Matthew Johnson30 said:If the movie wasn't a total mess, I gotta say the best part was that black-and-white sequence near the end with Marilyn Monroe where you can't tell if she's dreaming or awake—total horror vibes.
It’s wild how much those massive pop culture icons from the supposed Golden Age of Hollywood—like Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe—have in common: gorgeous, young, sexualized people being run into the ground by older guys hooked on drugs, forcing them to go for "just one more performance" until they die way too soon.
So you actually watched it? I didn't think you did. I don't know when I'll get around to watching it; I'm not expecting much, maybe it'll surprise me, maybe not. Anyway, one actress who really nailed the role was Catherine Hicks in that TV movie "The Untold Story: Marilyn" (1980); it’s basically just a mashup of books and docs from back then, pretty good if you're into that stuff. Even though there are other actresses who look way more like Marilyn Monroe because of the makeup, Hicks somehow managed to capture her "soul," which is way more than most others or those wannabes could do. That "inner" vibe might not be for everyone, obviously, but it’s a movie trying to show someone's actual essence, and hers was totally one-of-a-kind. That crazy beauty she had in certain scenes might bother some people, but in some moments, she just glows while everyone else looks like a ghost, even if they were objectively hot. She had a thousand different faces depending on the era, and her face was just perfect for master makeup artists and stylists who produced looks people still try to copy today, but there's only one Marilyn Monroe. And for photographers? A total dream, just naturally photogenic.
Sadly, it wasn't just those two big names you mentioned, or some of the most recognizable faces out there; we're sold this "Hollywood glamour" dream, but behind the scenes, it was pure chaos for them, and in their heads too. When you look at where some of them came from and their backgrounds, they achieved so much. For someone without a stable family, bouncing between foster homes, always feeling vulnerable, with zero real protection or a motherly figure to lean on—and potentially facing abuse since you can't defend yourself at 8 or 10 years old—is it any wonder she achieved what she did in just 15 years? (I guess "achievement" is relative, but looking strictly at the theme here.) Maybe she could have worked in some factory until retirement or just gotten married—sure, she could have, but she had bigger dreams. And that first arranged marriage at only 16! (She met him at 15 and already looked incredibly mature, not like some lost kid growing up in a bubble) was just a temporary escape from her reality. Waiting for a husband who's overseas while working some machine in a factory... that definitely wasn't the dream. But hey, maybe she would've lived to be like Meryl Streep (born around the same time, 1926 or 1929), though I find it hard to imagine her still working well after 40; she was already pretty "burnt out" before she even hit 33. There are plenty of similar stories—some people flash bright and fast, but their rise or time at the top won't last long; then again, they leave a mark that lasts decades or even centuries (like certain painters, writers, or artists who weren't recognized while they were alive). Is all that worth the suffering and the messy life? Do you live just so people decades later will hang your photos or posters on their walls? So they can make movies about you or write books? Or is it more important to just live a peaceful, decent life with a longer lifespan? We can't really know why or...
Maybe it's all just some top secret thing, I guess. Someone’s existence. Just how it had to be, I guess.
analogsurfer7 said:I mean, you guys actually get that it's just a movie, right? I guess. Total fiction, I guess.It’s based on a book where the author straight up says it’s fiction, not an autobiography. So I don't get why people here are getting all worked up about how Marilyn Monroe was portrayed when the movie is basically pure make-believe. Like, maybe be mad at the film itself? Instead of acting like it's some factual documentary because you're convinced that's how she actually lived. This is just extreme.
Look, people gotta realize this stuff is fiction—or at least mostly made up. Directors and writers have total freedom to shape a movie however they want. If you go into a film with that mindset, you won't be sitting there wondering why things were shot a certain way or why certain scenes happened. Same goes for "Elvis Presley" or whatever. Movies might touch on some biographical bits, but after that, it’s just artistic liberty. I mean, who actually wants perfect accuracy? Unless you were actually there or part of the inner circle, just watch a documentary or read a book or look stuff up on YouTube if you want the real facts. Like, maybe you find an interview with someone's spouse who confirms or denies a detail from a biopic—kind of like how you'd check with someone close to a legend like Frank Sinatra.
Matthew Johnson30 said:I mean, she definitely wasn't picking at her face or dealing with Tourette's, I guess. But if she had a personality disorder? Yeah, any decent psychiatrist in America today could probably confirm that.
Living back then was just total garbage. For someone like Marilyn Monroe, they didn't even have decent therapy or actual meds to help. As a woman? Even worse. They just kept pumping her full of codeine and amphetamine mixes. I guess.
Barbiturates, plus a whole mess of other synthetic junk. The thing is, back then people really didn't get how dangerous those pills were. Like, even a teenage Judy Garland was basically being abused by the "higher-ups" on the set of *The Wizard of Oz*—her mom mostly, but the directors too, I guess. They were obsessed with her weight, making sure she wouldn't gain a single ounce, so they supposedly let her eat next to nothing all day, like just some tiny bit of soup or whatever, while filming went on forever. I don't know why they picked her to play someone years younger, but they pushed her so hard to look "smaller" or "slighter." To pull that off and keep her awake enough to actually get through the shoot, they used this "red pill" for...
I guess maybe it's just lifting? idk. Woke up, thinking about that blonde... maybe.
I guess it's just a drop. Maybe. I mean, maybe they were just taking sleeping pills? Or whatever. I remember hearing that even stars like Betty Grable were popping sets of pills just to keep their figure tight—pretty much the whole celebrity scene back then. They’d just grab handfuls of them without a second thought about the fallout. Has anything actually changed? Probably not. It’s just more expensive, more potent, or mixed with booze now. Hollywood never gave a damn about anyone, and whether those people actually had a choice or if they were forced into that "exclusive snake pit"... I guess that's just an untold story.
offtopic :
