*** Official MONSTER Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Dave Gorman]

Agreed with Paul.S on the roller-rink Journey sequence, perfect use of period music in that outstanding scene.

It actually somewhat bothered me that the events in the film occured from 1986-1992, the Journey music was from 1981. A minor quibble, I'll admit, but it seemed more like an attempt by the music consultant to feature his own music than an attempt for authenticity.

 

[Paul.S]

Dave G. et al.:

Haggai wrote:

It actually somewhat bothered me that the events in the film occured from 1986-1992, the Journey music was from 1981. A minor quibble, I'll admit, but it seemed more like an attempt by the music consultant to feature his own music than an attempt for authenticity.

Given the terrific gestalt created in no small part through the use of "Don't Stop Believin'" and the actions it underscores, I'd say that's very much a "minor quibble" indeed. I also remember that song being such a hit for Journey (it reached #9 on the Billboard charts) that it was still getting significant airplay in the late '80s. Far more important for me was the visceral impact of the use of that song. A couple of quick clicks over to AllMusicGuide.com found the following sentence in reviewer MikeDeGagne's comments on Escape, the Journey album from which the song comes: "The songs are timeless, and as a whole, they have a way of rekindling the innocence of youthful romance and the rebelliousness of growing up . . ."

Also, I've yet to read anything detailing what led to Steve Perry getting the "music consultant" credit (its unusual for someone who co-wrote a source music song--as opposed to score--to get a "consultant" credit; this would not happen on a major studio picture [Newmarket is an indie]).

Be that as it may, I think you're probably putting the cart before the horse: I seriously doubt Perry somehow saw a work print of the film and then campaigned to get his song used in the picture. It's far more likely that first-time feature director Patty Jenkins loved the song, wanted to use it in the picture, of course had to contact the writers/copyright owners to get rights clearance to use the song in the film and Jenkins then graciously decided to give Perry the credit after a perhaps mutual decision to have the song be something of a signature for the film by using it over the closing credits crawl. You may have noticed that it was played as Charlize took the stage to accept her Golden Globe award.

In other words, I don't think Perry's credit came first. The use of the song came first, from which he was accorded the credit.

-p

 

[Dave Gorman]

Given the terrific gestalt created in no small part through the use of "Don't Stop Believin'" and the actions it underscores, I'd say that's very much a "minor quibble" indeed.

Point taken, and the rest of your post makes very good sense as well.

For me "Don't Stop Believin'" (along with numerous other 1981 songs) is strongly associated and tied to 1981 in my mind. For that reason the time difference is probably more glaring for me than it would be for most people.

 

[JonZ]

I thought about this movie all weekend after seeing it Saturday morning.

:star: :star: :star: out of 4 :star:s from me.

 

[Seth Paxton]

But I think that was sort of the point of the last scene I mentioned, that Selby wasn't that naive, she knew what was going on even if she wouldn't admit it to herself.

I totally agree with the point you made. It does indict the audience as well, yet not directly in the sappy, moral lesson style of classical H'wood.


I loved how DSBelieving was used and I think it's very appropriate that such a song would be played 4-5 years later. I wouldn't be shocked to hear "Baby Got Back" in a dance club, for example. Journey is very tied to the roller-rink era anyway so their music would continue to be usedd that environment, IMO.

And of course the song does speak of romantic optimism which is where the characters are at during that sequence.

 

[ZacharyTait]

Charlize accepting the Best Actress award from the Screen Actor's Guild Awards.



Drool.....

I don't know why this one was blown up, but she still looks gorgeous.

 

[Haggai]

More than almost any other stunning woman to appear in movies in recent years, I think Charlize's features really harken back to the classic Hollywood beauties of the '30s, '40s, and '50s. That emphasizes for me how different things are these days, when you consider the chances of a Rita Hayworth, Ava Gardner, Grace Kelly, Ingrid Bergman, etc. playing a role like Monster that would have had them transforming their appearance so drastically, to one that was so much less attractive. There would have been no way in hell that any of the big studios would have allowed any of their most glamorous assets to get within a hundred miles of such a role.

 

[ZacharyTait]

More than almost any other stunning woman to appear in movies in recent years, I think Charlize's features really harken back to the classic Hollywood beauties of the '30s, '40s, and '50s. That emphasizes for me how different things are these days, when you consider the chances of a Rita Hayworth, Ava Gardner, Grace Kelly, Ingrid Bergman, etc. playing a role like Monster that would have had them transforming their appearance so drastically, to one that was so much less attractive. There would have been no way in hell that any of the big studios would have allowed any of their most glamorous assets to get within a hundred miles of such a role.

You nailed it right on the head. The studios then were so protective of the star's image that they basically looked the same from film to film with little to no difference. I've seen about 6 Katherine Hepburn films and she looked so similar in them that you could probably trade any for any other and it wouldn't make that much of a difference.

 

[Paul.S]

Haggai wrote:

There would have been no way in hell that any of the big studios would have allowed any of their most glamorous assets to get within a hundred miles of such a role.

Although I think I understand your point, I also think it important to note that this movie is not coming from one of the "big studios." Rather, its distributed by indie newcomer Newmarket Films, the head of which is Bob Berney, the same risk-taker behind Memento, The Passion Of the Christ and the marketing of My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Incidentally, Bob fought to get Charlize to do a role she initially did not want to do.

-p

 

[Haggai]

That's true, Paul.S, it's also reflective of the ability of indie companies to get such movies made on occasion these days with big name performers. My overall point (as you seem to be acknowledging as well) is that someone with Charlize's looks and abilities would have been completely within the Hayworth/Gardner studio system orbit 50-60 years ago, with no possibility of ever playing such a role as this one under any cirumstances. The system as it was back then certainly had its strengths, but this is clearly a successul and important performance that couldn't have happened in an earlier era.

I'm pointing it out mainly to send some more love Charlize's way (damn you, Stuart Townsend! I had a chance...really, I did... ) For me, she embodies a lot of the fabulous glamor and beauty that were so prevalent in the past more than almost anyone else in the movies today (Catherine Zeta-Jones also comes to mind). Yet she's also had the chance to go in a totally opposite direction and give this powerfully different sort of performance. In a way, she bridges the gap between some of the great things about earlier Hollywood eras and some of the good things about the current cinema landscape.

 

[Stephen_L]

Famous beauties in the past have gotten "down and dirty" for a good part. I remember the staggering performance of Elizabeth Tayor in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf"

 

[Haggai]

That was indeed a great performance from Liz Taylor, in a decidedly un-glamorous role. But you still knew it was her, unlike with Monster, where it's almost impossible to believe that it's Theron whenever you look at her. To change her look so completely, and into a character who starts out as a highway hooker and becomes a murderer, is not something that could have happened years ago.

 

[Paul.S]

Famous beauties in the past have gotten "down and dirty" for a good part. I remember the staggering performance of Elizabeth Tayor in "How's Afraid of Virginia Wolf"

Haggai, I think your point is to call out how stunning and remarkable Charlize's perf and transformation are. I concur.

But, Stephen_L's good point notwithstanding, I think its a chalk versus cheese comparison to look at what would or would not have been possible "in an earlier era" through the lens of today's very different Hollywood landscape.

I don't think a Charlize would have not had the possibility of playing such a role in the past because the studio system would have precluded it. Rather, I don't think this kind of visceral, empathetic look at a serial killer was ever put on film in the Hollywood golden age for it to even be something a Louis B. Mayer could have assigned a Charlize to star in.

I make my perhaps academic point not to detract from yours, but rather to support it in a way: I think what Patty Jenkins and Charlize have done with Monster is unprecedented. A female director has written and directed a remarkable film about a female serial killer involving an intimate relationship with another woman.

And her star got an Oscar nomination for Best Actress.

I hope Charlize wins the Oscar. (And frankly, with the caveat that I feel she deserves it on the merits with no discussion of gender politics, I'd rather have seen Jenkins nominated for Best Director and receive the attendant first-female-Best-Director-nominee hoopla than fuggin' Sofia Coppola. Patty made a better film . . . and with no name cachet from Daddy on her side.)

-p

 

[Haggai]

Good points, Paul.S, I basically agree with you.

 

[RobP]

I just saw this movie for the first time. I read ebert's review after just to see what he had to say about it and one thing he said was,

"Aileen's body language is frightening and fascinating. She doesn't know how to occupy her body. Watch Theron as she goes through a repertory of little arm straightenings and body adjustments and head tosses and hair touchings, as she nervously tries to shake out her nervousness and look at ease. Observe her smoking technique; she handles her cigarettes with the self-conscious bravado of a 13-year-old trying to impress a kid. And note that there is only one moment in the movie where she seems relaxed and at peace with herself; you will know the scene, and it will explain itself."

What seen do you thing he's talking about? I have no clue. Its irritating me bad.

 

[Don Black]

I watched the DVD last night and was curious if anyone knew what song was playing when Aileen and Selby are having sex in the motel? I know I've heard that song before in other movies...

Thanks!

 

[ZacharyTait]

I watched the DVD last night and was curious if anyone knew what song was playing when Aileen and Selby are having sex in the motel? I know I've heard that song before in other movies...

Here's a link to the soundtrack page at IMDB.

Monster Soundtrack listing