The Netflix movie Blonde has been a subject of discourse since the release of its very first look. The movie's NC-17 rating and controversial subject matter have attracted all kinds of attention and now that the movie is out on Netflix, it is a topic of discussion more than ever. So what exactly has made this movie spark so much controversy and what does the public reception tell us about the market for biopics? Let's take a walk.
Blonde is based on the 2000 Joyce Carol Oates novel of the same name. The novel is a fictionalized reimagining of Marilyn Monroe's life and is largely speculative rather than factual. The movie uses the same approach, taking great creative liberties with the way that Monroe's life is portrayed. Upon looking into the movie, I had to ask myself, were these changes tastefully done, or was some of the public outrage warranted? Having taken a closer look, I can easily see how the latter can be considered valid criticism. Blonde tries to explore the off-screen persona of Marilyn Monroe and her struggles, but in doing so often comes off as insensitive. Rather than being a commentary on Marilyn's troubles and how the people around her failed her, it seems to take the odd approach of constantly tormenting Ana De Armas' Marilyn and painting her as an eternally sad, tortured caricature of her real-life counterpart.
CollectedWhile the cinematography of the movie is commendable and makes for some breathtaking shots, it is rarely used to further propel the plot of the movie in an interesting or artistic way. The movie simply shows Marilyn being thrown from one trauma into the other, without actually stopping to explore the aftermath of these events. This makes the inclusion of these traumatic events in the movie seem quite pointless and almost entirely for shock value. As a result, she is simply reduced to a victim and nothing more, which comes off as an oddly shallow and one-dimensional way to portray Marilyn in a 3-hour long movie that is solely about her.
As mentioned before, the story is fictionalized and dramatized for the screen meaning that a lot of it is not factual. While this storytelling technique is not new–it was seen most recently in 2020's Spencer which was a dramatized retelling of Princess Diana's life–the application of this technique is vastly different in both films. While Spencer uses this tool to bring the viewer closer to Kristen Stewart's Diana, the usage of this technique serves no purpose in the context of Blonde. It is a mere filler that sensationalizes the suffering of Marilyn, going as far as to add several traumatic events to her name that there is no documentation of. Marilyn's mother's abusive nature, her relationship with President John F. Kennedy, and a particularly disturbing abortion scene are just a few incidents among many that there is no evidence of in real life.
Upon voicing my concerns I was even asked why I looked into this movie at all if I was not fond of the idea of a fictionalized reimagining. Having not read the book in the past, I went into this blindly, hoping that the movie would use the fictional aspect of its storytelling in a way similar to Spencer's and give depth to the Marilyn behind the screen, the one that was not seen by the media or her tormentors. Instead, the movie plays into the disrespectful media perception of her and feels like an even more impersonal take on her, so naturally, I came away from it feeling further disconnected from the real person behind the image of Marilyn Monroe.
Marilyn's friends had often described her as “soft-spoken”, “reserved”, and “prudish”, emphasizing that her on-screen bombshell image was merely an act, which is a jarring juxtaposition to director Andrew Dominik's interpretation and portrayal of her character. Of course, there are no restrictions on using public information to create art, but when the art is based on a real person's life, how much of it can be accepted as artistic vision until it is disrespectful? It seems that Blonde tends to forget about the real person behind the image of Marilyn Monroe, which is ironic considering that is the very idea the film sets out to deconstruct.
The treatment of the subject matter in this movie made me think about similar movies and a pattern that I have long noticed in the film industry; the oversaturation of biopics. It seems as though several biopics have been made in recent years with several more yet to come, and these biopics always tend to be the center of tremendous attention. A lot of the fascination around biopics is largely credited to their optics and visuals; the physical recreation of looks and events from a real person's life. The audience is often intrigued by the big transformations that actors undergo to embody a real-life persona. Award shows also seem to reward this effort generously, with there being 8 Oscar nominations for actors portraying real people this year alone. So it is easy to see why filmmakers would be drawn towards creating more and more biopics.
This is not to say that biopics do not require creative effort and hard work, much like any other body of work, most of these biopics require great technique and commitment. So then, what is the problem? It's as the age-old saying goes, “quality over quantity”. The oversaturation of biopics in the industry not only tires the audience out with the overexposure and lack of original thought but also loses any uniqueness and authenticity that might've generated excitement around the film in the first place. Personalities such as Marilyn Monroe and Princess Diana have had over 30 on-screen adaptations made about their lives and while some of them have made for impressive performances, one has to ask, what new information is each piece of media giving us with every new adaptation? I personally feel as if the same parts of their lives are being recreated on film over and over again, leaving me as a viewer with nothing new to discern from these biopics. Just this year there were nearly 20 biographical shows and movies, amongst which Blonde, Elvis, and Inventing Anna were the center of a lot of attention and I could not help but feel underwhelmed with the mediocrity of many of these projects.
However, not all biopics fail to resonate with viewers. I believe that a well-done biopic still has the power to move audiences more than any other genre. To judge the industry's fixation with biopics fairly, we'd have to explore the reasoning behind its audience's fascination with biopics. What made the market for biopics so huge and profitable in the first place? Especially for personalities such as Princess Diana and Marilyn Monroe, whose stories were seemingly short-lived and yet have been told and retold several times. Bernie Taupin, the writer of Elton John's Candle in the Wind puts this into words when asked about the song's Marilyn Monroe inspiration “She was just a metaphor for fame and dying young, and people sort of overdoing the indulgence, and those that do die young,” he said. “And she was female, and that was more vulnerable. But it was really about the excesses of celebrity, the early demise of celebrities, and ‘live fast, die young, and leave a beautiful corpse.” We as an audience seem to be intrigued by stories of celebrities who died young and in Taupin's words “became this iconic picture of Dorian Grey.”
The early demise of a celebrity or person, in general, is always deemed especially tragic by the public as the deceased was not able to live a complete, well-rounded life, and therefore did not have the opportunity to accomplish all of their goals and aspirations. We have all heard phrases such as “she lit up every room” associated with victims, especially young women who suffered or met an early demise and this is usually no coincidence. Some of it can simply be drawn to people's genuine love and empathy, but often people detach the real human beings behind these stories from their public images and subconsciously put these people up on a pedestal. This in turn has an effect on the making and consumption of these biopics, where several of these tend to focus on the personalities that the audience resonates with and feels most empathetic towards. Hence, it makes sense for filmmakers to tap into the rather safe market of biopics and capitalize on the audience's fascination with these celebrities' lives and struggles. As a result, the quality of these biopics is compromised over the quantity and the appeal of these stories wears off with each retelling.
Biopics can be impactful and informative when well-made with adequate research and skill. Although I found Blonde to be a mostly exploitative portrayal that makes a spectacle out of Marilyn Monroe's suffering, I do believe well-made biopics can be compelling and important stories to tell. I believe the industry should focus on finding a balance between the ratio of original scripts to biopics. Some of the most celebrated films of all time were born from original ideas so it is upsetting to see the number of filmmakers willing to experiment with original scripts diminishing. I think the industry should encourage adapting original screenplays more so as to not oversaturate the market with biopics for the sake of critical acclaim or award-show recognition, and put more focus on the quality of biopics instead, especially with stories that have not been covered for the cinemagoing public yet. This will allow audiences to have more meaningful, nuanced conversations around these topics and provide new insight into stories that have already been so well-publicized. A good majority of biopics we have received so far have been engaging and insightful, and I believe it is time to take a positive step forward to let original screenplays shine for a bit while using biopics to say something new about real-life people and their experiences.
