criterionforum.org

Should have watched this a lot sooner, I gotta stop procrastinating on these things. I enjoyed reading most of everyone's thoughts on this.

When I first heard about this movie, I was already kind of soured on it, especially when they used the now-very cliché "blurs the line between fact and fiction" line in the selling description, which pretty much translates into "look, we made most of this shit up". But I was kind of relieved that it wasn't what was advertised, which was some kind of biopic, which is where I feel this film goes wrong with a lot of people, especially with some of the very accusatory things depicted among other moments I found very dubious. This really isn't a biopic and shouldn't be take seriously as one. Instead seems to purposely avoid things that make for an informative biopic and paints Marilyn in these very broad brushstrokes, using hardly any exposition (which always seems to result in people perceiving it as 'drivel', when everything isn't explained to them) to zero in on what's going on but its still effective in communicating things like the ending reveal. A better synopsis for this would have been Marilyn Monroe is dying and her whole perceived nightmarish life of trauma is just flashing before her eyes.

Yeah this film gets really exploitive with scenes like the Seven Year Itch photoshoot and pretentious with things the talking fetus. But under the context that this isn't really supposed to be describing Marilyn's life but rather her turmoil, it serves the film.

Hate to compare this to the Dahmer series lol but likewise this wasn't a particularly fun watch and isn't really supposed to be, but its still very engaging with its fantastic lead performance, outstanding cinematography, and wonderful score that makes it one of the year's best for sure.

Bunch of other minutia I could get into but I literally just finished watching this and that is just my first impression.

Letterboxd coming in with the most damning critique yet

From an astrological perspective - and not as a Monroe expert - I have a hard time believing a Gemini Sun ruled by this Sun in the 11th house was a fragile victim of circumstance. This is someone who knew how to network and say the right thing at the right time. I would love to know if my assessment is right and if this film lacks biographical accuracy.

Well, astrologically speaking, your sign/house/whatever has a spectrum between your "light" and "dark" sides, so Monroe's dark side could be disorganized and self-destructive (I don't really know what I'm talking about, but I do know that the "dark" side of one's house can often be the opposite of the light side). It is worth mentioning that my girlfriend's mom, who is an astrologer and sends us like ten texts a day about the moons and suns and houses and views everything harshly through this lens, saw and loved the film. Also, apparently without knowing the birth time, you can't do a chart with any 'accuracy'. I don't believe in any of this, and I realize I'm taking a sincere charge against such a bizarre post, but as far as I understand this person is publicly failing at Astrology 101

You wouldn't think something so cosmological and transcendent as the heavenly bodies would have to do with something so bourgeois and materialist as houses. Just seems...bathetic.

therewillbeblus wrote:Well, astrologically speaking, your sign/house/whatever has a spectrum between your "light" and "dark" sides, so Monroe's dark side could be disorganized and self-destructive (I don't really know what I'm talking about, but I do know that the "dark" side of one's house can often be the opposite of the light side). It is worth mentioning that my girlfriend's mom, who is an astrologer and sends us like ten texts a day about the moons and suns and houses and views everything harshly through this lens, saw and loved the film. Also, apparently without knowing the birth time, you can't do a chart with any 'accuracy'. I don't believe in any of this, and I realize I'm taking a sincere charge against such a bizarre post, but as far as I understand this person is publicly failing at Astrology 101

Apparently, FWIW, we do know her birth time: 9.30 AM

Well then someone could do her chart, but even still, people that believe in astrology view charts as complex with different information in different areas, so the LB user would likely be eviscerated by them. Also, if there's one thing I've taken away from astrology-leaning people in my life, it's that there's always a possible "reason" why someone behaves as they do. Even when I push back against stuff in my own chart with new information that's not anywhere near any data points in any of my houses or whatever, there's always a way to make sense of it to justify the belief in astrology. This is the first time I've seen a 'This doesn't compute' message from someone who ostensibly believes in astrology, ever

What they're claiming though isn't that reality doesn't make sense ('does not compute'), it's that the film's depiction of Monroe isn't faithful to the astrological logic of her personality based on the superficial sketches of Monroe's astrological signs.

People will inevitably pooh-pooh this, but I think we've uncovered a new genre of film criticism! Henceforth, all publicists should be required to include major characters' birth charts in the press kit so that a proper analysis of the film can be conducted.

furbicide wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 2:18 am People will inevitably pooh-pooh this, but I think we've uncovered a new genre of film criticism! Henceforth, all publicists should be required to include major characters' birth charts in the press kit so that a proper analysis of the film can be conducted.

While reading the first collection of Serge Daney’s collective writings, he specifically mentions a director’s astrological symbol in identifying their auteurist traits. He was ahead of the curve by over fifty years.

this thread is taking so many twists and turns. We are now in this exciting new territory of astrological film critiquing.

I'm a pisces so twists and turns are in my blood (read: stardust)

I've been harsh on this film and taking (well-deserved IMO) potshots and its easy to sit back and not offer an alternative. So here it is. I'd still cast de Armas as the blonde with streaked/frosted/blonded haircut not THE blonde. Remove the Marilyn wig. Cast Banderas, Bardem, del Toro (or types) as major players. Keep the general chronology of Marilyn's life the same but it isn't specifically MM anymore but the top Spanish or Argentinian or Brazilian movie star. Joe Dimaggio becomes Christiano Ronaldo. You replicate MM's life but in a different cultural context.

It would be easier to see what's really happening when you remove everyone's expectations. The plastic facsimile then becomes an alternative reality.

Or--- you can start the current Netflix version of the film with the Walmart Wig but transition (sleep/red key/blah/blah/red key is a joke) into the above version for people that need to be guided into what you're doing.

Walter Kurtz wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 6:17 pm I've been harsh on this film and taking (well-deserved IMO) potshots and its easy to sit back and not offer an alternative. So here it is. I'd still cast de Armas as the blonde with streaked/frosted/blonded haircut not THE blonde. Remove the Marilyn wig. Cast Banderas, Bardem, del Toro (or types) as major players. Keep the general chronology of Marilyn's life the same but it isn't specifically MM anymore but the top Spanish or Argentinian or Brazilian movie star. Joe Dimaggio becomes Christiano Ronaldo. You replicate MM's life but in a different cultural context.

It would be easier to see what's really happening when you remove everyone's expectations. The plastic facsimile then becomes an alternative reality.

Or--- you can start the current Netflix version of the film with the Walmart Wig but transition (sleep/red key/blah/blah/red key is a joke) into the above version for people that need to be guided into what you're doing.

This sounds awesome! I enthusiastically encourage you to make this film. I would watch it.

All controversy aside, I was entranced with this film for about an hour and a half. Unfortunately, it couldn't sustain itself. It needed either more substance or more restraint (both in approach and runtime). There were certain points where I felt like I was watching Aronofsky... something I would have intended as a compliment once upon a time, but rarely these days.

That said, wonderful photography and score and performances from everyone not playing JFK. On those virtues alone, I can't hate it.