Monster

[astrangerhere]

I know that not many people will be able to see this film because it is in such limited release, but has anyone out there seen Monster? Charlize Theron was simply astonishing. Just wondering if anyone else had any thoughts



a.s.h

[allykat]

Well, I downloaded it from http://www.suprnova.org (which for some reason isn't working anymore...)this morning, but the quality was so bad, I couldn't see or hear anything.. Too bad.. Hope it comes to Europe soon...

[Gatito Grande]

I hope Monster will show up in my neck of the woods soon. I'm really looking forward to it (harrowing though it may be). In the supermarket today, I flipped through "Jane" magazine, w/ a profile on Charlize and the making of the movie. Man, just to see what they've done to her (and what she did to herself, by gaining that 30 pounds) . . .



One thing I have to say though: I was disappointed that Charlize didn't speak out against the death penalty in her Golden Globe speech. To have the central character of a movie not be able to see her own story, because "we" (the Almighty American State) killed her. (Aileen Wuornos was executed 3 weeks before filming began)



GG . . . an oversight I hope she'll correct when/if she picks up her Oscar (may I suggest she crib from Susan Sarandon?) Out

[xita]

Maybe Charlize believes in the death penalty, or maybe she doesn't think that the oscars is the right place to say something. Who knows! I won't hold it against her.



Certainly the film does not take sides about that issue. It is very curiously left out completely.



I saw the movie and it was pretty amazing. There are moments that stick with me. It's incredible that moments of love between people who aren't beautiful, who aren't necessarily sane or well balanced can be so .. well beautiful. Very well made. I know some critics said Charlize overplayed the role, but I don't think so at all.



People will also want to compare it to Boys Don't Cry but I didn't really get the comparison.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"

[astrangerhere]

Xita-



I dont quite see the comparison either. The only way I could conceivably compare it is perhaps in the intensity of the roles. I have read numerous articles over the last week comparing (almost mockingly) Nicole Kidman's putty nose bent as Virginia Woolf to the complete overhaul, makeup and non, that Charlize underwent to not just portray a real person but to absolutely embody her. I think that is the only level with which you could compare her performance with Hillary Swank's.



As to her overplaying the role, I have to agree with you. Wurnos was very much like Charlize portrayed her. Prone to swearing fits in the courtroom, I am apt to think at some points, Charlize underplayed the role because the truth would perhaps have been stranger than fiction.



a.s.h.

[tyche]

The Chronicle had an article yesterday about serial killers, and it focused on Aileen Wuornos and 'Monster'. They interviewed Patty Jenkins, and she talks a bit about how she decided to tackle the story.

It's quite a long article, so I'm just going to post the link:

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/01/ING234I8FG1.DTL



Also, I haven't seen 'Monster' yet. I saw Nick Broomfield's first documentary about Aileen Wuornos, though, so it will be interesting to see how Charlize Theron's performance measures up to the footage I've seen of the real Aileen.

Incidentally, after I watched the first Nick Broomfield film, I was more or less convinced that Wuornos was seriously mentally ill and should have been in a psychiatric institution rather than prison. That was just my take on it, though, and I'm sure that there are as many different opinions on her as people who've seen the film...

[Ben Varkentine]

Xita, carrying over from the Oscar thread, call me devils advocate, but are you saying you think it's "okay" for films to deal in the cliche if they're based on reality?



I want to stress again that I haven't seen the film--I plan to, but probably on DVD--and am not judging it or anyone's opinion of it. I'm just curious as to whether there is an inconsistency here.

Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

[xita]

No, I am not saying that's "ok" at all. The blame here goes with Hollywood who I am sure funds and distributes movies where lesbians die or are crazy. I am pretty sure that if you bring up this great idea for a romantic comedy about lesbians they'll turn it down. I don't blame someone for wanting to make a story about a real life person, especiall wuornos as she's very interesting. I can't criticize the film for making the choices they did, they had no choices to make in telling this story, the conclusion was a given.



However, this movie does illustrate the cliche and how hollywood continues to perpetuate it. Boys Don't Cry is a great story but you know so is the story of the 2 girls going to the prom, or some kind of story. They choose not to make and distribute those stories.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"

[sam7777]

Xita: Agreed. Hollywood and the media establishment is much more comfortable with stories about gays and lesbians that end in death or evil or both. Notice the number of AIDs movies that get greelights versus the numer of romantic comedies. I've decided not to support such movies however good they may or may not be until Hollywood addresses the discrepancy in portrayals. I've seen enough movies with lesbian being miserable to last me the next 10 years.

[Gatito Grande]

Man, I feel all over the map on this one. On the one hand, I feel that nonfiction is fundamentally different than fiction, and judge it by different standards. I don't really think they could make a romantic comedy about Aileen Wuornos (or Brandon Teena), do you? Then, to the extent that anything is "news," it's apt to be bad: "If it bleeds, it leads."



At the same time, there are certainly need to be more positive portrayals of lesbians (and all LGBTs), in both fiction and nonfiction. I mean, think of that standard fare, the "Uplifting Celebrity Bio" flick: how come there hasn't been a big one made about Martina, for example? (Let the casting call begin! For physical strength and angular good looks, I could see Jennifer Garner slamming the hell outta that role---and we know she looks good in sporty glasses ).



So definitely, a better balance of positive and negative, for sure---but I wouldn't hold that against any individual negative nonfiction, like Monster (interesting that it and Boys Don't both had women directors, FWIW).



GG If Charlize Theron supports the death penalty, I *would* hold it against her---as I do against anyone else who does: that's just me. If she just doesn't want to talk about it, I won't hold it against her, but I *am* disappointed. Celebrities don't need to be "Issue Billboards," but when their roles deal so directly w/ a controversial issue, I want to hear---in an Oscar speech---their feelings about that issue (and/or salute persons progressively involved in the issue). Ala Susan Sarandon on the dealth penalty in Dead Man Walking, Hillary Swank on TG rights in Boys, Tom Hanks on AIDS in Philadelphia, Julia Roberts on corporate abuse in Erin Brockavich, Ben Kingsley on nonviolence in Gandhi, Sally Field on unions in Norma Rae etc. etc. etc. YMMV. Out

[xita]

I guess the point is GG, that Monster was not at all about the death penalty. So I don't feel like it would be appropriate for her to tackle that issue. I agree with you about the movies you mentioned but Monster really said nothing about the death penalty.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"

[astrangerhere]

I have to agree with Xita here. Save for her one outburst at the end of the film that tells us what Lee's sentence was, we would not have known the sentence beyond the epilogue tagline. I really dont think the point of the film was about her death, but rather it was about life. Her life and how she saw it. I find myself shivering at her utterly bleak outlook on what she was told as a child and what real life is, but I undersand that is how Lee saw it. That is what Jenkins was giving to us.



Never expected the thread to get so deep. Here i was just posting about Charlize's performance. Thanks for the input.



Xita-warms my little heart to see a mod so avidly participating.



a.s.h.

Edited by: astrangerhere at: 2/3/04 5:31 am

[sam7777]

Quote:

---

So definitely, a better balance of positive and negative, for sure---but I wouldn't hold that against any individual negative nonfiction, like Monster (interesting that it and Boys Don't both had women directors, FWIW).

---

Gatito Grande: Too True. I'm certain Monster has it's merits but for me right now a bleak film with a lesbian character (or a female character that loved or had sex with another women) is an impossible sell which is too bad because I love Christina Ricci. The last movies I saw with Lesbians were: "Lost & Delirous", "Aimee & Jaguar", "Possession" and "Boys don't Cry". My quota is full. I can't get change Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment media but I can change what I'll watch and I've put a moratorium on the lesbian (or gay) themed or not movie with gay characters that ends in misery and/or death. That's the only way I can get a better balance of positive and negative.



I fear that women directors like male directors find it much easier to get a porject greenlighted with such a bleak view than a happy romantic comedy about lesbians. I'll be happy to see Charlize Theron get the Oscar and watch the clips of her performance at the oscars but that's all of "Monster" that I will be seeing.

[sam7777]

I wonder if "It's My Party" would have been made if it did not involve a character dying of AIDs. I think of the movie "Trick" (1999) which was a nice romantic comedy as the type of thing I want to see now. However uplifting, I've filled my quota of movies about dying of AID: "Long Time Companion", "Philadelphia", "And the Bad Played on" etc etc. What I want to see now is some gays and lesbians with happy endings, I guess. Oh well this is veering way off topic.



In any case, I hope Charlize Theron does get the Oscar. I first saw her in "Devil's Advocate" and have always thought she was better than the roles she played. "Monster" helps her break out of the vapid pretty girl roles so it's a great movie for her even if I don't go to see it.

Edited by: sam7777  at: 2/3/04 2:04 pm

[Ben Varkentine]

Quote:

---

I can't get change Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment media but I can change what I'll watch and I've put a moratorium on the lesbian (or gay) themed or not movie with gay characters that ends in misery and/or death. That's the only way I can get a better balance of positive and negative.

---

Although it's certainly possible to have a movie with gay characters that ends in death but not misery. I'm thinking of "It's My Party" as an example, which is incredibly positive yet does end with (in fact, is almost entirely about) the death of a gay man.

Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

[xita]

Yeah, I am getting the feeling that it's easier to get a project greenlighted if there is some tragedy there. Unfortunately, unlike heterosexual projects, happy ones don't get made with the tragic ones. I also think actors are persuaded to tackle gay roles if there is some awards prize at the end. It's not as likely that they'd get rewarded that way in a gay romantic comedy. So you get a big name interested in dying on screen, tragic story = GREEN LIGHT!

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"

[astrangerhere]

Ok, I haven't gotten an answer to my cliche' question above, so I am gonna take a bit of a different tac. I am not in any position to adequately judge, but I was much more frustrated by the archetypal presentation of Selby than of Lee. Something just did not track with me. She didnt seem to be a believable character. I didnt buy her investment, and the choice to change her age bothered me as well. Nevermind that, I was unhappy with Ricci's portrayal. Thoughts on any of these for those who have seen?



a.s.h.

[maudmac]

I finally saw this yesterday. Damn! It blew me away. I wanted to turn right around and see it again and I don't feel that way about very many movies.



Charlize Theron is a force of nature in this. Amazing. Brilliant.



Patty Jenkins certainly did take some liberties here, but it stayed sort of true to the details, and very true to the whole theme of the life of Aileen Wuornos. Or so I thought, anyway.



As to whether it fits the cliché or not...that's a hard one. If it were entirely fiction, I would probably say that yes, it does. The larger issue, though, as others have said, is the dearth of films like romantic comedies and such. Or just regular dramas that don't involve death at all.



It broke my heart to see all that play out and I think Charlize did an excellent job. I cannot praise her enough.



And, of course, the reality of Aileen's life is about as tragic as you can get. I can't even begin to imagine how I would be if I'd been used and abused my whole life and I can't quite bring myself to judge Aileen. No arguing that she crossed a line, but...well, how many times had someone crossed a line with her?



I feel strange, because it sounds like I'm defending her or saying that she had an excuse. I've always had conflicting feelings about her, and seeing Monster has brought them to the surface and swirled them around. It's left me torn and somewhat uncomfortable with my own thoughts. Damn fine filmmaking, that can do that.

---

go         donut           go

[Cicca]

I just saw it today and I agree that Charlize Theron did an amazing job.

I'm not familiar with any real-life details so I can't speak about that.

As for the cliche, well, yeah, it's a movie with a woman-loving woman (I don't think I should assume anything about Aileen's sexuality) who goes very wrong and dies. Cliche. But, the way the story is told, it felt like it had way more to do with how a person's life can be so horrible and how hard it is to break out of that. If the movie's correct, she tried to get out of it, but just couldn't find that path.

One of the hardest parts for me was the fact that she had someone who was willing and ready to help her get out of it and she was just so far gone that she couldn't accept it. I knew she'd end up killing him, but I just had my hands in front of my eyes and was praying right along with that man that it wouldn't happen. As for Selby, I'd like to hear about the reality because she certainly doesn't seem to be an innocent in all this. Their relationship had a lot to do with Aileen's actions. Horrible.



Ok, I don't really know what else to say.

Charlize was amazing.

Is there a hyphen in anal-retentive?

[sam7777]

Quote:

---

As to whether it fits the cliché or not...that's a hard one. If it were entirely fiction, I would probably say that yes, it does. The larger issue, though, as others have said, is the dearth of films like romantic comedies and such. Or just regular dramas that don't involve death at all.

---

Maudmac: Great point. Why is it that the most of the nonfiction stories about lesbians and gays are the tragic ones: "Boys don't Cry", "Monster", "Matthew Sheppard story", "And the Band Played on" etc. The cliche isn't in the film so much as it is in the Hollywood and/or media establishment that don't greenlight happy stories about gays. There are many non-fiction pics about straights that end happilly: "Jessica Lynch sotry", Elizabeth Smart story". Like I said , I've put a moratorium on watching the tragic however good the movie may be (I thought "Boys Don't Cry" was excellent). I want more happy portrayals to bring a balance to the portrayals that we are getting so I won't watch the tragic ones until we get at least an equal number of happy ones.

[willowlove]

Charlize Theron, in one of her numerous interviews promoting "Monster", speaks about the death penalty. I'm posting it here just in case anyone remains interested in what she thinks about it.



Theron slams death penalty after "Monster"

Mon 9 February, 2004 03:54



By Dave Graham



BERLIN (Reuters) - Hollywood star Charlize Theron has criticised the death penalty after the international premiere of the film "Monster", in which she portrays a woman executed for a string of murders.



"I'm not for the death penalty and working on this film didn't really change anything for me," Theron told reporters at the Berlin Film Festival on Sunday. "If anything it made me more aware of how ineffective it is."



In the low budget film, the South African actress plays homeless prostitute Aileen Wuornos, who committed a series of murders in the United States after killing a man in self defence, an act Theron is better placed to understand than most.



Theron was 15 when her mother shot dead her drunken father after he threatened to shoot his wife and daughter. Playing Wuornos, who was executed in 2002, has earned Theron an Academy Award nomination for best actress.



"I don't think condemning people who murder and then killing them necessarily sends out the right message," said Theron, 28. And I have a huge problem with the way these people are used as political pawns."



Theron, often cast as a glamorous blonde, put on 30 pounds (14 kg) for the role. The actress, whose previous films include "The Legend of Bagger Vance" and "Mighty Joe Young", said Wuornos had been doomed to lead a tragic life.



"I think her entire life was just like water going down a drain. And it just kept going faster and faster," she said, adding it was a story that needed to be told.



"We forget that it's our job is to tell people stories. There's only so many pretty stories you can do."



The film's director, Patty Jenkins, said Wuornos' tale was an American tragedy that provided a unique insight into how individuals can be corrupted by society.



"So rarely is there a story that lends itself so easily to looking at how a good person can be damaged to the extent that they cross the line and become a killer," said Jenkins.



"It is a universal story that people are overlooked and left outside until they become capable of committing the same acts that have been done to them."



A former model, Theron said Robert De Niro's acting in Martin Scorsese's 1976 film "Taxi Driver" had a big influence on "Monster". She said she got so used to her character she even forgot about the ugly false teeth she was wearing for the part.



"I wasn't even aware until Patty said 'the crew are all going home tonight saying you have terrible teeth'," she said.



Monster, which entered the U.S. list of top ten box office films for the first time this week, was one of the highlights of day four of the Berlin festival which is ranked alongside Venice and just behind Cannes as one of the world's top film fests.



Original Reuters story

[Gatito Grande]

I just heard this today, willowlove (it was in the CNN news-crawler). Thanks for posting it.



GG And thank *you* Charlize: her testimony is made even more powerful by her own lifestory Out

[yana]

astrangerhere: I, too, didn't find Selby to be a believable character. I don't know if it was Ricci's portrayal of the character or what (I was greatly distracted by the mullet ). Somehow, the attraction that was supposed (?) to be there on Selby's end completely failed to show. On the one hand, she risked her stable life (food and shelter) to be with Aileen, but, on the other hand, she really didn't seem all that fond of her, as the scenes from the amusement park showed. I also found Selby to be an insufferably irritating and horrible individual. I spent the latter part of the movie just wishing I could pummel her. The only explanation that I can come up with is that, in addition to being immature, Selby also did not necessarily have a great grasp on reality, and thus did not realize fully what the consequences of her actions would be.



As for your questions about the cliche, this is probably not the "official" definition, but it is how I think about it: anything involving a lesbian who ends up dead, evil, or both, whether or not their sexual orientation has anything to do with the plot or focus of the movie, falls into the cliche. I guess that seems a little stringent, but we have so few lesbians on TV/in movies that it gets progressively depressing to see most of them end up dead or evil. I also extend this into non-fiction (as Monster is) as well. It's not that Monster is not a compelling story, because it is, but there are so many other true stories that could be told and aren't because of Hollywood's preference to fund the cliche ones (as numerous people have already commented in this thread).



I'm not saying that we should just have happy go lucky movies, but a balance would be nice, both in fictional and non-fictional material.



Perhaps I am alone in this, as most people that have commented in this thread seemed to really like (I don't want to say enjoy) the movie, but it really depressed me. I absolutely hated it. After I finished watching it, I felt completely wretched, like there was absolutely no hope, about anything. I guess that means it was a well-made movie, but... ugh. Never again.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I am not sure about the former."

--Albert Einstein

[astrangerhere]

yana



I had the same reaction. The movie was very dark, and I found myself just wanting to go home and watch cartoons or Monty Python just to cheer myself up. In reality, I know that the seemingly fatalistic narration is not Patty Jenkin's view of the world, rather, she is giving me Lee Wurnos' view as she lived it. Somehow, though, that did not make it that much easier to stomach.



In short, I was disturbed by the film, moved to a point, but would not want to see it again.



Ricci just killed the credibility for the relationship for me. Something didn't track to me when it seemed that Lee needed Selby more than Selby needed Lee. Just did not work at all.



And thank you for stepping up and answering my cliche question! I had a general idea, I just didnt want to assume anything. I'm the outsider here, and I want to be informed before i go launching my foot into my mouth.



a.s.h.

[Ben Varkentine]

There's an item on MSNBC this afternoon about just how true to life the film is or isn't I feel it's likely this is a negative spin campaign launched by one of the other movie companies to try to lessen Theron's Oscar chances. This kind of thing backfired when Miramax tried it about A Beautiful Mind, but we shall see.



The same page has an item about a recent speech by Rosie O'Donnell, who for whatever my opinion is worth, has got to be the worst public image for lesbians imaginable.



Surprisingly, in this speech O'Donnell apparently showed a lack of good taste or refinement. Imagine that.



Anyway, here's the link.



www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4233714/

Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

[maudmac]

About Rosie:



It seems that Rosie O'Donnell is one of those "love her or hate her" kind of people. I'm about the only person I know who neither loves nor hates her. I personally would not speak the way she apparently did at an event like that, though I might at a more casual event. Rosie's got a big mouth and I don't really dislike her for that, most of the time. But there's a time and place for it and that was probably not the time and place.



And she's in an awkward position, being thought of as some kind of Official Lesbian Representative. I know a lot of lesbian celebrities have cited that very thing, the pressure to become some kind of spokeswoman for an entire and very diverse population, as part of what kept them from going public sooner about their orientation. On the one hand, it's seriously unfair to burden any one celebrity that way. On the other hand, there are still relatively few out lesbian celebrities, so it's only natural. There's really no way around it - come out and you are absolutely going to be looked upon as a spokeswoman for the lesbians of the world.



I wish we could all be 100% perfect in every possible way, but...heh, ain't gonna happen. No doubt every one of us here, were we to be thrust into the spotlight as representatives for our various respective cultures or identities, would occasionally make asses of ourselves and disappoint a whole lot of people.



About Aileen:



It's definitely obvious to anyone familiar with the details of Aileen Wuornos' crimes that Patty Jenkins took some liberties in her telling of Wuornos' story. I do feel it was a more sympathetic portrayal than an absolute truth-and-nothing-but-the-truth version would have been. Left out was a lot of information - about her other, previous crimes, her lies, as well as her marriage and allegations of her being abusive toward her husband - that would probably make her come across as at least somewhat less sympathetic. (Besides that, a great many liberties were also taken with the portrayal of Tyria Moore.)



I do maintain my own sympathy for her, however, because I feel that the sum of what Aileen became is most likely a direct result of being used and abused enough in her younger years to make a lot of people insane. She never had a chance. She was a walking tragedy.



I cannot simply let her off the hook for everything she did that was wrong because she had an unhappy childhood. And this subject is actually touched upon briefly in the film, in a conversation between Selby and the woman she was staying with before she met Aileen. Essentially, if everyone who had an unhappy childhood bore no responsibility for their actions, how many people would be running around with free rein to steal, batter, rape, torment, kill, etc.? About a billion people, I would think. Or more.



I see her past history not as an excuse, but as an explanation.



So, yeah, I do think that's a valid criticism of Monster. However, it's clear that it's "based on a true story" and it's hard to argue with that. It's not a documentary. Furthermore, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the brilliance of Charlize Theron's performance. So, Oscar-wise, it shouldn't even be an issue.

---

go         donut           go

[astrangerhere]

maudmac-Just wanted to say I appreciate seeing yet another moderator participating so prolifically. Warms my little heart.



Now, as to your post...I agree with you on the Rosie thing and will comment further only insomuch as to draw a comparison. As a member of the legal profession, I would find myself horrified to be a representative of all lawyers, so you have an Amen from this corner on that.



As to Aileen-being a member of the aforementioned legal community, I saw Lee through the eyes of the law. Words like aggravating and mitigating were screaming like alarms in the back of my head during all of the crimes (Lee's and others') in the film.

Your interpretation of the film as an explanation as opposed to an excuse was perfect. I think that is perhaps why Patty Jenkins did not delve further into the legal aspect of the film. From the prosecutor's side of the aisle, I completely understand the death sentence. Yet from a more human, less legal perspective, I think Patty was trying to show the human behind the crime. All the court, and more importantly the jury, saw was a woman who was prone to fits of profanity and seemed in no way remorseful.

What Patty, and the absolute embodiment Charlize, provides us with is a picture of Lee before her heart was broken. It seems that you could see her will crumbling as she realizes Selby is betraying her.

I am not sure how accurate that particular part of it is, but it was I think the most poignant moment in the film for me. I think it was an extension of that when she ordered all her appeals stopped and submitted to her sentence.



Thanks for gettin my brain goin maudmac



a.s.h.

[maudmac]

a.s.h., thanks for getting my brain going. I'd been trying to respond to your question about whether Monster fits the cliché since you asked it. ("Trying" being the operative word.) It's an excellent question and might need a whole essay to fully address. It does make me uncomfortable when reality fits any clichés.



I love a movie that makes me think, that challenges my assumptions and attitudes. Even better is conversation afterward that does those same things. I sometimes think my natural state is "conflicted." I can usually see the validity in most sides of an issue; even when I disagree with a position, I can acknowledge its validity.



So, yes, I know what you mean about seeing it from different sides. I can see how Aileen could be perceived in many different ways, depending on which details of her life and crimes you focus on.

Quote:

---

It seems that you could see her will crumbling as she realizes Selby is betraying her.

---

I know exactly what you mean. This scene broke my heart. She's obviously aware that the conversation is being monitored and it's equally obvious that she's determined not to incriminate herself. You can see her coming to the realization that, if she doesn't incriminate herself, it leaves Selby vulnerable. I'm not sure if I think she realizes that Selby is being used by the authorities to get information. It seems to me that, at that point, it wouldn't even occur to her that Selby would betray her, especially in light of the fact that she seemed to believe that Selby knew all along what was going on, where the money and cars were coming from, how Aileen was getting them. I think she just might have believed Selby was frightened and, knowing that someone, somewhere was listening (but not necessarily believing they were directing Selby to extract information), she more or less sacrificed herself to save Selby.



As to its accuracy, I believe in reality, it was actually several conversations over the course of three days. What we see in the film is a condensation of what really happened, but it is essentially accurate.



Perhaps because I saw Selby as part of what drove Aileen to do at least some of what she did, my sympathies were very much with Aileen and it broke my heart that, when she finally finds a person who seems to care about her, to like/love her for who she is, to see her as a whole human with something to offer, that same person turns on her as so many others had before. It really reinforced my perception of Aileen as a woman who never had a chance.



How weird does that sound? Really. Doesn't it sound something like, "Oh, poor Aileen, it sucks that someone stopped her from all that killing"? I guess the bottom line is that the killing needed to stop and if it took Selby manipulating her into confessing, it needed to be done. But, from a different (and, I cannot lie, I think a deeper) perspective, it's heartbreaking to see Aileen so completely alone, betrayed, abused, or used and tossed aside by everyone who ever knew her.

---

go         donut           go

[astrangerhere]

I respond specifically to maudmac's post below, but i wonder, those of you who have seen it, what or who you think the title of the film is referring to...



maudmac--I saw this movie with my indy film buddy (who even sat through Boys Don't Cry with me) and we had a lengthy discussion as to the title and who it signified. The reviewers of the film all seemed to assume that Lee was the monster referred to in the title while I posit that the title came from the ferris wheel she refers to being afriad to ride in her childhood and it being a metaphor for life not for anyone in the film. My friend however, felt that Selby turned out to be the monster.



She had to have known what was going on, especially given that Tyria Moore was not as young as Jenkins portrayed her, and that by sending Lee back out to kill again she was the true monster, manipulated the already quite mentally deranged Lee.



The final defense of this was the ultimate betrayal, be it to save her own hide or not, that allowed Selby immunity from prosecution and landed Lee in the Florida electric chair. I think that the opinion of the character that I had as sort of a jailhouse snitch also hindered my ability to appreciate in any form the somewhat lackluster performance I felt that Ricci gave to Selby.



so, thoughts?



a.s.h.

[xita]

Yeah, I had that discussion about the title.



I think considering the entirety of the movie, the title was ironic in a way. I think part of it was to bring you to think of what a monster is, and certainly Aileen in this movie was no such thing, yet she was capable of doing things that a "monster" would do. It certainly makes you think of the way you might use that word. We've all heard/said, "what kind of monster would do that?" Well, it turns out it's not really the kind of "monster" you might expect.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"