Monster (2003): A Review (Review #2045)

MONSTER (2003)

Much praise has been given to Charlize Theron for her performance in Monster. The biopic of Aileen Wuornos, the rare female serial killer is shocking, but not in the way perhaps one might think. The film is not graphic when it comes to showing Wuornos' crimes. Instead, I found Monster shocking in how sympathetic it is towards this mass killer. 

Ever since she was a child, Lee has dreamed of a glamourous life where she will be loved. Unfortunately, she had to make do with men treating her as a cheap toy. She goes from merely flashing boys to gain their attention to being a hooker. 

Lee, now having moved from Michigan to Florida, finds herself at a lesbian bar. Lee tells shy, insecure Selby (Christina Ricci) that she is not a "dyke", startling and dismaying Selby. Despite this, Lee does eventually accept the pitcher of beer that Selby has ordered. Finding nowhere to stay, Lee agrees to go home with Selby, though it is purely platonic. Selby, who is staying with friends of her father who like him, are very religious. They may suspect that Selby is a lesbian but have no solid proof of that.

Proof of Selby's sexual orientation however comes when Selby and Lee are spotted at the local roller rink where they share an open kiss. Lee wants to fund a better life for her and Selby, so she keeps on being a hooker. A bad trick however ends up beating and raping her, forcing Lee to kill her john. Selby eventually leaves her home to move in with Lee into a second-rate motel. Lee has promised that she will support them and that she will clean up her act and leaving hooking. 

That proves easier said than done, since Lee has no work experience or education. Rejected on all sides and even forced at one point to perform a sex act on a police officer who picked her up during official business, Lee has no choice but to return to the world's oldest profession. She is also forced to kill every man unfortunate enough to cross paths with her. She murders almost always in self-defense, with the possible exception of one man whom she kills despite not being a client but a good Samaritan offering to help her. She does at least spare one john who is sexually inexperienced.

A car accident involving Selby and Lee triggers the eventual capture of Lee. Selby, who has little driving experience, takes her eyes off the road enough to cause an accident into a couple's front yard. Selby is at minimum unaware that the car belonged to one of Lee's victims. At most, Selby is vaguely aware that it is stolen but not aware that Lee has murdered more than one person. Lee is eventually tracked down, though her friend Thomas (Bruce Dern) did attempt to warn her before the police got her out of the biker bar to arrest her. Now behind bars, Selby cooperates with the police to get Lee to incriminate herself during recorded phone conversations. What will Lee's ultimate fate be?

The Patty Jenkins written and directed movie is misnamed. The title may be Monster, but the Charlize Theron character is not really a monster. If one went by Monster, one would wonder why it was titled that. Very early on in Monster, probably not even five to ten minutes, I became very concerned that Monster was going to be very sympathetic towards Wuornos (I do not think that the film ever referred to her as "Aileen Wuornos" or even "Aileen" but instead she was "Lee"). At the end of the movie, we find that there is no monster in Monster. 

We find Perpetual Victim. 

This Lee killed either in self-defense or due to being in a sort of fugue state. Every time she was hooking, Lee was somehow triggered by past traumatic experiences that compelled her to kill and kill again. The men, even the lawyer who correctly refused to consider hiring Lee for a secretarial job due to her total lack of skills, were almost all shown as almost deserving of their killings. The fourth man that Lee killed at least was shown as someone who genuinely wanted to help Lee and did not take advantage of her. However, Monster was at minimum cold towards him, suggesting that Lee was somehow not in full control of herself when she gunned him down in the back of the head.

I will concede that the first killing came after an awful and brutal attack on Lee. However, as I kept watching Monster, I again grew concerned that Lee was not a Monster. If I went by what I saw in this scene, I could have judged it a justifiable homicide. However, again and again, Monster did not portray Wuornos as a monster. I do not think that any other film has painted a serial killer in such a sympathetic light. It is almost to where one wonders if the Monster production team actually sided with Wuornos. The abuse, the degrading, the rejection that Wuornos endured for the whole of her life apparently either justified or rationalized Wuornos' killing spree.

Again, this is why I ended up wondering why the film was titled Monster. As portrayed by Jenkins and Theron, Aileen "Lee" Wuornos was almost always a victim, vaguely responsible for killing men and barely responsible for her crimes. This portrait of Wuornos as victim almost basically forced to kill troubles me greatly. I am not happy that her early life forced her to turn to prostitution. It still, however, does not change my moral compass into thinking that Lee was not evil, self-centered, heartless and brutal.

Monster's great claim to fame is that it won Charlize Theron the Best Actress Academy Award. Theron is among the rare people to win an Oscar on their film's only nomination. I give credit where it is due. Theron's transformation is remarkable. The makeup work deglamorizes Theron, making her look as close to the real Aileen Wuornos as possible. Theron has Wuornos' crazed eyes and mannerisms, this angry woman, raging whenever things do not go how she wants them to. Theron is very intense in her performance, especially in Lee's self-righteousness when it comes to her murderous spree. I think though that the script hinders her overall performance. Again, I could not find myself sympathetic towards Wuornos despite Monster's greatest efforts.

With respect to some of my reviewing brethren, I do not think that Charlize Theron gave one of the greatest performances in the history of cinema. I wonder how many people nowadays even remember Monster or Charlize Theron's performance in it. 

I am also surprised that while Theron has received the greatest recognition for Monster, no one seems to be as enthusiastic about Christina Ricci in the film. I thought that Ricci was better in Monster than Theron was. Yes, Theron had the flashier, meatier role as the serial killer who was just misunderstood. However, Ricci to my mind brought a great deal of sympathy as Selby. Selby clearly ended up falling for Lee, and Ricci brings a humanity to Selby. She is genuinely sympathetic, a young woman who is willing to give up all she knows for this other woman. I found in Ricci a character whom I ended up caring about, someone who was either oblivious or willfully blind to her lover's twisted world. Perhaps Selby was both, and it's a credit to Ricci that Selby was a lovestruck dupe. 

Ultimately, I think that if people remember Monster, it is because it made Charlize Theron an Oscar winner. I do not think that neither Monster nor Theron's performance have stood the test of time. I think people will praise Theron's performance if they see Monster. My question is whether people actually want to watch Monster. This is by no means a bad performance, though now having finally seen it, perhaps an overrated one. I still find that Monster is a misnomer given how sympathetic it was towards Aileen Wuornos. That perhaps may be the most monstrous element in Monster.

DECISION: D+