Moulin Rouge discussion: 3/10/02 - 3/16/02

[Morticia]

Click here here to see what this is all about.

In brief: this is a thread to discuss the technical and/or thematic merits of Moulin Rouge.

The purpose being to foster intelligent discussion of films without resorting to "It's a piece of crap." or "It's the greatest film ever." (And so that we all can gain a bit of a film education from everyone.)

We'll discuss a new film each week. Either slade or I will post the film in this forum on Thursday, but please refrain from discussing until Sunday so that everyone can have a chance to watch the film before the discussion begins.

If you want to make any comments about this idea, that don't directly pertain to this movie, please make them in the thread linked above.

Thanks everyone. Slade and I are excited and we hope this works (we're open to any ideas of how to make it better).

****SPOILER WARNING**** of course this entire thread is going to be full of spoilers.

And slade and I are also working out a way to choose films that will end up including everyone in the decision-making process. (Yes, that means More Polls!) We've taken into account all your suggestions from the original thread and you should see them in a poll coming soon.

[Indyphantom]

I'd like to offer some suggestions too, but I can't find where you did the polls

I'd like to throw out some titles, too.

[Morticia]

No polls yet, but you can add to slade's original thread (linked on the first post in this thread - "clikk here to see what this is about") or go ahead and PM either of us. We haven't shaken it all out yet, so to speak, but I'm hoping to have something solid out here in a couple of days!

[hallcinematic]

"Moulin Rouge" is intentionally fast, and free from the conventions of conventional cinema.

The movie takes place in a year far from ours, yet the music and energy of it is totally NOW.

The movies moves quickly because the inhabitants of the Moulin Rouge are on acid. They're indistructible, happening people on a mission to party as if its their only method of staying alive. To present the Rouge in long steady shots would ruin the energy and its rapid-fire nature.

Baz Luhrmann is a musical buff who wants to revive the genre. Since most movies are targeted at the teenage crowd, why not insert Nirvana, and Madonna into the mix. The editing is totally MTV.

However, the film's love story isn't based on sex, or superficiality. The movie is about virginal love. A modern day Romeo and Juliet. Falling in love with the most unlikely people and finding them in the most unlikely places.

I assume Ewan McGregor's character will write the greatest Romance ever written: free, lovely, and truthful.

[Morticia]

Hi hallcinematic!

Thanks for the input....but the discussion isn't supposed to actually start until Sunday.

Please come back then and offer your insights!

[Sam_Lowry]

I really did like Moulin Rouge. But, my opinions changed throughout viewings.

First Viewing (Theatre): Walked Out
Second Viewing (Theatre): Kinda Liked It
Third Viewing (DVD): Liked It

It really is a great film. No denying that. Just for different tastes. I know some people who loved it, some people who hated it. The thing that really got me were the sets, makeup, lighting, and stuff like that. I recently watched The Crying Game for the first time, and really didn't get it until the ending. Same deal, need to watched it again and again. Another film I need to rewatch is The Cook, The Theif, His Wife, And Her Lover. I stopped the DVD because I did not care for it. I will rewatch it again. But, back to Moulin Rouge. Brilliant & original filmmaking that mixes Shaekspearean tragedy\comedy, new age art, and the atomsphere of France in the Bohemian Revolution days. Also, one reason I did care all that much for the film is the "love conquers all" style. But, now I like it.

P.S. I really, really, like these boards. Amazing idea.

[DimWit]

Brilliant movie. Hated it.

M.R. is an example of visual style over narrative substance. Hyperkinetic, dazzling but unsatisfying once you stop watching. Of course, this is comimg from someone who hates musicals.

I have to give credit to Luhrmann, who is making movies that no one else is. An amazing thing in this day and age. The camera work and art direction are first class but the script could be a reject from The Days of Our Lives. I'm surprised that P&G didn't sponsor it.

As you might of guessed, it's not going to be in my library.

[Indyphantom]

It's just a really fun and beautiful looking film. Certainly something in it for everyone. Great sights, humor, music, and a love story. Entertaining!

[BubbleGumUK]

"How wondeful life is, while Moulin Rouge is in the world"...

[Morticia]

OK, this is a pretty good start.....I must confess, I'm going to watch it tomorrow night.

Anyway....Sam_Lowrey, DimWit, Indyphantom ---
Could you each provide the class with concrete examples of what you're saying in your posts, so we can all see what you're each seeing?

For instance....(just a suggestion here, I'm trying to keep this lively....)

Sam -- what did you like exactly about the sets/makeup/lighting? What sort of mood did they try to set, and was it successful throughout?

DimWit -- You say MR is an "example of visual style over narrative substance." Could you cite an example? This is pretty all-encompassing.

Indy -- Was there one thing that stood out for you?

[slade]

sat·ire [sá tr ] (plural sat·ires) noun

1. use of wit: the use of wit, especially irony, sarcasm, and ridicule, to attack the vices and follies of humankind


If it was supposed to be a satire, it was an okay film (I like what DimWit had to say "Brilliant movie. Hated it."). If he was trying to be serious. . .well, let's just say, I guess I was laughing at him, rather than with him.

Why I think it was satire, and, therefore, worked for me (not that I'll watch it again, mind you):

One of my chief complaints about musicals is that they are too showy, and therefore remind you that you're watching a movie. It removes the audience from any reality in the storytelling when they suddenly break out in song. I'm guessing that this is a common complaint about musicals.

Luhrmann, at the very beginning of the Moulin Rouge! (note the exclamation mark in the title of this movie) goes out of his way to remind us we're watching a movie--removing us from any reality in his storytelling. He does this through a few methods. First, the use of the camera to surf over the city and through the streets reminds us that we're not experiencing reality, but rather a "show." Next, the colors are not lifelike at all--all red, blue, and black (the audience with their top hats). Finally, the very first song they sing is from another musical ("The hills are alive with the sound of music"), which won't be made for 50 years, and is dependent on it's chronological context (it occurs in WWII--which won't happen for 40 years). Additionally, the characters are searching for the right words to a song that everyone in the audience (us) already knows the right answer to.

So, while most movies try to suck you into their reality in the first several minutes, this movie seems to be doing just the opposite. It is working hard to remind you that you're watching a show. This, to me, seems to be all a way to poke fun at musicals and the way the also draw people away from reality as their characters break into song and dance.

With a satirical point of view in mind, it then makes the rest of the movie easier for me to swallow, and enjoy. When they start quoting the lyrics to popular songs, and then start singing those songs, it's absolutely hilarious, especially if you also think they're doing it to make fun of other musicals (which I did, and so I laughed frequently and heartily).

The "Like a Virgin" sequence was particularly amusing. Here you have two men singing a Madonna song and getting excited, like a couple of "school girls" (pardon the term) about an inpending relationship. Then, instead of a chorus of scantily clad women accompanying them in the chorus, it's a bunch of tuxedo wearing men. I saw it all as a way to make fun of similar numbers/ situations in other movies were the roles were reversed.

Also, the editing style, seemed to be poking fun at the MTV generation. In the opening sequence at the Moulin Rouge! the cuts were about every half second, while lights flashed and women danced erotically. It seemed to be trying to be even more intense than a music video. Then, admist all this, the audience at the Moulin Rouge starts singing Nirvana's opus to Generation X's apathy: "Here we are now, entertain us!" All of this, says to me, isn't the MTV generation degenerate needing this kind of editing/music/eroticism to keep its attention, yet saying it in a way that makes me (a gen x'er) laugh. Satire.

One last example. The theme of "all you need is to learn to love and be loved in return" (or, something like that). First of all, it's long and drawn out, rather than a nice little quip. Second, they must say it at least 10 times in the movie (then those little pictures at the end of the credits), whereas a more serious film will almost never explicitly state the theme once. Third, it's just so cheesy. So, again, I took it as making fun of other romantic movies that have such a droll theme to them. and, as such, it was funny and worked for me.

But, why am I making such a big deal out of this? Because, I'm not sure he was trying to be satirical. Even as I write this I cringe at the possibility of everyone saying--"slade, you're wacked man. That movie was totally serious." I never was sure if Lurhmann was being serious or satirical. The production value is so high and the actors all take themselves so seriously that it is hard to tell if they are being sarcastic.

Surely no one watches Airplane! and wonders if they're watching a comedy. ("No, they don't. And stop calling me Shirley.") Yet, even now I'm not sure if Lurhmann was trying to be funny or serious.

If he was being serious, well I enjoyed laughing at him. If satirical, I enjoyed laughing with him.

[DimWit]

Yeah, what he said!

Seriously, while Luhrmann *could* have been satirical, the problem is that it's not specifically stated. The musical numbers -- the saturated palette, hyper editing and wild camera moves, the choices of actual music -- are very MTV and entertaining. The story turns into severe melodrama. The characters are cutouts, Kidman is nothing more than a movie of the week, The Duke is a drip, the M.C. just plain weird and Leguzmo (sp) is doing another "little person role" (ref: Clown in Spawn) on his knees which is weird since he's not all that tall to begin with and MacGregor is just maudlin.

There's not any sympathy for the characters. I found a serious disconnect between the musical numbers and any of the "backstory" which very much lessened the appeal. I probably would like a "best of" sampler which is the musical numbers and no story at all.

That said... I hate musicals. Which means that even if it is brilliant I probably won't like it. So take my comments with a large grain of salt.

[Indyphantom]

Originally posted by Morticia

Indy -- Was there one thing that stood out for you?

Not really one particular thing. I think the frantic pace was interesting, and how it incorporated all different kinds of musical films. Funny mixed with dark. The songs were of every type.

It's also a colorful film...complete eye candy. I think it goes out of its way to just be fun in the musical way. It's made contemporary by emulating pop-rock and music videos rather than old "Hollywood" musicals.

It's probably not for anyone who's interested in a "serious" film because it is intentionally shallow with one-dimesional characters. But it keeps everything moving, right to the end climax.

There is also some wonderful dance choreography especially during the "Roxanne" number.:violin: :violin:

My main problem with this film is the editing. It looks as if all the footage was just tossed into a blender or the whole film was pieced together by a bunch of howler monkeys on speed.

All through the musical numbers, I never got a true sense of their staging or choreography. As much as I love old MGM musicals (Long takes that really showcase the dancing), I don't mind fast paced editing in a musical number either. It's just the way the numbers were put together, I felt as if I was channelsurfing between MYV, MTV2, VH1 and BET. How this film got a Best Editing Oscar nom is quite beyond me at this point.

I didn't find the conceit of using pop song lyrics for dialogue and combining other songs to make medlies all that interesting either. What was Luhrman tring to say? That Love is Universal. Well, hell- that's what they were saying in Earth Girls Are Easy !

I will admit that there are some lovely visuals- when the camera and editing actually give us a moment to appreciate them. The opening shot of Paris is fantastic.

Ultimately, I see Moulin Rouge as a bold experiment in moviemaking that, at least for me, failed to deliver.

[slade]

Originally posted by frulad
It looks as if all the footage was just tossed into a blender or the whole film was pieced together by a bunch of howler monkeys on speed.

[Alisha]

Funny that we are discussing Moulin Rouge! on a DVD forum. Clearly this film was meant for the big screen.

A couple of random thoughts from me:

I think the term you are searching for, Slade, is "exposing the apparatus." This is a technique film makers use to remind the audience that they are watching a film. Documentary folks employ it often--reminding the audience to go and do something substansial/make a difference in the world based on the info provided in their documentary. The question in this situation, then, is "why did Luhrman use this technique of exposing the apparatus?" Slade's suggestion about satire seems to fit. I'm of the mind-set, though, that Luhrman wants us to have fun with this film, laughing with it--not at it. To me it wasn't quite a satire. I'm still mulling over why he would choose to expose his film making so blantanly, though. More on that later, perhaps.

Interestingly enough, Luhrman's first film, Strictly Ballroom, opens as a Mock-Doc. Also, his Romeo + Juliet uses lots of documentary style filming techniques--hand-held camera sequences, grainy film stock, etc. (much like the filming techniques used in Soderberg's film, Traffic, for those of you who are unfamiliar with R + J). Intentionally distancing the audience looks like a Luhrman trademark.

This film seems to be an obvious copy-cat of the opera, La Boheme. In that opera the main characters are all part of the Bohemian Art Movement/Revolution. The leading lady who is deeply in love with the leading man, dies of consumption in the end. (It's been over 10 years since I've seen the opera so these are the only connections I can conjure up immediately. However, they seem too obvious and central to the plot to be accidental.) Speaking to the flimsy theme issue raised by others in this thread, this is a common characteristic of opera, too. Plot/theme is often very generalized so focus can be on the virtuoso performances of the opera singers. Perhaps Luhrman keeps this film's theme/plot generalized to focus on the virtuoso camera work, virtuoso art direction, to celebrate the fun-tastical music that gets new attention when put in a jarring setting. (Let's be honest--who doesn't love his choice of contemporary music--I love it all--from the Beatles reference--All you need is love--to Sting--a tango??!!!, to Madonna, all of it!) Clearly it wasn't about virtuoso musical talent from the actors/singers like one would expect in an opera or a musical, though. He could have cast Madonna, but he didn't. He cast a non-singer--Nicole Kidman--in the leading female role. This, too, helps to expose the apparatus--reminding us we are watching a musical film. In other words, we aren't swept away with her voice. The focus is on the fun songs themselves instead.

Speaking of the Satine character, I have a few thoughts. The obvious "caged bird" metaphor of Satine worked terrifically well for me. Luhrman's camera work constantly and carefully shot her behind things. Many barriers stood between her and the audience. And of course, many times the frame included Satine standing next to her little bird in its cage. Satine's theme song, "Someday I'll Fly Away," captures the frustration (no, that's too easy of an emotion), the utterly trapped feeling this character lives with every day. Being a bit of a feminist sympathizer, this aspect of the story/theme connected with me. While Luhrman was telling a romantic story about the Bohemians, he managed to slide in there a poignant reminder that the life of a prostitute (then and now) is not as glamorous as it appears to be on the surface. In fact, that lifestyle is crippling, damaging, completely restricted and at the mercy of others. And ultimately deadly. Her only hope of escape was through the discovery of love. If the power of love can save a human being's life, is it really such a superficial and flimsy theme? Now, of course Satine's life wasn't literally saved. Fairly realistic ending, I'd say--no Hollywood falsities here. (As someone else mentioned, this ending hearkens back to the all-time great tragedies. They are classics for a reason, people. Anyone care to comment on the longevity and value of the classical tragedies?)

Hallcinematic said regarding the people of the Moulin Rouge:
"They're indistructible, happening people on a mission to party"
Actually, I would say Satine is totally fragile, on a mission to stay alive primarily, and to become a great actress secondarily. Partying for the sake of partying was never her agenda. I'd venture to say that was the situation for most characters in the Moulin Rouge underworld, too.

There are other important issues/themes raised in the film such as greed/capitalism, explotation of people, etc. but for the sake of space I won't go there today.

In summary, Luhrman's film happily paid homage to some of the best music and musicals. The film showed-off the wonder of film making at its finest. And it addressed some poignant, timely and timeless themes. I loved it!!!

[Morticia]

Great post, Alisha, I'm glad you're back to do another film with us....

I just saw it last night, and it was a hard one for me to 'get into'. I still haven't gelled everything yet, but I think the one thing that stood out was "suspension of disbelief."

slade mentioned this in 'exposing the apparatus', and I can't agree more. Just the fact that it IS a musical....begs you to suspend disbelief even as it's self-conscious of itself (hey, you're watching a show!). And I love musicals....

But you are always "suspending disbelief" every time you walk into a theatre or pop in a DVD. What you're seeing isn't real. Moulin Rouge! is so very self-conscious of itself, that it isn't real, from the settings to the songs....of course, no one would sing "Roxanne" as a tango in 1900 Paris (or Argentina for that matter!) but they asked us to believe it....the question is, did we go along with it?

I think it demands a "s o d" way beyond any other film in recent memory....very challenging in that regard.

And Alisha? "Clearly this film was meant for the big screen." Agreed, that's why they make widescreen TVs.

[Alisha]

I don't mean "aspect-ratio" (wide screen accomplishes this, yes, so we get to see the whole frame as it was filmed) . . . I mean the sheer size of this thing. Even a large screen television doesn't do this baby justice--it's meant to be BIG! I saw this in the theatre last summer and loved it then. I liked it again when I watched it on DVD the other night. This would be an interesting informal poll . . . does anyone LOVE it who saw it only on DVD? I think it's hard to get a good feel for magnitude and bravisimo of this film on a television screen.

In a more detached and critical way, though, I'll add that I don't think this is Luhrman's best work. Hopefully that is still to come. He is a talented film maker. But as the mixed reviews posted here so far atest to, he hasn't hit the nail on the head yet. He is experimenting with forms and I applaud him for that. But this is in no way a perfect film. And in my humble opinion, probably not deserving of "Best Picture."

[Morticia]

Ah, I see your point about "big screen." You are right, no matter how good your HT is (and mine's no great shakes anyway) it would be way different in a real theater.

The people I've talked to in person about this film saw it in the theater first, and all of them loved it. So it probably made a big difference where you saw it....hmmm, interesting!

[DimWit]

A nice point Alisha. I rank Luhrmann up there with Tarsem with respect to visuals. Since I didn't see M.R. in the theatre, I think that might have an effect on my ratings.

The Cell has the same problem. The visuals become less impressive on the small screen (even at dvd quality) and since the visuals are the overwhelming aspect of the story, it suffers in comparison.

[Avid]

I completely agree with Alisha that this film should be seen in theaters. One of the reasons I didn't grab the DVD is because I think the film will loose so much on a small screen. Another reason is because I wonder what Baz Luhrmann's next films will be like. I have noticed directors usually have one film that completely blow me away and while I really like MR and Romeo + Juliet, I am looking forward to his next ones. That said, I wish I had bought the DVD to discuss the film here.

I have never liked musicals very much and I don't even like it when the characters break into song during a Disney animation film. Surprisingly, I liked the music here and because of the heighten hyper world the film creates it is even appropriate here. Most of the characters are performers, so it is much easier to accept them breaking out in song here than say West Side Story. As I recall, even though there was fast cutting the audience could actually enjoy the dance numbers. The camera angle was usually wide and showed what the dancers were doing instead of focusing on hands or feet.

From early on I knew Satine would die, and I spent most of the movie wishing Luhrmann wouldn't kill her off. It seemed so cliche to kill her that to let her live would seem more original and fresh to me. I guess "true love" always requires sacrifice.

I will see if my library has a copy I can check.

[slade]

In Peter's interview with Lurhmann from the main page Lurhmann talks about how in Strictly Ballroom he had it set up as having some serious themes about oppression, but also just nice dancing. So, that at whatever level you were at (able to enjoy the superficial dancing or "getting" the underlying theme of oppression) you would enjoy the film.


Alisha, I think, did a great job of picking up on some themes that I missed. Which, makes me realize, I'm on the "enjoy the superifical dancing" end of things (humbling). Unfortunately, I don't even enjoy the dancing--just laughing at it. Oh well, I least I had a good time.

So, if he is showing us the hell a prostitute lives in, why make it so showy?

Okay, so, I just thought of some ideas to answer my own question. The Moulin Rouge superficially shows that the women are having a good time, and everyone is intently partying (the hyper-editing, adds to this, and also helps maintain extreme superficiality--you never get to look at anyone too closely). If you look at it breifly it does just look like a decadent good time. But, it is not until you get to know Satine that you realize that she wants nothing more than to get out of there, but cannot. Like Alisha said, she's not having a good time.

It is similar to many people involved in "vices." To the casual observer it appears as though the person is just "living it up" and having a great time, when in actuality it is just hell for them. I am thinking of people with drug dependence in particular. They are often accused of having weak morals and just interested in pleasuring themselves to the detriment of others and society. When, in reality, they are just trying to survive through life and using drugs to deal with otherwise overwhelming negative emotions.

Perhaps Lurhmann is pointing out that if we only look at people for half a second (the length of his cuts during the initial Moulin Rouge scene) we'll easily misjudge them. But, if we get to know them a little more (and it can be even to the small degree that these characters are developed in this musical) we will quickly realize how much more there is to them. Or, perhaps I'm just making too much of this. hmmm. . .

[DimWit]

Slade: I think that you're being a little over analytical about it. I don't think that it can stand up to too much scrutiny as it revolves around the plot. This isn't a knock on M.R., just that that's not its main aim in life. JFK, OTOH...

BTW, I think that M.R. got Oscar noms because it's a reward for Luhrmann. I doubt that the film made back the neg costs even, but if it's nominated there's chances that Luhrmann will be able to keep making movies. In effect, it's a poke in the eye by the Academy members to corporate Hollywood that forever rewards pap.

[Alisha]

"pap"?? What is pap? Forgive the ignorance here, but please fill me in. Anything that has to do with exposing the money-grubbing side of Hollywood is interesting to me! What does this term mean?

Slade, what you have done is a nice reader-response interpretation of the film. Since this is "film class" you get an A+ for insightfully connecting the film to the happenings and issues in your own life. In this kind of response to the film there is no such thing as being too analytical. Nice personal connection, I'd say. (Everyone can pull out their old college english critical theory textbooks and look up "reader response" now.) :)

Also, I forgot to say earlier, Slade, that I loved your analysis of the "Like a Virgin" number. Nice insights there, too!

Regarding the theme vs. plot issue in this film, I'd say this is where Luhrman has yet to clearly define himself as a film maker. Clearly he has a light-hearted, fun plot for audiences to enjoy on a superficial level. However, I get the sense that he wants to address heavy themes, too (and I'd say they are here for the taking in MR if anyone wants to run with it, as Slade did). However, he isn't Shakespeare yet. Shakespeare was the master of triple-plot structure: base humor for the working class groundlings, love stories for the middle class patrons of theatre, and timeless themes of honor, revenge, etc. for the royalty. This is not to say that some of the groundlings didn't appreciate the timeless themes, or that the royalty didn't enjoy the sexual innuendos. However, Shakespeare's work lives on today because he did all of this to reach people wherever they were. AND he was a total master of his craft. I'm thinking this is the kind of thing Luhrman is after (but maybe not). That he chose to do R + J for his 2nd film is no coincidence in my opinion. In this film (MR) he makes an exciting stab at mastering his craft with the whole "exposing the apparatus" thing--making the viewer hyper-aware of the camera movements, (Note that Shakespeare's plays are constantly self-referential, always reminding the audience that they are in a theatre watching a play) with his refreshing use of music in a film, with his wild and crazy editing. He's on the right track for sure. Like Avid said, Luhrman's "blow us away film" is yet to come and I'm eagerly awaiting it. If he continues on at his current pace of filmmaking, maybe we can look for it 2006 or 2012!

BTW, has anyone else on this forum seen his first film, Strictly Ballroom? I'd be curious to know how anyone else thinks it compares to this film.

[slade]

Alisha: interesting that you should compare Lurhmann to Shakespeare. He did so as well in his interview with Peter:

To answer some of the critics, do you feel your work is any more simple or less complex than other musicals?

BL: No, I don't think so. In the musical form, the basic rule is this: you have to make the story thin, because the execution is complicated. Let me give you an example. Say you have a psychological drama. (The scene is) "I love the boy, I live for love, love is everything." Then you have the boy, "I don't love you, I don't want to fall in love, get away from me." That's maybe a page and a half, and 90 seconds of screen time. But our film is a musical, so that scene is four and a half minutes long, which is an eternity in screen time. So you need to extrapolate, but where do you get the screen time from?

There are a lot of great attempts at screen musicals, and a lot of which I love, but you can see where they try to incorporate a psychology story to make the main moments of drama advance, and (then) the musical segments, but they don't go together. About the only time that approach has succeeded in the past is where it is a Greek chorus, where it comments on the story. Cabaret is a perfect example. It's naturalism (in the drama) and then the musical numbers comment. The live within the narrative as parallel.

And this, not coincidentally, was a mechanism used very successfully by Shakespeare. Because he had to play to 4,000 people, some of who were sweeping the streets, and the Queen of England. People from all different types of backgrounds,