Reply
Sun 7 Mar, 2004 11:13 am
Because Charlze Theron won the academy award for best actree,
my wife and we drove over 50 miles (one way) to see "Monster."
I thought it was an unfortunate title in the context of all sorts of "monster" movies. But that's beside the point.
The movie had neither plot, story line, point of view nor any redeeming features. Charlize Theron did an excellent job. In a sense, the movie was not a documentary about a serial killer. Rather it was an unintentional documetnary but about acting and how well an actress, Charlize Theron, could portray a debased human being.
However, there was a bit of a problem. The f...king dialogue she was f...cking given to indicate what kind of a f..ckiing character she was acting, was too f...cking much! We are not prudes (I just directed "Art" with a considerable number of "F...cks"in it). We weren't offended by the f...cking language, we were just so f..cking bored by it. We also had to work rather hard to f...cking understand what the f...k she was saying a lot of the f...cking time.
With those mild reservations aside, it was alright. But I wouldn't recommend it to my friends.
truth
Billly Falcon, in my opinion Monster demonstrates that an artistic film need not depend on an elaborate story line or plot, any more than a painting need be representational. The two main characters, their relationship, the "monster's" pathetically naive worldview, as seen so poignantly when she tried to find employment. The complexity of motives behind her murders. These, among other features of the film, served very adequately as functional equivalents of plot for me. I was mesmerized and drenched in pity and, I presume, sympathy for a character with whom I thought I could only feel alienation. What a revelation! Art is best when it moves us, when it transforms us. And here, I see, story line is secondary.
Charleze Theron was amazing, but I agree with billy falcon on the basis that it had no plot whatsoever and the rest of it was, well, pretty bad. and a lot of unnescesary swearing.
I guess it didn't grab you, billy. It's a character study and the simple story was well known so the writer was likely reticent to invent a plot. It is an ordinary life bound with extraordinary circumstances and how a person can get trapped in a very warped personality that debases their character. She did in fact overuse the f word in real life so I could see where the filmmaker would not want to curtail the swearing.
I got into a heated discussion with a friend last night over "Monster." He insisted the movie had a point of view and a story. The point of view was that life can deal you a bad set of cards and turn you into a "monster." But I don't buy that killing a string of innocent people is justified by a horrrible experience.
Lightwizard, I think that it may all come down to whether or not it "grabs you." I guess there are subjects that are not interesting to everyone. Or, they may be subjects we don't want to hear about. I think that was the case with me regarding "Monster."
truth
BF, I don't think the film makers intended to show how a bad life can justify murder. I do think that your predisposition (which is your entitlement) deprived you of the ability to enjoy that remarkable film.
JLNobody.
You're right of course. I admitted as much. But none of us goes to the movies, plays, concerts without bringing our life experiences (our baggage) with us.
The only place I would differ with you is connecting predisposition, or life experinces, with the idea that it is our entitlement - something we choose to do. I would maintain or argue that we don't choose to bring our life experiences to the movies. We don't have a choice. It's a part of us.
There's nothing in the movie justifying what any of the characters did. It's for each of us to interpret what has transpired on the screen. This is one of those movies that is written as a tour-de-force with the subject centering around a single character who this times happens to be crazy. I could not come away believing this person was sane. In this way it was more intense than the remoteness of the horror in "Passion." It showed me more about how evil manifests itself than that overwrought movie.
truth
Sorry, Billy Falcon. I didn't mean to imply by "entitlement", a right you would choose to exercise. I meant something more like an inevitablity, an understandable orientation given one's life experience. We are actually in agreement.
The wonder of this production, to me, is that without resorting to romantic distortions, I am given the opportunity to feel profound sympathy for someone who is undeniably monstrous.
JL Nobody,
Thanks for the clarificaion on entitlement.
You said the movie gave you "the opportunity to feel profound sympathy for someone who is undeniably monstrous." Why in heavens name would you want to?
I remind myself of the wag who wrote "I am against poverty simply because I don't like poor people."
Only in this case I don't have much sympathy for monstrous people because I don't care for monsters.
I would stress that there are undoubtedly movies which I might find fully acceptable and that you would not.
Ce la vie.
I will accept the probability that "Monster" is a well done movie notwithstanding my opinion.
truth
Billy Falcon, when I see a monster I think "There but for the grace of luck go I." And, who knows, maybe he's saying the same thing when he sees me. If he does, then he's not so monstrous.
BTW, no doubt there will always be differences in taste. That's what makes our individuality.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace