This Summer, well it's almost last Summer, I watched the Great Gatsby with much attention. I believe I even wrote a blog post about it. I'm always interested in the latest theatrical, literary, or historical adaptation. I don't know why exactly I like these kinds of productions, but I do. Perhaps I can consult a psychiatrist to unearth the memories. Sorry, I've been reading film theory and how psychoanalysis affected it. Anyway, I also watched Mark Cousins The Story of Film which features a segment with the director of the latest adaptation of Gatsby and the subject of this blog Moulin Rouge. Luhrmann struck me as a director who has a deep knowledge of film. So I borrowed Moulin Rouge from the library and watched it. I must say I'm not a big fan of musicals. And Moulin Rouge is certainly a musical of, as the nytimes.com reviewer put it, an achievement that surpasses MTV.
At first I was somewhat bored and thought where is this film going. A lot of glitz and glamour, but little plot. Eventually the story comes together. A doomed romance that happens by chance. Poor writer and dancer get together. Dancer wants to be a star. Enter Duke who can make her dreams come true. Alas, she can't do it. She loves the writer too much. The story is fraught with class conflict, it is set in 1900, Paris, a traditional love story. Sadly the narrative is tragedy, the dancer dies in the end. The story is simple, straight forward.
Yet, the music and dance numbers are not. They mix together different songs from different eras. Very much reflecting the post-modern idea of a patchwork of other films and songs. I really like what Luhrmann did with pacing and camera shots. The pacing goes right along with the emotional build up of the film. When the plot veers into anxiety and the action is rising, the cuts are shorter, scenes are interlaced, the music seems to become louder. In contrast, when the film's action slows, the cutting is slower. The shots are long and slow. I think he even uses film for the slow shots. The coloration is different, the slow images have the grainy quality about them. The fast paced shots have a digital quality. There are also many, many jump cuts, elipses, time and space are all relative. One shot in the writer's apartment, thirty seconds later at the Moulin Rouge. It all works, it's all a patchwork, a "pastiche" of different styles and techniques. It's really enjoyable to watch such a well shot, edited, and directed film. I have to agree with Cousins when he said that no one else was doing anything like Moulin Rouge.
The acting was good for a musical. Towards the end there was some depth, but, I have to agree with the nytimes critic, that there wasn't a whole lot of range in emotion for any of the characters. The audience never sees any of the hang overs after partying. I may be redundant here, but was there talk about Nicole Kidman being too old for the lead role? And how about McGregor, could Hugh Jackman have played the role better? Luiguzamo plays a comic relief role which isn't bad. And the Duke a representation of elite society, an evil, effeminate man. Lastly, I thought Jim Broadbent played a very good MC. I think this was one of his first roles before The Iron Lady or Cloud Atlas.
All in all, the film is worth a watch just for it's mix of films, songs, cinematographic styles, film stocks, and digitally enhanced settings. I might even show it in my World Cinema class.
No comments:
Post a Comment