I hate to have to compare the two movies, as I feel they are both exciting new entries into the musical film genre, which had been pronounced dead for decades prior to 2001.
That having been said, Moulin Rouge wowed me with its frenetic pace, and unabashed energy. I loved the look and fun of the movie. Unfortunately, it all seems to go a bit pear-shaped during the last third of the movie, and becomes a bit slow and draggy.
Chicago is a brilliant stage musical which had the misfortune of opening on Broadway in 1976. (Both overshadowed by A Chorus Line and coming out just when movie musicals were no longer guaranteed.) In an odd way it was ahead of its time, seeing its somewhat cynical message.
The movie version of Chicago struck a fine balance between keeping the best aspects of the stage show, and yet using cinema to make it unique. Far from being a straight retelling of the stage show, it reinterpreted the piece for film.
I happen to think that Richard Gere isn’t ideally cast, but Renee and Catherine are superb.
The bottom line, is that I love both film musicals, but give the edge to Chicago for having a better story, and in my opinion a better score. Moulin Rouge fans should be grateful that the success of their movie opened the door to film musicals being worth making again, and Chicago fans should give some credit to Moulin Rouge for opening the door wide enough for Chicago to win the Oscar. Chicago’s oscar is in part an acknowledgement of Moulin Rouge.
You should check out the bitchery that goes on between these two films at the IMDb forums.
Personally, for me it is Chicago.
The winning moment for me in the movie was Catherine Zeta-Jones and her rendition of “I Can’t Do It Alone”. At that point, I knew she had the Oscar.
I do enjoy Moulin Rouge. I am a big Nicole Kidman fan, but while Moulin Rouge was definately a work of fabulous art and cinematography, as a musical, it was so-so.
I think they are both truly great films. Chicago is one of the few films that truly deserved a Best Picture Oscar, a fabulous entertainment. Gere maybe wasn’t the perfect choice, but he was a good one; the only actor miscast was Christine Baranski, and that was probably inevitable when then turn it into a film – there was probably no performer would could have done the role properly with all the closeups.
But I’d give the edge to Moulin Rouge. Primarily because it was much more cutting edge and innovative. The use of existing songs was a brilliant idea, and they were used in ways that were not only perfectly conceived, but which brought out new dimensions to the originals (I especially loved the use “Smells Like Teen Spirit” and the various songs in the “Elephant Love Medley”). It also focused attention on musicals, and its success was a factor in the success of Chicago.
The main reason people strongly choose one over the other is due to the big difference in tone: Moulin Rouge is romantic, Chicago is cynical. Whether you like one over the other depends on which of the two you prefer. But it absurd to condemn one at the expense of the other – there is no reason why they both can’t be great films.
It’s extremely difficult to compare something that’s an original within its format and something which is an adaptation and even more difficult to compare two movies which have little in common save their genre. We may as well attempt to discuss whether Grease is better than Gentlemen Prefer Blondes or if Tora! Tora! Tora! is a better movie than The Thin Red Line. It doesn’t make any sense to look at this as a question of quality.
So it comes down to preference, and mine is Chicago.
Moulin Rouge irritates the hell out of me. To me, it’s nothing more than old songs being retooled to wedge them into a derivative, poorly actualized, extremely predicatable storyline, told with oversaturated colors and a lot of splash. It’s fun, yes, but it’s not terribly inventive nor is it the masterpiece of a genius.
Chicago is an extremely well done film, but the main reason why it gets the edge is that there was actually something inventive in the way that the story was told. Instead of having characters inexplicably replacing spoken dialogue with song or bursting into dance numbers in the middle of a scene for no good reason, the musical numbers were (very subtly) shown to be occurring in the imagination of one of the characters. (Renee Zellweger’s Roxie Hart.) By essentially putting her into a fantasy world, a meaningful catalyst to the end of the film was provided and the main point of contention with musicals, the hokiness of the impromptu song and dance, was gone. Genius.
Baz Luhrman seems to like flash and spectacle and that’s fine and good, it has its place. Rob Marshall, on the other hand, has an abiding love for telling stories with music and dance, and it showed. How he lost the Oscar to that fugitive rapist still boggles my tiny mind, but that’s for another thread.
The “MTV look”–even accepting for the moment that there is such a thing–is an evolving, exTREEMly non-constant thing. Baz Luhrman has always been ahead of that particular curve, not behind it.
Are you suggesting that MTV hasn’t reflected any cultural influences that originated after its initiation? That’s just absurd.
Well, Guin, everyone has seen Moulin Rogue only in parts. There’s hardly an edit longer than 2 seconds!
I found that movie irritating from about the first minute and confusing from the get go. I really wanted to like it, really, I did. The reviews I read made it sound really fun. But I have not been more disappointed, I think, with a movie than with MR. There was all this crazy frantic stuff going on and I could never ever follow it at all. So I gave up. I realized after I turned it off at some point, I have no idea when, that I also did not like Romeo + Juliet. Ahhh, I says to myself. No more Baz Luhrman movies.
This has me worried about Chicago. I really want to see it, but I’m justa little concerned I’ll hate with the burning of a thousand suns. It’s on the list though, for now.
a few hours of MTV circa 1995 (complete with ads)
a couple of episodes of Miami Vice
a late 80s/early 90s gangsta movie or two
Pulp Fiction
and a plot summary of West Side Story
you’re not going to associate the word “innovative” with Romeo + Juliet.
That’s the thing about Baz – he’s more of a blender than a director. He takes a bunch of well-known influences and frappes them.
Okay, now I realize that these things all postdated the original conception of the plot of Chicago, but bear with me for a minute, will you? It reminded me of a combination of Moulin Rouge, The Shawshank Redemption, and* Ally McBeal.* Now, that is a strange combination. But I think it worked pretty well for something that can be seen in that light. I liked it.
I’m not sure if I can give an entirely objective opinion on the subject of Moulin Rouge. The circumstances were perfect for my first viewing of it. I had the living room to myself, except for my favorite guy friend, and a huge big screen television. When it ended, we just looked at each other, and said, “Woah. That was the best movie ever!…Let’s watch it again!”
It’s not about the plot. That’s kind of wimpy. It’s about the experience.
I agree with Alzarian. I liked Moulin Rouge for the sheer spectacle of it. It was an all out big musical with costumes, sets, music ect. to go with it. Lots of fun, but I never really felt anything for the characters. I knew she was going to die from the start and I never really cared, it was about watching the whole spectacle of it all. I didn’t really want to feel more for them though, so I don’t view this as a weakness of the film, in fact I rather enjoyed sitting back and watching the fun of it all. If anything the death scene is so dramatic and sappy as to be bordering on satirical, IMO. That’s the way I interpreted much of the movie - if a moment was sad, it was beyond sad, if it was exciting, it was over the top exciting, and so on.
*Chicago[i/] is a stronger story, and the characters are much more interesting to me. There are fun song and dance numbers, too, but the story as a whole and the way it was filmed are more engaging to me. I think it has a relevant message besides having the spectacle.
I like them both, though. Two totally different styles and both good examples of what a musical can be.
Um, that’s called postmodernism, and Luhrman is pure pomo. He’s still ahead of the curve; his synthesis does more to inform things like MTV than vice versa.
