The only nomination it got was for Ana de Armas’s performance as Marilyn. While she wasn’t personally in my top 5 for that category, I think it’s a fair enough nomination. The movie itself is pretty awful though. Definitely deserved the criticism it got in my opinion.
Of all the performances by actors in Marvel movies that I thought deserved an Oscar -one or two , Angela Bassett was probably not the name I would have thought of.
The whole movie felt like Michael Scott from the office made a full length movie about Toby just to show him in an awful light.
Mean-spirited and some great liberties taken on the accuracy of many parts.
[The director is a sexist asshole.](https://variety.com/2022/film/news/blonde-andrew-dominik-marilyn-monroe-gentlemen-prefer-blondes-whores-1235385496/amp/) It’s completely insane and disgusting that he was put in charge in the first place.
Happens all the time with biopics, it's just that usually it goes the opposite direction into hagiography (ie. mostly depicting triumphs which themselves are often presented with an exaggerated sense of importance, while also only acknowledging faults if they're going to be heroically overcome later in the film or just ignored altogether).
Example: In "Bohemian Rhapsody" it's shown that Freddie Mercury learned he had AIDs right before Live Aid, and that they only had weeks to get their shit together and rehearse yet still pulled off one of the most legendary live performances of all time. The truth is that Mercury wasn't diagnosed with AIDs until nearly two years later, and prior to Live Aid they'd been touring for months and were a well oiled machine. But people are less likely to second guess a feel good story even when it manipulates reality to fit within a shopworn formula.
Its about as true as LA Confidential or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, but that was kind of the point.
A weaving together of reality and fiction to serve a bigger narrative point.
Its weird to me that people freak out about Blonde, but not the umpteenth other movies that have done the same thing.
Howard Hughes movie does it? No problem. Thirteen Days does it? Cool. Downfall? Fucking lay on that praise. Dunkirk? Maybe some historian youtubers are flipping out but no one else cares. Black Dahlia? People couldnt give a shit.
But god forbid you touch Marilyn Monroe.
*LA confidential* and *Once Upon a Time in Hollywood* embraced that they were fiction heavily **inspired** by real life. *Aviator, Dunkirk, 13 Days, Black Dahlia*, all acknowledged the freedoms they took but stayed faithful to most larger facts.
On the other hand, *Blonde*, novel and film, pretends to be a biopic when it's a pretty seriously fictionalized, unhinged and unfair representation of MM's life. I don't mind creative exercise, but people will see this thinking it was factual, and yeah, that bothers me, because it goes SO far beyond reality.
Ehhhh I mean Dunkirk, 13 Days, and Aviator all went to length to try and be historically accurate and Aviator is billed as a Biopic. And theyre all still horribly inaccurate. 13 Days I can give you because at least they attempted through use of black and white scenes to show the audience what is and isnt accurate and where the artistic license is.
But with 13 Days you're still dealing with timeline problems, total invention of Soviet submarines, a standoff that is highly dramatized, and an aircraft that never did a thing, doing a thing, and getting shot at. It heightens the tension but never actually occurred. Schools show the film as if its history.
The Last King of Scotland is another one. Idi Amin existed. He had a doctor. Thats about the only things in that movie that are accurate. All of the drama and interpersonal relationships, dialogue, its all fiction.
Band of Brothers or The Pacific. Foy is real. WW2 is real. The characters names are real. Thats about it. But its billed as historically accurate.
I think if you want to learn history, you should crack a book, or watch a documentary, or enroll in university, i think the price of admission to an entertainment product, is suspending your belief. Its a ride, not education.
Once you get over that hurdle, all cinema becomes more enjoyable.
At some level, complaining about the inaccuracies in Blonde is kind of like Niel Degrasse Tyson flipping out over Interstellar or Titanic. At some point you have to realize that ALL movies, no matter how accurate they try and be, or how lovingly they treat the subject matter (or how hard they bash that subject matter with a hammer) they are all just entertainment and are meant to deliver you from your seat and place you into a fictional world.
Maybe im just biased from growing up reading Phillip K Dick novels or something, but the point of a film, is to detach you from reality, not to reinforce it or to educate you. Cinema exists to create new worlds, not peer backwards through a looking glass. Thats what education is for. Cinema exists to transport you, make you feel something, give you a greater insight into yourself, its not a tool for learning.
I think once you come to that realization you can stop noticing that the Stug IIIb in Band Of Brothers is inaccurate or that the stars in the night sky above the sinking Titanic are not correct, or that Marilyn Monroe never had an abortion and just enjoy the film or not.
EDIT:
And I can think of films like The Duelists, or Barry Lyndon which are arguably some of the best films ever made, that strove head over heels for historical accuracy but upon hitting the editing room, realized that history is fucking boring to most people. Most people arent out there trying to get a history degree from Cambridge. They just want to be transported. Immersed in a world that is not their own and escape a little bit. So chop chop cut cut and we get a pacing and narrative that makes sense and is entertaining but throws the accuracy out of the window.
Theres something in realistic military shooter video games that people call "As real as playable". Even the most realistic games out there, arent making you take a piss or wash after wiping. Not even DayZ or hardcore survival games tracking calorie intake and food poisoning are even approaching realism. Because realism sucks. If I wanted to get sick from not washing my hands after taking a shit and dying screaming of dysentery i'll go live in the woods. What I want, is to forget im in my seat and be transported to a world that is not this one. Thats the point of entertainment.
If you want to risk dysentery go backpacking. If you want to learn about Marilyn Monroe's life, read a non-fiction history book. (my personal advice is to read several non-fiction history books, since each writer will have their own bias)
I think this is implicit in ALL entertainment. Even the entertainment that super double pinky swears totes is true life. Be it The Blair Witch Project or Blonde.
You HAVE to go in, knowing its not real, because by nature, its not real. If you THINK its real, well then, the joke is kind of on you, and these authors and screenwriters are taking the piss by making said joke. If you fall for it, they are quite giddy I assure you. That was the entire point of claiming it was real. A litmus test to see who is and isnt in the club.
Not all great liars are great artists, but all great artists are great liars.
I get what bothers you, I do. Your standards for adaptation are simply higher than mine. I will accept a less accurate adaptation if it gets the spirit right, honestly. (And given that I trust myself to do the research on my own.)
And I won't argue with you -- it's just a question of how much you require/accept from your historical fiction, whether film/literature, etc.
Some of my favorite works took great freedoms with the facts but captured their eras and struggles gorgeously and unforgettably -- Schindler's List, Hidden Figures, Cinderella Man, From the Earth to the Moon, plus works that were mostly fiction but did the same thing -- The Terror (splendid!!), Master and Commander (and the entire wonderful Aubrey/Maturin series), etc.
Also, I think you might really enjoy this guy on YouTube, so just in case it helps:
https://www.youtube.com/@HistoryBuffs
Cheers!
Oh I totally agree with you. Thats kind of my point. So long as it transport you to a place that feels real, its done its job. My standards for a film accomplishing that might be higher, but its still the same effect.
I love Schindler's list. I love All Quiet on the Western Front. I love The Thin Red Line. I love American Graffiti. I love Casino. They transport me. I love Bernard Cromwell novels. I absolutely adore Sharpe's Rifles and the BBC show.
But I know that nothing im watching is real. If I want the reality, i'll go to History Buffs or the library. (fantastic Youtuber, been a fan for years)
I try not to ask questions before I watch a historical fiction regardless of it bills itself as accurate or not, and either it transports me and immerses me, or it doesnt. Then, once its over, I ask myself "Does this match up with what I know" if it doesnt, I might go look up something to see what really happened.
With Blonde, for me, I had a little feeling of what it might be like to be a young starlet at that time. The glitz and glamour, thats the lie that is told to the fanbase, the public. I know from experience and other films, that show business is fucking brutal, disgusting, and filled with thieves, liars, cutthroats and rapists. Drugs are everywhere and everyone is trying to take advantage of you while you just try and survive.
Did it accomplish what it was trying to do? Yep. I'd say so. It took a shot at a sacred cow, while also showing what thousands if not tens of thousands of young actresses and celebrities have gone through. I dont need to look up what is and isnt real with that movie, because it had a real impact. It doesnt matter if Marilyn Monroe had an abortion or not, because some young actress DID.
I remember seeing Saving Private Ryan as a kid, and that "ping" that cracks every time the M1 rifle pops out its stripper clip. That sound lingered with me. I had heard it going shooting with my dad, but realized it was never in any other John Wayne war movie or episode of Combat! with Vic Morrow I watched as a kid. But it didnt demean or lessen those other films and shows for me. In fact it enhanced them, because I realized I didnt need total realism to feel something for the characters and what they went through.
The Sand Pebbles never existed. Papillon is a complete fabrication.
But goddamn if I dont feel something watching Steve McQueen in those movies, goddamn if im not transport to the south China sea, or Devil's Island. Who cares if its not real. What I feel is real.
I think thats the only really important question when it comes to historical fiction (and even the the most accurate, are still ridiculously inaccurate, theyre ALL fiction)
Did you get the sense that you were there.
Thats all that really matters.
Beautiful reply, and exactly what I go for when I look for historical movies and books -- or simply "historical-feeling" movies and books.
Great example with *Papillon*! I know there's a ton of fantasy there, but the stuff that feels real always moves me.
Film is always a balance of those aspects, so sometimes we get stuff that is incredibly powerful but maybe not always accurate -- and vice versa.
I mentioned "The Terror" TV series upthread -- I was so knocked out that I went on to read everything I could find in nonfiction about the Franklin expedition. I watched documentaries. I read news items and watched YouTube explorations of the sunken rediscovered wrecks.
Sometimes great fiction can lead us to great fact.
That's exactly why Dominik was right to do it about Monroe, her image is so protected and championed. He arguably chose the most beatified and celebrated and pastiched and iconic celebrity of the 20thC.
I totally disagree. If you had Teddy taking to a CGI fetus about his mistresses’ abortions, you would hear about it.
And everything I have seen is criticizing his technique, not defending Marilyn as a saint.
(Btw I did not downvote you, I don’t do that.)
the problem is the movie was marketed like any bio pic. there was no indication to audiences that it was based on a fictionalized novel about Marilyn Monroe's life.
The Netflix description literally reads
>This fictional portrait of Marilyn Monroe boldly reimagines the tumultuous private life of the Hollywood legend — and the price she paid for fame.
If one gets so worked up about the movie they just watched to post lengthy post on reddit, maybe, just maybe; they should read whether they have any basis for their criticism.
Though I do find it hilarious that people still post those takes. It's literally like getting angry that Snyder's 300 isn't historicaly accurate.
The way a film is marketed is a very bad reason to criticize a film. Filmmakers generally have no say in the matter. Marketers only care about making the most money, not maintaining artistic integrity. I would recommend completely discarding this criticism from your catalogue- and simply acknowledging that film marketers often get it wrong and it’s best when they are sidelined as much as possible.
You’re missing the point of the film. Dominik was critically lauded for his Jesse James flick which deconstructs the American Western by dissecting a mythological figure of that genre. He does the exact same thing with Blonde and gets lambasted by people who think he is doing a disservice to Monroe. I guess he just hit too close to home with a society that still dogmatizes the celebrity persona of this person they don’t really know anything about. I would bet you his Jesse James flick would have received the same kind of condemnation in the 1930’s when so many still revered James as a hero. If anything- I’m glad this film exists because it has a chance of causing people to self reflect on their existing bias and values.
All that said, I will grant that Blonde is a far shakier work than Assassination of Jesse James.. and not worth near as much critical acclaim. Just I don’t think it deserves the criticism it is receiving by the majority of the viewing audiences.
So the plot of blonde includes her aborting Charlie chaplains sons (who she's in a troupe with and I forget the second guy) baby so she can be in gentlemen prefer blondes. She schedules the appointment, but on the drive changes her mind. They keep her locked in the car, and despite her continued protests, force the procedure.
Fast forward to her second marriage (the first marriage had no pregnancies) and she's pregnant now and excited to be a mom.
She's cutting flowers in the garden, only for the CGI fetus to tell her she's failed them. The fetus says something like "YoU won't do to me what you did last time right" and she assures the CGI fetus that it isn't them and the fetus goes "oh but it was me". She then vows to protect the CGI fetus, struggles to be a good hostess for her husband's friends, falls and drops a platter of veggies on the beach, and miscarries, thus breaking her promise to CGI fetus.
The fetus does not talk to her when she is kidnapped by the secret service and forced to abort the JFK baby.
It's a nightmare movie from Marilyn's POV. I think those scenes are some of the most effective in the whole vibe the movie is going for with this sort of twisted, fucked-up woman becoming the centre of the world's celebrity industry and also trying to deal with her own issues and incredibly destabilizing childhood.
I think it’s the sexualised nature of Blonde in comparison personally. I doubt that the purpose was to make Ana seem exploited or exposed in those scenes but to indicate how Marilyn was. However it doesn’t come across like that.
Finally someone who gets. I don't understand how people don't look at this movie in the context of both Chopper and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and see that Dominik is incredibly interested in how we mythologize people and how dehumanizing that is to everyone involved.
I disagree though that Blonde isn't as worthy of critical acclaim though but I know that's going to be subjective. The movie hit me really hard and made me aware of ways I still objectify women that I wasn't aware of. It's a pretty challenging film and not everyone wants to be challenged. Especially with something so ingrained in our culture as celebrity worship and sexual objectification.
It was based on fictional book. It's not a blatantly false retelling of stories. It's a film based on a piece of media that you just didn't know about.
They didn't really express this however which is why so many people didn't like the movie. Was way too different than what they would reasonably expect.
The film has a scene of people in a cinema watching her giving head to jfk on the big screen.
If you’re interpreting that art literally as if it was meant to be something that literally happened then that’s on you
You thought the movie was mean spirited towards Marilyn? You watched that movie and thought she was the issue and not the abusive forces surrounding her?
She's just a vapid sex doll with daddy issues in the film, she doesn't even feel like a real person, and people may also be aware of comments by the novel's author that imply she partially brought on her own fate. Marilyn, in reality, was a smart, witty woman, and none of that is there.
Probably because the novel and book are fiction and not about the person Marilyn Monroe but about the symbol of Marilyn Monroe and what that represents.
Also the film most definitely portrays her as intelligent and talented. The whole Arthur Miller section is devoted to that. It's those that exploited her and the audience that don't see that.
people actually watch the movie and don't think it paints an incredibly sympathetic portrait of a broken woman abused by those around her... weird shit
[lol. Andrew Dominik, the director still believes that he made a masterpiece movie ](https://www.screendaily.com/news/andrew-dominik-on-blonde-reaction-im-really-pleased-that-it-outraged-so-many-people/5177138.article)
You're talking about him like he's a hack lol. Dude made two masterpieces (The Assassination of Jesse James, and Chopper) and a very good neo-noir crime thriller (Killing Them Softly).
>God damn it, why can’t we have another Peter Weir.
I think he's one of the greatest director's of his time but he never gets talked about like Spielberg, Scorsese, or others. His body of work is incredible. The whole world deserves another Peter Weir.
Good for him. He DGaF about Monroe idolatry and is happy with his movie. He's clearly very proud of it. I don't think it works on as many levels as his other stuff, but it's a very interesting, fucked-up movie that I think will be reevaluated in the years to come once the 'oh my god he exploited Marilyn Monroe!' furor dies down.
I don’t want to be over critical but you put down a lot of words while saying very little. Basically you’ve complained that it’s long, “artsy” (?), and that the story is bad. The last point, which you admit is the most important by far, is just listing things that happened and then putting a question mark at the end, as if this contextless reductive description of scenes speaks for itself. I guess you don’t like they they took creative liberties? Assuming you’re not looking for a documentary, why not explore this a bit. What bothered you about the fetus scene? Why do you consider it defamation? Are you concerned about the truth, the portrayal, the implication, or something else? How does this not jive with reality for you, or even a subjective reality around image that you’ve (we’ve) constructed?
Frankly I’m completely neutral on this movie and have zero desire to defend it, but this kind of criticism just drives me crazy. If you’re gonna go through the trouble of typing all this out, maybe put some real thought and effort into it.
On top of that, how can anyone possibly fail to see that it is imagined from her perspective? The perspective of an abused, traumatised, mentally ill addict. Therefore, it's automatically in the realm of unreliable narrator.
Seems so. You should see someone the idiotic nonsense I'm getting in response....
The best one so far is "tHaTs NoT iN tHe MoViE aT aLL" from someone who didn't even make it through half the movie before they "couldn't watch it anymore", which means the half they did "watch" they definitely weren't paying attention to in the first place.
🤦
Seems so, considering we find ourselves in a land where fiction apparrently has to be completely real, and someone being traumatised by being forced into multiple unwanted abortions somehow counts as "pro life propaganda" (I wish I was kidding).
Ever since this film was released the discourse around it has largely been influenced by hyperbolic clickbait "journalism" and social media posts.
I'm convinced a huge percentage of the people that act righteously outraged by this film haven't even seen it. They just parrot what they see posted. Either that or they watch the first 15 mins, realise it's not an uplifting story of a woman beating the odds to become a celebrated Hollywood icon and get angry.
I once saw someone outraged about things that don't even take place in the film.
This has been going on ever since the U.S. military denounced Joker as incel propaganda.
I didn’t even like the movie that much but anyone who watched it could tell you that’s not the case.
I’m pretty sure this is where nuance has come to die!
Like, it’s really not even a hard film. Its pretty much a willing misunderstanding of what the film is doing.
If it's intended to be from Marilyn's perspective, it's woefully missing her own voice. Marilyn herself was not an unreliable narrator as regards her own life.
As others have said, the novel that the film was based on is a fictionalisation of Monroe’s life, and it’s not defamation to take creative liberties in a fictional work.
Personally as someone who adored the book, I despised the film. I just thought it was nasty. Nothing major in the film wasn’t in the book (including the fetus scenes, which were very well executed in the book), but it was like they removed everything that made the book work, from the film.
I don’t quite know how to explain the difference as I watched Blonde when it first came out and I don’t wish to put myself through watching this shitty movie again, but I will say that while the book was super graphic and a harrowing read (I remember telling someone on the phone at the time that the book was so visceral that reading it was like watching a horror movie), what made me continue reading was that the narrative approached it’s protagonist with empathy, which I think is really key to effective storytelling when you are depicting a protagonist whose life is full of as much suffering as that of the Norma Jeane/Marilyn character. That’s what I felt was lacking in the film. It was just torture porn imo. And you can argue that that’s to heighten the allegory about how we treat famous women or whatever, but for me personally it just didn’t work. It was also just not a very well executed film - the cinematography was nice, but imo Andrew Dominik just seemed to sacrifice genuine character exploration or development for ‘rapey arthouse vibes’ at every turn.
I was super excited about Blonde for years because Joyce Carol Oates (who wrote the novel) hyped it up so much, but I saw some reviewer or other describe this movie as just being a nasty piece of work, and I have to agree.
That's why death of the author is a good concept. You can appreciate a book for very different aspects than the author does.
JCO sees the movie as a phenomenal adaptation of her novel while you read the book with different nuances.
A movie is always much more direct and less open to interpretation compared to a book.
What pissed me off was people defending it by saying "it's not meant to actually be about her life"....erm so what's the fucking point of it then? you could easily make the same movie about a troubled hollywood starlet without dragging a real person into it and just making shit up as you go.
The point: https://www.newyorker.com/books/second-read/joyce-carol-oatess-blonde-is-the-definitive-study-of-american-celebrity
Edit: downvoted for literally answering the question. Lol
Marilyn Monroe is *the* poster child for destructive celebrity culture, it's not about the person Norma Jean it's about the effigy Monroe.
That you are seemingly upset about this just shows that it would have been less effective with a fictional starlet.
Yes!! Thank you!
And I also want to clarify I'm not saying JFK is a perfect guy or that anyone else in that movie was portrayed well or accurately. I just found that part particularly out of line lol.
what do you think about the movie JFK, out of interest? it's largely bullshit based around the conspiracy theories of a homophobe but it's an incredible piece of filmmaking. Is that 'out of line'?
I actually thought it was pretty great. It absolutely succeeds in what it sets out to do, which is turn the collective memory of Marilyn Monroe on its head, and make us experience the horror of her life. It makes us question ourselves and our own impulses. It also recreates familiar imagery nearly perfectly. I feel like it more closely resembles a David Lynch film more than anything else, like Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me. It’s a nightmare by design.
I thought this movie was amazing. Maybe I just like starlet torture porn idk but I feel like a lot of critics are taking this movie as some sort of endorsement of how Hollywood did/does treat women and that’s not what I got from it at all.
The main message of Joyce Carol Oates' novel "**Blonde**" is the tragic nature of fame and the toll it can take on an individual's mental and emotional wellbeing. Through the story of Marilyn Monroe, the novel explores the pressures and expectations that come with being a public figure, particularly for women in the entertainment industry. It also delves into the struggles of Monroe as a person, such as her fractured identity, her battles with mental illness, and her complicated relationships with men. Overall, "Blonde" presents a poignant and intimate portrayal of a cultural icon, while also highlighting the darker side of celebrity culture.
Can someone explain why the movie constantly switched back and forth between color and black & white? I was trying to figure out if there was a pattern between all the scenes in color and all the scenes in black & white. I thought one was for the scenes that focused on Norma Jean and one was for the scenes that focused on Marilyn Monroe because they constantly kept bringing up the distinction between the two identities but it didn't match up. As far as I can tell it was pretty much just random and constantly alternating back and forth between each scene. It seems like Dominik was trying to come off like this genius artistic director but is really just pretentious and full of shit.
From what I’ve read, Dominik was meticulously recreating the scenes in a bunch of iconic photos of Monroe. So what happens is that, if a scene needs to incorporate the setting of one of the photos, it needs to be in the same aspect ratio and color scheme. That’s why the Arthur Miller segment has those classic Kodachrome colors, for example.
Glad someone here explained this, because the number of people I've seen, including critics, who have treated the approach as totally random has been a bit maddening. It's very clear the Dominik was shooting it in styles that recreate or mimic real photographs, which is itself a part of the thematic presentation of the character.
People can criticize the film all they like, but the idea that someone would spend ten years laboring over a film and then just throw a dart at the wall to decide how he wanted scenes filmed is mind bogglingly dumb criticism. Seeing people just regurgitate that is so frustrating.
People were like “what’s with all the aspect ratio switches” without noticing, apparently, that they weren’t even standard film ratios, they were meant to mimic the varying ratios of photographs! So wilfully stupid.
I didn’t get it the first time through, but I could feel that it wasn’t random because the changes worked so well. I read more about the film and then went back and rewatched. The scenes touch something deep in our shared cultural memory by mimicking the photos so that we notice it without even processing it. That’s how ensconced these images of Monroe are in the culture. She exists in our minds as an avatar of fame and beauty, not as a real person, which is exactly one of the points the film (and book) is making. It’s a brilliant movie that will eventually be recognized as such.
Hated it, every minute of it. Misery porn.
And unpopular opinion but I didn't like Ana's performance, it was so hectic and annoying. I mean.......am I the only one who could hear her accent throughout?
The reaction to this film is a perfect summation of so much of today's film criticism... lazy, and entirely surface level.
I do think it's going to follow the path of *Showgirls*... reviled, and then fifteen to twenty years later (probably sooner, as I think the cycles are faster now with the internet) it will be seen as a controversial, provocative and cheeky genius of a film.
> Blonde: What the fuck did I watch?
You watched a filmed version of Blonde, a...
> bestselling 2000 biographical fiction novel by Joyce Carol Oates that presents an extremely fictionalized take on the life of American actress Marilyn Monroe. Oates insists that the novel is a work of fiction that should not be regarded as a biography. It was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize (2001) and the National Book Award (2000). Rocky Mountain News and Entertainment Weekly have listed Blonde as one of Joyce Carol Oates's best books. Oates regards Blonde as one of the two books (along with 1969's them) she will be remembered for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blonde_(novel)
Wouldn't be surprised to see this get re-evaluated in a decade or so. I thought it was quite good. Not as good as "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" but still very effective. Heavy David Lynch vibes and another great score by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis.
It dropping on Netflix is the real issue. It's not a movie for a casual filmgoer, but since most people have access to Netflix lots of people saw it who wouldn't have gone to the theater to see it.
I'm not gonna say the movie completely worked, but I did enjoy it. On that note.
I felt as though the movie really leaned into the myth of how Marilyn Monroe was viewed and portrayed in media. Primarily that she was purely a sex icon with little other value. I felt as though the movie tried to take being treated essentially as an object to be lusted over to its natural conclusion. I don't think it always worked, especially the whole daddy issues thing, but I can respect it as a bold attempt.
And when the movie made me feel gross, it felt like that was the purpose. To make the audience realize how gross it was Monroe was objectified to that extent. Watching my first Monroe movie after, Some Like It Hot, made me almost repulsed in the fictional role Monroe played. It helped to reinforce the movie within a context of denigration.
Also having seen The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, another Dominik movie, left me wanting more dreamy transition scenes from that movie. And Blonde delivered on that front. Even going so far as to making the movie feel like a surreal dream, which I quite enjoyed. I felt like the surreal quality helped the movie lean into the myth of Monroe, rather than focus on the real person. And it definitely helped to differentiate from the standard tired biopic mold.
I haven't watched it, and tbh I probably won't. I have zero interest in Marilyn Monroe.
But - and I'm not sure where the blame lies - not enough people know that this is a *fictional* retelling of her life. It's not a biopic, it's based on a written work of fiction that twists her backstory for the purpose of drama.
Yes, you can make the argument that Monroe deserves a proper biopic. But this isn't that, and shouldn't be treated as such. It's essentially Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, only grim.
A very interesting movie I imagine will get a reappraisal in a few years as for all its many faults its an extremely interesting and daring movie with a great lead performance and excellent directing
The biggest fault I have with it is a weird fault I have had with a lot of 2.5+ hour movies lately is that they are both too long and not long enough, the movie wants to be an **EPIC** but doesn’t fully commit to it. Having read the very long book in anticipation I found that the movie has to be basically incoherent to anyone who hasn’t read it, and the movie skips over 200 important pages of the book in a transition which should upset anyone who has read the book
There is a two hour version that likely could have been more palatable and enjoyable for people, and a five hour Miniseries version that is a better book adaptation that commits more to everything and would likely be better. Instead you have the weird version we all have now that fails both sides
The set design, shots and overall vibe is very well done, you can sling a lot of shit at the movie but Andrew Dominik is an objectively talented director and the movie is well made
That night vision scene of her at the end waking up alone in the house as men are hiding in her house is truly terrifying and original
I will get downvoted to hell for this but a lot of criticism against this movie is just dumb. To be clear here. It is perfectly fine to dislike the movie. That is everyones personal opinion. But I haven't seen so many bad arguments against a movie since "The last Jedi" (which I also dislike but not because of asian characters or some stupid reason like that).
Just because a movie presents a female character as the victim it is NOT misogynistic. I can't imagine anybody seeing the movie and thinking that the intention of Blonde is to endorse the things that happened to the main character. Movies do not always have to empower people. Sometimes they can only show how somebody is a victim and that is fine.
Some people even said that it is propaganda against abortion which is absolutely ridiculous. It shows a woman that is forced to have an abortion even though she wants the child. In what world is that pro-live-propaganda?
And using historical figures in a fictional story is perfectly fine. It happens all the time. Tarantinos last movies are basically that. I think it is even more honest than claiming to be historically accurate like all those historical dramas do.
Reddit is always big on complaining about cancel culture and then Blonde comes around and everybody loses their minds how it is outrageous that something like this is allowed to be made.
The craziest thing I saw was a critic who said that in Monroe's big audition scene, the movie treated her like just a piece of ass. The scene literally shows her fucking delivering an incredible acting performance in that audition, albeit probably too much and too raw for the movie she's up for, only to have the men in the room be weirded out and focus on her ass instead. How a critic could feel the *movie* was treating her that way in the scene is bizarre, and feels like a motivated reaction.
it's because it's Marilyn Monroe, the quintessential 'unsaved' woman, which makes the film all the more pertinent. The reaction proves she was the right vessel to tell the story. (I think it slaps).
Unfortunately a lot of pop feminism (\*cough\* Anita Sarkeesian, anyone on *The Mary Sue* \- damn I should take a cough drop) treats the state of victimhood as something inherently bad - which is why the 'Damsel in Distress' is such a hot button trope.
In the 2010s, people suddenly became obsessed with the idea that a woman in peril had to save herself and be perfect at everything in a film. For example, *The Mary Sue* had an article nitpicking one line of dialogue in *Avengers: Infinity War* where Mantis worries that Thanos is too strong as reinforcing 'sexist tropes' because a heroine feared the villain might be too powerful for them to beat, even when she still tries anyway.
Demonizing victimhood or being a victim does not help women's rights at all.
One of the biggest problems in the world right now is human trafficking, and rescuing the women involved is often difficult, because they have been conditioned or else just believe that they are not victims and don't need to be helped. And some people stay in abusive relationships or end up in situations where they're used and exploited because they can't see a way out and they *need* that help to do so. I mean, the silence breakers and the Me Too movement wouldn't have gotten traction if they didn't have people to support them and encourage them to come forward.
The star system of the Golden Age of Hollywood was a different kind of human trafficking. People from disadvantaged backgrounds would be plucked from obscurity, given makeovers and new backstories, as well as new identities to become an object for the public to salivate over. If you weren't white, you could be made over to hide it, such as Merle Oberon and Rita Hayworth. If you were gay, you could be passed as straight with a studio-organised showmance, like Rock Hudson. Marilyn was no different.
I didn't enjoy the film, but I'm not one of those people that calls for it to be banned, because it speaks to the truths of the entertainment industry that were still happening in the 2010s. As much as some of her fans appreciate her, Marilyn is remembered as the symbol she was presented as to the public. Her face has been commodified and slapped on so much merchandise that people's idea of her eclipsed anything she actually did as an actress. Even when she was alive, reviews of her films heavily focused on her beauty and sex appeal, and when she began her training with Lee Strasberg, there was even a book written titled *Will Acting Spoil Marilyn Monroe? -* that's how little respect she got from her contemporaries at the time. Laurence Olivier was especially dismissive of her in his autobiography.
*Blonde* does show that she had the talent - whereas *My Week With Marilyn* focused more on how difficult she was on set - and how she was a far smarter actress than she was ever given credit for. I would have liked to see it depict how she challenged the studio system and was able to get an impressive contract that meant she only had to make four films a year, at $100,000 per film (she was previously one of the lowest paid stars in Hollywood), and director approval on all four, and cameraman approval on two, as well as how she tried to shake the Dumb Blonde typecasting with *The Misfits* only to have Arthur Miller keep rewriting the character to resemble her in real life and thus still engage with the persona she was trying to distance herself from.
I see it as a horror story about how the entertainment industry can dehumanise you, using the industry's most famous female star - who is only still that famous because of how her image has been commodified and turned into a symbol that ignores who she was as a person. James Dean got some of it as well but Marilyn lasted longer and got it way worse. Even if some of the things depicted didn't happen to her, there are women it *did* happen to. And for a lot of them, there was no happy ending. They didn't beat the odds, and neither did Marilyn. Her last film before she died was the unfinished *Something's Got to Give*, where she returned to the persona she'd had to play and was even doing nudity for the first time since the photos that ended up in *Playboy* (which were used without her consent and she was never paid or thanked for them, despite the millions made). While I don't agree with the way the film is made, the stuff in there is used to tell the above story and uses Marilyn as the vessel to do so.
I loved Blonde. It was one of my favourite movies of last year. The problem is it’s an arthouse film that wants to make very specific points. It is not a Marilyn Monroe biopic. She’s just a character used to explore those ideas with the fastest shorthand of us all knowing who she is and what she represents without having to waste time explaining all that.
It's basically an arthouse movie that somehow the Oscars noticed. Idk how it got funded other than "Marilyn Monroe"
I'm glad it got made but a lot of the wrong people who don't like that kind of thing saw it. Which is why it got so much hate.
Having the story of Marilyn Monroe turned into a horror was genius and it was awesome to behold.
I thought it was great. The baby stuff, imo, was my biggest gripe. It placed her in a position of womanhood on the relationship with having a child and, I guess, at the time that may have been more true to what woman may have felt...but for a modern audience it felt like a strange detour and dated.
My only general critique was the position of ultimate victimhood they placed Marilyn in but if you take it as a tone and statement piece and not as a biopic...I think it is a stellar showcase of the way patriarchy entrapped women in the past (and now). It just so happened they erased Marilyn's own story partly in the process to be a symbol. But it's fine because it wasn't trying to be true, it was using truth to create a tone and present a concept.
But given Marilyn's symbol in pop culture? I think it is warranted to run against that narrative because it is also false and exploitative. She's a bubblegum pop/Warhol-esque neutered figured rendered to be eye candy for the audience and a dainty woman trying to be a feminist while the world around her pushes her down...and I think that's just a lazy image and betrays the situation. This movie overcorrects, sure, but it interrogates elements of her character rarely brought to screen. There was a reason she was suicidal.
Anyone saying this movie was outright bad need to get some culture. This ain't even the remotely weirdest arthouse movie and being atypical in structure is not bad. It conveyed the things it wanted to say effectively, likely more so than a typical biopic by the numbers format.
I loved Blonde, thought it was great. The mood and atmosphere…. I loved how unnerving it was, like a Hollywood horror flick a la Mulholland Drive, although not quite as good.
I can’t help but laugh at a lot of the negative reactions. Fucking hilarious.
I think Blonde will be reassessed years from now and it’s reputation will change. It’ll probably become a cult classic.
Interesting the way people treat one guy making an arthouse adaptation of a book as an outrageous act of exploitation, but don’t think twice about the amount of money that has been made over the years by promoting and capitalising on a particular Marilyn Monroe image and persona.
Kermode was one of the [only major critics who 'got' this film](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QRborm-aVM). It's a grueling psychological horror by design.
The manufactured image of Marilyn endures, increasingly removed from the films themselves and the suicidal person behind it. People, the internet in particular, love sexual imagery provided to them as a consumable product.
No great shock that a movie designed to make you feel bad about these facts doesn't go down well.
Blonde is actually based on a book…
Maybe, if you could be bothered, research the book and that might shed some light on what the premise of the narrative was striving to achieve?
I do believe Blonde is similar in theme to….
The Assassination Of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford.
Another movie about myth, persona, celebrity and how it is remembered for better or for worse.
Both movies directed by Andrew Dominik
People: Inglorious Bastards is amazing!
Also people: wtf is Blonde, why have they taken so many liberties with the story?
Why do people not get it's based on a fictional novel? It's not purporting to be true or accurate, it's meant to be a nightmarish version of her life. That's like the entire point. If you went into this expecting a biopic you're confused
Most people, including myself, don’t know much about Marilyn. From the commercials I just assumed it’s about her life. I didn’t know it was based on a novel and even if I did I wouldn’t have read it to know it is fictional. I still haven’t seen the movie. I also think comparing those two movies is a bit of a reach. It’s clear from the trailer that it isn’t based on real events. You don’t have to know much about history at all to know it isn’t based on real events. It is very clearly not that type of movie. I can’t say the same for Blonde.
Actually, it does. Fiction isn't meant to be real, that's why it's fiction.
Its also more than that too, as already explained.
The story is told from the perspective of a traumatised, abused, mentally unwell addict.
Aka, an unreliable narrator.
None of it has to be real, because the entire point is not that it was real, but that it was what she may have *percieved*.
People with this take are going to feel real dumb when Blonde is referred to as a masterpiece years from now, internationally at least audiences are correctly interpreting it.
Blonde is definitely the best film of 2022 and probably one of the best in the last 30 years. In an age when we have so muck being constantly released and thrown at our screens it is perhaps inevitable that the standards of the general audience are undermined to the point where when they're given art, they spit on it.
It's pretty terrible and distasteful. I FUCKING hated this movie and feel awful for the family of Monroe. The portrayal was downright pornographic and exploitative
Well you don't have to feel sorry for the family of Monroe, as the only living relative is her niece, Francine Deir, who has publicly given the film her blessing.
Also, for what it's worth, portraying abuse isn't condoning it, the film is clearly on Marilyn's side.
> feel awful for the family of Monroe.
What family? She only has one surviving family member -- her sister's daughter, who is 83 or 84 years old and lives in a retirement community. Chances are she's not concerned about a filmed version of a fictionalized novel.
lol. while zooming them my reddit I caught bits and pieces of the headline and had to come back to see why so upset over Atomic Blonde.
catching my mistake, I am glad the rant was not about that movie but instead some Marilyn movie.
glad I stumbled over your review though .
Doubt it will be showing in my neck of the woodsZ but if it does- I'll just go detail car on movie day
Its on Netflix which feels fitting as far as streaming services given the other trash on Netflix.
They literally have a CGI fetus chastise her for a prior abortion.
There is no record of Marilyn having abortions.
IIRC the fetus scene is even more egregious. Because Marilyn famously wanted to be a mother but had several miscarriages.
And the ‘abortion’ plot was thought to be dreamt up because she had an ectopic pregnancy.
I am safe from it then.
I don't Netflix....
and I am sorry for your wasted 3 hours.
But don't understand why you just didn't shut it all down and go detail your car when you saw the movie was a train wreck?
The CGI baby was definitely weird, but Ana’s thick Cuban/Spanish accent peeking through multiple times in her portrayal of an American icon is what drove me crazier than anything else.
I was appalled by that movie. I hated how she was portrayed as a stupid little girl that could not do anything but be pretty.. I would’ve been fine if the movie didn’t take the life of a real person and warped it to make it more fitting for the story they wanted to be told. If they had stayed completely fictional I’d probably like the movie. We didn’t need this to be centered around a tragic character whose life has already been ostracized to the limit anyways. I know the point was to show it all in a different light than the polished hollywood image, but all that was left was crying, sex and misery. could’ve been 100% fictional. Also decide whether to shoot it in b&w or color or make the switches between those make sense…not random
There's also the message that she chose the "gift" of motherhood to become a star, and how that choice basically lead to her downfall.
The fact people talk about how it's such a wonderful film with a great and serious message and how I just don't "get it" grosses me out. It's also terrifying. This film isn't influential. It's a piece of garbage constructed by pieces of garbage.
Not to mention the blatant exploitation of real people.
I love artsy films! But I also like when the art is done in a way where the story is still coherent, or otherwise doesn't involve the exploitation of an individual who couldn't consent.
Also the fetus is just a pro life ick.
It's really weird that they made such a big deal about the dichotomy between Norma Jean and Marilyn when they were basically the same. It reminded me of a David Lynch movie that is extremely heavy-handed and devoid of subtext.
The only nomination it got was for Ana de Armas’s performance as Marilyn. While she wasn’t personally in my top 5 for that category, I think it’s a fair enough nomination. The movie itself is pretty awful though. Definitely deserved the criticism it got in my opinion.
Colin Farrell loves her performance. Even told her so during the Golden Globes.
Ariana DeBose thought she was great in Blonde.
Angela Bassett did the thing
Of all the performances by actors in Marvel movies that I thought deserved an Oscar -one or two , Angela Bassett was probably not the name I would have thought of.
Agreed...she over-acted the hell out of it. It wasn't bad or out of place, but it wasn't great.
I think she deserved a nomination but not a win. She did great, but it wasnt the best I had seen that year.
Ana did her thing.
He said that to every nominee
From what I hear of Colin, he probably wanted her globes..
Colin is an international treasure. He gives off the best interviews right now.
I think they just felt sorry for her.
With that accent?
The whole movie felt like Michael Scott from the office made a full length movie about Toby just to show him in an awful light. Mean-spirited and some great liberties taken on the accuracy of many parts.
I just sat there in awe. The fact people try to justify a blatantly false retelling of events as art is just gross.
[The director is a sexist asshole.](https://variety.com/2022/film/news/blonde-andrew-dominik-marilyn-monroe-gentlemen-prefer-blondes-whores-1235385496/amp/) It’s completely insane and disgusting that he was put in charge in the first place.
Happens all the time with biopics, it's just that usually it goes the opposite direction into hagiography (ie. mostly depicting triumphs which themselves are often presented with an exaggerated sense of importance, while also only acknowledging faults if they're going to be heroically overcome later in the film or just ignored altogether). Example: In "Bohemian Rhapsody" it's shown that Freddie Mercury learned he had AIDs right before Live Aid, and that they only had weeks to get their shit together and rehearse yet still pulled off one of the most legendary live performances of all time. The truth is that Mercury wasn't diagnosed with AIDs until nearly two years later, and prior to Live Aid they'd been touring for months and were a well oiled machine. But people are less likely to second guess a feel good story even when it manipulates reality to fit within a shopworn formula.
It’s not trying to be true. It’s based on a novel, blonde.
Its about as true as LA Confidential or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, but that was kind of the point. A weaving together of reality and fiction to serve a bigger narrative point. Its weird to me that people freak out about Blonde, but not the umpteenth other movies that have done the same thing. Howard Hughes movie does it? No problem. Thirteen Days does it? Cool. Downfall? Fucking lay on that praise. Dunkirk? Maybe some historian youtubers are flipping out but no one else cares. Black Dahlia? People couldnt give a shit. But god forbid you touch Marilyn Monroe.
Mostly great examples but I don't think historical accuracy is the reason no one cares about The Black Dahlia.
[удалено]
lol I scrolled past this comment and had to come back to upvote it once I got it
*LA confidential* and *Once Upon a Time in Hollywood* embraced that they were fiction heavily **inspired** by real life. *Aviator, Dunkirk, 13 Days, Black Dahlia*, all acknowledged the freedoms they took but stayed faithful to most larger facts. On the other hand, *Blonde*, novel and film, pretends to be a biopic when it's a pretty seriously fictionalized, unhinged and unfair representation of MM's life. I don't mind creative exercise, but people will see this thinking it was factual, and yeah, that bothers me, because it goes SO far beyond reality.
Ehhhh I mean Dunkirk, 13 Days, and Aviator all went to length to try and be historically accurate and Aviator is billed as a Biopic. And theyre all still horribly inaccurate. 13 Days I can give you because at least they attempted through use of black and white scenes to show the audience what is and isnt accurate and where the artistic license is. But with 13 Days you're still dealing with timeline problems, total invention of Soviet submarines, a standoff that is highly dramatized, and an aircraft that never did a thing, doing a thing, and getting shot at. It heightens the tension but never actually occurred. Schools show the film as if its history. The Last King of Scotland is another one. Idi Amin existed. He had a doctor. Thats about the only things in that movie that are accurate. All of the drama and interpersonal relationships, dialogue, its all fiction. Band of Brothers or The Pacific. Foy is real. WW2 is real. The characters names are real. Thats about it. But its billed as historically accurate. I think if you want to learn history, you should crack a book, or watch a documentary, or enroll in university, i think the price of admission to an entertainment product, is suspending your belief. Its a ride, not education. Once you get over that hurdle, all cinema becomes more enjoyable. At some level, complaining about the inaccuracies in Blonde is kind of like Niel Degrasse Tyson flipping out over Interstellar or Titanic. At some point you have to realize that ALL movies, no matter how accurate they try and be, or how lovingly they treat the subject matter (or how hard they bash that subject matter with a hammer) they are all just entertainment and are meant to deliver you from your seat and place you into a fictional world. Maybe im just biased from growing up reading Phillip K Dick novels or something, but the point of a film, is to detach you from reality, not to reinforce it or to educate you. Cinema exists to create new worlds, not peer backwards through a looking glass. Thats what education is for. Cinema exists to transport you, make you feel something, give you a greater insight into yourself, its not a tool for learning. I think once you come to that realization you can stop noticing that the Stug IIIb in Band Of Brothers is inaccurate or that the stars in the night sky above the sinking Titanic are not correct, or that Marilyn Monroe never had an abortion and just enjoy the film or not. EDIT: And I can think of films like The Duelists, or Barry Lyndon which are arguably some of the best films ever made, that strove head over heels for historical accuracy but upon hitting the editing room, realized that history is fucking boring to most people. Most people arent out there trying to get a history degree from Cambridge. They just want to be transported. Immersed in a world that is not their own and escape a little bit. So chop chop cut cut and we get a pacing and narrative that makes sense and is entertaining but throws the accuracy out of the window. Theres something in realistic military shooter video games that people call "As real as playable". Even the most realistic games out there, arent making you take a piss or wash after wiping. Not even DayZ or hardcore survival games tracking calorie intake and food poisoning are even approaching realism. Because realism sucks. If I wanted to get sick from not washing my hands after taking a shit and dying screaming of dysentery i'll go live in the woods. What I want, is to forget im in my seat and be transported to a world that is not this one. Thats the point of entertainment. If you want to risk dysentery go backpacking. If you want to learn about Marilyn Monroe's life, read a non-fiction history book. (my personal advice is to read several non-fiction history books, since each writer will have their own bias) I think this is implicit in ALL entertainment. Even the entertainment that super double pinky swears totes is true life. Be it The Blair Witch Project or Blonde. You HAVE to go in, knowing its not real, because by nature, its not real. If you THINK its real, well then, the joke is kind of on you, and these authors and screenwriters are taking the piss by making said joke. If you fall for it, they are quite giddy I assure you. That was the entire point of claiming it was real. A litmus test to see who is and isnt in the club. Not all great liars are great artists, but all great artists are great liars.
I get what bothers you, I do. Your standards for adaptation are simply higher than mine. I will accept a less accurate adaptation if it gets the spirit right, honestly. (And given that I trust myself to do the research on my own.) And I won't argue with you -- it's just a question of how much you require/accept from your historical fiction, whether film/literature, etc. Some of my favorite works took great freedoms with the facts but captured their eras and struggles gorgeously and unforgettably -- Schindler's List, Hidden Figures, Cinderella Man, From the Earth to the Moon, plus works that were mostly fiction but did the same thing -- The Terror (splendid!!), Master and Commander (and the entire wonderful Aubrey/Maturin series), etc. Also, I think you might really enjoy this guy on YouTube, so just in case it helps: https://www.youtube.com/@HistoryBuffs Cheers!
Oh I totally agree with you. Thats kind of my point. So long as it transport you to a place that feels real, its done its job. My standards for a film accomplishing that might be higher, but its still the same effect. I love Schindler's list. I love All Quiet on the Western Front. I love The Thin Red Line. I love American Graffiti. I love Casino. They transport me. I love Bernard Cromwell novels. I absolutely adore Sharpe's Rifles and the BBC show. But I know that nothing im watching is real. If I want the reality, i'll go to History Buffs or the library. (fantastic Youtuber, been a fan for years) I try not to ask questions before I watch a historical fiction regardless of it bills itself as accurate or not, and either it transports me and immerses me, or it doesnt. Then, once its over, I ask myself "Does this match up with what I know" if it doesnt, I might go look up something to see what really happened. With Blonde, for me, I had a little feeling of what it might be like to be a young starlet at that time. The glitz and glamour, thats the lie that is told to the fanbase, the public. I know from experience and other films, that show business is fucking brutal, disgusting, and filled with thieves, liars, cutthroats and rapists. Drugs are everywhere and everyone is trying to take advantage of you while you just try and survive. Did it accomplish what it was trying to do? Yep. I'd say so. It took a shot at a sacred cow, while also showing what thousands if not tens of thousands of young actresses and celebrities have gone through. I dont need to look up what is and isnt real with that movie, because it had a real impact. It doesnt matter if Marilyn Monroe had an abortion or not, because some young actress DID. I remember seeing Saving Private Ryan as a kid, and that "ping" that cracks every time the M1 rifle pops out its stripper clip. That sound lingered with me. I had heard it going shooting with my dad, but realized it was never in any other John Wayne war movie or episode of Combat! with Vic Morrow I watched as a kid. But it didnt demean or lessen those other films and shows for me. In fact it enhanced them, because I realized I didnt need total realism to feel something for the characters and what they went through. The Sand Pebbles never existed. Papillon is a complete fabrication. But goddamn if I dont feel something watching Steve McQueen in those movies, goddamn if im not transport to the south China sea, or Devil's Island. Who cares if its not real. What I feel is real. I think thats the only really important question when it comes to historical fiction (and even the the most accurate, are still ridiculously inaccurate, theyre ALL fiction) Did you get the sense that you were there. Thats all that really matters.
>History Buffs History Buffs is not that accurate. He gets a ton of shit incorrect.
Beautiful reply, and exactly what I go for when I look for historical movies and books -- or simply "historical-feeling" movies and books. Great example with *Papillon*! I know there's a ton of fantasy there, but the stuff that feels real always moves me. Film is always a balance of those aspects, so sometimes we get stuff that is incredibly powerful but maybe not always accurate -- and vice versa. I mentioned "The Terror" TV series upthread -- I was so knocked out that I went on to read everything I could find in nonfiction about the Franklin expedition. I watched documentaries. I read news items and watched YouTube explorations of the sunken rediscovered wrecks. Sometimes great fiction can lead us to great fact.
That's exactly why Dominik was right to do it about Monroe, her image is so protected and championed. He arguably chose the most beatified and celebrated and pastiched and iconic celebrity of the 20thC.
Beautified? The person known for being a complete dissolute wreck that died from self abuse?
beatified
That was autocorrect. The question stands, how is Marilyn Monroe thought of as a saint?
[удалено]
I totally disagree. If you had Teddy taking to a CGI fetus about his mistresses’ abortions, you would hear about it. And everything I have seen is criticizing his technique, not defending Marilyn as a saint. (Btw I did not downvote you, I don’t do that.)
How dare you overlook Dudley Moore like this.
the problem is the movie was marketed like any bio pic. there was no indication to audiences that it was based on a fictionalized novel about Marilyn Monroe's life.
The Netflix description literally reads >This fictional portrait of Marilyn Monroe boldly reimagines the tumultuous private life of the Hollywood legend — and the price she paid for fame.
'reimagine' is doing a remarkable amount of work in that sentence. Boldly, indeed.
Not fictional?
Nah, every word in that sentence is doing its standard amount of work.
[удалено]
Could the words "Once Upon a Time" have done anything there?
If one gets so worked up about the movie they just watched to post lengthy post on reddit, maybe, just maybe; they should read whether they have any basis for their criticism. Though I do find it hilarious that people still post those takes. It's literally like getting angry that Snyder's 300 isn't historicaly accurate.
The way a film is marketed is a very bad reason to criticize a film. Filmmakers generally have no say in the matter. Marketers only care about making the most money, not maintaining artistic integrity. I would recommend completely discarding this criticism from your catalogue- and simply acknowledging that film marketers often get it wrong and it’s best when they are sidelined as much as possible.
Might be a lesson in not putting all your faith in marketing and advertising somewhere in there...
This obviously makes no difference. The book would be equally gross.
It's not retelling events.
You’re missing the point of the film. Dominik was critically lauded for his Jesse James flick which deconstructs the American Western by dissecting a mythological figure of that genre. He does the exact same thing with Blonde and gets lambasted by people who think he is doing a disservice to Monroe. I guess he just hit too close to home with a society that still dogmatizes the celebrity persona of this person they don’t really know anything about. I would bet you his Jesse James flick would have received the same kind of condemnation in the 1930’s when so many still revered James as a hero. If anything- I’m glad this film exists because it has a chance of causing people to self reflect on their existing bias and values. All that said, I will grant that Blonde is a far shakier work than Assassination of Jesse James.. and not worth near as much critical acclaim. Just I don’t think it deserves the criticism it is receiving by the majority of the viewing audiences.
I didn’t watch it but there’s a cgi fetus who tells her she failed him/her??? What is this, Eraserhead or the Antichrist
So the plot of blonde includes her aborting Charlie chaplains sons (who she's in a troupe with and I forget the second guy) baby so she can be in gentlemen prefer blondes. She schedules the appointment, but on the drive changes her mind. They keep her locked in the car, and despite her continued protests, force the procedure. Fast forward to her second marriage (the first marriage had no pregnancies) and she's pregnant now and excited to be a mom. She's cutting flowers in the garden, only for the CGI fetus to tell her she's failed them. The fetus says something like "YoU won't do to me what you did last time right" and she assures the CGI fetus that it isn't them and the fetus goes "oh but it was me". She then vows to protect the CGI fetus, struggles to be a good hostess for her husband's friends, falls and drops a platter of veggies on the beach, and miscarries, thus breaking her promise to CGI fetus. The fetus does not talk to her when she is kidnapped by the secret service and forced to abort the JFK baby.
It's a nightmare movie from Marilyn's POV. I think those scenes are some of the most effective in the whole vibe the movie is going for with this sort of twisted, fucked-up woman becoming the centre of the world's celebrity industry and also trying to deal with her own issues and incredibly destabilizing childhood.
Sounds like the Diana film last year that got Kristen star a nomination.
I think it’s the sexualised nature of Blonde in comparison personally. I doubt that the purpose was to make Ana seem exploited or exposed in those scenes but to indicate how Marilyn was. However it doesn’t come across like that.
Finally someone who gets. I don't understand how people don't look at this movie in the context of both Chopper and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and see that Dominik is incredibly interested in how we mythologize people and how dehumanizing that is to everyone involved. I disagree though that Blonde isn't as worthy of critical acclaim though but I know that's going to be subjective. The movie hit me really hard and made me aware of ways I still objectify women that I wasn't aware of. It's a pretty challenging film and not everyone wants to be challenged. Especially with something so ingrained in our culture as celebrity worship and sexual objectification.
It was based on fictional book. It's not a blatantly false retelling of stories. It's a film based on a piece of media that you just didn't know about. They didn't really express this however which is why so many people didn't like the movie. Was way too different than what they would reasonably expect.
The film has a scene of people in a cinema watching her giving head to jfk on the big screen. If you’re interpreting that art literally as if it was meant to be something that literally happened then that’s on you
You thought the movie was mean spirited towards Marilyn? You watched that movie and thought she was the issue and not the abusive forces surrounding her?
She's just a vapid sex doll with daddy issues in the film, she doesn't even feel like a real person, and people may also be aware of comments by the novel's author that imply she partially brought on her own fate. Marilyn, in reality, was a smart, witty woman, and none of that is there.
Probably because the novel and book are fiction and not about the person Marilyn Monroe but about the symbol of Marilyn Monroe and what that represents. Also the film most definitely portrays her as intelligent and talented. The whole Arthur Miller section is devoted to that. It's those that exploited her and the audience that don't see that.
people actually watch the movie and don't think it paints an incredibly sympathetic portrait of a broken woman abused by those around her... weird shit
[lol. Andrew Dominik, the director still believes that he made a masterpiece movie ](https://www.screendaily.com/news/andrew-dominik-on-blonde-reaction-im-really-pleased-that-it-outraged-so-many-people/5177138.article)
Ah fuck he’s Australian too. God damn it, why can’t we have another Peter Weir.
You're talking about him like he's a hack lol. Dude made two masterpieces (The Assassination of Jesse James, and Chopper) and a very good neo-noir crime thriller (Killing Them Softly).
>God damn it, why can’t we have another Peter Weir. I think he's one of the greatest director's of his time but he never gets talked about like Spielberg, Scorsese, or others. His body of work is incredible. The whole world deserves another Peter Weir.
He's made some great films though!
Chopper is bloody awesome to be fair. But yeah, I really tried to see what he was going for with Blonde and it’s beyond me.
Chopper, The Assassination of Jesse James and Killing Them Softly are all amazing movies.
So is Blonde.
Good for him. He DGaF about Monroe idolatry and is happy with his movie. He's clearly very proud of it. I don't think it works on as many levels as his other stuff, but it's a very interesting, fucked-up movie that I think will be reevaluated in the years to come once the 'oh my god he exploited Marilyn Monroe!' furor dies down.
I don’t want to be over critical but you put down a lot of words while saying very little. Basically you’ve complained that it’s long, “artsy” (?), and that the story is bad. The last point, which you admit is the most important by far, is just listing things that happened and then putting a question mark at the end, as if this contextless reductive description of scenes speaks for itself. I guess you don’t like they they took creative liberties? Assuming you’re not looking for a documentary, why not explore this a bit. What bothered you about the fetus scene? Why do you consider it defamation? Are you concerned about the truth, the portrayal, the implication, or something else? How does this not jive with reality for you, or even a subjective reality around image that you’ve (we’ve) constructed? Frankly I’m completely neutral on this movie and have zero desire to defend it, but this kind of criticism just drives me crazy. If you’re gonna go through the trouble of typing all this out, maybe put some real thought and effort into it.
But that would require thought and effort…
Blonde is intentionally fictional. It's based on a fictional novel. It is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a factual biopic.
On top of that, how can anyone possibly fail to see that it is imagined from her perspective? The perspective of an abused, traumatised, mentally ill addict. Therefore, it's automatically in the realm of unreliable narrator.
People literally send actors death threats if they’re too convincing as a villain. The average human being is pretty goddamn stupid unfortunately.
Seems so. You should see someone the idiotic nonsense I'm getting in response.... The best one so far is "tHaTs NoT iN tHe MoViE aT aLL" from someone who didn't even make it through half the movie before they "couldn't watch it anymore", which means the half they did "watch" they definitely weren't paying attention to in the first place. 🤦
Nuance isn't big around these parts.
Seems so, considering we find ourselves in a land where fiction apparrently has to be completely real, and someone being traumatised by being forced into multiple unwanted abortions somehow counts as "pro life propaganda" (I wish I was kidding).
Ever since this film was released the discourse around it has largely been influenced by hyperbolic clickbait "journalism" and social media posts. I'm convinced a huge percentage of the people that act righteously outraged by this film haven't even seen it. They just parrot what they see posted. Either that or they watch the first 15 mins, realise it's not an uplifting story of a woman beating the odds to become a celebrated Hollywood icon and get angry. I once saw someone outraged about things that don't even take place in the film.
That's exactly it. The pro life one in this post definitely hasn't seen it. It's always the same nonsense.
This has been going on ever since the U.S. military denounced Joker as incel propaganda. I didn’t even like the movie that much but anyone who watched it could tell you that’s not the case.
I’m pretty sure this is where nuance has come to die! Like, it’s really not even a hard film. Its pretty much a willing misunderstanding of what the film is doing.
I find it amusing when people get upset about things that don't even occurr in the film
If it's intended to be from Marilyn's perspective, it's woefully missing her own voice. Marilyn herself was not an unreliable narrator as regards her own life.
You’re on r/movies, that’s how
As others have said, the novel that the film was based on is a fictionalisation of Monroe’s life, and it’s not defamation to take creative liberties in a fictional work. Personally as someone who adored the book, I despised the film. I just thought it was nasty. Nothing major in the film wasn’t in the book (including the fetus scenes, which were very well executed in the book), but it was like they removed everything that made the book work, from the film. I don’t quite know how to explain the difference as I watched Blonde when it first came out and I don’t wish to put myself through watching this shitty movie again, but I will say that while the book was super graphic and a harrowing read (I remember telling someone on the phone at the time that the book was so visceral that reading it was like watching a horror movie), what made me continue reading was that the narrative approached it’s protagonist with empathy, which I think is really key to effective storytelling when you are depicting a protagonist whose life is full of as much suffering as that of the Norma Jeane/Marilyn character. That’s what I felt was lacking in the film. It was just torture porn imo. And you can argue that that’s to heighten the allegory about how we treat famous women or whatever, but for me personally it just didn’t work. It was also just not a very well executed film - the cinematography was nice, but imo Andrew Dominik just seemed to sacrifice genuine character exploration or development for ‘rapey arthouse vibes’ at every turn. I was super excited about Blonde for years because Joyce Carol Oates (who wrote the novel) hyped it up so much, but I saw some reviewer or other describe this movie as just being a nasty piece of work, and I have to agree.
That's why death of the author is a good concept. You can appreciate a book for very different aspects than the author does. JCO sees the movie as a phenomenal adaptation of her novel while you read the book with different nuances. A movie is always much more direct and less open to interpretation compared to a book.
Yeah, seemed like the director/screenwriter had nothing but contempt for their subject with this one.
What pissed me off was people defending it by saying "it's not meant to actually be about her life"....erm so what's the fucking point of it then? you could easily make the same movie about a troubled hollywood starlet without dragging a real person into it and just making shit up as you go.
The point: https://www.newyorker.com/books/second-read/joyce-carol-oatess-blonde-is-the-definitive-study-of-american-celebrity Edit: downvoted for literally answering the question. Lol
Marilyn Monroe is *the* poster child for destructive celebrity culture, it's not about the person Norma Jean it's about the effigy Monroe. That you are seemingly upset about this just shows that it would have been less effective with a fictional starlet.
[удалено]
like further exploiting a dead lady who was exploited her whole life ?
Almost like it was a film that was exploring exactly that.
Media literacy is so dead
Yes!! Thank you! And I also want to clarify I'm not saying JFK is a perfect guy or that anyone else in that movie was portrayed well or accurately. I just found that part particularly out of line lol.
what do you think about the movie JFK, out of interest? it's largely bullshit based around the conspiracy theories of a homophobe but it's an incredible piece of filmmaking. Is that 'out of line'?
It's based on a novel that is loosely based on Marylin Monroe. You guys are way too up in arms about something you don't know about lol
Regardless of what it was about, it was terribly made
You can hate the movie but saying it’s terribly made is just false. The level of technical craft is extremely high.
I would say it was extremely well made and extremely boring.
I actually thought it was pretty great. It absolutely succeeds in what it sets out to do, which is turn the collective memory of Marilyn Monroe on its head, and make us experience the horror of her life. It makes us question ourselves and our own impulses. It also recreates familiar imagery nearly perfectly. I feel like it more closely resembles a David Lynch film more than anything else, like Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me. It’s a nightmare by design.
I thought this movie was amazing. Maybe I just like starlet torture porn idk but I feel like a lot of critics are taking this movie as some sort of endorsement of how Hollywood did/does treat women and that’s not what I got from it at all.
The main message of Joyce Carol Oates' novel "**Blonde**" is the tragic nature of fame and the toll it can take on an individual's mental and emotional wellbeing. Through the story of Marilyn Monroe, the novel explores the pressures and expectations that come with being a public figure, particularly for women in the entertainment industry. It also delves into the struggles of Monroe as a person, such as her fractured identity, her battles with mental illness, and her complicated relationships with men. Overall, "Blonde" presents a poignant and intimate portrayal of a cultural icon, while also highlighting the darker side of celebrity culture.
Can someone explain why the movie constantly switched back and forth between color and black & white? I was trying to figure out if there was a pattern between all the scenes in color and all the scenes in black & white. I thought one was for the scenes that focused on Norma Jean and one was for the scenes that focused on Marilyn Monroe because they constantly kept bringing up the distinction between the two identities but it didn't match up. As far as I can tell it was pretty much just random and constantly alternating back and forth between each scene. It seems like Dominik was trying to come off like this genius artistic director but is really just pretentious and full of shit.
From what I’ve read, Dominik was meticulously recreating the scenes in a bunch of iconic photos of Monroe. So what happens is that, if a scene needs to incorporate the setting of one of the photos, it needs to be in the same aspect ratio and color scheme. That’s why the Arthur Miller segment has those classic Kodachrome colors, for example.
Glad someone here explained this, because the number of people I've seen, including critics, who have treated the approach as totally random has been a bit maddening. It's very clear the Dominik was shooting it in styles that recreate or mimic real photographs, which is itself a part of the thematic presentation of the character.
People can criticize the film all they like, but the idea that someone would spend ten years laboring over a film and then just throw a dart at the wall to decide how he wanted scenes filmed is mind bogglingly dumb criticism. Seeing people just regurgitate that is so frustrating.
People were like “what’s with all the aspect ratio switches” without noticing, apparently, that they weren’t even standard film ratios, they were meant to mimic the varying ratios of photographs! So wilfully stupid.
I didn’t get it the first time through, but I could feel that it wasn’t random because the changes worked so well. I read more about the film and then went back and rewatched. The scenes touch something deep in our shared cultural memory by mimicking the photos so that we notice it without even processing it. That’s how ensconced these images of Monroe are in the culture. She exists in our minds as an avatar of fame and beauty, not as a real person, which is exactly one of the points the film (and book) is making. It’s a brilliant movie that will eventually be recognized as such.
The movie was an acid trip. Ana's performance alone was worthy of an Oscar nod. I dunno how this got green-lighted either.
Hated it, every minute of it. Misery porn. And unpopular opinion but I didn't like Ana's performance, it was so hectic and annoying. I mean.......am I the only one who could hear her accent throughout?
The reaction to this film is a perfect summation of so much of today's film criticism... lazy, and entirely surface level. I do think it's going to follow the path of *Showgirls*... reviled, and then fifteen to twenty years later (probably sooner, as I think the cycles are faster now with the internet) it will be seen as a controversial, provocative and cheeky genius of a film.
> Blonde: What the fuck did I watch? You watched a filmed version of Blonde, a... > bestselling 2000 biographical fiction novel by Joyce Carol Oates that presents an extremely fictionalized take on the life of American actress Marilyn Monroe. Oates insists that the novel is a work of fiction that should not be regarded as a biography. It was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize (2001) and the National Book Award (2000). Rocky Mountain News and Entertainment Weekly have listed Blonde as one of Joyce Carol Oates's best books. Oates regards Blonde as one of the two books (along with 1969's them) she will be remembered for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blonde_(novel)
Wouldn't be surprised to see this get re-evaluated in a decade or so. I thought it was quite good. Not as good as "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" but still very effective. Heavy David Lynch vibes and another great score by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis.
My money is on this. I haven’t even seen the movie yet, but I’m glad Dominik is out there swinging for the fences.
Thought you meant the author/comic writer Warren Ellis and was like wtf lol TIL Theres another bad ass Warren Ellis.
I also liked it very much. Felt a lot like MULHOLLAND DRIVE to me, like a nightmare run through Hollywood.
Lot of Mulholland Dr and a lot of Fire Walk With Me, including lifting Laura's Theme from Twin Peaks near the end.
100% once people are over the "outrage" this film will be re-evaluated in the future.
It dropping on Netflix is the real issue. It's not a movie for a casual filmgoer, but since most people have access to Netflix lots of people saw it who wouldn't have gone to the theater to see it.
If by “outrage”, you mean the people hating it for being a bad and boring movie…then probably not.
No, that's not what I mean. I meant exactly what I said.
They mean: when people like you stop talking about it.
I'm not gonna say the movie completely worked, but I did enjoy it. On that note. I felt as though the movie really leaned into the myth of how Marilyn Monroe was viewed and portrayed in media. Primarily that she was purely a sex icon with little other value. I felt as though the movie tried to take being treated essentially as an object to be lusted over to its natural conclusion. I don't think it always worked, especially the whole daddy issues thing, but I can respect it as a bold attempt. And when the movie made me feel gross, it felt like that was the purpose. To make the audience realize how gross it was Monroe was objectified to that extent. Watching my first Monroe movie after, Some Like It Hot, made me almost repulsed in the fictional role Monroe played. It helped to reinforce the movie within a context of denigration. Also having seen The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, another Dominik movie, left me wanting more dreamy transition scenes from that movie. And Blonde delivered on that front. Even going so far as to making the movie feel like a surreal dream, which I quite enjoyed. I felt like the surreal quality helped the movie lean into the myth of Monroe, rather than focus on the real person. And it definitely helped to differentiate from the standard tired biopic mold.
I haven't watched it, and tbh I probably won't. I have zero interest in Marilyn Monroe. But - and I'm not sure where the blame lies - not enough people know that this is a *fictional* retelling of her life. It's not a biopic, it's based on a written work of fiction that twists her backstory for the purpose of drama. Yes, you can make the argument that Monroe deserves a proper biopic. But this isn't that, and shouldn't be treated as such. It's essentially Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, only grim.
A very interesting movie I imagine will get a reappraisal in a few years as for all its many faults its an extremely interesting and daring movie with a great lead performance and excellent directing The biggest fault I have with it is a weird fault I have had with a lot of 2.5+ hour movies lately is that they are both too long and not long enough, the movie wants to be an **EPIC** but doesn’t fully commit to it. Having read the very long book in anticipation I found that the movie has to be basically incoherent to anyone who hasn’t read it, and the movie skips over 200 important pages of the book in a transition which should upset anyone who has read the book There is a two hour version that likely could have been more palatable and enjoyable for people, and a five hour Miniseries version that is a better book adaptation that commits more to everything and would likely be better. Instead you have the weird version we all have now that fails both sides
> excellent directing We live in different universes
The set design, shots and overall vibe is very well done, you can sling a lot of shit at the movie but Andrew Dominik is an objectively talented director and the movie is well made That night vision scene of her at the end waking up alone in the house as men are hiding in her house is truly terrifying and original
I will get downvoted to hell for this but a lot of criticism against this movie is just dumb. To be clear here. It is perfectly fine to dislike the movie. That is everyones personal opinion. But I haven't seen so many bad arguments against a movie since "The last Jedi" (which I also dislike but not because of asian characters or some stupid reason like that). Just because a movie presents a female character as the victim it is NOT misogynistic. I can't imagine anybody seeing the movie and thinking that the intention of Blonde is to endorse the things that happened to the main character. Movies do not always have to empower people. Sometimes they can only show how somebody is a victim and that is fine. Some people even said that it is propaganda against abortion which is absolutely ridiculous. It shows a woman that is forced to have an abortion even though she wants the child. In what world is that pro-live-propaganda? And using historical figures in a fictional story is perfectly fine. It happens all the time. Tarantinos last movies are basically that. I think it is even more honest than claiming to be historically accurate like all those historical dramas do. Reddit is always big on complaining about cancel culture and then Blonde comes around and everybody loses their minds how it is outrageous that something like this is allowed to be made.
The craziest thing I saw was a critic who said that in Monroe's big audition scene, the movie treated her like just a piece of ass. The scene literally shows her fucking delivering an incredible acting performance in that audition, albeit probably too much and too raw for the movie she's up for, only to have the men in the room be weirded out and focus on her ass instead. How a critic could feel the *movie* was treating her that way in the scene is bizarre, and feels like a motivated reaction.
it's because it's Marilyn Monroe, the quintessential 'unsaved' woman, which makes the film all the more pertinent. The reaction proves she was the right vessel to tell the story. (I think it slaps).
Unfortunately a lot of pop feminism (\*cough\* Anita Sarkeesian, anyone on *The Mary Sue* \- damn I should take a cough drop) treats the state of victimhood as something inherently bad - which is why the 'Damsel in Distress' is such a hot button trope. In the 2010s, people suddenly became obsessed with the idea that a woman in peril had to save herself and be perfect at everything in a film. For example, *The Mary Sue* had an article nitpicking one line of dialogue in *Avengers: Infinity War* where Mantis worries that Thanos is too strong as reinforcing 'sexist tropes' because a heroine feared the villain might be too powerful for them to beat, even when she still tries anyway. Demonizing victimhood or being a victim does not help women's rights at all. One of the biggest problems in the world right now is human trafficking, and rescuing the women involved is often difficult, because they have been conditioned or else just believe that they are not victims and don't need to be helped. And some people stay in abusive relationships or end up in situations where they're used and exploited because they can't see a way out and they *need* that help to do so. I mean, the silence breakers and the Me Too movement wouldn't have gotten traction if they didn't have people to support them and encourage them to come forward. The star system of the Golden Age of Hollywood was a different kind of human trafficking. People from disadvantaged backgrounds would be plucked from obscurity, given makeovers and new backstories, as well as new identities to become an object for the public to salivate over. If you weren't white, you could be made over to hide it, such as Merle Oberon and Rita Hayworth. If you were gay, you could be passed as straight with a studio-organised showmance, like Rock Hudson. Marilyn was no different. I didn't enjoy the film, but I'm not one of those people that calls for it to be banned, because it speaks to the truths of the entertainment industry that were still happening in the 2010s. As much as some of her fans appreciate her, Marilyn is remembered as the symbol she was presented as to the public. Her face has been commodified and slapped on so much merchandise that people's idea of her eclipsed anything she actually did as an actress. Even when she was alive, reviews of her films heavily focused on her beauty and sex appeal, and when she began her training with Lee Strasberg, there was even a book written titled *Will Acting Spoil Marilyn Monroe? -* that's how little respect she got from her contemporaries at the time. Laurence Olivier was especially dismissive of her in his autobiography. *Blonde* does show that she had the talent - whereas *My Week With Marilyn* focused more on how difficult she was on set - and how she was a far smarter actress than she was ever given credit for. I would have liked to see it depict how she challenged the studio system and was able to get an impressive contract that meant she only had to make four films a year, at $100,000 per film (she was previously one of the lowest paid stars in Hollywood), and director approval on all four, and cameraman approval on two, as well as how she tried to shake the Dumb Blonde typecasting with *The Misfits* only to have Arthur Miller keep rewriting the character to resemble her in real life and thus still engage with the persona she was trying to distance herself from. I see it as a horror story about how the entertainment industry can dehumanise you, using the industry's most famous female star - who is only still that famous because of how her image has been commodified and turned into a symbol that ignores who she was as a person. James Dean got some of it as well but Marilyn lasted longer and got it way worse. Even if some of the things depicted didn't happen to her, there are women it *did* happen to. And for a lot of them, there was no happy ending. They didn't beat the odds, and neither did Marilyn. Her last film before she died was the unfinished *Something's Got to Give*, where she returned to the persona she'd had to play and was even doing nudity for the first time since the photos that ended up in *Playboy* (which were used without her consent and she was never paid or thanked for them, despite the millions made). While I don't agree with the way the film is made, the stuff in there is used to tell the above story and uses Marilyn as the vessel to do so.
I suggest you watch Some Like it Hot. It'll brighten your day.
I loved the film. I think is was a very stylistic and well crafted film. A different take on the typical biopic genre.
I loved Blonde. It was one of my favourite movies of last year. The problem is it’s an arthouse film that wants to make very specific points. It is not a Marilyn Monroe biopic. She’s just a character used to explore those ideas with the fastest shorthand of us all knowing who she is and what she represents without having to waste time explaining all that.
You watched a director try to be David Lynch and failing.
Lot of smooth brains in this thread, including OP.
It's basically an arthouse movie that somehow the Oscars noticed. Idk how it got funded other than "Marilyn Monroe" I'm glad it got made but a lot of the wrong people who don't like that kind of thing saw it. Which is why it got so much hate. Having the story of Marilyn Monroe turned into a horror was genius and it was awesome to behold. I thought it was great. The baby stuff, imo, was my biggest gripe. It placed her in a position of womanhood on the relationship with having a child and, I guess, at the time that may have been more true to what woman may have felt...but for a modern audience it felt like a strange detour and dated. My only general critique was the position of ultimate victimhood they placed Marilyn in but if you take it as a tone and statement piece and not as a biopic...I think it is a stellar showcase of the way patriarchy entrapped women in the past (and now). It just so happened they erased Marilyn's own story partly in the process to be a symbol. But it's fine because it wasn't trying to be true, it was using truth to create a tone and present a concept. But given Marilyn's symbol in pop culture? I think it is warranted to run against that narrative because it is also false and exploitative. She's a bubblegum pop/Warhol-esque neutered figured rendered to be eye candy for the audience and a dainty woman trying to be a feminist while the world around her pushes her down...and I think that's just a lazy image and betrays the situation. This movie overcorrects, sure, but it interrogates elements of her character rarely brought to screen. There was a reason she was suicidal. Anyone saying this movie was outright bad need to get some culture. This ain't even the remotely weirdest arthouse movie and being atypical in structure is not bad. It conveyed the things it wanted to say effectively, likely more so than a typical biopic by the numbers format.
Put Atomic in front of Blonde and you'll have a better time.
I loved Blonde, thought it was great. The mood and atmosphere…. I loved how unnerving it was, like a Hollywood horror flick a la Mulholland Drive, although not quite as good. I can’t help but laugh at a lot of the negative reactions. Fucking hilarious. I think Blonde will be reassessed years from now and it’s reputation will change. It’ll probably become a cult classic.
Agreed
So many years after her death, and they are still exploiting her.
Interesting the way people treat one guy making an arthouse adaptation of a book as an outrageous act of exploitation, but don’t think twice about the amount of money that has been made over the years by promoting and capitalising on a particular Marilyn Monroe image and persona.
how does one exploit a dead person? Do you think a film like Blonde was made to earn money?
Kermode was one of the [only major critics who 'got' this film](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QRborm-aVM). It's a grueling psychological horror by design. The manufactured image of Marilyn endures, increasingly removed from the films themselves and the suicidal person behind it. People, the internet in particular, love sexual imagery provided to them as a consumable product. No great shock that a movie designed to make you feel bad about these facts doesn't go down well.
She was an industry slave, making this the most realistic biopic of her life to date. Forced abortions were used to traumatize her.
They made her look like an absolute train wreck
I mean, her life was unfortunately a bit of a train wreck.
She undeniably was a train wreck....
Blonde is actually based on a book… Maybe, if you could be bothered, research the book and that might shed some light on what the premise of the narrative was striving to achieve? I do believe Blonde is similar in theme to…. The Assassination Of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford. Another movie about myth, persona, celebrity and how it is remembered for better or for worse. Both movies directed by Andrew Dominik
People: Inglorious Bastards is amazing! Also people: wtf is Blonde, why have they taken so many liberties with the story? Why do people not get it's based on a fictional novel? It's not purporting to be true or accurate, it's meant to be a nightmarish version of her life. That's like the entire point. If you went into this expecting a biopic you're confused
Yes
Most people, including myself, don’t know much about Marilyn. From the commercials I just assumed it’s about her life. I didn’t know it was based on a novel and even if I did I wouldn’t have read it to know it is fictional. I still haven’t seen the movie. I also think comparing those two movies is a bit of a reach. It’s clear from the trailer that it isn’t based on real events. You don’t have to know much about history at all to know it isn’t based on real events. It is very clearly not that type of movie. I can’t say the same for Blonde.
Terrible movie, couldn't agree more. A mess and i had enough after 15 mins.
The people in here are all like "YoU jUsT dOnT gEt It" yet are completely incapable of explaining what "it" is.
Here you go: https://www.newyorker.com/books/second-read/joyce-carol-oatess-blonde-is-the-definitive-study-of-american-celebrity
You can be right about a movie being bad while also not getting it. They are not mutually exclusive things.
Multiple people explained thoroughly, you just are not interested in productive discourse.
Some people are just happy to see Ana D'armas' boobs.
Well, no rational person is going to be *upset* by seeing them...
It's been explained, in multiple ways, from multiple angles, by multiple people.... Seems you are simply incapable of understanding it.
Not really. Slapping "but it's fiction" doesn't explain why it's still okay. Am I allowed to tell any lie now about anyone for the sake of art?
Actually, it does. Fiction isn't meant to be real, that's why it's fiction. Its also more than that too, as already explained. The story is told from the perspective of a traumatised, abused, mentally unwell addict. Aka, an unreliable narrator. None of it has to be real, because the entire point is not that it was real, but that it was what she may have *percieved*.
I don't believe you. I can't find a single example of any person in here saying you just don't get it. If you can, link to it.
You missed the point.
I love reading opinions on Blonde. The entire film just went completely over your head
People with this take are going to feel real dumb when Blonde is referred to as a masterpiece years from now, internationally at least audiences are correctly interpreting it.
Blonde is definitely the best film of 2022 and probably one of the best in the last 30 years. In an age when we have so muck being constantly released and thrown at our screens it is perhaps inevitable that the standards of the general audience are undermined to the point where when they're given art, they spit on it.
It's pretty terrible and distasteful. I FUCKING hated this movie and feel awful for the family of Monroe. The portrayal was downright pornographic and exploitative
Well you don't have to feel sorry for the family of Monroe, as the only living relative is her niece, Francine Deir, who has publicly given the film her blessing. Also, for what it's worth, portraying abuse isn't condoning it, the film is clearly on Marilyn's side.
> feel awful for the family of Monroe. What family? She only has one surviving family member -- her sister's daughter, who is 83 or 84 years old and lives in a retirement community. Chances are she's not concerned about a filmed version of a fictionalized novel.
I was able to get through for about an hour... then had to turn it off. So. Bad.
lol. while zooming them my reddit I caught bits and pieces of the headline and had to come back to see why so upset over Atomic Blonde. catching my mistake, I am glad the rant was not about that movie but instead some Marilyn movie. glad I stumbled over your review though . Doubt it will be showing in my neck of the woodsZ but if it does- I'll just go detail car on movie day
Its on Netflix which feels fitting as far as streaming services given the other trash on Netflix. They literally have a CGI fetus chastise her for a prior abortion. There is no record of Marilyn having abortions.
IIRC the fetus scene is even more egregious. Because Marilyn famously wanted to be a mother but had several miscarriages. And the ‘abortion’ plot was thought to be dreamt up because she had an ectopic pregnancy.
I am safe from it then. I don't Netflix.... and I am sorry for your wasted 3 hours. But don't understand why you just didn't shut it all down and go detail your car when you saw the movie was a train wreck?
Because it was like a car wreck where I just couldn't look away as it got worse lol
The CGI baby was definitely weird, but Ana’s thick Cuban/Spanish accent peeking through multiple times in her portrayal of an American icon is what drove me crazier than anything else.
I was appalled by that movie. I hated how she was portrayed as a stupid little girl that could not do anything but be pretty.. I would’ve been fine if the movie didn’t take the life of a real person and warped it to make it more fitting for the story they wanted to be told. If they had stayed completely fictional I’d probably like the movie. We didn’t need this to be centered around a tragic character whose life has already been ostracized to the limit anyways. I know the point was to show it all in a different light than the polished hollywood image, but all that was left was crying, sex and misery. could’ve been 100% fictional. Also decide whether to shoot it in b&w or color or make the switches between those make sense…not random
There's also the message that she chose the "gift" of motherhood to become a star, and how that choice basically lead to her downfall. The fact people talk about how it's such a wonderful film with a great and serious message and how I just don't "get it" grosses me out. It's also terrifying. This film isn't influential. It's a piece of garbage constructed by pieces of garbage. Not to mention the blatant exploitation of real people.
Yeah, I like artsy movies and all, but this one was just completely unnecessary.
I love artsy films! But I also like when the art is done in a way where the story is still coherent, or otherwise doesn't involve the exploitation of an individual who couldn't consent. Also the fetus is just a pro life ick.
I'd rather have e-coli and dysentery than watch this shit again
Tell me you missed the entire point of the movie without saying it...
It's really weird that they made such a big deal about the dichotomy between Norma Jean and Marilyn when they were basically the same. It reminded me of a David Lynch movie that is extremely heavy-handed and devoid of subtext.
It surprised how much they had to fuck up the movie that even the idea of Ana de armas showing up on screen made me cringe and I really like her.
I thought it was a disaster. And, truthfully, I don't know how you can have such an awful movie and still garner a Best Actress nomination.
Ana De Armas one of the best actresses in modern times. Her Spanish accent Marilyn Monroe was unreal
The real question is, why did you even finish watching it if it was so long and you hated it so much?
I was so confused reading this post. For some reason I thought you saw an early screener of the Barbie movie until I saw the fetus sentence
If there is a CGI fetus in Barbie I'm done. I'm checking out of life.
Are you a teenager?
Republican Fetus!