Barbie (2023)

 

In honor of Women's International Month and Barbie's recent 65th anniversary, I've decided to review the live-film version of Barbie starring Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling. The hype for this movie was inescapable and garnered overwhelming praise, including six Oscar nominations and many, many other awards. I'm telling you, it's a whole slew of nominations on Wikipedia that I can't even count. Now for the nominations for Ryan Gosling's performance? I get it. For the production design and costumes? Definitely deserved and was one of the main highlights of the movie. Best Original Screenplay and Best Picture? No. Just no. Now I didn't think the movie was god-awful or anything but I didn't think it was this modern masterpiece. I would even go on to say that this was one of the most overrated movies of 2023. Besides all that, I thought the cast did a really good job, and I did  get a few chuckles here and there, but it's the script that really brings the movie down. There are some really good ideas here that weren't executed well or were just completely abandoned. Anywho, let's get down to the nitty-gritty because there is a lot to discuss.

The first act is really well done. The World-Building, The Set-Up, Barbie's existential crisis, it's all good so far. And just to mention, everyone is perfectly cast in their roles. Besides the wonderful Ryan Gosling as Ken, we also have Issa Rae as President Barbie and Kate McKinnon as Weird Barbie, who were definite standouts. 

Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling have amazing chemistry, and it would've been nice to see them together for the rest of the film, but....that's not how things turn out. The film falls apart for me around the middle section of the second act once Ken discovers that men rule the real world, which is ludicrous. Plus, I felt that the men in the real world were portrayed unrealistically. How I would describe them is cartoonish, bufoonish, and absolutely one-note. Ken is the only one considered a nuanced character from the rest of the male cast. And by the first third act of the movie, it becomes the battle of the sexes between the Barbies and Kens. Sure, that's fine and all, but I wish the writing was better. 

Okay, now let's move on to the characters and break them down one by one:

The Mattel executives were not needed in this, and I was taken out of the movie every time they appeared on screen. Will Ferrel was really irritating, and I know that's his brand of comedy, but it just didn't work for me. It was like the film was afraid to make the Mattel executives the villains, which would've made the movie more interesting, but since it didn't take those risks, they're just there for the most part. 

After the goofy chase scene involving the Mattel executives, Barbie runs into Mattel Secretary Gloria and her daughter Sasha. Barbie soon discovers that Gloria, not Sasha, is the lost little girl she needs to reconnect with. Now, I didn't have a problem with Gloria, and America Ferria was endearingly likable, but she just wasn't developed enough as a character. Gloria serves as the film's heart and is the secondary main character besides Barbie; however, there are only glimpses of her character arc without scratching the surface. It's implied that she's having a midlife crisis and projecting those insecurities onto Barbie. Yes, that is interesting, but the problem is, we never see Gloria struggle with that. Okay, what if she's this put-upon secretary who's gifted but usually ignored at her job. Since Gloria's husband is basically non-existent in the film, why not have her go through a divorce or kill him off. That's a little morbid, but it would've added more weight to her character arc. Therefore, her speech in the middle of the movie would've felt more earned. 

Now, we move on to my least favorite character in the movie, Sasha. Holy cow, this girl was annoying! Throughout most of the movie, all she does is bitch and complain, and oh god, it gave me such a splitting headache. She is supposed to be the typical moody, bratty teenage daughter, a character trope that has gotten egregious over time. A character like this could work if she was written better, but we never know what Sasha's damage is. She's just a self-centered, know-it-all teenager who treats her mom like crap for no reason. When Barbie meets her at her school, Sasha is framed as if she's the mean, popular girl, a character that Sasha herself would despise. And when you think about it, this might've been really good commentary because Sasha comes off as the "not like other girls" type of girl when, in actuality, she's no different from the so-called mean girls from her school. Case in point, we have Vivian Kensingston from Legally Blonde. She would be the typical brainy brunette that Elle Woods herself would look down upon, but the roles are reversed. I guess that's what the film is trying to go for, but I digress. In the movie's middle section, Sasha does come around...a little bit. I don't know. I just feel like this character was less developed than Gloria, and the film just didn't do a good job of making her the least bit likable until the end. 

Okay, I want to get this out of the way. I thought Gloria's husband was so irrelevant in this movie. He's basically a punchline, and his whole schtick is that he's a white guy trying to learn Spanish. I...just don't get the joke. It's absolutely cringeworthy, and I hate it. Sure, I know the actor was America Ferria's real-life husband. Sure, that's sweet and all, but he was not needed in the story. Like I said before, why not have Gloria go through a divorce or kill off the husband. This brings back the focus on Sasha. Maybe the reason why she's angry all the time is because she doesn't know how to grieve, whether it's through the divorce of a parent or the death of a parent. Then, when we get back to the scene where Barbie goes through her depression mode, SASHA is the one who convinces her to break out of it ("Don't give up," "I still believe in you"). Therefore, Sasha confesses that the reason why she rejected Barbie is because of societal pressures or her so-called friends in high school who keep telling her that Barbie is a bad representation of women and feminism. Then, Sasha confesses to her mom about her growing pains, Gloria makes her speech, and Mother Gloria and Daughter Sasha reconnect again. All I'm saying is that Gloria's husband was not needed, and the plot would've been better for it. 

Now, let's talk about Ruth Handler. I just want to get this off the bat: It's kind of disrespectful of the filmmakers to puppeteer a dead woman to serve a plot. There is a case of honoring one's spirit, but I wish they had handled it better. Oh yeah, and second of all, Ruth Handler, in real life, wasn't the typical grandma who made tea and baked cookies; she was a level-headed businesswoman who wanted to break the code. There is nothing against Rhea Pearlman; she did well with the role, but I would've imagined somebody like Glen Close or even Meryl Streep in a role like this. Also, I don't see Ruth in this quaint little kitchen sipping tea, oh no. I see her decked out in a sharp white suit in this slick white office with all the Barbie posters and all the collectible Barbie dolls prepped up like statues. The whole setting would be omnipresent and very cool-looking. Oh, what a missed opportunity that would've been, but the movie has plenty of missed opportunities, trust me.

But let me focus on the positives and talk about the two wonderful leads:

Ryan Gosling was just ah-dorable as Ken. I never knew that he knocked it off the part the way he did, but he totally sold it. Ken's story arc was actually well-developed. I mean, it wasn't perfect, but the one aspect I liked was how he was underappreciated by Barbie and felt inferior next to her. Sadly, I felt his story arc didn't come full circle. Sure, the film takes a turn and makes Ken the antagonist, but I wish the movie would dig deeper into Ken's insecurities and portray them in a way where it's both funny and sad. Okay, for example, Ken turns on the TV and shows Barbie how popular he's become in a scene in the movie. Okay, here's my what-if: What if GI Joe or a GI Joe-adjacent character becomes popular instead. Hell, John Cena made a cameo in this movie; he would've played this GI Joe-type character. On top of that, another good casting choice would be Zac Efron as Max Steel (I'm pretty sure some millennials know about this toy line). Okay, so Ken turns on the TV, and the announcer goes, "Now introducing GI Joe and his sidekick, Ken!" Ken would throw this massive bitch fit and say something like, "Oh, I'm always second best, but at least I'm better than you, Barbie!" that would've been a really good joke. And get this, the part where the Barbies pit the Kens against each other, what if Barbie was forming a faux love triangle between Ken and this GI-Joe character and the Max Steels, of course. Then, the I'm Just Ken sequence would be more palpable. I'm pretty sure there were some kids who had Barbie leave Ken for GI Joe, and that also would be ripe for comedy. This would make Ken feel he's not masculine enough compared to the more muscular, manly GI-Joe doll. So many missed opportunities. So many glorious missed opportunities. Besides all that, Ryan Gosling did a stellar job, and he's an absolute comedic genius without missing a beat. Although Ken is supposed to be the antagonist, you can't help but like the character, and that's due to Ryan Gosling's impeccable charm. And I must say, the man has a clean set of pipes on him. This guy is a massive triple threat. He can sing, act, and dance! Just an absolute treasure. Ryan Gosling's performance is truly the best thing about this movie. 

 

Speaking of, Margot Robbie as Barbie was just darling—truly, truly darling. Not only does she look like Barbie herself, but I also think she captured her spirit and put a lot of heart and soul into the role. As far as Barbie's story arc goes, it's a bit all over the place. Okay, so Barbie is having an existential crisis. Good, that's a nice setup for a character like Barbie. Then, her mission is to find the little girl playing her, who's obviously going through a depression. So, Barbie actually has a purpose, but sadly, it falls flat in the end. There are some aspects of Barbie's character that I did like. I like that she's an empath, representing Barbie as a whole. When you look into it, Barbie is empathic, and Greta captured that well. But I wish her story arc was more compelling. Okay, just to clarify this, I didn't like the ending. Why, oh why, would you end the movie with Barbie seeing a gynecologist. She deserved a better ending than that. What if it ended with Barbie taking control of her image and Mattel as a whole. What if she was the co-founder and Gloria was the new CEO. Then, it ends with Barbie, in a slick black and white striped business suit similar to her 1959 bathing suit, doing an advertisement on the newly revamped Mattel in which she says these words, "Hi, I'm Barbra Handler, the CFO of Mattel. And we girls, we can do anything!" I find that to be a much better ending than we got here, and it gives the whole women empowerment message a new light. But oh well, that's another missed opportunity. However, Margot Robbie did an amazing job, and I can't picture any other actress playing this part other than her. Bonus points for her being the producer of this movie as well. Margot Robbie is a definite class act.

The dialogue in the film is quite strange. I know that Greta Gerwig is trying to make a comedy here, but real people don't talk like that. There are instances where the dialogue could've been sharper and witty, but that's not the case here. Some of this did work in the first act, such as the "Beach You Off" scene. However, this scene goes on a little too long. That's actually the problem with most comedies these days: The jokes go on for too LONG. Will Ferrel does his improv schtick, which would've worked back in the early 2000s, but it's really egregious here. There's also too much of explaining the joke, which makes it less funny. Then you have Sasha's dialogue, which is basically social media buzzwords. Teenagers don't talk like that; they just don't. And that's one of the reasons why I found Sasha unlikable and annoying.  So yeah, the delivery of the dialogue was not that great.

Okay, let's discuss the film's writing, which is one of the movie's weakest points. Most of this stems from when Barbie enters the real world and encounters some unsavory men. There's a part where Barbie and Ken are at the beach, and this random guy slaps Barbie on the butt. Barbie, in response, punches him straight in the nose. It's obvious that the guy committed a crime, and sexual assault is a crime. Yet Barbie is the one who gets arrested, and Ken is too? But I guess the film is trying to hone in on the message that the real world is ruled by the patriarchy, and women who get assaulted can't stand a chance. I mean, really? It's clear that there is not any ounce of subtly in this portion of the movie. On top of that, you even have police officers coming onto Barbie. Get real. It would've been nice if they had a female police officer that said, "Hey, that outfit looks great on you." And Barbie would've said, "Oh, thanks." This would probably lighten things up and hone in on the fact that in the real world, some women hold the same power as men yet still look out for other women at the same time. This would've made Barbie's story arc more palpable and added more of the women supporting women message that the film is going for. 

The concept of the real is like watching a parody of a lifetime movie. I just couldn't get past it. So, Ken is apparently brainwashed by real-world patriarchy and brings it over to Barbieland. This could work if it was just a small group of men in the real world to give Ken this mindset instead of, you know, the entire state of California populated by men. Again, it's just ludicrous as hell.

The other thing I've noticed is how the Kens treat the Barbies. There's nothing that indicates, "Oh, this is bad." Dressing the Barbies in maid outfits and being subservient to the Kens can be degrading, but I wish there was more conflict with this. Like if the Kens acted like stereotypical obnoxious frat boys compared to their usual sweet selves. Then, we see how Barbie, Gloria, and Sasha get Barbie back to their matriarchy, and...it's really dumb. You see, they get the Barbies to act helpless toward the Kens to lure the other brainwashed Barbies out of their captivity. Then, they have the Barbies to make the other Kens jealous, and then, the whole fight battle and the (the very long) "I'm Just Ken" sequence begins. Therefore, the Barbies get their power back, the Kens get their equality, and all is well. Yeah, sure.

It's weird how this all reminds me of better movies. There would've been many instances when Barbie entered the real world, and the humor could've been similar to The Brady Bunch movies. You have this family who are straight out of a sitcom from the early 70s, yet they're placed in a 90s kind of world. Also, there are movies like Legally Blonde, where Elle Woods, a stereotypical ditzy blonde, tries to make it into Law School, of all places. Lastly, you have the 2004 version of Stepford Wives. Now, I do not find that movie to be good at all, but it's still about these powerful women brainwashed into captivity and later breaking out of that. This sort of thing could work, but it just didn't. It fell flat for me, and it seems that the writers or whoever was running out of ideas at this point. 

Lastly, I would like to discuss Greta Gerwig's lack of history concerning the Barbie lore. In her interviews, Greta mentions that her mom forbade her to play with Barbie because...wait for it...she was a poor representation of women. So, Greta's lack of knowledge about Barbie really hindered the film, in my opinion. She seems to forget that Barbie and Midge are very best friends, and Midge is supposed to be married to Alan. But for some reason, they're not a couple in this movie? Barbie also had friends like Christie, Teresa, and Kira. Not to mention her little sisters such as Skipper, Stacie, Chelsea (formerly known as Kelly), and baby Krissie. Even Ken was friends with Allan, who had a friend named Steven and a little brother named Tommy. For some reason, all these characters were left out of the movie. There is a mention of Skipper, and we have a Skipper-like doll, but I don't think she's supposed to be related to Barbie. I get that there were already a lot of characters in this movie, but then again, why not have Chrissie be president of Barbieland, Kira be the physicist, or Teresa be the Nobel Prize Winner. So many missed opportunities. And she seems to forget that there are women on the board of Mattel in real life, and again, there's another missed opportunity with that as well. Wow, this aspect of the movie is really, really disappointing, and it would've worked if they had a Barbie superfan as the creative consultant. It would've definitely enhanced the movie a bit more.

Whew! This was a long review, and it took longer than I expected. But I felt like this movie had so much wasted potential. I didn't hate it, but I didn't think it was great either. And if you like it, that's fine. However, this movie would've been so much better. 

I would say one positive about Barbie. At least it feels like a real movie—maybe not a perfect movie, but a movie nonetheless. First of all, the movie is COLORFUL, and it was nice to see practical effects again. I would definitely like to see more of it. It's crisp, clean, and pristine, and not at all fake-looking without shitty CGI. Second of all, it's not some long-extended episode connected to some stupid cinematic universe. And, third of all, Barbie had a beginning, middle, and end, wrapped up in a neat little bow. No sequel hook in sight, and it was so REFRESHING. I can see why this movie was so successful because it was an actual goddamn MOVIE. This is what the audience wants. They don't want a sequel, a prequel, a remake, a reboot, a reimagining, or even a whole goddamn franchise, including a cinematic fucking universe. They want movies with a clear hero's journey. That's what makes a movie successful, and whoever's running these studios needs to understand that.

Okay, here's my final word: it's not great, but at least it's watchable. 

 

Mommie Dearest (1981)

 

And now the moment you've all been waiting for... the review of Mommie Dearest. Once a upon time when I was a wee little lad, this movie used to play on TV A LOT. I've always thought of Mommie Dearest as this prestige Oscar-bait film but as the years went by, people kept saying how much of a camp classic it was. I didn't get it at first, but upon watching the film a couple of more times, I can definitely see why. The subject matter is pretty heavy. It's about Child Abuse and Child Abuse is not a laughing matter at all. But what most people found funny about the film is Faye Dunaway's over-the-top performance as Joan Crawford, who is a real person by the way. But I don't think it's entirely her fault. It's more so the direction of the film and how it was presented. Well, let's take a deep dive shall we?

The movie is based on the 1978 autobiographical novel written by Christina Crawford, Joan Crawford's adopted daughter. I feel like the filmmakers really missed the point of the novel. It seems as though they were exploiting Child Abuse instead of making a more grounded psychological film. The novel did a good job of depicting what it was like living with a narcissistic parent. The manipulation, the guilt trips, the humiliation, it doesn't hold back and it's kind of tragic. So it baffles me as to why the filmmakers didn't get this right. At least, Christina Crawford acknowledged her mother as a real person while the filmmakers turned her into a cartoon villain. But I feel like Christina was the one who got screwed over in the end. This novel was written in her words, based on her experiences, whether true or not, and to have the film deviate so much from its source material is downright disrespectful.

As production began, the narrative swayed further and further from Christina. So, it's without a doubt that the true star of the movie is Joan Crawford herself. To add more salt to the wound, Christina Crawford had no involvement in the film, which would've helped it a little bit, I mean these were her experiences. But I guess the filmmakers were more concerned about making a Joan Crawford Biopic instead. There were plenty of actresses up for the lead role but Anne Bancroft, who Joan Crawford accepted the Oscar on her behalf, was the main attraction. Even Mia Farrow was up for the role of adult Christina. But all that fell through when producer Frank Yablans took over. He had his eye on Faye Dunaway. At this time, her career wasn't what it used to be after her Oscar win but she was very much in demand and wasn't afraid to take on risker roles. Faye was sure she was going to win another Oscar nomination for this role. Oh boy, Mrs. Dunaway was going to be in for a surprise. She wanted to go for a more methodical approach to her acting. There's nothing wrong with that persay, but I guess this is one of the reasons why her acting is...a bit over-the-top in certain moments. 

I would like to focus on three memorable scenes. Now just to let you know, these scenes are either totally exaggerated or didn't happen in the book at all, but I would talk about these scenes with an analytical view:

First, we have the "gardening" scene. Now according to Christina, Joan was a little OCD towards her gardening but I didn't think she took it to that level. In the movie, Joan has this reaction when she gets let go of her contract from MGM. But in real life, It was only a month later when Joan signed on to Warner Bros. So it seems as if Joan was just OVERREACTING. I mean geez, she had enough star power at the time to sign better deals. But I guess the filmmakers wanted to use this chain of events as dramatic effect.

Then there's the infamous wire hanger scene. Holy shit, this used to scare me as a kid. To this day, I find it hard to watch because it's something straight out of a horror film. The shadowed lighting, Joan's BOOMING voice, and the most horrifying of all, Joan's makeup. Holy crap! she freaked me out. At first, I thought she was a witch. There is absolutely nothing funny about this scene...

Well, except for this shot...Lol, why is Faye Dunaway making that face? But to be fair this was a really tough shot for her and she almost lost her voice. The scene was actually a compilation of a series of events in the novel. The wire hanger scene was treated subtly, still hard to read but subtle. While the "Cleaning" portion of the scene happened on a separate occasion. The filmmakers decided to combine these two incidents into this long drawn-out scene to accommodate Faye Dunaway's Oscar moment. Like I said this scene would've been effective if Faye Dunaway dailed it down just a notch. 

And lastly, we have the "strangulation" scene, you know, with the "BARBRA PLEASE!" line. This is supposed to be another harrowing scene where Joan almost KILLS Christina but, again, it comes off unintentionally funny because of Faye Dunaway's cartoonish expressions and, oh boy, this scene is by far her most over-the-top moment. Good god, this woman blows it over. These were actually two incidents compiled into one from the novel. The first incident was when she was caught with a stable boy at age 11 or 12. Yes, she was that young, so that would've been really inappropriate and downright uncomfortable to show on film. The second incident was when Christina became close with the headmaster and his wife, seeing them as a second family. Joan was not having it and pulled her away from school immediately, which is why Joan lied about Christina getting expelled just to spite her. 

The movie makes it look like Joan simply overreacts about her teenage daughter getting caught making out with a boy her age. According to Rutanya Alda, Faye Dunaway took this scene really seriously to the point where she injured her and co-star Jocelyn Brando. Again, somebody had to tell Faye to dial it down but I get the feeling that filmmakers were enjoying this too much. 

There was a lot of information that out from the book such as the twins Cathy and Cindy, in which they had a very loving relationship with Joan, and most of her early childhood that would become integral to her headstrong nature. If they had at least shown a small portion of her childhood and her climbing out of poverty, it would added more dimension to Joan's character instead of, you know, making her into this maniacal dingbat. Case in point, the whole reason Joan freaked out about the wire hangers is that it was a symbol of her traumatic childhood, working in shop factories and living in poor conditions. If the filmmakers would've added a bit of context to the wire hanger scene instead of just a random event. 

In the more subtle scenes where, you know, Joan is portrayed like an actual human being, Faye Dunaway does some pretty good acting. There was actually a scene where Joan tearfully confides to young Christina at a beach to soften her a little but the scene was cut for some reason. I guess the filmmakers thought it would be more "entertaining" to focus on the shocking, sensationalized moments of the screenplay. 

What I've also noticed about the film is that it has a unique style to it. It does this thing where in each time period the film sort of emulates the style of the movies from within that time period. That's cool and all, I appreciate the effort but what I liked about the Mildred Pierce miniseries is that although it was set in the 1930s and 40s, Todd Haynes went with a gritty, realistic style of the 70s. Since this was made in 1981, I feel like this kind of style would benefit the movie a bit more. 

Even though most of the movie is inaccurate, this incident was very true. You see, Christina tried to make it as an actress herself, and she eventually landed a role in a soap opera called The Secret Storm. When she gets sick, Joan steps in to take over her role. Christina mentions her character is 28 while Joan is way past that age. This is so wrong on so many levels. What parent takes their child's acting job? I feel like this was the moment that broke the camel's back for Christina but that's not even the half of it. But Joan is not to blame here, believe it or not. I blame the producers wholeheartedly. They were probably starstruck by Joan's presence and signing her on into the role, even though she was too old to play the part. From what I gather, Joan was at least in her sixties and was in no condition to film because she was drunk on her ass. So yeah, shame on the producers. 

The movie becomes a little understated after except for the "DON'T FUCK WITH ME FELLAS!" line. But besides all that, it's pretty low-key. 

There's the part where Christina makes an exceptional speech at Joan's televised tribute special and Joan, while lying on her death bed, is deeply touched. It's actually kind of sweet...well, not for long.

By the time she arrives at Joan's funeral and reunites with her brother Christoper, Christina goes to the hearing to see if Joan left a will. She doesn't. When Christoper says, "She always has the last word. Christina stares ahead with fury in her eyes, "Does she? Oh does she..." Thus begins the revenge of Christina Crawford.

Now do I think this is a terrible movie? It has some merits and I can see what the filmmakers "attempted" to do but the result fell flat. As I said, Faye Dunaway is not to blame here, she takes it too far with her acting and she did cause some tension on the set but she is not the one to blame for this movie's failure. It all weighs down on the filmmakers who instead of making a complex psychological drama turned it into an exploitative romp. It's kind of a shame because it was all there. I don't know what the filmmakers were thinking but at least this film will go down in history as a camp cult classic.

The Two Faces of Mildred Pierce

 

Before I dive deep into the phenomenon that is Mommie Dearest, I want to discuss the adaptations of James M. Cain's novel Mildred Pierce. Now, I'm gonna say right off the bat that between these two adaptations, I definitely choose the Todd Haynes version. Now don't get me wrong, the original is one of  Joan Crawford's iconic films, but Kate Winslet really knocked this off the park for me. 

Let's talk about the novel first. Now although Mildred is a character you can empathize with, she's not exactly portrayed as sympathetic here. First, she seems to favor Veda after the death of her youngest daughter, Ray, She marries a man whom she doesn't exactly care for to please her snobby, elitist daughter, and she embezzles money from her business to please said daughter. So while adapting the 1945 film version, the filmmakers had to make some accommodations to appease the Hays Code.

So screenwriter Ranald MacDougall and director Michael Curtiz decided to take a film noir approach to the story and this is where I make the comparisons to the novel and 1945 version.

Here's the story: After separating from her husband, Bert, Mildred is to take care of her two daughters, Veda and Ray. In desperate need of financial stability, Mildred takes a job as a waitress, at the behest of Veda. But eventually, Mildred learns the ways of the restaurant business and owns a chain of her own. She soon attracts the attention of Monte Beragon, a lazy playboy who's living off his inheritance. Monte sweeps Mildred off her feet and the two begin a love affair. Unfortunately, Mildred's youngest daughter, Ray, dies of an illness, which leaves Mildred in a devastated state. From then on, Mildred grows attached to Veda who becomes increasingly vain and spoiled. Veda even goes so far as to blackmail a boy's family by pretending to be pregnant with his child to receive money from them and when Mildred forgives her after disowning her, Veda has an affair with her now-husband Monty! Talk about some heavy stuff! but I'll stop there.

The movie starts with the murder of Monte. Yes, the murder of Monte and that's one of the key differences from the book. Monte doesn't die in the book. In the end, he gets away scot-free, running off with Veda to New York, leaving a drunken and depressed Mildred and Bert to their own devices. Though judging by the Hays Code, this was unacceptable. If anything, Monte would be considered an immoral character since he does have an affair with his own stepdaughter and he has an overall unscrupulous nature when it comes to his relationship with Mildred. So the filmmakers decided to kill off Monte to shake up the plot and it actually makes the story more interesting that way. In the first few moments of the film, it becomes a murder mystery. It's made to look like Mildred shot Monte and is putting the blame on her business partner and friend Wally Fay (Burgan in the book). But the story goes deeper than that. During her interrogation, Mildred narrates her life, which starts the story proper. 

One of the most important elements of the film is the relationship between Mildred and Veda, not just in the story but in characterization as well. There is an archetypal character well-known within the film noir genre called the Femme Fatale. She represents the woman who might lead the male main character into danger. She is a woman of intrigue and mystery and you can never quite figure her out until the climax of the movie. But Mildred Pierce provides a more female perspective. In the opening moments of the film, at first, you would think that Mildred might be this type of character as it is made to look like she shot Monty and is on her way to frame Wally. But when Mildred begins her narration, we slowly figure out who the real Femme Fatale is, which turns out to be her own daughter, Veda. For those of you who haven't read the novel, Veda does have some shades of this in the original source material. It's sort of built up to how Veda became vain and manipulative and in a way just like the Femme Fatale, Veda does lead Mildred to her doom. 

On top of that, she gains fame as an opera singer but the Hays Code thinks that this is too dignified for her character and turns her into a chantese instead, which is a common occupation for the Femme Fatale character. Although singing at a nightclub would be out of character for the book version of Veda, it's totally in character for the movie version of Veda. At this point of the movie, Veda is blossoming into a young woman who becomes more stubborn and independent. And also, Veda might use this job as a way to attract possible wealthy suitors and potential managers to jumpstart her singing career. 

Just as Mildred and Veda start to reconnect again...Boom! Mildred catches Veda and Monty in a passionate kiss. Without any remorse, Veda confesses to Mildred that she and Monty have been in love all this time and they're having plans to run off and get married. Now this may be accurate in the novel, but not in the movie version. 

Monty rejects her on the spot and declares his love for Mildred, whether that may be true or not. When Mildred runs out of the house...Bang! Bang! Veda is the one who shot Monty.

Seeing her daughter for who she truly is, Mildred phones the police but her maternal instincts prevent her from doing so. To add more salt to the wound, Veda gaslights her by saying it was her fault for turning out the way she did. Holy cow!

So as Mildred finishes her story, the police take Veda into custody, and strangely she accepts her fate. After that, Mildred reunites with her ex-husband, Bert and that's where the movie ends. 

I like that they took the film noir angle that not only adds layers to the Veda character but also Mildred herself. Joan Crawford would usually star in movies where her character goes from rags to riches with a fierce determination to break out of their working-class life and into the world of the upper class. This was the perfect role for Joan Crawford and she eventually won an Oscar for her performance. Special shout out to Ann Blyth who really nails the role of Veda with viciousness and ferocity. It was a rarity that film noir was shown through a female perspective and that's what makes this an instant classic. 

But what I really, really want to talk about is the 2011 miniseries by Todd Haynes and oh boy is it great!

The miniseries goes by the same beats as the novel but in a different context. It's framed as a melodrama but it's actually a character study about a woman going above and beyond the constructs of the time while trying to maintain a relationship with her selfish, manipulative, narcissistic daughter and her lazy, prideful, self-indulgent boyfriend. 

Unlike the 1945 film, the setting takes place during the Depression. This was at a time when families were struggling to keep up heap. These boiling frustrations take a toll on Mildred and Bert's marriage, which also stems from his affair with one of their neighbors. So when Burt eventually leaves, Mildred has to go out hand and foot to look for a job, even one she considers degrading. I like how Todd Haynes portrays Mildred's struggles realistically. She literally goes hand and foot to find employment. It's not glamorous, it doesn't pass in a quick montage and Kate Winslet doesn't wear much makeup than usual. Todd Haynes really shows the realities of what people were going through during the Depression and he displayed that beautifully. 

Mildred meets up with Mrs. Forrester, a rather arrogant woman who's looking for a new housekeeper. Right off the bat, Mildred is getting bad vibes and declines the offer. Though Mrs. Forrester would become an important character later on in the story. 

As much as she tries to fight it, Mildred eventually takes a job as a waitress, however, this turns out to be a blessing in disguise. She starts off a little shaky but Mildred gets the hang of it and befriends a no-nonsense waitress named Ida, played by the very underrated Mare Winningham. Once Mildred sells her famous pies, it's legit. She is slowly climbing her way into being a legit businesswoman.

During this time, Mildred begins a relationship with Wally Burgan(played by an actor-I've-seen-in-every-movie James LeGross), who just happens to be Bert's lawyer and friend. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that they do indeed start a sexual relationship in the novel but I guess the Hays Code vetoed it and left it as a platonic relationship instead. The fling with Wally is more of a friends-with-benefits sort of thing and it's obvious that Mildred was sleeping with Wally to get back at Bert, however, at least she gets a new business proposition out of it. 

Although Mildred and Burt are separated, there is still love there. Unlike the 1945 film, Bert is very supportive of Mildred, lending her his car and even going so far as to finalize their divorce so she can jumpstart her business. The scene between Kate Winslet and Brian F. O'Byran where they agree to end their marriage is pure golden and shares that level of complexity that seems to be missing in the 1945 film. The scene is just pure golden.

Mildred's actual love interest is, of course, a debonair man-about-town named Monty Beragon played by the ever-so-handsome Guy Pearce. He arrives at the restaurant and Mildred is instantly smitten. When Monty invites her to his vacation home, things get steamy pretty quickly, showcasing how passionate their love affair is. But this newfound bliss doesn't last long, as Mildred gets a call that her youngest daughter Ray is very sick. As we all know, this doesn't end well...

The miniseries actually focuses on Mildred's grief from this, emphasizing the devastating blow she feels when the doctor informs her of Ray's death. Again, Kate Winslet's acting is phenomenal. The pain and the shock on her face without any dialogue are gripping to watch. Then when the scene ends, Mildred holds on to Veda as she breaks down crying, not to telegraph that Veda was her favorite but in the sense that she doesn't want to lose her too, therefore, her attachment to Veda is understandable.

So Mildred uses this tragedy to empower herself, honoring her late daughter's memory as a blessing to her newfound career as a restaraunter. As Mildred's business begins to boom, so does Veda's defiance. 

But beyond that, Mildred recognizes Veda's talent as a piano player, which wasn't expanded on in the 1945 film. Although Mildred sees the potential in Veda, her assigned piano teachers don't and it's up until Part 4 of the miniseries that Veda decides to do opera instead.

On one Christmas morning, Veda's ever-growing defiance takes a turn on Mildred when she doesn't give Veda the piano she wanted. Veda gets a little too big for her britches when she starts to smoke in front of her mother. When Mildred gives her a good slap on the face, Veda slaps her right back! May I reiterate this happens on freakin' Christmas of all days! Veda boastfully tells Mildred that Monty gossips to her behind Mildred's back. Yes, Veda is just shy of 14 at this point. Mildred is disgusted by this and after standing up to her vicious little brat of a daughter, she goes to confront Monty. The pair have been steady for a while, but Mildred realizes that it's beginning to be a take-and-no-give situation and whenever they do have an argument, Monty always finds a way to seduce her. But not this time. Mildred is not having it and asks him why he would even talk to her daughter about their relationship. And you know what his response is? He thinks Veda has the mind of an adult. What? Now as you all may know, Veda seems to have an infatuation with Monty and as she gets older, Monty seems to take notice of her too. You think about it, it's very weird and uncomfortable that he seems to think of her as an adult at a very young age. When Monty constantly jokes about being her gigolo, given that ever since she started her restaurant business, Monty has been a bit of a leech on her finances as his own inheritance has been drying up. So Mildred takes off in a heat of frustration leaving the relationship for good...or at least for now.

Some years have passed and Veda has grown up to be a stunning young woman played by Evan Rachel Wood. Now I'm going to say my piece about Evan Rachel Wood, she is okay in the miniseries. There are times when she is good and I do think she is a good actress, but there were times when she reminded too much of her character from True Blood, talking in an over-the-top posh tone. Anywho, let's continue the story. So Mildred's business has expanded, giving her best friend and neighbor Lucy Gessler (played by the ever-so-talented Melissa Leo) full ownership of a steak and fish restaurant.

After her piano teacher suddenly dies, Mildred goes in search of a new one in the form of Carlo Treviso, a renowned conductor. Right off the bat, he thinks Veda is a lousy piano player. Feeling detested, Veda quits and frets about her future, which eventually leads to her partying with her friends every night. She tells Mildred that she might get a casting call from a director who just so happens to be Mrs. Forrester's husband but little do Mildred know, Veda has something else up her sleeve. While opening up her restaurant, Mrs. Forrester pays her a visit with some troubling news. As we all know, of course, Veda is blackmailing Mrs. Forrester's son but being the good mother that she is, Mildred doesn't want to hear any of it and escorts Mrs. Forrester out of the restaurant. When Mildred confronts her about this, Veda pulls out the I'm Pregnant card, and Mildred, of course, falls for it. But as soon as she gets Wally on the case to have the boy put in jail or at least forced into a marriage with her daughter, Veda outright refuses and wants to take the money instead. Mildred is in utter shock and can't believe her daughter would stoop that low but Veda defiantly tells Mildred that she wants to use the money to get away from her. Appalled by her daughter's coldness, Mildred firmly tells Veda to leave...And a couple of months to a year pass. 

There's not a day that goes by where Mildred worries about Veda and begs Bert to tell her about her whereabouts. According to Bert, while she was away, Veda pursued a career in opera singing and is managed by Carlo Treviso, the same conductor who rejected her not long ago. Mildred hopes for a reunion but it just doesn't happen quite yet. However, Bert comes over to present Veda's very first radio appearance and when Mildred hears her song, she is moved to tears.

Determined to win back her daughter, she sees Carlo Treviso to discuss Veda's finances but Mr. Terviso knows better. He warns Mildred that Veda is like a Calcatta, a snake, it's nice to look at but you can't take them home with you. This might hint that Veda is a bit of a demanding diva that's difficult to work with. But Mildred's love for Veda withstands. 

While taking a drive in the city, she suddenly sees Monty and before you know it, they start reconnecting again. Their love affair is more passionate than before, to the point where Monty asks Mildred's hand in marriage. Mildred says yes...which is the beginning of the end.

During Mildred's wedding party, here comes Veda, back to her good graces again. So mother and daughter have a heartfelt reunion as Veda becomes the life of the party. She seems to have switched managers at this time and even gets offered a lucrative deal in New York but the new manager blocks her chance of doing so, to which again, Veda is boiling a plan in her head.

On the night of Veda's grand opening, she captivates the audience with her powerful singing, with one final song dedicated to her mother. Mildred cries tears of joy and for a second there it's pretty sweet. But you all know what happens.

So Mildred has been a financial hiccup because of her being distracted by Veda's singing career and also her new married life to Monty. So she has a meeting with Wally and the shareholder concerning her restaurant business when she gets the devastating news that her friend Ida has taken over her duties. She turns to Bert over her concerns about her dealings with Wally and fretting over her daughter's newfound success, which could help her out financially. It's at this point, that Bert becomes very supportive of Mildred as their relationship didn't get much development in the 1945 film. But as Mildred goes to search for Veda, she gets the shock of her life...

Mildred runs into Monty at their mansion and, he seems to be blocking their bedroom door. Put off by his strange behavior, Mildred pushes him out of the way and...

Lo and behold is Veda. And no, Mildred does not catch her in a loving embrace with Monty like in the original. Oh no, no, no, no. Veda is stark naked without a care in the world as if she's glad that her mother caught them in the act. All this time Mildred was worried that something had happened to Veda and something had happened to her alright, and Monty was the cause of it. Veda even smokes a cigarette to imply that yes, the sex was good. The complete nerve of this girl!  Monty goes on a rant about how Mildred used him to win back Veda. This is a true statement from the book,  this doesn't seem to be the case at all in the miniseries. Mildred seems to genuinely love Monty and it isn't like she was out looking for him, she just so happens to pop into her life again and, therefore, the passion in their relationship to pop into their life again. It seems to me that he was using Mildred to reel in Veda himself.

I just want to give my roses to Kate Winslet here. She absolutely owns this scene and the key to her amazing acting prowess is how she emotes without dialogue. The pain, the devastation, the repulsion, the anguish, the hurt, the betrayal. It's all detailed in her emotions. Kate Winslet, with all her hard work and talent, definitely deserved her Emmy award. 

Now Mildred doesn't go softly. She full-on attacks Veda (and rightfully so), choking her until her singing voice goes out.  Oh well, Veda, you should've never treated her mother like that.  but her knight in shining armor Monty comes to the rescue. Of course, he would defend the younger (at least young enough for him) Pierce woman. 

But this all transitions into the finale of the miniseries. 

Several months have passed by and Mildred gets a warm welcoming party from her friends after a long trip to Nevada with Bert. Ida feels guilty about taking Mildred's position and wants her to get back in the game again, signifying that there is hope for Mildred after all. But then, Mildred gets an unexpected visitor...

Veda comes to reconcile with her mother but seeing how manipulative and calculating her daughter is, Mildred is not buying it. Now let's dig deep into the main source a bit. The book kind of has a downer ending. Again, Veda uses the reconciliation with Mildred as a marketing ploy and uses her damaged voice to switch to a much more lucrative singing contract. As Veda leaves Mildred broken-hearted, Bert encourages her to say, "To hell with Veda," as they spend the rest of the day drunk and miserable.

However, the miniseries play this out much differently. Once Mildred catches onto Veda's plan, she chews her the fuck out and screams at her to never come back again. It's such a cathartic moment, which was very much well-deserved given what Mildred went through to win back the love of a daughter, who's incapable of receiving it. 

When Bert encourages her to say "to hell with Veda" and "let's get stinko", it's more celebratory and less tragic. This dialogue translates as to hell with all the hurt, pain, and betrayal that Veda has caused and now that we're finally done with her, let's give a toast to a new beginning. The ending is very poignant and although tragic, it's good that Mildred is around people who support and care for her, which leaves things on a bittersweet yet positive outlook. 

I just absolutely love this miniseries. Todd Haynes is a genius at his craft. The miniseries has the makings of a juicy melodrama, however, Todd Haynes peels into the layers of the characters and situations, adapting the psychological feel of the novel, which he does brilliantly. The cast is phenomenal with some heavy supporting players but the real star of the miniseries is Kate Winslet. She really gives it her all and, again, I give her my roses. I can't imagine any other actress playing this role but her. She got the Emmy and Golden Globe! Definitely, definitely deserved. 

So there you have it. Two completely different adaptations but with the same level of complexity.  Both are equally measured as classics of their time and go above and beyond the source material's popularity. But the true core of the story is about how far you go for the person you love, even the ones that don't deserve it.