Thoughts and Ramblings on the Weekend
Jan. 26th, 2004 12:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatHad a lovely, if somewhat frigid, outting Saturday with my friend J. We met at Inakas, a local Japanese restaurant, wandered to B&N, sampled the magazines, then off to see the movie Monster at the
Pavillion. The Pavillion or as I refer to it in my head the lavender palace, has lavender velvet seats. I kid you not, the seats are actually upholstered in rose lavender.
Prior to seeing MONSTER, I'd read a review on it in Premiere Magazine, Premiere did not like the movie. The reviewer described the depiction of Aileen Wuornous, the anti-hero of the flick, as being a tad on the valorous side. Interesting.
Did I agree? Not completely. Unlike the reviewer, I realized that the director/writer, Patty Jenkins, had made the decision to show the story completely through the eyes of Aileen Wuornuos and partly through the point of view of her lesbian lover, Shelby. As a result, Wuornous is bound to come across a tad more valorous than she would if we were looking at her from a more indivisible perspective. Lets face it, the villain does *not* see themselves as the villian, they see themselves as the hero. (Wholeheartedly agree with Whedon's view on this - as stated in commentary on Firefly.) That said? Neither J nor I liked the movie very much.
Monster - is the story of Aileen Wuornos and her lesbian lover, Shelby, told mostly from Aileen's point of view. Aileen Wuornos is famous for being the first "female" serial killer executed by the state of Florida in over 30 years. Possibly ever. (Not completely certain of that.) She killed over 10 men before she was caught. Actually I think it was close to 20, but not completely certain. The depiction of her in Premiere reminds me a bit of ME's depiction of Darla in Angel the Series, before Darla became a vampire. A prostitute abused by johns who hates humanity and sees no hope. Filled with rage and despair. Wuornous in a nutshell.
The difficulty J and I had with the film, was we felt so detached from it. To the degree that we noticed our legs were freezing. Compare this to our enjoyment of the Jim Sheridan film, In America, the week before - where we were so caught up in the characters stories we barely noticed the time pass us by. (Not that In America doesn't have it's flaws, but it seemed somehow more gripping.)
Part of the problem may be in how the director chooses to "lay the pipe" or "build up to the emotional crux of the tale." I watched the old movie Shop Around The Corner on TCM last night, directed and produced by Ernst Lubvich in the 1940s, Lubvich had the ability to build up to an emotional moment without the audience noticing it.
Everything felt natural. You never felt the time go by. You don't feel manipulated. Not sure if Jenkins accomplishes it with Wuornous tale. Granted she has a tougher job than Lubvich had, her lead is an anti-hero rather than hero and the story builds to a negative emotional climax as opposed to a positive one. That said? I should have felt Aileen (Lee's) pain more. I neither hated her or liked her. Nor did I feel much one way or another for her victims, mostly middle-aged white men picking up a prostitute off the side of the highway for a quick fuck.
Theron approachs the role on Aileen in an interesting way, similar to how Deniro may have approached the role of Raging Bull in the 70's, through its physicality. Theron literally alters her physical appearance for the role. Gaining weight. Possibly wearing prosethetics. Shaving off her eyebrows. Blotching her skin. Dirting her hair. Rendering herself as unattractive as possible. She also exaggerates certain mannerisms - J, in particular, noticed how she kept thrusting back her shoulders and swaggering her hips when she was being cocky or flirtatious. Ducking her head, hiding behind her hair and curving herself innward when depressed or insecure. While the performance and physical alterations were impressive and certainly brave, they lacked an emotional resonance or reality. I still felt the actress underneath, performing. James Marsters, Spike on ATS, stated in an interview once that in film you really have to inhabit a character fully, because the camera will pick up anything that is fake or put on, acted. Noting that as brilliant an "actor" Laurence Olivier was, you watched him "act" on film as opposed to watching a character brought vividly to life. You could see on the screen where Olivier began and the character ended. You could not see it nearly as well in the performances of Dustin Hoffman or Denioro who painfully inhabited their characters, creating them from inside out as opposed to the outside in. I think in a way this may be the difference between Theron's performance and Denioro's in Raging Bull or Hilary Swank's in Boys Don't Cry. The rawness of the emotion feels less real, and as a result distances the audience. How much of that is really the director's fault, I'm not sure. I had the same problem with Christina Ricci's performance as Shelby, whose acting style is the opposite of Theron's, instead of using physical mannerisms, Ricci seems to hunt for the characters mental and emotional state and radiate that, you feel her becoming lost in the character.
Unfortunately she doesn't seem to become lost in Wuornous. The chemistry between the two actresses, just is not present. Both J and I either felt detached or squicked by the romantic scenes between Shelby and Aileen.
OTOH - I found the way Jenkins explored Wuornous path towards becoming a Monster, interesting. If a little obvious in places - you felt the laying of the pipe. Wournos story depicts two things pretty well -1) it's not one act that turns a human being into something monsterous and ugly, but a series of acts over a lengthy period of time. Aileen W. did not become a serial killer overnight, it was a gradual process. How much of it was due to Shelby or her own past is uncertain. In the film, you get the feeling that Aileen is hunting ways to justify actions that have been building inside her for quite some time, I'm uncertain whether she may have gone down the road she does even if Shelby never entered the picture. Shelby certainly seems to enable her actions, even to a degree support and push for them - possibly because they provide Shelby with things she wants - transportation, food, a means of escaping her constricting family. Shelby, Aileen insists knew what Aileen was up to, but turns a blind eye, pretending it's not happening until it literally blows up in her face and she finds herself implicated in the crimes. 2)we do have a tendency to create our own monsters.
Aileen does at different points in time seek help or different means of making money. Unfortunately she is so self-involved and wrapped within the cocoon of her own pain - she can't hear or see anything that doesn't fit within her own desires. When she searches for a job, she doesn't apply to bars, restaurants, or warehouses, instead she applies for jobs that require educational background and resumes. Instead of taking courses or even seeking assistance with an unemployment counselor, she screams at the world for not being willing to accept her on her terms. As a result, in Aileen's head, she's an avenging angel, and her victims - rapists and slugs that deserve to be killed. It's not until she finds herself shooting a kind stranger who wanted to actually assist her, that she begins to see the holes in her delusion and fully self-destructs. The real-world begins to break through the world she's created in her own head. Jenkins seems to be stating that what made Aileen monsterous was Aileen's complete isolation and disconnectedness with the people around her.
Even though she has a relationship with Shelby, it appears to be a narcissitic one - where both women are constantly stroking the other's ego - holding up complimentary mirrors. With Aileen, Shelby finds herself cut off from everyone and isolated, yet remains with Aileen b/c Aileen builds her self-esteem makes her feel special - not alone.
With Shelby, Aileen finds someone to bask in, someone who constantly tells her that she's okay.
Their relationship is somewhat painful in the sense that you feel neither character really sees or understands the other one, all they appear to see is the reflection of themself or what they want to be.
Interesting movie. Haunting in places, yet distancing in others.
After the flick, we wandered off to discuss at the local Two Boots, for pizza and hot cider (spiked with Grand Marinia (sp?). No we did not have peanut butter pie - too rich.
Then the subway ride home. Which normally only takes 15 minutes and is nothing to write about.
Sat night? Heh. Took an hour and 1/2. I had to go around robin hood's barn basically to get home.
What happened was the F train got stalled on the elevated track - and was eventually put out of service due to brake failure. They let us sit there for 30 minutes in the freezing cold with the doors open before they told us. Nasty train supervisors. Since they couldn't move the train, this meant we couldn't take the F from that station. The only trains we could take at that point were the M, N, or W - none of which connected with the F train or any trains that went any where near my home until they hit Manhattan. I was in Brooklyn, a good 45 minutes away from Manhattan. If the temperature had been higher than oh 9 degrees Farenheit and it wasn't 11 pm at night, I'd have walked it. Since my home was oh 20-30 minutes away by foot. But it was 9 degrees. And I wasn't clear enough on where I was to risk getting lost. So off I go to take the M or W trains. A kind passenger gives me his subway map so I can chart my alternative course. (The MTA or train personnel? Not very helpful.) I hop on a W and after about an hour arrive at 34th St. Station in Manhattan, wait for ten minutes for an F then go back to Brooklyn, 30 minutes later - home. Gotta love public transportation. ;-) Oh well, the outting with J was worth it. So can't complain too much.
Oh, one more thing - there's a great essay by superplin on BTVS S7 over at http://teaattheford.net/viewpost.php?id=12944, it actually made me appreciate Storyteller, my least favorite episode of the series. It's about the power of words.
Pavillion. The Pavillion or as I refer to it in my head the lavender palace, has lavender velvet seats. I kid you not, the seats are actually upholstered in rose lavender.
Prior to seeing MONSTER, I'd read a review on it in Premiere Magazine, Premiere did not like the movie. The reviewer described the depiction of Aileen Wuornous, the anti-hero of the flick, as being a tad on the valorous side. Interesting.
Did I agree? Not completely. Unlike the reviewer, I realized that the director/writer, Patty Jenkins, had made the decision to show the story completely through the eyes of Aileen Wuornuos and partly through the point of view of her lesbian lover, Shelby. As a result, Wuornous is bound to come across a tad more valorous than she would if we were looking at her from a more indivisible perspective. Lets face it, the villain does *not* see themselves as the villian, they see themselves as the hero. (Wholeheartedly agree with Whedon's view on this - as stated in commentary on Firefly.) That said? Neither J nor I liked the movie very much.
Monster - is the story of Aileen Wuornos and her lesbian lover, Shelby, told mostly from Aileen's point of view. Aileen Wuornos is famous for being the first "female" serial killer executed by the state of Florida in over 30 years. Possibly ever. (Not completely certain of that.) She killed over 10 men before she was caught. Actually I think it was close to 20, but not completely certain. The depiction of her in Premiere reminds me a bit of ME's depiction of Darla in Angel the Series, before Darla became a vampire. A prostitute abused by johns who hates humanity and sees no hope. Filled with rage and despair. Wuornous in a nutshell.
The difficulty J and I had with the film, was we felt so detached from it. To the degree that we noticed our legs were freezing. Compare this to our enjoyment of the Jim Sheridan film, In America, the week before - where we were so caught up in the characters stories we barely noticed the time pass us by. (Not that In America doesn't have it's flaws, but it seemed somehow more gripping.)
Part of the problem may be in how the director chooses to "lay the pipe" or "build up to the emotional crux of the tale." I watched the old movie Shop Around The Corner on TCM last night, directed and produced by Ernst Lubvich in the 1940s, Lubvich had the ability to build up to an emotional moment without the audience noticing it.
Everything felt natural. You never felt the time go by. You don't feel manipulated. Not sure if Jenkins accomplishes it with Wuornous tale. Granted she has a tougher job than Lubvich had, her lead is an anti-hero rather than hero and the story builds to a negative emotional climax as opposed to a positive one. That said? I should have felt Aileen (Lee's) pain more. I neither hated her or liked her. Nor did I feel much one way or another for her victims, mostly middle-aged white men picking up a prostitute off the side of the highway for a quick fuck.
Theron approachs the role on Aileen in an interesting way, similar to how Deniro may have approached the role of Raging Bull in the 70's, through its physicality. Theron literally alters her physical appearance for the role. Gaining weight. Possibly wearing prosethetics. Shaving off her eyebrows. Blotching her skin. Dirting her hair. Rendering herself as unattractive as possible. She also exaggerates certain mannerisms - J, in particular, noticed how she kept thrusting back her shoulders and swaggering her hips when she was being cocky or flirtatious. Ducking her head, hiding behind her hair and curving herself innward when depressed or insecure. While the performance and physical alterations were impressive and certainly brave, they lacked an emotional resonance or reality. I still felt the actress underneath, performing. James Marsters, Spike on ATS, stated in an interview once that in film you really have to inhabit a character fully, because the camera will pick up anything that is fake or put on, acted. Noting that as brilliant an "actor" Laurence Olivier was, you watched him "act" on film as opposed to watching a character brought vividly to life. You could see on the screen where Olivier began and the character ended. You could not see it nearly as well in the performances of Dustin Hoffman or Denioro who painfully inhabited their characters, creating them from inside out as opposed to the outside in. I think in a way this may be the difference between Theron's performance and Denioro's in Raging Bull or Hilary Swank's in Boys Don't Cry. The rawness of the emotion feels less real, and as a result distances the audience. How much of that is really the director's fault, I'm not sure. I had the same problem with Christina Ricci's performance as Shelby, whose acting style is the opposite of Theron's, instead of using physical mannerisms, Ricci seems to hunt for the characters mental and emotional state and radiate that, you feel her becoming lost in the character.
Unfortunately she doesn't seem to become lost in Wuornous. The chemistry between the two actresses, just is not present. Both J and I either felt detached or squicked by the romantic scenes between Shelby and Aileen.
OTOH - I found the way Jenkins explored Wuornous path towards becoming a Monster, interesting. If a little obvious in places - you felt the laying of the pipe. Wournos story depicts two things pretty well -1) it's not one act that turns a human being into something monsterous and ugly, but a series of acts over a lengthy period of time. Aileen W. did not become a serial killer overnight, it was a gradual process. How much of it was due to Shelby or her own past is uncertain. In the film, you get the feeling that Aileen is hunting ways to justify actions that have been building inside her for quite some time, I'm uncertain whether she may have gone down the road she does even if Shelby never entered the picture. Shelby certainly seems to enable her actions, even to a degree support and push for them - possibly because they provide Shelby with things she wants - transportation, food, a means of escaping her constricting family. Shelby, Aileen insists knew what Aileen was up to, but turns a blind eye, pretending it's not happening until it literally blows up in her face and she finds herself implicated in the crimes. 2)we do have a tendency to create our own monsters.
Aileen does at different points in time seek help or different means of making money. Unfortunately she is so self-involved and wrapped within the cocoon of her own pain - she can't hear or see anything that doesn't fit within her own desires. When she searches for a job, she doesn't apply to bars, restaurants, or warehouses, instead she applies for jobs that require educational background and resumes. Instead of taking courses or even seeking assistance with an unemployment counselor, she screams at the world for not being willing to accept her on her terms. As a result, in Aileen's head, she's an avenging angel, and her victims - rapists and slugs that deserve to be killed. It's not until she finds herself shooting a kind stranger who wanted to actually assist her, that she begins to see the holes in her delusion and fully self-destructs. The real-world begins to break through the world she's created in her own head. Jenkins seems to be stating that what made Aileen monsterous was Aileen's complete isolation and disconnectedness with the people around her.
Even though she has a relationship with Shelby, it appears to be a narcissitic one - where both women are constantly stroking the other's ego - holding up complimentary mirrors. With Aileen, Shelby finds herself cut off from everyone and isolated, yet remains with Aileen b/c Aileen builds her self-esteem makes her feel special - not alone.
With Shelby, Aileen finds someone to bask in, someone who constantly tells her that she's okay.
Their relationship is somewhat painful in the sense that you feel neither character really sees or understands the other one, all they appear to see is the reflection of themself or what they want to be.
Interesting movie. Haunting in places, yet distancing in others.
After the flick, we wandered off to discuss at the local Two Boots, for pizza and hot cider (spiked with Grand Marinia (sp?). No we did not have peanut butter pie - too rich.
Then the subway ride home. Which normally only takes 15 minutes and is nothing to write about.
Sat night? Heh. Took an hour and 1/2. I had to go around robin hood's barn basically to get home.
What happened was the F train got stalled on the elevated track - and was eventually put out of service due to brake failure. They let us sit there for 30 minutes in the freezing cold with the doors open before they told us. Nasty train supervisors. Since they couldn't move the train, this meant we couldn't take the F from that station. The only trains we could take at that point were the M, N, or W - none of which connected with the F train or any trains that went any where near my home until they hit Manhattan. I was in Brooklyn, a good 45 minutes away from Manhattan. If the temperature had been higher than oh 9 degrees Farenheit and it wasn't 11 pm at night, I'd have walked it. Since my home was oh 20-30 minutes away by foot. But it was 9 degrees. And I wasn't clear enough on where I was to risk getting lost. So off I go to take the M or W trains. A kind passenger gives me his subway map so I can chart my alternative course. (The MTA or train personnel? Not very helpful.) I hop on a W and after about an hour arrive at 34th St. Station in Manhattan, wait for ten minutes for an F then go back to Brooklyn, 30 minutes later - home. Gotta love public transportation. ;-) Oh well, the outting with J was worth it. So can't complain too much.
Oh, one more thing - there's a great essay by superplin on BTVS S7 over at http://teaattheford.net/viewpost.php?id=12944, it actually made me appreciate Storyteller, my least favorite episode of the series. It's about the power of words.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-01-26 10:30 am (UTC)LOL!
Date: 2004-01-26 12:02 pm (UTC)I do wish I could have seen Storyteller from your perspective. Perhaps in a couple of years, I will.
Gotta disagree on Charlize Theron
Date: 2004-01-26 11:15 am (UTC)For me, she so fully embodied the character that I forgot I was watching Charlize Theron, and not only because of the prosthetics or the change in her physical appearance. Everything from her uncomfortable-in-her-skin body language to the overcompensation she shows in the faux "toughness" of her voice completely transformed her, IMO. I was so enthralled by her performance because I really felt her emotions, no matter how uncomfortable and challenging that was. And there were no distracting "catchphrase" lines to her performance, as with DeNiro's "Are you talkin' to me?" etc. She seemed to me to be a fully real person, not a movie icon, as DeNiro can't help but be, no matter how great an actor he is. Theron, IMO, was completely natural and all the more terrifying because of it.
Re: Gotta disagree on Charlize Theron
Date: 2004-01-26 11:59 am (UTC)It's like I said before, it's all just a matter of perception. Perhaps the fact that I knew it was Charlize Theron in the role and had been told how great she was affected my perception of her performance? I wonder how I would have viewed it if I had not known who was in the role or read any reviews regarding it? Could this be a case where the review hurts the perception of the performance?
Re: Gotta disagree on Charlize Theron
Date: 2004-01-26 12:12 pm (UTC)That's possible. In fact, Ebert says in his review that he didn't know until the end credits rolled that it was Charlize Theron. After already being impressed with the performance, he was exponentially more once he found out who it was. I walked in knowing it was Charlize Theron and that she had been acclaimed in the role (even with that, it took me five minutes into the film to realize that that woman on screen had to be Charlize Theron, even though she looked nothing like her; I hadn't seen any commercials so didn't know how she looked in the film), but not knowing anything about the film, even the plot, until well into it when I realized who it was about. Since it's so rare to go into a film knowing little to nothing about it, this probably helped also in my liking it so much.
Charlize Theron as "Aileen Wuornos"
Date: 2004-01-26 12:16 pm (UTC)1. LACK OF SUBTLETY. Most of the characters were painted in broad strokes. The Journey song blaring on the soundtrack was a big honkin' clue that Jenkins was not a big believer in nuance.
2. LACK OF CHEMISTRY. Didn't feel anything between Theron and Ricci. Two solid performances, but they were almost in different movies. My favorite moments in the film were Lee's job hunt and Selby's solo visit to the lesbian bar (where she's trying out her new identity). I wanted to feel the ironic power of Selby's final betrayal--she'd learned all of Aileen's lessons about our craptastic world all-too-well--but their stunted interaction never quite built up to that scene.
[Still, I have to give Jenkins credit for one thing: If anyone had told me three months ago that I'd watch a lesbian make-out scene between Christina Ricci and Charlize Theron and be utterly repulsed...]
3. LACK OF DETAIL. I needed more back story on Lee to understand why she kept killing, and why she thought she was "good with the Lord." Despite the brutal realism of the rape scene, and the in-your-face depiction of her explosive anger, Lee (as a character) was opaque to me.
J.
Re: Charlize Theron as "Aileen Wuornos"
Date: 2004-01-26 01:35 pm (UTC)Agreed...
Date: 2004-01-26 03:01 pm (UTC)