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

Re: moulin rouge

well doesn't that just sum up what's wrong with moview reviewers.

maybe that's why no one gives a crap what they say...

            jay


----- Original Message -----
From: "Melanie Shannon" <arwen725 at hotmail_com>
To: <sswans83 at calvin_edu>; <over-the-rhine at actwin_com>
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 11:29 AM
Subject: 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/
>

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