also includes a quote from her at pretty much the beginning of every chapter. That's also showing things from her point of view isn't it but in a more direct way. Well, I could talk about this for hours but I had better go to have a nice meal and a well deserved glass of wine x

Re: Controversial Historical Figures in Biopics

[strange-complex.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm glad to know that Bingham's opinion on that film seems right to you. I can tell that his thinking is sound from the way it chimes with my experience of the Augustus biopic I am writing about, and other biopics I have seen. But I have only actually seen one of the eighteen specific films which he treats as case studies, which is a bit of a handicap! And yes, I would certainly love to see the Marie Antoinette film with you in Warwick some time.

I also certainly recognise the criticisms you are making about the 1960s amateur historian whose book you are reading. Some people still write like that today of course, e.g. if they are aiming at a popular market, or are not scholarly historians themselves. And plenty of historians were also taking much more sophisticated approaches already at that time. But I think you are right that there has been a general shift amongst historians at all levels towards an awareness of what we can and cannot really know about the past.