[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: if you don't wanna read about moulin rouge delete now!
>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.
I was actually combining the quick editing of "El Mariachi" and the Hyper
reality of Taratino's films such as pulp fiction. I was saying that Luhrman
was not the originator of this style but borrowed from existing style to form
his unique fusion. He is unique in many ways, but he is not the first to do
this.
>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.
No, I was speaking of both editing and general "hyper-reality." This concept
of hyper-reality was actually originated in psuedo-documentary films such as
"Thin Blue Line" Which merged the traditional documentary interview with the
ultra-real reenactment. The sort of hyper reality was also employed in
action film as early as "Aliens"
I guess my question becomes what do you mean as hyper-reality? If you
refer to the vibrancy of his colors, then I think "The Last Emperor" could
easily match his use of color. If you mean the variety of perspectives and
camera speeds, then "Resevoir Dogs" and "Bonny and Clyde" and "The Wild
Bunch" all did it to popular acclaim a number of years before Luhrman. Now
don't get me wrong, I don't think any less of him as a director because he
did not originate these techniques. I merely dislike it when people praise
directors who popularize things for developing them.
>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.)
As was I,. Fellini and Bergman had VERY strong senses of central images and
motifs that were repeated in the sets and costumes
>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.
If you look back, i wasn't criticizing him for that. I was refuting your
claim that I could not predict an end just by knowing the director. Look at
Spielberg or Lucas. It just happens. It's an offshoot of the auteur theory
of film criticism.
>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..
Right, if just one of the three is optimistic, then you, if filmmaking was a
random event, have a 2/3s chance of him making a not optimistic film.
>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 ;)
It is a debatable point. The argument between process and product oriented
artists and critics has been going on for a long time. I am just on the
product side of that arguement.
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.
True, but I wasn't arguing purely the mix of time periods. It is a matter of
being able to integrate successfully two very different styles to come out to
appear as one well molded work of art.
>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. ;)
Thank you.
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.
Hmmm...You could be right, but I'm confused. you see in R&J the language is
what ties the work to its original source, and I think that this one act of
reliance on tradition allows him to bend the rules visually and to some
extent musically. In Moulin Rouge, it seems that there is no foundation of
the work to hold on to. Perhaps this is his purpose, and if it is, then I
would have hoped that he would develop the characters and plot so that the
film could stand on its own. In this case, however, I feel that it has
fallen flat.
>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.
You are so civilized. I'm not very used to this on the list.
>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.
True enough, my point is that if you use this material to provide a
foundation of understanding between yourself and the audience, then you have
to be faithful in a number of ways in order to deviate in other. Let us
consider Shakespeare's Hamlet. It very heavily relied on what has been
called the Ur-Hamlet, a play that was written a few years before and which
the audience was familiar with. He took this material and, for the most
part, stayed true to the plot but added characters and themes that make his a
genuine work of art whose themes resound even today.
i'm glad you went and saw it.
I'm not too thrilled. I would like my $5.75 back, but that's ok.
>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!
Well thank you. Was I to write a review for publication, I would rely on you
as a credible editor.
>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.
It's ok. I'm used to it around here. Thank you for being so civilized and
kind.
>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.
It is just something that I have noticed. I haven't researched it or
anything.
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.
Well, I am an educated film critic, but i must admit that I came off a little
strong due to the fact that I hate to see films like this do well, when there
are so many more that deserve the attention. Going to see a mediocre work
like this only encourages producers to make more of the same. Look at how
many films Pauley Shore has made. I mean come on. Look at Kevin Costner.
He makes a couple decent films and then jumps off into "The Postman" and
"Waterworld" Enough money was spent on those films to feed medium sized
nations.
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..
Well, thank you. I owe you a drink if we happen to be at the same show at
some point. It was a pleasure to have someone avidly assist me in shaping my
criticism.
Steve Swanson