The plethora of new Marilyn Monroe material misses the point…
Sat ,06/09/2008Lots of news about Marilyn Monroe this year – and even in the fictional world, we’ll be sure to hear more about her 1962 death, after this past week’s episode of Mad Men, “Maidenform”, in which Marilyn Monroe is described by characters as “half” the ideal American woman, and references are made to her “birthday song” for President Kennedy at Madison Square Garden. (Since the show is now taking place in 1962, it’ll also be interesting to see how the show deals with the Cuban Missile Crisis, and how it compares to Thirteen Days, which along with Good Night and Good Luck, hit a recent high mark for historical film.)
Earlier this year, not long after some rather dopey pictures of Lindsay Lohan dressing up as la Marilyn (New York magazine seriously called these snaps “historic”? are you kidding me?), there was a hullabaloo about an apparent 15 second “blue” home movie that Marilyn was said to have starred in, along with an unknown male partner. If you weren’t aware of the story, and are curious, it’s rather sordid and sad (wait: when is our interest in this kind of stuff not sordid and sad?) and involves J. Edgar Hoover attempting to blackmail JFK. Hum. I’d rather rewatch Thirteen Days, wouldn’t you?
Now there’s more talk about brand new Marilyn material – an amateur film shot by a Naval officer during Some Like it Hot appears on the auction block, and Vanity Fair has put her back on the cover, claiming they have lots of “secret archives”, which includes lots of pictures of things she or Joe DiMaggio owned (like a Japan Air Lines bag? Yeah, it says so much about their divorce, suuuure, he gave her the bag to say sayonara, right?). (What it really implies is “pack rat”, or “I’m a celebrity and people give me crap.”)
Their exclusive photos don’t seem loving, or reverent, or organized to tell a story. The only story it implies is of a stalker with deep pockets and no respect for the person he claims to love. Vanity Fair’s coverage helped me understand one thing, though – why Jane Austen had her sister burn all her letters. Yep.
There’s also been a recent court judgment over rights to her image – pitting the heirs of Sam Shaw (who took her inimitable, though gals try, white-dress-over-subway-grate picture in The Seven Year Itch) against CMG Worldwide and Marilyn Monroe LLC. So far, Shaw’s heirs are winning.
Kinda sad, though, that so much of this interest is about her image and less and less about her intangible qualities. She was an original, like Jean Harlow and Clara Bow before her – and looked just as silly aping their image during a Richard Avedon photo shoot as starlets (even talented ones like Lohan) appear when doing the Norma Jean act.
To really enjoy and appreciate Marilyn’s presence, you need to sit down and watch one of her films. Are we all so postmodern and jaded that we prefer rifling through a dead woman’s filing cabinet, to enjoying the lively work she poured her heart into? Even a bitty bitty part in All About Eve tells you more than you can ever see in some grainy amateur film.
A picture of her ex-husband’s Japan Air Lines bag is not going to tell you much about her talent or her inner soul, no matter what Vanity Fair tries to tell ya.










