Review: May/December

This fictionalised version of the Mary Kay Letourneau case has Natalie Portman playing an actress about to embark on a film project concerning the relationship between Grace (Julianne Moore) and Joe (Charles Melton, staggeringly out of his depth). What’s the fuss all about? Well, when Grace was 36 she began having criminal sexual contact with the then 13 year-old Joe and eventually became pregnant. Now Grace is around 60 and Joe in his 30s, and they’re welcoming Elizabeth (Portman) into their home and lives. The intrusion opens up holes in the relationship, whilst also taking Elizabeth on a bit of a journey herself.

 

The Mary Kay Letourneau criminal case could provide the basis for a good big screen film. Director Todd Haynes (the solid “Carol”), screenwriter Samy Burch (better known as a casting director), and producer-star Natalie Portman have not given us that good film. This 2023 meta-infused fictionalisation of the real-life criminal case is utterly repugnant, worthless, and not only the worst film of its year (somehow beating out “Cat Person”) but one of the worst films to come out in a long time. When I dish out the ‘No Rating’, it’s usually for a film that defies conventional rating. For the worst of the worst in cinema, I generally just go with an F. I’m not playin’ like that today, folks. This movie isn’t worthy of being graded at all, though ‘No Rating’ is I suppose still a grading – poking holes in my own argument already! By the way, you can add producer Will Ferrell to the list of people involved in this project who have now gone down a bit in my estimation. Full warning, this will be more of an unhinged rant than a film review, because the very existence of the film itself and the way the story is presented is entirely offensive to me. So if you want a standard film review, there’s plenty of other options especially if you’re looking for a positive review. The film is somehow rather popular.

 

Seriously, why would Natalie Portman of all people want to produce and star in a film about the exploitation of a child that does not offer an utter demonisation of that subject? She’s spoken out about how she was used in an inappropriate way in films as a young person. Oh, but it’s OK because when we meet the characters here they’re now all adults? No, just no. She’s got an issue with “Beautiful Girls” (a film with an intent she seems to have misunderstood), but this is OK? The film is still about the making of a film about their initial criminal union. Just because the Letourneau surrogate is depicted as a pretty awful person at times, does not mean that it’s OK for this story to be conveyed the way that it is. This monster, this criminal is still afforded far more depth and nuance than deserved. The late Mary Kay Letourneau doesn’t deserve an overly nuanced portrayal, she deserves an accurate one (Her victim was only 12 at the time the crime began, by the way). Provide context absolutely, like a good true crime documentary would. This isn’t a true crime documentary, it’s taking a true crime story, fictionalising it and trying to turn it into an arty piece of entertainment that provides more than just context and complexity. Think about that, it’s a story about a child sex crime, that isn’t really fodder for entertainment so you have to be very careful how you approach it. I get wanting to have some context and a 3D portrayal, but if you apply too much nuance with something like this situation, you run the risk of justification, glamourisation, and endorsement. You only need look at the film’s sickening title to know how this crime will be portrayed on screen. This was not a May/December romance, it was a pedophilic crime, and there’s nothing human or complex about it, nor do I appreciate the irony/humour if that’s what Haynes was going for with the title.

 

The fact that the story has been fictionalised is utter cowardice (and this is inspired by the late Mary Kay Letourneau, make no mistake), particularly the choice to not mirror the teacher-student transgression of the real-life case. That would make this situation even more difficult to defend because there are rules and laws specific to schools too. Then there’s the creepy-as-hell late twist involving Natalie Portman’s character that is just a foul Hollywood trivialisation that does not belong anywhere near a film about this subject. This story does not need gimmicky plot twists, you weirdos. It gives off the impression that Portman has been aroused by exposure to this sick, criminal relationship. I almost turned the film off part way through, but I slogged it out solely so I could write the review. You’re welcome, by the way. I’ve heard people say the film is satirical, but I really didn’t detect the humour at all. As for the meta aspect, there’s nothing new about the story of an actress getting to know her subject, let alone anything particularly interesting. It’s just more pretentiousness to no added benefit.

 

One of the worst sins this film commits is being boring, and the characters/performances are all dull too, notably Melton’s Joe. Portman’s character is a mere storytelling device, not a fully developed person. An actress does not need location visits for this kind of project. That’s just silly nonsense. Make no mistake, I’m not saying that this is entirely a black and white glorification of this kind of crime, it’s definitely not going that far. I’m saying this real-life case was so cut and dried that it should’ve been closer to a black and white condemnation just one with some substance. Fictionalising it is no excuse. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but for once critic Armond White was right when calling this ‘A transgressive act of criminal reprieve’. I still don’t like the guy and his personal statements in the review about Portman and Moore’s looks are completely misogynistic and irrelevant, Mr. White. If you think I’m being too harsh about this cinematic abomination, answer me this: If the film was about a male teacher/adult and a female child being interfered with, does it get made in this same nuanced manner in the 2020s? Of course not, maybe in years prior it might have but not now.

 

This pretentious, trash bag of a film made me uncomfortable for reasons unlikely intended. I don’t recommend the film in the slightest, but in a way perhaps it’s still worth seeing just to call it out on its arty-farty bullshit treatment of something so unforgivably, transparently criminal. The dreadfully insistent music score by Marcelo Zarvos (De Niro’s underrated “The Good Shepherd”) is the final nail in the coffin. I despise this film, but I welcome any feedback from those who loved the film, because it does appear my view is in the very extreme minority on this one and I’m rather perplexed by that.

 

Rating: No Rating