Paddy Chayefsky was one of the hottest writers in the biz in the late 50s so his original screenplay for Columbia was eagerly anticipated, especially as it rumoured the lead character was based on Marilyn Monroe.
The result is a flawed film.
Part of the reason is Kim Stanley’s casting – she has excellent moments but is far too old, especially when playing a high school student. Also – and I know this is a purely personal opinion – but she doesn’t have the charisma or sex appeal of Monroe. Stanley has a great reputation as a Broadway star and as an actor during the Golden Years of Television, and she’s clearly a brilliant talent. But sometimes that’s not enough – I didn’t buy her as a sex bomb. It’s just not the looks, it’s the aura (however many lovers Stanley had in real life). Also her Southern accent got grating after a while. (Apparently they offered the part to Monroe herself and she was keen to do it but Arthur Miller nixed it.)
Chayefsky may have written this for the screen but it comes across as a filmed play – specifically one by Eugene O’Neill. (There are even headings for each act.) He ducks against his previous naturalism – there are long monologues by actors. Indeed each scene basically centers around a monologue: mum complains about having a kid; Stanley talks in a car while on a date about her family and hopes and dreams; Stanley falls for the drunken son of a silent film actor (Law and Order DA Steven Hill); Hill talks about his past; Stanley talks about her boyfriend ball player (Lloyd Bridges); Bridges talks about his family; Stanley has a breakdown. Occasionally Chayefsky spices things up with a dialogue eg Stanley and Hill – it’s a shame there wasn’t more.
There’s some wonderful writing and remarkable sequences especially Stanley yelling she wants to die at her mother’s funeral. Not a lot of laughs, though – even when Stanley become the biggest star in Hollywood she doesn’t have any fun, or even nice clothes. A lot of key incidents happen off screen eg Stanley becoming famous, attempting suicide, breakdown of her marriage with Hill – that’s not necessarily a criticism, more an observation.
It's annoying how Steven Hill's character - established as a morose, suicidal drunk - comes back all reformed because of having a child; I didn't buy that, or his air of superiority. The film doesn't quite work, and should have been done as a play - or with a different lead - but it's worth watching; essential if you're a fan of Chayefsky.
No comments:
Post a Comment