[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: moulin rouge

woah, geez!

mayhaps we're jumping a little harshly on a film that actually has the guts 
to have a strong artistic aesthetic different from what we're generally used 
to?

>As a film reviewer, I feel that i must defend my brethern to some extent
>here.  One must look at the director when you say that something is
>predictable.  For example, in this case with good old Baz Luhrman at the
>helm, it is not too hard to see how the film might come out.

luhrman may have a fondness for unhappy endings, but it's a little unfair to 
say that the movie is unpredictable because he directed it.  of his two most 
popular films up until now, one had a quite happy ending, complete with a 
generally optimistic outlook on life.  i mean, the entire stadium full of 
people, including the 'bad guys', get up and dance to 'love is in the air' 
at the end of strictly ballroom.  so i think that's a little unfair to say 
that it's predictable because it's luhrman.

and not only that, but r&j is by default depressing, and orpheus, which 
moulin is based on, is also a bit of unhappy mythology.  i don't understand 
how you can blame this on luhrman, unless perhaps i've misunderstood you.  
(which i hope i have.)


>In my
>opinion, it is almost always in bad taste to bring modern songs into
>period pieces.

how about a little open-mindedness here?  granted, i did just see knight's 
tale, which was horribly awful.  but in that case there was no strong theme 
whatsoever, but to have a general medieaval aesthetic blended with a general 
modern glam-rock cool.  it was overall uneducated and vague.  because of 
that, when the modern music was thrown in, it felt just that- 'thrown in.'  
and it was included in it's original entirety.  on the other hand, luhrman 
and his team are practically defined by their strong artistic ideas.  they 
spend years in the creative process for one film, and think through all the 
details well before hand.  it's a little juvenile to say it's bad because it 
includes modern music.  it's different.  why not trust a little to artistic 
integrity, and see what comes out of it.


>Was he to leave the time period ambiguous as he does in
>Romeo & Juliet, then such things can be understood.

it isn't as though the period -outside of the music- is defined.  it is set 
at the moulin rouge during the turn of the century, but that's where it 
ends.  costumes, sets, choreography- nothing is dead set on paris 1899.  
instead, luhrman has made use of his same 'red curtain' style in moulin 
rouge as he used in strictly ballroom and romeo + juliet.  he's going for 
ambience, not accuracy- and anyone who knew shakespeare at all and saw r&j 
would know that.  it might have been bad shakespeare, but it was a great 
film.  ambience conveyed what a lot of modern folks don't want to spend the 
time to gather from dialogue.  moulin might be bad history, but it certainly 
looks like a fantastic new world of fiction.  luhrman's using a storytelling 
device with this method of over the top eye-candy and twisted modern music.  
so what if it sounds weird, give it a chance, mister.

>In this case, added
>to the fact that neither Ewan nor Nicole actually sing,

(hoping you mean that they aren't professional singers- because they do 
actually do their own singing in this film.) again, just give them a chance. 
  from what i'm told, they do pretty well.

>the whole thing
>comes off as a very elaborate Disney on Ice show, and I urge anyone who is
>looking for more than pure circus glamour, which Luhrman has in Spades, to
>av oid this film at all costs.

i guess i'm just appalled that a film reviewer would say this.  i haven's 
seen the film, either, but i know better than to trash luhrman before giving 
him a chance.  i also know that the only people i know who dislike luhrman 
films are the same people who love films of the 'big momma's house' ilk and 
who literally don't know what subtitles are.  (sorry if i'm offending, 
here.)  at any rate, luhrman is staying true to a genuine artistic impulse, 
and anyone who can do that and still get publicity might be worth a chance.  
what kind of ego can you have to tromp on art so?  i might not care for 
warhol's aesthetic, but i'm willing to recognize that he's a fantastic 
artist, and i'm sure as heck not going to tell people to avoid him at all 
costs.

just a little ruffled-


melanie


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/
Follow-Ups: