What's new

Just saw Moulin Rouge... (1 Viewer)

Vickie_M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2001
Messages
3,208
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
If someone's not into classical music and then claims that Mozart's music is "ghastly," does that mean that Mozart's music is indeed, ghastly?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Could be.
Is there a "snorting" smilie? The eye-rolling smiley doesn't quite seem to convey my feelings.
Ok, take the guy who said that The Godfather was one of the "worst movies of all-time." (Yes, he was quite serious about it too.) According to Paul, the film itself must be at fault, rather than that viewer's perception of the film.
 

Damin J Toell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
3,762
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Real Name
Damin J. Toell
Is there a "snorting" smilie? The eye-rolling smiley doesn't quite seem to convey my feelings.
Ok, take the guy who said that The Godfather was one of the "worst movies of all-time." (Yes, he was quite serious about it too.) According to Paul, the film itself must be at fault, rather than that viewer's perception of the film.
Could be.
Are prevailing opinions on art so unquestionable that you roll your eyes at anyone who dares disagree? Moses didn't come down from Mount Ararat with a tablet telling us that Mozart and The Godfather are great. Until such time as that happens, I won't hold the greatness of any piece of art as unquestionable. And I wouldn't be so bold as to declare that there's something wrong with someone if they disagree with those prevailing opinions, even though I happen to quite like much of Mozart and The Godfather. I generally find that aesthetic tastes are deeply personal and often inexplicable; I offer no reasoning as to why I love both Lawrence of Arabia and A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 3. Disagreement on art does not a fault within a person make; a person is not defective if their tastes do not agree with mine (or "everyone's"). I do, however, find fault with a person who cannot constructively defend their opinion and must resort to insulting snorts. I'd really rather not see this thread take that path, so I respectfully request that such bodily sounds end here.
DJ
 

Simon Massey

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
2,558
Location
Shanghai, China
Real Name
Simon Massey
The story of Moulin Rouge was intentionally simplistic, and of the "been there, done that" category. It was the manner in which the story was told that was so different, and is presumably what polarizes the audience.

I loved it when I saw it, and don't particularly like musicals. I think the difference for me is that Moulin Rouge, unlike other musicals I have seen, has a "stage" feel to it, in that I could have been watching this in the West End rather than at the cinema.

Equally, I know people who couldn't get past the first 30 minutes without turning it off.
 

Mark Palermo

Second Unit
Joined
Jun 28, 2000
Messages
366
What's interesting for me about the movie, is that I liked it considerably less on my second viewing. I guess at first I just responded to the audacity of it all, but the second viewing was merely annoying. I wanted to feed Luhrmann some Ritalin, so he'd quit thinking entertainment consists of two hours of throwing party decorations in my face.

Mark
 

Steve Tack

Agent
Joined
Feb 15, 1999
Messages
37
I hated it myself, but it wasn't because of some laundry list of things that were "wrong" with the movie. I simply didn't like the music in it. OK, I *really* didn't like the music in it. :)
But if one doesn't like chocolate ice cream, should we assume that the person will grow into it? Or is it possible that he or she simply doesn't like chocolate ice cream and never will?
I've come to realize that the idea of a "good" movie, song, painting, food item, color, video game, etc. is fundamentally flawed.
As an example, the magazine PC Gamer gave the game Civilization III its highest review score of all time. I found it about as compelling as watching paint dry. There's nothing "wrong" with the game, it just wasn't my cup of tea.
I know I'm restating a point that was already made a *few* times on this thread, but based on some of the recent posts I think it's worth repeating.
 

Jack Briggs

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 3, 1999
Messages
16,805
Moses didn't come down from Mount Ararat with a tablet telling us that Mozart and The Godfather are great.
I had a response to that, but then I saw Ron's much-needed post. But I will say this: There are certain objective criteria by which one can determine a film's worth (or lack thereof). Though Moulin Rouge! is still new, and it's still being assessed, it seems to meet some of those objective criteria for excellence.

We need to remember, for once, that what one may or may not like may or may not accurately reflect a film's quality. The person who posted that The Godfather was the "worst film ever," as Vickie noted, clearly was unable to differentiate between personal preferences and a film's inherent strengths.

I wish more here would refrain from lambasting a film simply based on how badly it rubs him or her. Try backing up your opinions with examples when attempting to make a case for a film's merits or demerits. Why is that so difficult?

(I'm not a Bergman fan, for example, but I certainly recognize the greatness of much of his work.)
 

Damin J Toell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
3,762
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Real Name
Damin J. Toell
MR said:
I don't see it as being all that difficult, but I find quite often that people rely on perceived "greatness" when discussing such films and don't bother constructing a case beyond that. Perhaps the person that claimed that The Godfather was the worst film ever failed to construct a meaningful argument, but anyone who responds by simply noting that it is "great" has likewise failed.
DJ
 

Paul_D

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2001
Messages
2,048
Damin, :emoji_thumbsup:
:D
one said:
Errrr, see above. ;)
I needed to respond, but in the interests of preserving the thread's momentum and civility, I won't address the above subject again. :D Kay?
 

Jon Robertson

Screenwriter
Joined
May 19, 2001
Messages
1,568
The things that impressed me the most were the editing and the supporting actors - especially Zidler (Jim Broadbent). I actually watched some of the credits to find out who he was.
The above are by far the most criminally awful things about this film.

Jim Broadbent simply stands up, twiddles his moustache, puffs his chest out and bellows "I'm Harold Zidler!" several thousand times. It is a joke of a performance, especially considering he won an Oscar this year.

The editing is beyond dire - not only are there numerous cuts that are ruin the continuity, there is not the faintest sense of pace, timing or establishing perspective for the audience. It is a hack job that I am astonished got nominated for an Oscar.
 

Mark Palermo

Second Unit
Joined
Jun 28, 2000
Messages
366
The editing in Moulin Rouge was nominated for an Oscar?? I'm not doubting the claim, but how in the hell did that happen? Perhaps if the award was for Most Edits in a Motion Picture.

I'm surprised there are people who invest so much faith in the cultural status-quo that they actually support the maintenance of undisputable sacred cows of cinema. Neither Mozart or The Godfather is beyond criticism.

Mark
 

Jack Briggs

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 3, 1999
Messages
16,805
For the record, the adolescent who wrote a trolling post about The Godfather contended that the film was the "worst movie ever" because he thought it was "too slow" and didn't have enough "action." Meanwhile, last I checked, The Godfather was still regarded as a cinematic landmark, despite what this particular member posted.

As to objective criteria by which one can determine a film's goodness or badness, that's another thread--and one I intend to start when I get the time.

Paul: Mozart's music remained note for note the same whether the hypothetical person at age twenty thought it ghastly or not. "He" simply came to understand and appreciate the music as "he" aged. And I seriously doubt anyone can make a claim as to Mozart somehow being a substandard composer and then expect his or her claim stand up to the objective scrutiny of people who know about music. The Jupiter symphony and the 21st piano concerto are still great whether one likes them or not.

The point is this: Separate that which you simply don't like from that which is genuinely bad. This "I-hate-it-therefore-it's-terrible" kind of non-reasoning seems to be prevalent of late. If a person can make a case for Moulin Rouge! being terrible by using supporting arguments, then he or she is more than welcome.
 

Damin J Toell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
3,762
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Real Name
Damin J. Toell
And I seriously doubt anyone can make a claim as to Mozart somehow being a substandard composer and then expect his or her claim stand up to the objective scrutiny of people who know about music.
People can apply objective aesthetic scrutiny? Humans are inherently subjective creatures; every aesthetic criticism we make is filtered through our humanity. In order for a person to apply objective scrutiny to art, that person would have somehow transcend humanity itself. In other words, objective aesthetic scrutiny would require something like a God's Eye View of art. Given my skepticism that any person could achieve such a level of transcendence (and, indeed, that we would be able to definitively detect it if someone did), I don't think any person can rightfully claim to be an objective art critic.

Knowing a lot about music or film does not make a person a superhero who has transcended the subjectivity of human existence. We are left, as observers of art, with personal assessments of art and of its critics. We might feel that some critics are more well-equipped to the task of criticism and that their critiques are more profound and compelling. However, I believe it to be folly to give such a critic the status of objectivity. Critics are people. Even a near-consensus of "experts" is still only...a near consensus of subjective people. Consensus does not make objectivity. Even if every critic in the universe came to agreement on a certain work of art, we would still only have a consensus of subjectivity; objectivity would still lay far beyond the reach of any person.

Deferring to the opinions of "people who know about music" is a logically flawed appeal to authority. It is certainly not the sort of well-argued opinion that you mentioned in your previous post. A critic's opinions should be able to stand (or fall) on its own upon reflection by the reader/listener; whether or not a given opinion can stand up to the scrutiny of "people who know about music" should be immaterial to the internal quality of that opinion.

DJ
 

Paul_D

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2001
Messages
2,048
Moulin Rouge said:
Here's my case for why I consider Moulin Rouge to be a bad film:
1) I didn't connect in any way with the characters, setting, emotional flow of the film. The Duke was the only character I liked.
2) As Jon has already commented, the editing makes Natural Born Killers look comparatively tame. It makes the film feel dijointed and poorly paced IMO.
3) I found the musical numbers over-the-top and bloated. Well choreographed? Perhaps. Interesting to me? No.
4) The so-called innovation of re-designing modern music for pre-turn-of-the-century France came off more like "rip-off" to me than "daring new innovation" as it did to so many.
5) By far the most frustrating and annoying aspect of the narrative was the overreliance on the incredibly-cheesy, not even slightly engaging "a story about love" hook. It made me roll my eyes whenever it was uttered. And it was uttered a lot.
6) As others have commented, the story has been done so frequently recently that I can't help but find it tiring. Boy meets girls is too generalised... the specifics are too close to other films for my liking.
7) Even though I love Ewan, he doesn't have the voice to carry the musical numbers without seeming foolish to me. Whenever he sang, unless the intended effect was to make the audience laugh at how bad it was, the filmmakers failed.
8) The visual-splendour was impressively unique, but so much of it made me want to vomit. It was not aesthetically pleasing to me.
I admire the set-design and the audacity of Luhrmann for bringing such a personal vision to the screen and am glad that so many people loved it, and that it was profitable. However, I have no interest in ever seeing it again, and cringe whenever I see a clip of it or even think about it. That is all.
I know this'll be picked apart, but I've made the point of highlighting some of ther personal pronouns in the hope of hammering home the fact that these are my opinions.
 

Jack Briggs

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 3, 1999
Messages
16,805
Okay, you've established some points about Moulin Rouge! and why you think it is bad. But the overall thrust of what you are saying seems to be that nothing is either good or bad unless someone regards it as good or bad--and that simply does not wash.

Viewer A just loves Moulin Rouge!, and therefore it is good in his case. And Viewer B thinks the film is terrible, and it is therefore a terrible film in her case. Things don't work that way.

And, look, in the thread started by that member about The Godfather, one respondent went so far as to try to defend Plan 9 From Outer Space as being on a similar plateau as The Godfather by employing the same extreme subjectivity that seems to be advocated here.

Again: Just because someone doesn't like a film does not necessarily mean the film is bad. It may even be great. I will give you credit for attempting to justify why you think Moulin Rouge! is "bad." But that's as far as I will go.

Stay tuned for that other thread. Haven't had much time to start my own threads lately, however.
 

Jack Briggs

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 3, 1999
Messages
16,805
Since this is now a discussion about the film itself, the thread is in a new home.

Some interesting posts here on page 2. Let's keep it cool, please, per Ron's mandate. Thanks!
 

Paul_D

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2001
Messages
2,048
Moulin Rouge said:
Someone judges a piece of art and then if enough people agree then it is henceforth the only opinion on the matter? Or are you saying that the majority opinion determines whether someone disliking a film reflects either a) their own ability to appreciate it is lacking, or b) there is something which the film fails to achieve. I'd say b), only because if a film hasn't succeeded in engaging me, whether masterpiece or craptastic junk, it has still failed by my definition.
The Godfather is only considered a masterpiece because enough people have labeled it so. Jack, you keep refering to how things don't work. Perhaps you could explain how they do work? ;)
The "general consensus" on a film is achieved when there's a majority opinion. In the model you've created there is no majority. Thus in your model, things do work that way. In the real-world obviously they do not, but only because its far more likely that a film's for/againsts will not fall at exactly 50-50. That's why so many films that are well-loved will never achieve the elusive label "classic", because its is only widely applied, when the film is widely loved.
 

Patrick Sun

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1999
Messages
39,660
Is it time for me to pull out the quote:
"You're not entitled to an opinion, you're entitled to an informed opinion."
Meaning, if you want people to take your opinion seriously, it's in everybody's interest that you have an understanding on the merits of what's being discussed.
This is entirely different when such film discusions devolves into a matter of taste where you dismiss a film because it failed to provide the elements that entertain you while embodying and possessing plenty of elements that justify praise on the same film, i.e. when "reviewers" miss the boat on a film in question.
If you can't identify such elements (and/or lack the experience to place them in some historical context of film), your opinion is less valid in a critical sense, and is much easier to discount, like it or not.
 

Jan Strnad

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 1, 1999
Messages
1,004
I did see this film in a theater...the Daryl F. Zanuck screening room at 20th Century Fox, actually, where movies are sound-mixed...and absolutely hated it.
But if others love it to death, good for them!
I agree that this is a film that polarizes audiences. I think it should be used as a test for anyone considering marriage. If you don't agree on Moulin Rouge, don't get married! :)
Jan
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,815
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top