LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT "MY WEEK WITH MARILYN"

I have an embarrassing confession to make. Before this whole Oscar malarkey happened with A Theory of Everything, I hadn’t really heard of Eddie Redmayne. I’m trying not to feel too bad about it, judging from the sheer volume of Eddie Redmayne films now emerging on TV, the powers that be are banking on a lot of other people not having seen the films or heard of him either. Still, these films were out there and they weren’t exactly kept on the hush – hush so how I managed to miss him so completely is a bit of a mystery to me…

That said, here is yet another film by Eddie Redmayne that I personally had never heard of. Or I mean I had, but I had no idea that it was such a star-spangled cast, that it starred Eddie Redmayne (and that he was quite so good in short, I had no idea what I had missed out on. Marilyn Monroe is without a shadow of a doubt one of the most iconic women that ever walked the earth. Her mystery and how truly complicated she was, no doubt is now an integral part of her mystique. She is Marilyn because she is so hard to understand. This is the true story of a one-week long look a regular lad got into her world…

Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne) has just launched himself into the world of film. He has started from the very bottom – and at 3^rd A.D. it doesn’t really get closer to the bottom than that – but he is quick witted and sociable, so set to go far. And as luck would have it the very first film he finds himself on is The prince and the showgirl starring (in case you didn’t know) Marilyn Monroe (Michelle Williams), Sir Lawrence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh) and Dame Sybil Thorndike (Judi Dench), it doesn’t really get much bigger than this. The trouble is, of course, Marilyn is, well, Marilyn… Notoriously difficult to work with for all kinds of reasons, within mere hours of arriving Marilyn risks throwing the entire production in to jeopardy. Colin’s job is to “manage” things and try as best he can to make sure things are running smoothly. This is how he ends up so close to Marilyn… And like a moth in front of a flame,   he cannot take his eyes off her….

First of all, of course, it was an iconic and wonderful love story. The eternal attraction of a “nobody” (Colin is the son of a very rich and privileged family, true,  but this means nothing on the film set. Well I mean apart from that this is what got his foot through the door, but I’ll let you discover that as you go along), anyway, a nobody,   capturing the heart of an icon dreamt of by millions is present here. Add the attraction of an “insight” into someone like Monroe with the aid of a “personal diary” pulls the crowds right in. And as the film attempts to provide this insight, I have to say, Michelle Williams is simply mind-boggling as Marilyn. Her chemistry with Redmayne’s young and naïve Colin is really extraordinary.  Of course how much of an insight we get we can actually never know. Even if Colin’s diary was followed to the letter (and in these adaptations this is a rare thing, as most of us know by now) how accurately  and objectively does the diary describe the enigma that was Marilyn? Williams captures and channels the energy of the on screen Monroe perfectly and displays a thought-provoking performance for the off stage one. If nothing else, this is definitely a film to build a dream on.

Redmayne’s part is one that could actually have been given to a young Hugh Grant back in  his day. Luckily the canny young actor has gracefully side-stepped being typecast and has taken on bigger and more complicated roles since. It’s by no means an original role for him, the typical ingénue getting to know the magical, cynical world that is acting and cinema. He pulls it off with aplomb, as does Emma Watson (who I haven’t had a moment to mention up to this point) who has a secondary and unenviable role of Colin’s initial love interest and Marilyn Monroe’s “rival”.

The other thing is of course, we come close to the enigma that was Marilyn but the film doesn’t really “explain” anything. Then again, what is the point of a legend that has been explained to death? We strike the balance, take a closer look only for a minute – pretty much like Colin – and then the curtains close. We are left to our own musings and dreams. But this, as we have said, is as it should be. 

IN WHICH WE REMEMBER THAT MOST SECRETS "COME OUT" EVENTUALLY... "PHILOMENA"

And as if as to purposefully contradict what I have just been going on and on about, we have this little number. A true story, no less, of one woman’s quest to learn the truth about her past and the bitter-sweet revelations that are born from this quest…  Oh how that description would fluster the real Philomena. “It’s nothing as grand as all that” she might say. But you see, it was. Along with Martin Sixsmith, accurately described in one review as a “world weary political journalist” we follow Philomena through her quest and learn, maybe to our surprise, that in the midst of the darkest and saddest tales there may well be something truly beautiful and life-affirming.

Philomena (Judi Dench) is an unassuming little old lady of Irish descent. But she is harbouring a secret. A secret she is so ashamed of, even her adult daughter has only just found out. The daughter approaches Martin Sixsmith (Steve Coogan) with this story. She has met him completely by chance and could not have come at a better time really as Martin has recently been dismissed from the Labour party under a cloud and rather unsure of what to do with himself. A nice human interest story is what he thinks he needs to get his name out there – and this sounds just up his street. Philomena’s secret is that she had had a son when she was only a teenager herself. Her family had forced her into a convent where her son had been removed from her and given up for adoption. All this was nigh on 50 years ago of course. But Philomena still hopes against hope she may find him some day. Martin decides this quest is just what he needs to re-ignite his journalistic career so offers to help her. The quest will take them further than they ever expected to go and reveal more than either ever hoped to discover – not just about the fate of Philomena’s son, but about themselves too…

Now its stories like this that make me realise how hard it is for any fiction of any kind to actually match reality. You know how we (ehm, well, I) sometimes accuse films of being “unrealistic” because the endings are too happy or they are overall “too” optimistic? Well what do we make of stories like this then? Because Philomena’s story is sad, don’t get me wrong, it’s about as sad as they get. I have written a previous article on a similar convent in Ireland  - the Magdalene Laundries, check the review out here if you missed it – and what they did to the girls who were forced to live there, what they did was nothing less than utterly soul-destroying and horrendous. And yet Philomena is a very positive if slightly naïve little old lady who has kept everything that is positive within her soul. She is even quite devout, despite all the odds that seem to push her to lose her faith entirely. Her positivity is such that she ends up at first annoying, but later actually changing the rather hard-hearted Sixsmith.

And then there is the story of Anthony – Philomena’s son. Because as you can probably guess, there wouldn’t be that much of a film if they hadn’t discovered what happened to him. Now, I won’t give anything about “what happened” away, simply because it would ruin so much of the story if you went into the film knowing the answer. But suffice it to say he didn’t quite turn out how one thought he might. The story is a truly wonderful mixture of sadness and real beauty. Not trappings, but the real stuff that matters. One has to remember, I suppose, that life is really almost always a balance and that we need to learn to see the beauty in every single thing no matter how tough it may seem.

You rolled your eyes when you read that, right? I know. It sounds like such a cliché. But I reckon this is one of those things that became a cliché for a reason. I won’t go as far as making a really sweeping statement as to there being good in every evil – sometimes there really isn’t. But a lot of the time, if you’re prepared to give it a real chance, you’ll see something in there. A spark. A tiny light. Something. I think this is why this message comes so well from experienced actors such as Coogan and Dench – both equally spectacular throughout. I can’t seem to shake my impression of Coogan as a comedian above and beyond everything else but it’s complete nonsense of course. Anyway, I think coming from a perspective of greater experience ,I think this message has even greater realism;  it takes a bit of experience – and not all of it good – to know that this “cliché” about beauty in everything is actually true.  

Even if you think I’m getting a bit soppy, you guys go ahead and watch Philomena. Sixsmith didn’t see himself being fundamentally altered by the story of this little old lady either – she was literally just a meal ticket back to journalism. But then what happened? Why, he ended up writing this very book that became the film… So that should tell you something… 

THE LEGEND IS BACK - FROM THE DEAD - "SKYFALL"

I know, this was FAR too long in the arriving J  I mean the review, not the film – although fans may argue that the film was a little too long in arriving too, I honestly don’t know. It’s funny about Bond films. Over the years, it has turned into this timeless and omnipresent phenomenon. Normally this kind of thing would be criticised in a work of fiction. Let’s face it, most superheroes do die off at some point. Even Sherlock Holmes. To be fair though, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was of a different era. And felt that all good things should, ideally come to an end. But then of course there are things like comic-strip heroes being killed off, the fans revolting, and the hero being brought back from the dead…  I don’t know what to make of that, honestly. Skyfall does two things in this “instalment” of Bond. It delves into Bond’s past and gives us an all be it small sneak peek into his childhood. And briefly deals with the concept of resurrection.

In fact, the past and various resurrections are the main theme of the newest Bond. First, Bond himself (currently Daniel Craig) who is assumed dead after a rather unfortunate operation in Turkey (plug: my home country. And the operation takes place in Istanbul, my home town. So there.) Of course, this is Bond we’re talking about so he survives. And he is very tempted to go into hiding and end his days in a small Turkish village by the sea (shameless plug number 2). However… Duty calls him back. Back to MI6 and back to life, the MI6 and more specifically M (currently Judy Dench) is in trouble. The threat comes from deep in M’s own past,  a foe she had assumed long dead and gone (Javier Bardem) is back to haunt her. And as long as he is haunting her, actually killing her and destroying the MI6 are all very real options. Only Bond can save the day… But can he? Bond is human like any other agent (ehm) and both his age and the near death experience he had have severely shaken (not stirred) him. Can he muster enough of his former glory to protect the agency and the country he loves?

I have several gripes with Bond films. The “immortality” of Bond is the main one. I mean, at least in Doctor Who they have worked out an EXPLANATION for his face changing and him never dying. Ok, it’s a completely unrealistic sci-fi setting, but honestly. It’s better than Bond receiving a hail of bullets, not even getting a scratch, turning, firing one bullet and hitting the bad guy square between the eyes. I mean come on. These are men who have dedicated their lives (more or less) to organised crime. You would assume they could at least shoot properly. This film alters this situation somewhat. I mean, naturally, Bond wins the day, defeats baddies against impossible odds,  all that jazz (and you know what, this doesn’t even count as a spoiler!). But at least this time he has some realistic difficulties doing it. We actually explore the possibility of him getting physically and emotionally effected by what happens to him. His marksmanship begins to seriously suffer. He gets nervous. He isn’t as strong as he used to be. I seriously believe that these are all good things. Possibly not as human as I would like but steps in the right direction. And besides, I guess Bond’s “immortality” is part of his appeal for the die-hard fans. And I am not a die-hard fan, so who am I to say? The cast is brilliant (the only person I couldn’t work into the synopsis is Ralph Finess). The special effects are… Well, let us say they are more than worthy of Bond. One of my dearest friends (who is more of a Bond fan than I will ever be) reckons   that the film is definitely not destined to be a Bond classic but is still more than presentable. So there you are. I even have a “fan’s eye view” for you. Enjoy J

A SLICE OF HISTORY WITH "J. EDGAR"

First of all, I am surprised I am putting the review of this film in this particular category. I don’t know about you but I personally had no idea at all he was gay. But then again, the film contains a lot of revelations and new information – especially for someone whose knowledge of modern American History is ever so slightly rusty. This is, in fact one of the films that, for me personally, contains one of the highest levels of intellectual curiosity mixed with emotional involvement that I have witnessed in a film in a long time. Which is why I was even more surprised to find out that it was directed by Clint Eastwood. I have made quite a lot of fun of him in the past, especially Million Dollar Baby whose ending I felt contained every emotional tear-jerking trope known to man plus their dogs, but what can I say… The man’s style is growing on me…
J. Edgar is, a lot of you will have gathered if they didn’t know already, the life story of J. Edgar Hoover (played by Leonardo Di Caprio). As is right with such a public figure, the main emphasis is on his public life, his achievements and political machinations, not least among them the founding of the F.B.I and numerous American Federal laws that he helped come to life. But this is not merely a political film. A nice balance is struck with Hoover’s character and private life. Having lived for over half his life with and under the influence of his strict and domineering mother (Judi Dench) Hoover is reserved and has, shall we say difficulties in certain areas. He is also rather fussy and hard to work with if you’re not used to it. But he is also a brilliant tactician, capable of immense forward thinking and was truly built for police work. We examine the man, his life, his achievements and his relationships in an emotional rollercoaster that deserves every accolade it gets…
When he first made his “big break” on the big screens with Titanic, there were two “camps” about Leonardo Di Caprio. You either loved him (if you were in this category you probably had a crush on him too) or you hated him with a passion. I was one of the former (and yes I had a crush on him at the time too). I am glad to say however, think what you will of him on “other” planes (ehm), as far as acting is concerned I can happily confirm that I have backed a winner. He has turned out to be a brilliant, versatile actor capable of pulling off the most challenging roles. And he absolutely stuns as J. Edgar Hoover in this latest big screen hit. The role itself is challenging because the story itself is so fascinating. Hoover was a true blue eccentric (to put it mildly) and that in itself is something to marvel at. His lifelong relationship with Clive Tolworth is touching to the core, not least the struggle Hoover has to go through in his own mind as he tries to accept his own homosexuality. He is not an easy man, not even a pleasant one from time to time, but you cannot help but feel his pain, especially as Di Caprio does such a wonderful job of portraying him. Of course as long as we’re talking about acting a word must be said about Judi Dench as Hoover’s formidable (and slightly creepy) mother. Lastly, it is an excellent overview of modern American history and a behind the scenes look at events that I personally had just about only heard mentioned and new nothing about in detail. Don’t be intimidated by the length of this little monster (2 hours and 16 minutes). You will be so wrapped up in it that you will not notice the time fly by…