It’s impossible to talk about the new movie Monster without talking about Charlize Theron’s performance as the homeless prostitute turned serial killer. The actress’ note-perfect rendition of the real-life and well-documented Aileen Wouranos is already the stuff of legend-how the gorgeous six-foot-tall South African model-turned-actress gained 30 pounds, donned prosthetic teeth and contact lens and inhabited an ugly role for extremely impressive results.
She’s now being mentioned in the same breath as Hollywood legends-actors that demonstrated their commitment to their craft by ultimately transforming themselves physically (De Niro in Raging Bull, Benecio Del Toro’s gluttonous lawyer in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, to name just two). Paradoxically, however good Theron is in the movie, knowing about her transformation, the viewer is helpless but to view the film at a distance, disengaged from the action as they become an armchair acting critic. The hype has already overwhelmed the content of the film, leaving what could have been either an interesting portrait of the psychology of America’s first (famous) female serial killer, or a scathing commentary on the society that gave birth to her, bereft of its power to speak meaningfully on either subject.
While the production is solid throughout, and stands as an impressive debut from writer/director Patty Jenkins, it is impossible to view Monster in any way but critically. The material and its relationship with “real-life” events, alongside those that are staged, contribute to this particular mode of watching the film. Central to this is Christina Ricci’s impressive portrayal of Selby Wallis, Wouranos’ lover and the purported reason that she begins her killing streak-a fictionalized version of a character based on the prisoner’s own diary entries, and whose name has obviously been changed in order to protect her presumed innocence in the killings.
Ricci is given the difficult job of reacting to the ‘bigness’ of Theron’s acting, and does so through her minute reactions and subtle change throughout the film. The casting in this case is nothing short of brilliant, as the on-screen size of the actresses conveys a visually stunning sense of proportion that falls soundly in line with the aims of the film. Theron simply towers over Ricci every time they’re on-screen together and this contributes to the film’s theme of Wournos’ need to protect the naïve Wallis.
The validity of the love story, though it propels the narrative of the film, is another of the film’s weaknesses, as it reduces Wouranos’ motivations to those of a lover looking to be loved, and thus obliterates the possibilities of the work saying anything meaningful about the society it speaks about or Wouranos’ extreme reaction to her oppressive state the only way she can-namely by killing the ‘johns’ who repeatedly exploit, rape and beat her.
This is not say that the film doesn’t have strengths. At times it is deeply affecting, but works against itself on so many levels, leaving the viewer ultimately at odds with what they have just seen. Is the film a social commentary about the role of women who are so ultimately disenfranchised that they can only kill men to live? Is it a love story? Or is the film an exercise in Hollywood revisionism-a juicy story that is as irresistible to studio magnates and the audiences who watch them? It seems as though the monster in this case is the questions that the film raises, and the inevitable hype behind it.
