It turns out part of the reason it is all those things is because it’s fantasy. More than that, it is a comedy and a genuinely funny one. And the capper is Reese Witherspoon.

Legally Blonde (2001)

Directed by Robert Luketic

This movie is like its main character. The look misleads you into underestimating it. It seems to be an exercise in gloss. “Seems” is a good word for it because that is really what the movie is about: seeming.

Legally Blonde takes a standard cultural trope — the dumb blonde — and turns it inside out. It’s a well established convention of comedy and that is why it works. It even works outside of comedy, such as in a movie like Forrest Gump. The dumb guy or gal turns out to be smarter than everyone.

It’s a variation of the underdog story.

The blonde-as-airhead notion is so well established culturally, there are even standardized jokes — by the thousands. (If a blonde and a brunette fell off a building, who would hit the ground first?

(The brunette because the blonde would have to stop to ask for directions.)

Elle Woods (Reese Witherspoon) attending Harvard Law School.

Reese Witherspoon plays Elle Woods, the blonde of Legally Blonde, and her performance is note perfect. It’s not just based on the cliche of the dumb blonde, it is also based (visually) on Barbie. (There is even an offhand comment by one character to that effect.)

Elle has a problem and it is that she is in love (she believes) with a jerk, Warner (Mathew David). Her larger problem, however, is that she and her friends are in love with the idea of weddings and their rituals and accoutrements.

As often happens, she hasn’t thought much about marriage and what that means.

Warner dumps Elle and suddenly she is forced to start looking at herself and her life, something her easy life has allowed her to avoid. Once she does, it turns out the dumb blonde isn’t so dumb.

Elle (middle) and her friends: Serena (Alanna Ubach) and Margot (Jessica Cauffiel).

Although it was often referred to as a “girl-empowerment” movie when it came out, that isn’t really what the movie is, except as a secondary result. It’s about, “Don’t be fooled by appearances” and the power of an individual that believes in him or herself.

In that sense, this is a message film but it’s smart enough not to give that aspect much rein. The movie knows what it is: a confection. It’s very light and accepts that, so it never tries to be heavy handed and doesn’t linger.

And it revels in its praline quality. It even celebrates it with its colour palette, its music, its editing … all the elements. It’s a movie made with a music video look. It’s a piece of candy.

Reese Witherspoon as Elle Woods.

When the movie came out I recall many reviews saying it was a nice, light comedy but completely forgettable. I would agree with that except it turns out it isn’t forgettable. It continues to linger though perhaps less for the movie itself than for Witherspoon’s wonderful performance.

Made in a different era, I could see Carole Lombard in the lead role, even Marilyn Monroe, because of the quirky, silly outer shell of the character.

With the creation of her Elle Woods, Witherspoon gave us a character that is completely memorable. There is no forgetting her.

Also see:

• Legally Blonde 2: Red, White and Blonde (2003)

Directed by Laurence Olivier

This is one of those movies that is okay, but not much more, nor much less. It isn’t bad but it isn’t good either.

However, if you like Marilyn Monroe, it’s a great one to watch because here she is playing the Marilyn of our collective imagination. And it’s really quite a delight.

In fact, I think this may have been partly what Laurence Olivier (who starred and also directed) was trying to achieve in The Prince and the Showgirl. The movie parodies the popular images of both Olivier and Monroe.

He is the stuffed shirt, the aristocrat – smart, stiff and essentially humourless. Monroe’s character is a showgirl – breezy, giggly and, on the surface, the dumb blonde stereotype.

The film’s gimmick, or conceit, is that she is anything but.

Laurence Olivier as the Regent and Marilyn Monroe as Elsie, the showgirl.

She is actually smarter and quicker than Olivier’s regent but hides her intelligence behind a façade of being an airhead.

There are quite a few truly funny scenes in the movie. And hearing Marilyn’s giggle is utterly charming. Unfortunately, there are also scenes that don’t work.

Oddly, while Olivier is known to all of us as the great actor, it is Marilyn who is most natural in the film. Olivier just seems too awkward.

(Imagine how much funnier this movie would have been with a Cary Grant in Olivier’s role.)

There is also one scene, the coronation of King George V, that is a complete waste of time. Typical of films of this period, the movie suddenly stops to show us some pomp and circumstance, scenery and so on.

The Regent and Elsie appear to be getting along.

Perhaps at the time it might have been impressive (though I doubt this), but then or now, the result is a dam in the flow of the film.

Overall, it’s a nice movie but a bit frustrating because it could have been much better.

As often happens in Monroe films, Marilyn is great but the movie surrounding her fails to rise to the occasion.

In some of these movies, it is almost as if everyone stops trying in the belief that Marilyn alone is enough to make the film work. It isn’t, of course, and we’re left disappointed by an awareness of what might have been accomplished.

For a variety of reasons I’ve had difficulty lately getting back into my movie watching routine which used to be almost a movie a night. The reviews I’ve written account for only a small number of the movies I’ve actually watched. I had the best intentions but I never did write about a great movie, The Contender (2000). Or do that review of all three Bourne movies.

I tried to kickstart things last night by watching The Seven Year Itch (1955). Bad idea.

I was hoping to watch something fabulous to reinvigorate my movie watching habit. It didn’t work out that way. My choice was poorly made. A bad decision. Although, there is the possibility it worked in an “end around” kind of way. Maybe it will kickstart things by focusing me on finding something fabulous. God knows, I know they are there. I think I’ll try again tonight. If you’ve any suggestions on what to watch, feel free to pass them along in the comments. In the meantime …

I did post a few reviews, including one I wrote this morning on the above mentioned movie. Those reviews are:

• The Seven Year Itch (1955)
• River of No Return (1954)

A couple of notes … if you’re not aware, you may be interested to know The Seven Year Itch was directed by Billy Wilder, script by George Axelrod and Wilder. And River of No Return stars Marilyn Monroe and Robert Mitchum.

This is by no means a great movie but, for some reason, I like it. For one thing, I love the song. It’s horribly corny, but … well, I like it. Go figure.

I think I’d call River of No Return a comfort movie. Like another movie I get the same feeling from, Father Goose, it’s just feels comfortable watching it and I don’t tire of it. At the same time, I can’t help having qualms because I know it’s not a particularly good film. It’s not bad, either, it’s just a middlin’ kind of movie.

And very cornball. Marilyn Monroe is a honky tonk floozy in a town in the Northwest. Robert Mitchum is a guy with some land he’s working out in the wilderness. Because of a bad guy and Indians (yes, Indians) they’re forced to take a raft down river.

Well, there’s a lot more than that. Essentially, this is an old-fashioned adventure movie with a romance thrown in. Robert Mitchum looks a bit more clean-cut than he normally does, and Marilyn is … well, Marilyn in tight jeans, saloon singer corsets and so on.

Despite this wishy-washy review, there are a couple of really nice elements to the film. One is Marilyn’s singing.

She does quite a bit of it (including a nice rendition of that cornball song I love, River of No Return) and it demonstrates what a nice voice she had and her talents as a singer.

The other element of the film that stands out is the second-unit work. The scenery and the shots that incorporate it are wonderful. Shot in British Columbia I believe, the natural backdrop is quite stunning and the cinematography is top-notch.

As part of the Marilyn Monroe: The Diamond Collection II, the film has gone through the restoration process and the image is fabulous. Maybe a little too much so.

The problem with having such a good image is you get to see some major continuity problems, such as the changes from on location work to studio. This must have been a rushed, low budget affair as a very poor job has been done matching lighting and other elements, and it’s really quite obvious.

You also get to see some omissions in the restoration process. During dissolves, you see one quality of image then, just as the dissolve ends, the quality of the image, particularly the light element, jumps to a much higher quality.

It’s almost as if once the dissolve ends, someone turns on the lights.

I don’t recall noticing this the first time I watched the disc. But I did the second time. And, not being a tech guy, I’m guessing the problem is in the restoration.

However, given the poor job in the filmmaking, perhaps its in how the film was originally made.

Either way, there are some technical issues with this movie that stand out.

So … This is a troubling film. I can see so many problems with it. Yet, despite that, I like it.

There’s no accounting for some people’s tastes.

(Originally posted in 2003.)

There are essentially two reasons. The first is that it comes across as dated, very dated. It’s one of those movies that you had to see in the moment, by which I mean the mid-1950s, when it was made. It relies on a number of social and cultural touchstones (like a reference to a scene from the movie From Here to Eternity as well as to attitudes about urban life and the workplace).

The second reason has to do with the script and a device, or conceit, the film uses which is the ongoing monologue of the character Richard Sherman (played by Tom Ewell). The device is due to the fact that the script is based on a stage play, George Axelrod’s of the same name. It probably worked better, and was even a necessity, for the stage. On film, however, I found it annoying very quickly and also found it a constant reminder that I was watching a play put on film, not an original screenplay – a movie.

A lot of the humour is dependent on the monologue and the many double takes, or double thinks (as in, “On the other hand …”), of Ewell’s character. Also, as mentioned, much of the humour is rooted in the period.

While director Billy Wilder (who was also co-writer with George Axelrod on the screenplay) tries to make this a movie, as opposed to a play on film, it’s that endless monologue that works against its cinematic aspect. Wilder uses some very visual scenes, like the famous vent blowing air up Marilyn Monroe’s dress, but it remains a play on film. If it were done today, I think, the first person perspective (of Ewell’s character) would be done with much less monologue, if any, and much more visually, using the camera to express perspective. (Don’t ask me how the humour would get worked in.)

Having said all that, there are some good aspects to the movie and they are primarily Tom Ewell and Marilyn Monroe – particularly Monroe. The plot is simple and stated well on IMDb: “When his family goes away for the summer, a so far faithful husband is tempted by a beautiful neighbor.”

Ewell (the husband) is wonderfully expressive, visually, as the corporate working schmo. I don’t recall what review I read it in but some reviewer referred to it as his, “hangdog expression,” and that’s it exactly. It’s perfect casting.

Also perfect is Marilyn Monroe (the neighbour) as the summer resident who movies in above Ewell’s apartment. With director Wilder, she is really parodying her image as a sexpot. In fact, when watching the movie the only time I find it really engages my interest is when Monroe appears. She plays it dead on – that is, over the top without going too overboard.

In the end, however, it’s a period film, contemporary only when it was made and not a movie that aged well.

Directed by Howard Hawks

Although it’s released on DVD as part of Marilyn Monroe: The Diamond Collection II, the movie Monkey Business isn’t really what you would call a Monroe movie. Yes, she’s in it but she’s a supporting player.

This is a Cary Grant movie. More to the point perhaps, it’s a comedy from director Howard Hawks.

As a Hawks comedy, it falls into the category of screwball and while not the best example, and certainly not close to Hawks’ His Girl Friday, it’s a great movie.

It’s thoroughly silly and makes no apologies for being that way. Grant plays a somewhat preoccupied scientist (a common type in screwball comedies as with Grant in Bringing Up Baby or Gary Cooper in Ball of Fire). He’s searching for a youth formula, something that will make people feel young again. He fails but one of the monkeys in his lab succeeds, although no one knows it.

Cary Grant, Ginger Rogers and Marilyn Monroe in Monkey Business (1952).

This is essentially the movie: unbeknownst to them, various characters (including Cary Grant and Ginger Rogers) take the youth-making formula and become younger.

It’s not a lot to hang an entire movie on – basically it’s one gag. But in Hawks hands it works because of the standard quick pace common to all his films, especially the comedies.

Also common to Hawks comedies is the tension, sometimes fighting, between the male and female leads. Usually, there’s a degree of antagonism.

While there’s a hint of this in Monkey Business the film is a bit different in that this is not a particularly predominant element. (Compare Monkey Business to another film such as His Girl Friday, which is pure Hawks.)

As with all Hawks films, it’s not entirely the movie Hawks would have made had studios and the Hays commission left him alone. Ginger Rogers would not have been in it (Hawks’ choice was Ava Gardner) and there would have been more obvious sexual innuendos.

Marilyn Monroe and Cary Grant in Monkey Business (1952).

As for Marilyn Monroe, she’s clearly in the film for the value of her name and shape and little else. The part is small with little for her to do except wiggle and appear like an airhead. This is not a movie for seeing what Monroe could do as an actress, though it does show what sort of male-dominated Hollywood environment she had to deal with as an attractive actress.

However, if you’re in the mood for something silly, and want to see how good Cary Grant was as a comic actor, Monkey Business is a great movie.