Ah, well then. You are probably right on that count. 
It’s most often described as a pastiche of La Boheme (young artiste with bohemian friends dies of consumption), Orpheus in the Underworld (Orpheus, who hates his wife Eurydice, nonetheless goes into the underworld to “save” her from her happy tryst with Pluto.) and * La Traviata* (courtesan falls in love with a young hardly-anybody who’s admired her from afar instead of a Baron, but then the Baron forces society’s people to split them up. She’s afraid the Baron will kill him, so she convinces him to leave her by lying to him and telling him (and everyone else) that she loves the Baron. Young lover then throws a pile of money at her feet, denouncing her publicly and paying her “for services rendered”. She repents and sings to him that she really, really loves him, the lovers are reunited, and then she dies of consumption.)
I think La Traviata, plotwise, is obviously the closest ancestor, close enough that I wouldn’t gainsay someone who called it a reimagining, although thematically, La Boheme is next-of-kin.
You know, I hadn’t thought of La Traviata, but I absolutley see that now that you point it out. I fall back on La Boheme because of the consumption, but also as you said, because of the thematic materials and general characterization in the film. I don’t really see Orpheus in the Underworld, but then I will be the first to admit that my Opera knowledge isn’t particullarly deep.
I think the Orpheus in the Underworld comparisons come because of the Orpheus/Christian similarities re: best poet/songwriter ever, and the previously mentioned underworld imagery which is used to describe and portray Zidler and the Moulin Rouge itself. Unlike the classic Orpheus myth, but like* Orpheus in the Underworld*, this Eurydice/Satine isn’t entirely sure she wants to leave, when push comes to shove. She sings about flying away, but she really does love Pluto/Zidler. Satine also loves the Underworld and the stability and familiarity it brings her in the form of The Duke. And, like in OitU, our Satine returns to death, not because Orpheus sucks and looks at her out of curiosity, but because of human weakness beyond his control - in the opera, Jupiter throws a thunderbolt which startles Orpheus into looking, and thus saves the day for Eurydice and allows her to stay with her beloved Vulcan. In Moulin Rouge!, of course, all his love couldn’t save her from Death by consumption.
So it’s not such a clear influence as* La Traviata*, but it accounts for Christian’s “huge talent”, Satine’s love for Zidler and the underworld imagery.
You got there before me! Yes it seemed to me a re-hashing of the same story used in La Traviata which is itself, a rehashing of La Dame aux Camelias and pretty much about as schmaltzy and annoying a story as you can get IMO - both of the main characters are unbearable. I spent most of the film wishing she would ever hurry up and just die. I’m a fan of many musicals but the only redeeming feature about this film in my eyes is the visual impact (i.e. the costumes and sets). The choreography and camera-work while it certainly had wow-factor was a bit nauseating at times in it’s furious wheeling around the place.
Ewan McGregor doesn’t sing, he bawls. I was annoyed that they didn’t use good enough singers though I do understand they had their reasons for using big stars regardless of singing ability. The music was unoriginal, tacky and deeply disappointing.
And strangely I liked Strictly Ballroom and LOVED Romeo & Juliet - a great play excellently and interestingly interpreted and acted. Now I know it’s a better story to start with but I find Luhrman’s R&J so moving that I still shed a tear at the final scene. Yet I felt like throwing my popcorn at the Moulin Rouge screen… :smack: MY OH feels the same. But I do know many people who loved it as well. I suppose I just don’t get it.
My husband and I danced to Come What May at our wedding, so that probably gives you an idea where I stand on the movie.
I love Ewan McGregor. Love, love, love. I could listen to him sing all day long.
I remember taking my Mom to see this movie, and since she’s a lot more conservative than I am about what kind of movie she likes, I was a little bit concerned. So I told her…the beginning is a little strange and hectic. Just hang in there until the storyline really gets moving, and you’ll love it. And she did. She told me later that she was glad I gave her the warning because if I hadn’t, she probably would have walked out during the absinthe scene.
I also loved R+J, haven’t seen *Strictly Ballroom *yet, can’t wait for Australia.
I feel like this supports my opinion. And on rewatching it last night, I still feel the same way. It’s a masterpiece of pop entertainment, but it still feels at one remove to me, emotionally; it’s not about the same emotions that* La Traviata is about; it’s about how La Traviata *is about those emotions. It’s the same with the song choices, brilliant every one. It’s a demonstration of why those songs are universal. In other words, it doesn’t *create *that universality, it comments on it. Still, I understand how it’s possible to overanalyze. The problem with postmodernism is that, if you’re aware of the meta-levels involved, it’s impossible *not *to be aware of them. I’m not in any way finding fault in the movie. It’s flawless. I’m just highlighting what I see as one of the inherent weaknesses of postmodernism: it necessarily puts quotes around any real human emotion, and is more about how the emotion is presented than about the emotion itself.
In any case, I’d rather watch this again than Huston’s abominably boring* Moulin Rouge * (1952). Maybe I wasn’t getting something, but Jose Ferrer’s performance goes right to the top of Worst Performance Nominated for an Oscar EVER.
Huh. I’ve always heard that figure was Edouard Dujardin, who also appears in Toulouse-Lautrec’s poster for the Divan Japonais (minor nitpick: At the Moulin Rouge to is actually one of Lautrec’s oil paintings, not a poster). Just out of curiosity, which DC exhibit did that pamphlet come from?
As for the film, I’m afraid that my opinion aligns most closely with acsenray’s. I also didn’t care for Leguizamo’s portrayal of Lautrec, or for most of the other actors’ performances (with the exception of Jim Broadbent). In general, I found the film trite and, in many patches, incredibly annoying.
I’m not a big fan of musicals, though. Oddly enough, I greatly enjoy opera (inc. La Boheme and La Traviata) and I’m really interested in the film’s subject matter (my area of study is late 19th-century European art, albeit more British than French). Go figure.
I’m glad ascenray already popped in with that link, because I was specifically trying to remember who the Doper was who sent me his copy of the movie because he hated it. 
(to be clear, it wasn’t ascenray, it was mailman)
(I’ve still got it!)
I suspect that if I knew anything at all about postmodernism, I might agree with you. 
Well, in a nutshell, postmodernism isn’t so much about what we feel, as it is about how we express what we feel. Not the emotions, but their artistic expression. My own definition, and certainly not exhaustive; just an attempt to clarify my comments in this specific thread.
And here’s waaay to much information on postmodernism.
I don’t agree with this assessment at all. I think it’s simplistic to argue that Luhrmann had one and only one point and that his movie is a failure if it doesn’t telegram this point to everyone in the audience. There’s a lot going on in Moulin Rouge! and if I were Luhrmann I’d be happy that I’d made a movie that people felt strongly about and that different people could enjoy (or even dislike) in different ways.
For instance, there are Moulin Rouge! fans who love the movie for the same reasons they loved Titanic or Luhrmann’s own Romeo and Juliet. It’s a doomed romance between two good-looking people, one of whom tragically dies at the end, and the whole thing looks fabulous. I personally think this interpretation is missing the point of the movie rather badly, but I do have friends who enjoyed Moulin Rouge! as a romantic tearjerker and it works well enough for many people on that level alone.
This was what I was about to post myself. Moulin Rouge! is NOT just a rip-off of La Boheme, it’s a lot more complicated than that. Or I suppose one might say it rips off a lot more than that – I’m reminded of the old joke about how if you copy from one source, it’s “plagiarism”, while if you copy from multiple sources it’s “research”.
You’ve named the major influences on the plot, but Moulin Rouge! references a huge number of other sources. Luhrmann has said he was inspired by Bollywood films to attempt a project that contained comedy, romance, and tragedy along with plenty of musical numbers. Given Luhrmann’s background in opera, I think Carmen (which broke down the boundaries between comic and tragic opera) was another likely inspiration, especially since the fantastic “El Tango de Roxanne” ends in basically the same way as Carmen.
This is, as lissener says, a very postmodern film. There’s at least 150 years of pop culture threaded into this movie, most obviously in the use of pop songs but there are also a number of allusions to famous musical films. The Sound of Music is obvious, but there’s a little bit of Cabaret, a little bit of Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, even a dash of Singin’ in the Rain.
This is actually the film that made me understand postmodernism – both what it is and why anyone thought it was a good idea. I was an undergrad when Moulin Rouge! was released, and I can remember sitting in a lecture on postmodernism and feeling a bit confused until I realized “Oh…like Moulin Rouge!”. I wound up doing my senior thesis on postmodernism and the contemporary Hollywood musical (from Cabaret to Chicago), so this turned out to be a pretty significant film for me!
I’ll try to restrain myself at going on at too much length on the subject of Moulin Rouge! and postmodernism, especially since lissener has already covered some of it. But I do want to share this quote from Umberto Eco, one I think is highly relevant to Moulin Rouge!:
The character of Christian is basically this Barbara Cartland-quoting man: he woos a very sophisticated, cynical woman by quoting a bunch of pop songs at her. But within the context of the film, neither Christian nor Satine or anyone else realize that this is what he’s doing. Christian as a character is speaking innocently and from the heart, and it’s left to the viewer to spot the irony. I think this is why the movie can work on the romantic tearjerker level for people who don’t even recognize the songs.*
That’s enough about that for now I think, I’ll post again with some less theory-based comments on the movie.
*I doubt there are many such people in the US, but this was the case for some of my Japanese friends. Moulin Rouge! was pretty successful in Japan, where it apparently was marketed as a romantic tearjerker about a dying woman. You can see the Japanese theatrical trailer on the special edition DVD – I think it must contain every shot from the movie of Nicole Kidman coughing.
I’ve seen Moulin Rouge! many many times, partially for my own enjoyment and partially because my aforementioned senior thesis involved a careful analysis of the film. This meant watching it repeatedly AND taking notes!
As you might guess, I love this movie. Like twickster I didn’t feel as into it as I usually do this time around, but that’s probably because I couldn’t devote my full attention to it. I was distracted thinking about the election and a very full week at work. I think some of the visual elements that amazed me a few years ago seem less impressive today, a fate eventually suffered by many visually innovative films.
Speaking of the visuals, although I was interested in the movie when it was first released, somehow I wound up not seeing it until it was out on video. I’d never have seen it on the big screen at all if I hadn’t abused my executive privileges as a club officer while in college. I had the ability to reserve the campus movie theater for club events, so I decided the club needed to have a members-only screening of Moulin Rouge! The movie has nothing to do with the purpose of the club, but there was a pretty good turnout nonetheless. I attended a small women’s college, and I think I could have gotten a good turnout if I’d said I was just going to project a picture of Ewan McGregor onto a screen for two hours.
ANYWAY, I’m glad I was able to do this, because the full Moulin Rouge! experience definitely requires a big screen. There’s just so much to look at. The costumes! The sets! The dancing! Sadly, most of us can only watch the movie now on a small screen, but the special edition DVD has a lot of nice bonus features like uncut dance numbers and a close-up look at the dancer’s costumes and the original design sketches. There’s also an option to watch the tango sequence (a number I can’t praise enough) and the finale from multiple camera angles.
Although I’d seen the movie several times already before I commandeered the AV room, there was also a minor plot point that I’d totally missed until I got to see the movie at full size. Other people have told me they got this point right away, but I’d been confused as to how Le Chocolat (the black guy) wound up saving Satine from the Duke. Why would he think to go to the tower in the first place?
But I finally got it when I saw the movie on the big screen and noticed a couple of brief shots I’d previously missed. During the tango, Le Chocolat is watching Christian and sees that he’s distressed. As Christian leaves, Le Chocolat slips out the side door, presumably concerned that Christian is about to make trouble with the Duke. He’s wrong on that point, but arrives at the tower just in time to rescue Satine. It’s still rather ex deus machina, but at least it doesn’t totally come out of left field.
About Christian himself, I didn’t HATE him like Sampiro did, but I agree he’s not a totally sympathetic character. I suspect we’re actually meant to think he’s kind of a jerk. He’s got good looks, youth, and “a huge talent” on his side, but it’s obvious that his “ridiculous obsession with love” has more to do with the idea of being in love than Satine herself, or even any real interest in or understanding of a healthy adult relationship. The movie draws several parallels between his possessiveness towards Satine and that of the villainous Duke. Each man also eventually becomes so jealous of the other that he takes it out violently on Satine. It’s clear to me that Satine’s love for Christian was more serious and pure than what he felt for her.
I have sometimes joked that the true message of this film is “A modern careerwoman should never get involved with a man who doesn’t respect her work.” A friend of mine has her own interpretation of the film which holds that Christian’s book is a heavily fictionalized account of what “really” happened – he fell in lust with Satine, but either they never had a relationship at all or she at most gave him a couple of freebies then said “Look, you’re a nice guy, but…” Christian then spun this into a more romantic and bohemian story of how their epic love defied everything but death itself. This is a rather cynical take on things, but a very postmodern one, and nothing onscreen actually contradicts it!
My own more serious take is that Christian loved Satine as much as he could, but that the most he was capable of at the time was a rather adolescent sort of love. He’s inexperienced and knows more about love stories than real love.
As for Toulouse-Lautrec, I actually like his character in this movie. Luhrmann/Leguizamo push it right up to the edge of what I’d consider unforgivably irritating, so I can understand how the character crosses the line for others, but he worked for me as a tragi-comic figure. I agree that there is some homoeroticism in his relationship with Christian, but I see Toulouse-Lautrec as thinking of Christian as both a protege and a sort of sexual/romantic surrogate. It’s not so much that Toulouse-Lautrec is in love with Christian, it’s that he wants to be Christian in love with Satine. As he says to Christian near the end of the film, he has given up on finding true love for himself because of his appearance. Like the real Toulouse-Lautrec he apparently has a thing for tall redheads, but he has no illusions about ever winning the heart of Satine or anyone like her. He could (and in real life did) buy plenty of affection from such women, but when it came to true love the most he could hope for was being the friend of Satine’s lover.
Really the only thing about this movie I dislike is the French bedroom farce humor near the beginning. Some bits are fairly funny, but I just cringe when Satine is throwing Christian on the bed, rolling around on the floor, or jumping all around trying to distract the Duke. I’ve seen others blame this on Nicole Kidman not being a great comedic actress, but I think these scenes go so far over the top that no one could have pulled it off.
OH! Yeah, totally. That. I admit, I love it for the romantic tearjerkiness and its ability, unlike so many other romantic tearjerker, to make me feel the emotions the characters feel as the movie progresses. From infatuation to love to jealous madness to despair to love again, I *feel *every emotion every time, not just observe it happening, and I love that. But sitting here with you now, I can also intellectualize it, and I like that, too.
Wow, totally missed that! I’m going to have to look for it next time.
At some point, I realized that, to himself, the Duke is Christian. That is, everything the Duke hears from Satine is the same stuff Christian hears from Satine - that she loves him madly but she can’t sleep with him, that he has an enchanting effect on women, herself included, that they’re going to leave the Moulin Rouge together and be a couple, etc. She says the same things to both men! And yet we despise the Duke for believing her and fighting for her while Christian’s the hero for doing the same thing. Of course, we know she’s lying to the Duke, but he doesn’t, poor thing.
Wow. Yeah.
Damn, I may have to watch it again now that we’ve had this discussion.
I think that’s a great way of putting it. As lissener said above, the irony and self-awareness inherent in postmodernism can often make it seem cold or hollow. But Moulin Rouge! works for me on both an emotional and an intellectual/ironic level.
Satine is a very interesting character for me in this regard. In her first scene she sings “Diamonds Are A Girl’s Best Friend” mashed up with “Material Girl”, thus evoking not just Marilyn Monroe and Madonna, but Madonna as Marilyn Monroe. The character is presented as a composite of several decades of musical showgirl heroines and celebrity sex symbols, plus the operatic influences already named and even some historic inspiration from real-life Moulin Rouge star Jane Avril. When thinking about the film I can appreciate how clever these references to other characters/people are, but within the context of the film we’re shown that Satine has constructed this “every man’s fantasy” persona for herself. Christian isn’t aware that he’s really quoting other people’s songs, but although Satine wouldn’t know who Madonna is her character is well aware that she’s playing a part that’s been played by plenty of other women before.
The emotional truth behind this is that Satine’s sex symbol act comes at a personal cost. She can be a “wilting flower”, “bright and bubbly”, or “smoldering temptress” with ease, but she’s had to suppress her real personality and emotions to do so. Satine has sworn she’ll never let herself fall in love. Until she meets Christian, her value to both others and herself is based on her ability to play a role. Her idea of success and personal fulfillment involves going to the next level of role-playing and becoming a “real actress”.
This makes it all the more affecting when she does fall in love with Christian. Satine eventually finds herself unable to pretend for the Duke anymore. She wants to be honest for possibly the first time in her adult life. The tragedy is that Satine was right to be afraid of what happens to women like her when they fall in love. But maybe it was worth it – she has a perfect happy ending just before she dies.
Towards the end of the movie I think both the Duke and Christian say “You made me believe you loved me!” to Satine. If the Duke weren’t so quick to resort to violence then I’d feel a bit sorry for him. He’d be creepy either way, but he’s also one of the only characters in the film who’s always totally honest (the other being the dancer Nini). He’s up front about his expectations, and he didn’t initially seem to have any illusions about inspiring love or even lust in Satine. When they first meet, he informs her that the pleasure is sure to be all his! But she convinced him that she wasn’t only interested in him for the money, and that their relationship was special.
On the DVD commentary there’s a little discussion about the character of the Duke, and how he changed with different drafts of the script. In one version he was less villainous and more a romantic rival to Christian. He sounded rather like Maximilian von Heune in Cabaret – a rich, good-looking, and possibly bisexual nobleman who was hip to the bohemian ideals. A later version had the Duke as a horrible old man who wanted to buy himself a beautiful young mistress. Luhrmann and his co-writer Craig Pearce eventually decided it was better to have the character be closer to Satine in age so that they could have him plausibly believe that Satine really did love him. I guess this also gives Christian more legitimate reason for jealousy.
IIRC they say in the commentary that this decision was made in part because of input from the actors. Richard Roxburgh was standing in for the part in early rehearsals. Both Kidman and McGregor apparently assumed he’d actually been cast as the Duke and commented that they thought it was an interesting choice NOT to have the Duke be just some horrible old man!