Marilyn doesn't exist. When I come out of my dressing room, I'm Norma Jeane. I'm still her when the camera is rolling. Marilyn Monroe only exists on the screen.
I've been thinking very hard to write a review for a film that has been so controversial for what it contains, versus a film that came out five days before this, Don't Worry Darling, which seems to be controversial for what it does not contain, but rather how it is made. As I sometimes do before I write reviews, I check a few reviews on Letterbxd to see what other people have written to gain some perspective. On this exercise, I found a review by Brian Scirio that was highly inflected, and I simply do not think that I can repeat or regurgitate everything that he wrote. Please read it here.
See what I mean? A near flawless review. I don't know that I would change anything, but I have thought about a few additives addressing some things that he alluded to which some people would probably want my take on.
The first is the absolutely beautiful cinematography. It seems like the goal was to make the film as beautiful as Monroe herself and I think it almost succeeds. Since this film is in essence a huge dream, the camera floats in and out of time, space, bodies, and memories without making you nauseous. When I think of this perspective / technical use versus what a lot of filmmakers would do now, which is to do a hand held documentary shaky-cam exercise which is overused and rote, I would much rather prefer the former. My only criticism is the constant move from black and white to color. I certainly enjoy both, but I thought there was a theme, kind of like (coincidentally) JFK. I don’t think there is one, or I wasn’t smart enough to figure out. Maybe it was simply an aesthetic choice at the time.
As for the dream state itself, it seems fitting and proper for the way in which Dominik is choosing to tell the story. When I was a kid, I remember reading a thousand page novel on Cleopatra which was completely fiction, and recounted all of her 'slutting around' and the misogyny she faced as the only ruler of any kingdom in the ancient world of her day, the first and last in centuries. So to say the author had no right to create an artistic expression of Cleopatra's existence is of course ludicrous. Likewise, it is ridiculous to describe the same effort with Ms. Monroe. The only thing that has changed is the story telling technique, and I am sure more people will see this than read the Margaret George book. In this vein, we may disagree with it, we may find it distasteful, we may shake our heads at what we interpret to be exploitation. But for the audience to call it 'wrong' is simply not true.
The open misogyny that Ms. Monroe faced (as well as other contemporary stars such as Jayne Mansfield, Lauren Bacall, or Audrey Hepburn for effectively looking like she was permanently fourteen) was disgusting then, and it is disgusting now. The difference between the other two or three films I have seen on Monroe did not address this. To see it openly confronted on film is something that I have rarely seen in reviews of the film. In one scene, men's faces are contorted as they shout and scream at her. This mimics how terrifying it must have been to be the so obvious object of so many men's desire. And I don't mean many men. I mean, ALL MEN. Monroe had such a hold on men's adam's apple, even priests were jerking off in movie theatres. That level of open sexual desire was not seen since the days of Mae West, and that was never on Monroe's level. It would also never be repeated with any other starlet. This misogyny is hard to watch, and that fact that it seems to have not breached the reviews makes me think male critics would rather not discuss it.
Instead, what we find is a rather curious mix of racism and sexism regarding Ana de Armas' performance. While I did find one scene in which her accent was slightly noticeable through the entire scene, and there were some vowel pronunciations that must have been hard from an ESL speaker in later scenes, the fact is this performance is gold, and as the film moved foreword you saw Armas disappear into the role. The only film historical parallel I can compare it to is last year's film Spencer, in which Kristin Stewart was nominated for playing Princess Diana. If you read my review of that film, you will find that although I was blown away by her performance in the first half of the film, the second half seemed to be going down the road of sheer parody, and the director was unable to reign this in. This does not happen in Blonde. Armas gets better, and her direction gets better, not worse.
At last comment, we come to the highly controversial NC17 rating, which I found confusing at the conclusion of the film. The nudity, violence, and gore did not necessitate this rating. There is only one full frontal shot, and it is not of Ms. Armas, and it is not in the foreground. In fact, I am forced to believe the only reason why this rating exists is because of what must be the now infamous blowjob scene in which Monroe services President Kennedy. This scene did in fact cause a marital argument in my house, and I still fail to see how this warranted an NC17. Ms. Monroe was not unknown to oral sex. In fact, a stag film she starred in was discovered in the early 2000's containing her performing fellatio. One of Joe DiMaggio's friends, in an act of loyalty to the late athlete, purchased the film and as far as we know, destroyed it. This is also not the only time in the history of cinema we have seen fellatio on film. In fact, fellatio has been simulated on screen in several films with an R rating. In fact, Jennifer Connelly not only simulated fellatio in Shelter, a film NOT branded with an NC17, but that film also simulated ejaculate on her face. This same fine, academy award winning actress, simulated using a 'double-dildo' with another actress on stage in a strip club with a hundred men in suits throwing hundred dollar bills at them in Requiem for a Dream. Why those films would get an R but this film gets an NC17 shows exactly how broken the ratings system is. I have always been of the opinion, since Henry and June, that half of all R films need to be rated NC17. The rating would then not be a brand of death, and more filmmakers would take more risks with the material knowing their material would not be cut out for the sake of making a softer rating.
The true controversy people are sometimes admitting to, is the fact the simulation is performed on President Kennedy. For thirty years, Kennedy's image as the savior of liberal democracy for three years as the leader of the free world was not in question. After his father died and his youngest brother failed to replace him as a moral leader, we've come to find out so much about his personal life as to question what it was we liked about his politics. He deflowed virgins without their expressed permission, treated all women (included his devoted wife) like complete shit, had affairs in the White House (in the pool, in the executive residence, in hotels), used Frank Sinatra's mob connections to traffic women to him for sex, and all the while spent most of his private time as an a-plus jack ass motherfucker. If any of us knew anyone like that in our personal lives, we would form very uncontroversial opinions about him. But because Kennedy could smile, talk about Civil Rights, and for thirteen days in October 1962 saved the world from nuclear holocaust... well, then, we'll take him.
What Ms. Armas simulated in that one scene is no different than the greatest majority of women (or gay men) have done in their lives. To single her out for that is sexist and outrageous. The idea that anyone would defend John Kennedy's behavior as a womanizing misogynist (who's pick-up line was reportedly "wanna fuck?") is the true controversy. There is no penis in the scene. There is no ejaculate in the scene. What there is in the scene, is the realization that John Kennedy was a fucking asshole, and that's what people are upset about. Well, so was Thomas Jefferson. Get over it. And as far as exploiting Ms. Monroe... well that is possible. But I will NEVER think worse of her for doing what everyone else does and enjoys. But I WILL forever think worse of John Kennedy for being the type of man who thinks he deserves that type of servicing simply because he is white, rich, and powerful.
Blonde is a brave attempt, and it deserves to be screened at a lower rating as long as the MPAA is going to discriminate against sex (blowing a head off and showing brains on the floor, totally okay - just see the remake of Death Wish).
And finally, as a close, I recommend everyone who is interested listen to Karina Longworth's podcast 'You Must Remember This' - she did an entire season on Monroe's career and personal life. It was deeply unsettling. She did sleep with practically every photographer and producer in town. She was also subject to mental instability most likely due to childhood trauma and the way everyone looked at and treated her. She was a very complex person, and Longworth tries very hard to wade through those complexities with balance. I don't think there is balance in Blonde. But I also do not think it is a hit job. It is a point of view. Nothing more. Nothing less.