[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
if you don't wanna read about moulin rouge delete now!
hey all- i know there's a frenetic stop-talking-about-baz thing going on,
but i'm a-posting my reply anywho. feel free to delete.
>Actually, since Tarantino and films lik "El Mariachi" This sort of story
>telling has been catching on.
i think what i was referring to was luhrman's over the top hyper-reality
visual style, as opposed to a quick editing technique (if i'm understanding
you right- i'd put el mariachi more in that quick-editing vein, at least).
and as far as that visual aesthetic goes, i do think that luhrman is an
individual.
>Furthermore, since R&J it has been an industry
>standard for teen/young adult films. So I would hardly call his aesthetic
>different per se.
well, since he made r&j, it could still be called his individual aesthetic.
i'd like to know what other films you think are using it- and i don't mean
to be rude. honestly, i can't think of anyone else who uses luhrman's
visuals. but again, if you're referring to quick editing and so on, yeah, i
can think of a lot films like that.
>Different from the Hollywood aka action film, romantic
>comedy, sure, but a new aesthetic style, I kinda doubt it. This sort of
>perspectival and fast paced editing has actually been employed since
>Fellini
>in the 60s, but that is neither here nor there.
>
(again- that is a relevant point, except i think we miscommunicated. i was
referring to visual aesthetic- meaning central image concepts, sets and
costumes, and that sort of thing.)
>No, I think you understood me correctly, but I can link this sort of ending
>to Luhrman because from the three pieces that he has made, two of them have
>had a very strong downward bent to them.
i want to be upset that you criticized moulin on this point without even
seeing it, since his other two films are split on this point. i don't see
any basis for it upon evidence of simply ballroom and r&j- but i know i have
heard that luhrman admits to being drawn to unhappy endings. though i
don't see why it matters, anyway. i wouldn't praise or criticize a movie
soley based on its ending- especially before i've seen it. but hopefully
you wouldn't mean to, either.
>This would not be such an issue of
>him as the "author" of the piece if he hadn't also written and produced
>"Moulin Rouge" and "R&J" These are the topics that he chooses to work on.
>Therefore, one can begin to attribute certain trends with his work.
>Francis
>Ford Coppola also made "Jack", but i would say that that film holds as much
>of him as a director as the "Godfather"s or "Apocalypse Now" It seems to
>me,
>yes it is my opinion, that he likes these stories of a more melancholy
>nature. "Strictly Ballroom" was the exception of his work at least so far.
>
but this is what i'm saying- isn't that one of just three? anyway..
>You have a point, but you can spend years on the artistic process and come
>up
>with myriads of prior examples and reference points, but like my friend's
>BFA
>show in which he tried to use rearrangements of living room furniture as a
>performance art piece, it is what comes out that is important.
well, i wouldn't be so quick as to say that ;)
Also in
>reference to the process of adding modern popular music to period pieces, I
>will alter my general opinion when I see one that is done well. I've seen
>a
>few that have tried including Branaugh's "Love's Labour Lost,"
i think somebody else already pointed out that the music in love's labour
was consistent with the period and applied genre.
but have never
>seen a film that took a specific time period and succesfully integrated
>modern pop music into, especially not to the degree with which "Moulin
>Rouge"
>relies on such an integrate for its artistic message.
>
>You are right, but I am saying that regardless of his intent that it does
>not
>integrate.
you're welcome to your opinion there. i haven't even seen the movie yet,
and i'm not sure that i won't hate it, myself. frankly, that's not my
concern.
>
>Well, first off, people should take a lot of time before they term anything
>a
>"great film". It was a good movie,
i'll give you that. ;)
and I am acquainted with both Shakespeare
>and Luhrman's version. What made thhat integrate well was his fusion of
>the
>lines straight from the play with his over-the-top imagery. This is not
>accomplished in "Moulin Rouge."
Part of it might be that the background
>material is not as accessible or that maybe it gets lost in the dance
>numbers.
it isn't either- luhrman's whole technique was to use the music as a device
the same way he used the language in r&j and the dance in strictly ballroom.
i don't think that research was so unavailable, or that the dance was out
of their control (though that's possible)- it seems, rather, that it was
conscious choice on luhrman's part. whether or not it works is another
thing.
>Ambiance can do this, but if the imagery is tooo complicated and too
>hectic,
>then the intent gets lost in the details, and the audience is left with
>confusion. Now, if confusion alternated with Ewan and Nicole's
>relationship
>is what Luhrman intended, then he succeeded, but i doubt this would allow
>it
>to be labeled as a great film.
that sounds like valid criticism.
>I gave it a chance. I went and saw it last night. You are right. It is
>eye
>candy. It is not entering new worlds of fiction as it both relies on
>Orpheus, although I saw markedly little resemblence, and already popular
>modern music.
but the movie can create a new world that is based on those things as
jumping-off points. it would be difficult to create anything completely
new. even shakespeare stole most of his plots.
i'm glad you went and saw it.
>I think that Luhrman can be a supremely talented director. I
>think that in this film he has lifted whole sections of editing from R&J
>and
>reused it. I will have to wait to get a copy before i can tell for sure,
>but
>this does not strike me as a real cutting edge type of filmmaking. Luhrman
>is basically a collage artist who uses film as his medium, and he knows how
>to attract his audience. If you like Luhrman, you might like the film.
>However if you are looking for the depth of character and chemistry that he
>brings out in Strictly Ballroom, then forget it. I like MacGregor and
>Kidman
>on their own, but for me, it just didn't work.
!see- i think that's a great review!
>Ok, you might be right. i was talking about a rumor that they had to
>retape
>a great quantity of Kidman's vocals in post-production. I never heard
>confirmation. Also, the sound in my theater might have been a bit out of
>sync or the sound editors should be shot because they are WAY off a few of
>the times that I saw it.
quite possible about nicole, and too bad about the theatre (or the editing).
i'm not concerned about that point, though.
>Well, that was a hugely generalized statement. Bigger than even many of
>mine.
yeah, it was. i shouldn't have said a lot of that- you got me all riled up.
i didn't mean to sound like i was attacking you, for the most part.
mostly i was making general statements about other people i run into. and i
certaintly shouldn't have attacked you over ego, and i apologize. it was
uncalled for.
I didn't like Big Momma's House although at least it didn't pretend
>that it was more than it was. I would not put Luhrman on the cutting edge
>of
>modern filmmaking. He is not a Hitchcock or Preminger or Scorsese or
>Coppola
>or Fellini or Kurosawa (see I know what subtitles are)
(see, i wasn't referring to you- i'm sorry. i was unclear. and it's okay
to not put luhrman on the cutting edge of filmmaking. )
>He does have an artistic impulse, but I'm afraid that he doesn't always use
>it to the best effect rather than the effect that most pleases the
>publicists. This film shows a steady movement of Luhrman away from
>interest
>in the characters themselves and the truth of the plot and more and more
>interest in the process.
>
that's also an interesting criticism.
>and what I write about. I was merely offering my opinion. I do not mean
>it
>to be some omniscient end all and be all of film, but I feel that many
>people
>today are thrilled to praise every new crazed film that uses fast editing
>and
>slick effects, etc.
>
>I understand what you are saying, and you have a good point. However as
>much
>as you might respect Warhol, you might tell someone to avoid praising him
>as
>THE artistic genius of the latter twentieth century, although he might be
>that, and you might tell them not to spend $10 to go to an exhibit when
>they
>might see something else. However, you are right. My "avoid at all costs"
>statement was much too strong, having seen the film. If you want to see
>two
>hours of MTV video-type film with little real literary conflict of
>character
>or motivation, then you will enjoy this film. I must admit, having seen it
>now, that it looks good. It is impressive, but once you peel off the
>veneer,
>I just don't see that you are left with more than particleboard.
>
>Steve Swanson
>
i'm glad you responded, and i'm glad you saw the film. i like baz luhrman,
and i'm excited to see moulin- but i'm perfectly willing to find that it's
not so great, or that it might be terrible. what upset me so was what you
already pointed out- it sounded as though you were declaring it a terrible
piece of junk because it looked a little crazy, and were doing so under the
guise of an educated film critic. that's really what upset me. i hope you
don't do that often. and i apologize again for being rude. but the new
criticisms you've made sound really well thought out and educated. i
appreciate those. thanks for humouring me, and thanks to everyone else for
not sending me hate mail for writing more about baz. assuming you don't. i
could've written in haiku..
melanie
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/