Is Marilyn Monroe Real?


I know she's been seen by both the psychologist and the janitor, but the movie does stress his active imagination a lot, and I believe I remember getting the impression that she's just another part of his imagination. So, is she made up or really there?

reply

I just watched the film for the first time last night and I was thinking the same thing. It would explain why she is never given a name and also why he makes the Marilyn Monroe reference. Perhaps he has just invented his own fantasy woman, which at the time would very likely be Monroe. It doesn't tie in with the other people seeing her though. Perhaps Wilder wanted to have it so that either was equally possible and let the audience make up its own mind.

reply

It would explain why she is never given a name
That's the main reason why I support the theory.


--
Rome. By all means, Rome.

reply

There used to be a thread on this and most people didn't seem to agree with that idea. The first time I saw the movie I immediately assumed she was part of his imagination, and after seeing it again my believe only became stronger. But if she's just fantasy, so are the interactions with Tom MacKenzie and Mr. Kruhulik while The Girl is present. The ending is so absurdist that it really seems to support this theory. Although I don't think we should interpret the scenes with The Girl as hallucinations due to a mental illness, but merely as daydreaming and his imagination getting out of control.

reply

I have seen this film many times, and this never even occured to me.
It is very possible that 'the girl' is just another one of his fantasies. He seems to genuenly believe his own fantasies, so maybe Marilyn isn't real.
Personaly i think she is, but that is just because i chooses to do so.

Wherever, whatever, have a nice day...

reply

Having just watched this for the first time, I thought it strange that Richard Sherman talks out loud all through the film, even when alone and just 'talking to camera'
Surely if the situation was real, we would hear him thinking to himself, not speaking aloud.
The situation being his fantasy is quite plausible IMO.

reply

Like many people who have apparently seen too many movies, I think you're reading too much into it. I'm sure the idea never occured to the makers of the film. It's simple, straightforward comedy. And that's all there is to it.

reply

Wow, what a demeaning remark. I definitely haven't 'seen too many movies' and the thought occured to me as well. Also, you're not the director so why should I take your word for it? And to be honest, if Marily Monroe's character is real the movie goes down a lot of notches in my book.

reply

Yeah, I'm with you there. What exactly is "too many movies"? Just because it is a comedy does not mean that the director can't add aspects that allow the audience to think and make up their own minds. It's one of the reasons that this film is still so highly regarded so long after it was made.

reply


I think we're talking about an era where there wasn't so many psychological plots in movies and they were mainly about getting two big stars on screen to participate in romantic hijinx. If this movie were made today, I think that twist would be present, but as Billy Wilder's intention, I'd say no.

reply

I'd have to disagree with you on that one. People have been making intelligent, psychological movies for a long time. There is certainly enough in the film to suggest that Monroe might not be real. In a film where the flights of fancy of the main character are such a key aspect, why does it seem so strange that this part of the film might also be part of his imagination? Simply because it is an old film? Why does it seem unlikely that a director as respected as Wilder might have had an interesting idea?

reply



I am not trashing Billy Wilder here. I'm a big fan of the classics and they tend to not venture into the psychological quite as much and when they do there is usually a rational explaination for the issue...such as some other character being responsable for the hero's torment as opposed to the main character being a schizo or dillusional.

I don't disagree that it was a possibilty. People can interpret the movie as they see fit, and that's what's great about film in general. Eh, either way, fun movie. Wish they still made 'em like this.

reply

This just won't do at all. We seem to be disagreeing about a film but still managing to be civilized to each other. If we're not careful we'll have our IMDB accounts cancelled. At this point you should be calling me a gay-lord and I should be telling you to sod off and watch a Sandra Bullock rom-com! What is the world coming to?!

reply

"such as some other character being responsable for the hero's torment as opposed to the main character being a schizo or dillusional."

But like I said before, we don't need to 'interpret the scenes with The Girl as hallucinations due to a mental illness, but merely as daydreaming and his imagination getting out of control.' It doesn't have to be THAT dark. Instead of him being schizophrenic, those scenes could just be him fantasizing. Perhaps the intention of Wilder was that at first glance the movie seems a 'simple comedy', but at a deeper level it actually gives expression to the fantasies and the guilt of married men. He's just an average Joe, and a guy like that normally doesn't have a sexy model as a neighbour, who walks around in his appartment with hardly any clothes on while his wife's away, but a guy like that does FANTASIZE about it.

reply

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. Take it as you may. Wish Marilyn was still around.

reply

'wish marilyn was still around'
she would be a decrepit and forgotten hag. about 70 or 80 years old.
sometimes the best thing that can happen to someone is to die young.....
especially if famous and beautiful
just sayin'....

karma, you know, do good things, good things happen; do bad things, bad things happen?

reply

There is a very good reason that The Girl is real and not imaginary. All of the Tom Ewell character's "imagination" scenes are clearly identified in the film. It's like we get this big flashing neon sign that says, "Here comes an 'imagination' scene." In fact, one of the 'imagination' scenes involves his imaginary meeting with her when she comes down for the drink. If The Girl were imaginary, it wouldn't make sense for him to be imagining his imagination. The film is quite clear that his encounters with The Girl are actually happening. We are never "clued in" to expect an "imagination" scene like we are with all the other ones. He does very mundane and ordinary things with her. The "imagination" scenes are all very artificial and obvious flights of fancy. So in summary, the "imagination" scenes in the film are all very clearly identifiable as such, so anything that isn't indentifiable in that way is by default "reality".

reply

That's a fair enough point but it also seems like the literal viewing of the film to me. What happens when you dig just a little deeper? The fact that The Girl is never given a name and the reference to Marilyn Monroe tells us that there is something more going on. I can't see any good reason not to name her character other than that she doesn't have a name, because she doesn't exist. I think I've said before that around that time it would be fair to say that Marilyn Monroe would have been the number one fantasy female for most men. It then makes perfect sense to have that as the only name given to a fantasy woman in a film.

I think it goes without saying that I am firmly in the "not real" camp, but one of the many good things about this film is that it works very well whichever way you see it.

reply

Your first sentence is the whole point. The film very clearly makes distinctions between the fantasy portions and the literal portions. The Girl appears in both the fantasy and the literal portions. Since she appears in the literal portions of the film, she must be considered a real person, and not a figment of Richard's imagination. It has nothing to do with they way I'm viewing the film. It's simply the way the film is. The reason that the author chose not to give The Girl a name is because her name isn't important. She doesn't mean anything to Richard other than a sexy girl that he has (the play) or is seriously considering (the movie) having an affair with. The Marilyn Monroe reference was a cheap way to get a laugh from the audience. Your idea of a "not real" girl is interesting, but what you give as "evidence" to support it is pretty weak and easily refuted. You can have your "not real" point of view all you want to, but it's not based at all in the reality of what's on the screen when the film is played.

reply

I think you misunderstood me my first sentence. I wasn't talking about fantasy and literal portions of the film. I was saying that the "real girl" interpretation of the film is what you get from taking a simplified viewing, not giving it any thought and just taking it at face value, ignoring the little clues that there's more going on.

In terms of "evidence", there isn't anything on screen to support the idea that The Girl doesn't get a name simply because it's not important. That's something you've come up with because it supports your viewing of the film. Like you say, it's not based at all in the reality of what's on the screen when the film is played. That's not to say that it, or you, are wrong. I like the fact that both versions are equally plausible. Lines are blurred and the director as the faith in the audience to let them think for themselves. I think the film would be vastly inferior if it was made totally clear, one way or another.

As I said in the earlier post, I'm in the "not real" camp. But it's the fact that there is enough in the film for there to be more than one camp that's so good. If there was some sort of solid evidence then I would not be nearly so interested in the film. The fact that is that you can explain away the clues if you want to, but they are there. And I, and many others, believe that a director as talented as Wilder but them there for a reason.

reply

I didn't misunderstand your first sentence at all. I know what you said. I was using it to make a point. There ARE definite fantasy and literal portions of the film. They lines between them are NOT blurred. They are clearly demarcated. That right there blows your whole "The Girl is not real" theory out of the water. The Girl appears in the literal portions of the film as a real, literal person. If she were fantasy, ALL of her appearances would be clearly shown to BE fantasy, as are the rest of the fantasy portions of the film, or there would be no clear distinction between the fantasy and literal portions, which there are not. This isn't rocket science. The film goes to great lengths to mark the difference between the fantasy and literal portions so that the audience will KNOW that The Girl is real, and not a figment of Richard's imagination. Because that is true, the reasons for her name not being revealed and the Marilyn Monroe reference MUST be interpreted in that light. I am not taking a simplified view, I am taking the only rational, plausible view of the film based on what we see on the screen. No matter how much you'd like your imaginary version of the film to be, it is NOT plausible in the least, because the way the film is presented absolutely debunks it.

reply

Oh, you were being sarcastic?

It seems the difference between us is that you seem to like you films to be clearly demarcated. I'm happy to think for myself. But who knows, maybe you're right and film just isn't nearly as good as I thought it was.

reply

It isn't that I "like" my "films to be clearly demarcated". This film IS clearly demarcated. We know EXACTLY when Richard is fantasizing and when he is not. I can and do appreciate films that blur the lines between fantasy and reality. This is not one of them, no matter how much you would like it to be. And since when does a film have to have some "deep hidden meaning" to be "good"? That's ridiculous. Some of the best films ever made are straightforward and meant to be taken at face value, just as there are films that do have hidden subtext beneath the surface reality of the film. "The Seven Year Itch" is a good film because it is an excellently written comedy (which would have been better if they hadn't been forced to stray form the original concept of the play), is excellently directed, and acted. Monroe and Ewell are at the top of their form, and turn in excellent performances. The supporting cast is perfect. And by the way, I AM thinking for myself, and because I AM thinking, I know the difference between a straightforward film and one that isn't. This film clearly isn't one that isn't.

reply

First off, the fact that you go along with what I'm calling the simple understanding of the film was not meant to mean that you are simple. Sorry if it came across that way. I think it's pretty obvious that you are not the only person that sees it your way. Some will have given it no thought, taking it at face value. Others, like yourself, have given some thought to the "fake girl" idea and just don't agree with it.

What I'm saying is that maybe the film is not as clearly marked as you think. That as well as the clearly demarcated fantasy scenes there are scenes that are not so clearly marked, and instead are hinted at. As strongly as you claim to have debunked any evidence that supports this, I would say that your explanation just doesn't hold water. I understand what you mean when you explain why she isn't given a name, but I'm just not buying it, and there is nothing whatsoever in the film to back it up. You seem to think that the audience MUST see it that way.

I'll have to pull you on those quote marks though. I'm don't know who you're quoting when you say that a film has to have a "deep hidden meaning" to be "good" but it's certainly not me! I was talking specifically about this film, and stand by what I said.

The only thing I can be sure of is that this film is not nearly as clear as you think it is. If it was, then this thread would not exist.

reply

Obviously this is going to go nowhere because you have trouble distinguishing reality from your own vivid imagination. If you want to imagine that the film has something that it doesn't, fine. The film doesn't need to have your imagined layer to be a good film. It is a good film for the reasons I listed. Apparently you also don't understand the use of quotes to indicate subjectiveness in the meaning of a word or phrase. I wasn't directly quoting you, obviously. The major point that I have been trying to make that you keep (purposely?) avoiding is that the filmmakers quite obviously went out of their way to make clear distinctions between what is and is not Richard's imagination. That clearly indicates that a reading of the film that says, "The Girl is not real" was not intended because The Girl is in the sections of the film that are clearly not Richard's imagination. She also appears in the parts of the film that clearly are Richard's imagination. It would be ludicrous for him to be worried about a girl that he's imagining telling other people about their meeting for a drink. It completely destroys the premise of the film, which is a middle-aged man's guilt over contemplating an affair with his pretty upstairs neighbor, and being afraid that his wife will find out about it. If there really is no upstairs neighbor, then there's nothing to feel guilty about, and there's nothing for his wife to find out about. It would be ridiculous for Richard to be afraid that his wife is going to find out about a supposed affair with someone he's made up.

reply

I understand the use of quote marks but you did seem to be applying what was within them as if it was my opinion, which it was not.

I'm not sure why you would say that I am avoiding the film-makers distinctions (purposely, or otherwise) when I referred directly to them in my last post. They're plain for all to see. I'm just saying that that's not all there is.

As much as we disagree about this film I have to say that you're right; it is ludicrous for him to worry about his wife finding out about a girl that exists only in his imagination. That's one of the things I love about the film!

He's daydreaming and imagining this girl and what might happen but he gets so caught up in it that he starts to imagine the downsides and repercussions too. People do it all the time. Maybe not as vividly as in this film, but it's exaggerated for out benefit. The premise of the film you describe above, which I agree with you about, is all still there in full. It's just that there's more, too.

Nothing you've said eliminates the possibility that I'm right about this, in the same way that nothing I've said eliminates the possibility that you're right! There are holes in my theory, the same as there are question marks about yours. It's just that I don't think they are there by accident. Like I said, that's what I like about it.

And if I can be a little cheeky; if my imagination is as vivid as you suggest, then perhaps that puts me in an excellent position to comment on Richards character. A vivid imagination is what the film is all about after all!

reply

For the umpteenth time ...


The character of The Girl appears in the portions of the film that are not Richard's imagination. That is an inescapable fact. Any interpretation of the film must take that fact into account, or it is an invalid interpretation. Because you are avoiding that fact, your interpretation of the film is hogwash and not supported by fact.

reply

It's not an inescapable fact at all. It's how you see it and certainly how it appears at first glance. Like I've said before, the clues are there if you choose to follow them.

We might as well leave it there. We're both pretty much repeating ourselves now. I don't mind if you hold your view of the film, and I've not heard anything that has changed mine. Someone else might read what's been said and it might inspire them to go back and watch the film. Hopefully we can agree that that has to be a good thing.

This has been fun. Maybe we'll run into each other again some time. Laters.

reply

Fact: There are definite reality and definite imagination portions of the film.

Fact: The imagination portions of the film are clearly demarcated as such.

Fact: The Girl appears in the portions of the film that are not Richard's imagination.

They are not my view of the film. They are facts of the storyline. That you choose to ignore those three facts, and concoct your own view of the film does not make your view of the film plausible. It only means that you're ignoring facts.


Agreeing to disagree is fine. I just have trouble with people who ignore factual evidence.

reply

Fact: Get over yourself.

reply

dmnemaine wrote: <<It isn't that I "like" my "films to be clearly demarcated". This film IS clearly demarcated. We know EXACTLY when Richard is fantasizing and when he is not. I can and do appreciate films that blur the lines between fantasy and reality. This is not one of them, no matter how much you would like it to be. And since when does a film have to have some "deep hidden meaning" to be "good"? That's ridiculous. Some of the best films ever made are straightforward and meant to be taken at face value, just as there are films that do have hidden subtext beneath the surface reality of the film. "The Seven Year Itch" is a good film because it is an excellently written comedy (which would have been better if they hadn't been forced to stray form the original concept of the play), is excellently directed, and acted. Monroe and Ewell are at the top of their form, and turn in excellent performances. The supporting cast is perfect. And by the way, I AM thinking for myself, and because I AM thinking, I know the difference between a straightforward film and one that isn't. This film clearly isn't one that isn't.>>

I totally agree. Nothing in the film's structure indicates that The Girl isn't real. Heck, Curly's wife in Of Mice and Men never got a name, but she was a real character, so the fact that The Girl is never named is hardly unprecedented in art and it also doesn't prove that she isn't real. I think this film is marvelous the way it is -- and if The Girl is meant to be a figment of his imagination, well, the film doesn't work as well. Nothing I can see indicates that The Girl is anything but real.

reply

philipknowles1 wrote: <<It seems the difference between us is that you seem to like you films to be clearly demarcated. I'm happy to think for myself. But who knows, maybe you're right and film just isn't nearly as good as I thought it was.>>

On what do base anything you wrote? There is no reason to think the other poster likes his films to be clearly demarcated. S/he just thinks this one is. Furthermore, you haven't given any evidence to prove that the film is better with "The Girl" as fantasy, not reality. I think "The Girl" is real and that the fantasies are clearly demarcated, obviously. The film works wonderfully that way -- I don't see how muddying the waters would make it "better."

reply

I'd agree that I was being a little unfair with that comment about the poster, however..

I have not, nor will I ever, give evidence to "prove" the film is better if the The Girl is fantasy. That's purely down to individual choice. I don't know if you've read all the posts, but I have clearly said that the film is very good whichever way you choose to understand it. It's just that I prefer it with the idea of the girl as a fantasy figure. I would also add though that the film would be much worse off if it was made totally clear, or proved, that the girl was a fantasy. The ambiguity is one of the things I like, even if you (and others) feel that their is no ambiguity.

I have never said that the fact that The Girl is never named proves she is fictional. It is just one of a number of small little hints that perhaps not all is exactly as it seems; that the film is not as clearly demarcated as it might appear at first glance.

I think that while some of the fantasies are made clear, some are not. It really is a simple as that. I think that what you call "muddying the waters", I would call "adding an additional layer to the film".

reply

If something is done well, an additional layer is added. If it's done poorly, the waters are muddied. If The Girl is meant to be a fantasy in The Seven Year Itch, it's done poorly. I don't think she is meant to be and I think it's a great film.

reply

Fair enough. I think I've said pretty much anything I wanted to say about the film in my previous posts. I won't waste peoples time re-typing the same stuff again. We both enjoy the film, albeit for slightly differing reasons. Nothing wrong with that. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong, or better than the other. We just see things differently.

reply

philipknowles1 wrote: <<Fair enough. I think I've said pretty much anything I wanted to say about the film in my previous posts. I won't waste peoples time re-typing the same stuff again. We both enjoy the film, albeit for slightly differing reasons. Nothing wrong with that. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong, or better than the other. We just see things differently.>>

Well said. It's rare to see this kind of rational discourse on imdb -- or anywhere, actually. Thank you.

reply

No problem. I am a bit worried that we might have our accounts closed for being too pleasant and reasonable though. Perhaps I should call you gay and suggest that you only like rubbish films, just to be on the safe side. That seems to be the done thing. Feel free to do the same!

reply

Although it has been awhile since I've seen the film, I think I quite agree with what you've posted here. Maybe I can rephrase what you're getting at to make it a little more relatable for other posters.

You got caught up in a discussion of the literal "facts" of the film, but I think it remains undeniable that in this film about imagination, the biggest target of imaginative fantasies is Marilyn Monroe herself. In a very literal sense, the film phrases the question "What would it be like to have an impromptu relationship with the most beautiful woman in the world?" Leaving Marilyn Monroe's character nameless is a good indicator that the filmmakers conceived of her presence as iconic, the stuff of fantasies that preceded this film and lived on long after this film was forgotten. Since the fantasies of filmgoers that have collectively formed an image of ideal beauty and sexuality that we call "Marilyn Monroe" obviously exceed who Monroe was in a literal, real sense, what we can't help but see on the film is an "imaginary" presence.

And before anyone piles on me for trying to legitimize the film by lending it a "deep, hidden meaning," I will say that none of what I've posted makes the film any better, and it's not particularly "deep." My memory of it is that the jokes here are not as good as in other Wilder films, but the filmmakers showed some wit by self-consciously dealing with Marilyn Monroe's public image, though they do it in a way that has become exceedingly common in the modern day and thus has less impact than maybe it did at the time. On the other hand, the fact that the iconic image of Monroe coyly pushing her skirts down against the updraft of a subway grate has been deeply ingrained as a piece of sordid pop Americana, becoming common currency with every semi-conscious American (while you have to be slightly more than a casual film fan to know from which film it originates), makes me want to hand Wilder and co. a bit more credit for adding something significant to the fount of filmgoers' fantasies known as "Marilyn Monroe." You know, for better or worse.

Love the question that titles this thread. No, she's not real, and that fact is made even more explicit in Tom Ewell's film from 1956, The Girl Can't Help It. Maybe this is the film philipknowles1 wants to see, where cartoonish fantasy and "reality" are fluidly and haphazardly mixed in a more daring way than Wilder attempts in The Seven Year Itch. Tashlin's farce manages to show us the same "Girl" as this film, but it doesn't even have Marilyn Monroe!

reply

Sounds interesting. I've heard of that film but never seen it. I use one of the on-line rental schemes so I've just added it to my list. Thanks for that.

reply

There is a very good reason that The Girl is real and not imaginary. All of the Tom Ewell character's "imagination" scenes are clearly identified in the film. It's like we get this big flashing neon sign that says, "Here comes an 'imagination' scene."

This could however be explained by Sherman being mentally ill as that would not preclude having fantasises in addition to hallucinating. The fact that Sherman speculates about being caught cheating would mean that he believes his own hallucinations, so it's possible that he realizes his fantasies are not real while believing that his hallucinations are.

However, if he were imagining The Girl, why would he have not imagined his ideal woman, which is the femme fatale type we see in his FIRST fantasy of The Girl? Clearly a light-hearted bubblehead is not his type, so why would he choose a woman he was clearly not expecting? Is it possible that he fantasised about a woman who was not his type so he could have a fling without the guilt of deeper attraction or emotional attachment, and without having to face the fact that his ideal woman is totally out of his league and nothing at all like his wife? This isn't totally implausible as people rarely hallucinate exactly what they wish they could have consciously. They usually hallucinate the things that they need on some deeper psychological level, and since all Sherman seems to need is sex (and I describe this as a "deeper" need because he's in denial about wanting to cheat), it's easier to replace his desires for a primarily sexual object. The fact that they don't end up having sex in his hallucination is maybe Sherman's mind trying to tell him that his guilt and paranoia outweigh his sexual desires, so it would eat him up in the long run.

Given this interpretation, I don't actually think it matters much either way whether The Girl is real or false. Of course the real difference would be the mental state of Sherman, but since this is a comedy and his mental weaknesses are already used for laughs, I doubt Billy Wilder was really concerned with either interpretation. The Girl is pretty much a stock fantasy character whether she is real or not.

As for the fact that The Girl has no name and that Marilyn Monroe is referenced as the end, perhaps the filmmakers thought it would spoil the male viewer's vicarious fantasy about having Marilyn Monroe as the girl next door if she was given a name. After all, the fact that Tom Ewell came off as an everyman was the main reason he was cast.

reply

I think the girl upstairs is real because otherwise the movie lacks two essential ingredients:

1) conflict

2) jeopardy

If she's just a figment of his imagination, then why do we get so many scenes with Richard expressing his guilty conscience? I doubt he'd be wracked by guilt over a daydream. Most of his conflict is internal as his libido battles it out with his conscience. There is, however, a whiff of inter-personal conflict when Richard makes a pass at Marilyn on the piano bench & she, ever so gently, puts up a roadblock.

If she's just a figment of his imagination, then why does he worry himself so much about what wife Helen knows or also about whether or not the neighbors will see Marilyn coming & going from his apartment? Richard worries because there's jeopardy caused by a real girl.

The notion of Marilyn being just another fantasy is clever, but it reduces the drama to the level of a total mindscape where nothing matters, and that's very dull.






reply

MM is real. And she's definitely not a Rachmaninoff girl.


------- __@
----- _`\<,_
---- (*)/ (*)------- ----__@
--------------------- _`\<,_
---- -----------------(*)/ (*)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:*•.. ¤°.¸¸.•´¯`»nec spe,nec metu :*•.. ¤°.¸¸.•´¯`»


reply

If she's just a figment of his imagination, then why does he worry himself so much about what wife Helen knows or also about whether or not the neighbors will see Marilyn coming & going from his apartment? Richard worries because there's jeopardy caused by a real girl.


Good, I'm glad somebody brought that up. The back-and-forth about real/not real just because the movie "clearly defines" Richard's fantasies was getting annoying. After all, wouldn't the entire movie have to be a Richard fantasy if he interacts with others and is concerned Helen will find out about The Girl?

And I'll go out on a limb here and say Billy Wilder wouldn't do a mind job on the audience we wouldn't see for at least a decade in movies while at the same time doing a spoof of From Here to Eternity.

---
"24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No job is too big. No fee is too big!"---Ghostbusters

reply

Honestly this movie would be ruined for me if her character was proven fictitious.

I understand his imagination and different scenarios involving Marilyn and While it certainly is plausible, my feeling is that the way the movie ends with her having full run of the two floors because of the stairway and the way he explains his daydreams to Marilyn makes it messy and believable...Very "of the time"... I think having her being a part of the imaginary world not only makes the story a little too "neat" and tied up it also is to the side of actual schizophrenia and I don't think, the way mental illness was thought of then and how easily one was marked with it, it would have gone over well at all.

I really believe that audiences then were far less movie savvy due to many things including the types of movies made then with the actors used (Movies were still mainly straight forward entertainment).

I know myself, I wouldn't like the movie really at all if in fact it was really proven to be all fantasy. It's really not meant to be a clever psycho study it's just a silly fun comedy.


reply

I certainly didn't mean to ridicule the poster. If my remark comes off as demeaning, I apologize. But I do think that movie buffs have the tendency to read too much into movies. I have seen too many movies myself and I do that sometimes.

reply

oh settle down spaz, i'm sure the poster didn't mean anything over the top in his comment.

reply

Seems a bit pathetic to respond to a post of more than 2 years ago and call someone a "spaz". Oh, but I'm sure you didn't mean anything "over the top" in your comment.

One, don't speak for the other poster. You can't be sure about anything, because you don't know him.
Two, the remark that someone has seen "too many movies" is a cheap and false argument that's used too often on these boards. I understand there are fanboys who overanalize, but don't just assume everyone is who expresses a view you never considered. If you don't agree, then come up with a real argument or simply say that the idea is too far-fetched for you personally. Don't make assumptions about people.
Three, the discussion ended a long time ago. The poster explained himself and it's done.

reply

[deleted]

Well geeminy gee willikers, I have no idea, but I'm glad I've finally opened your eyes! lol lol lol

reply

I think Richard was prone to flights of fantasy, obviously, and the resulting guilt and paranoia. But he wasn't delusional. It all goes back to Tom MacKenzie and Mr. Kruhulik. They readily acknowledge The Girl's physical presence. Especially Kruhulik, who moons over her, and seems quite envious of Richard's situation. "In a situation like this, who cares about moths?... Go man, go."




" Cristal, Beluga, Wolfgang Puck ... It's a fu*k house. "

reply

[deleted]

I've read all of the postings on this question and, frankly, I don't understand how anyone could think that the girl is a figment of Sherman's imagination. There would be no point at all in his imagining some of the things that he does, if the girl were not, in fact, real. And a little research into the play that the movie was based on would reveal that, in the play, the girl and Sherman actually have an affair. As I understand it, though, in 1955 film makers were not permitted to make a comedy about adultery, so the plot of the movie was altered.

reply

I think it's easy to understand why people would think Marilyn was not real. The entire movie is presented from the Tom Ewell character's point of view, so you can pretty much toss out any talk of objective reality. What we see is reality as Ewell experiences it. We're constantly reminded of his vivid imagination. Any scene in the film could be his imagination, not objective truth.

reply

[deleted]

she's a fantasy.



When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...

reply

I disagree... She was quite real and your a troll. Is it your objective to comment on every movie on IMDB? Over the years I've seen you quite a lot. I have to ask, though you will probably lie... Are you a home body? How is it you have so much time for movies and IMDB??


reply

Calm down. Christ...

reply

Actually, the correct question should be: "Is the girl real?"

Marilyn the actress is/was indeed real, but a good question in the context of "the girl" from the film.
Seen this movie more than a few times and the idea never occurred to me.

Frankly... all the fantasy scenes seem to include filtering, lighting and or music to tell the audience that this is part is "fantasy". Remember, we are talking about 1955 here. Things on the screen were more clear-cut back then. And... it was suppose to be a comedy.

But... the fact that Tom Ewell's character blurts out Marilyn's name toward the end of the movie is interesting and was probably a rather new aspect of the film industry at the time. (Considering he actually DID have Marilyn Monroe in the kitchen makes it all that much more humorous.)

reply