I hated Titanic because it was too long and the characters all made me HATE them. I have no problem with a sappy love story, however “out of style” that may be. Good film-making never goes out of style, and I believe it is possible for a film to be sappy and well-made at the same time. Titanic wasn’t.
The OP aside, I do have to agree that the Oscars are pretty much meaningless. They do not represent the entire film industry, and they do nothing to support new talent. It’s just an excuse for the major studios to get together once a year and suck each other’s multi-million dollar cocks. If you’ll pardon the expression.
It’s also very glamorous, and I bet it makes for a fine night out. If I could get a ticket and had something to wear, I’d go to the Oscars in a second.
The best directed film I saw this year, no doubts, ifs or buts, was Moulin Rouge. Directionwise, it was in a different class. Not necessarily my favorite film of the year. But pure directing genius.
Can’t agree with you there, kabbes. Having the most cuts isn’t necessarily a virtue.
Neither Howard nor Cameron are hacks. I think people underestimate the difficulty of making a simple story engaging. I haven’t seen A Beautiful Mind, so I can’t comment upon whether it was deserving of its many awards, but I defy anyone to analyze Apollo 13 and support the claim that it is hackwork. Creating and sustaining tension in a story when everyone knows exactly how it will end is not a simple task.
I sat there for two hours with my jaw dropped open throughout Moulin Rouge. It didn’t feel like a film, it felt like a painting. I derived an experience that I normally only enjoy at the Musée D’Orsay. It gave pleasure in a way that had nothing to do with plot, pretty women or effects. It was, in short, a work of art.
That, my friend, is direction. And I can’t praise it enough.
I more than accept that the film itself isn’t to everyone’s taste. Nor does it have the best story. Nor is it the greatest piece of cinematic drama. But it is one of the best pieces of art I have witnessed. And that, to me, deserves the Oscar.
The songs suck.
Nicole Kidman looks like a moving statue.
Stop cutting every 5 seconds, Luhrman.
This film is about truth? The feck it is.
God, why did I pay to watch this?
Well, I agree with Michael Ellis.
As soon as Ewan MacGregor opened his mouth and started singing, “The hills are alive…”, I thought, “WTF?!?”
I’d rather watch something by Ron Howard or James Cameron over Moulin Rouge any day.
To each his/her own. I certainly wouldn’t question why someone would hate this film. But it brings up a great point for this thread: while most people seem to be rather wishy-washy over their opinions of Ron Howard and his films (myself included), there seems to be very little middle ground on Moulin Rouge. For the most part, people seem to either love it or hate it. I’ve heard very little “Yeah, it was okay” opinions; although I’m sure there are some out there, they seem to be the exception rather than the rule. And bringing out strong reactions is good. Love it or hate it, Baz Luhrman definitely tried to do something different, and personally, I think you gotta respect him for that.
When it first came out, yes that’s exactly why I didn’t like it. Later I came to hate it because of the historical inaccuracy, treacly flute music, Celine Dion’s voice, and lack of any likeable characters.
As for hack directors…um…I’ll get back to you. I’m not up on my directorial achievements. Been a while since I saw a movie.
I’m not about to argue whether it was a good film or not. Clearly, that is purely subjective, and there’s no way I’ll talk you into liking the film any more than you’ll talk me out of liking it. But there’s a few things in your post I have to call you on.
First off, it is not to laugh. The production designer (and cinematographer, as well as everyone else on the set) works under the director. The director does not show up on set the first day of filming to see the sets for the first time. The director has worked with the production designer every step of the way; it is the production designer’s job to bring the directors’ vision to life, not the other way around. I can assure you, when Luhrman met with the production designer for the first time, he didn’t say, “Well, you know… I want it to be all old-timey and stuff. You come up with some stuff. I’ll see you in six months.” It’s the directors film; blame him when things go wrong, but you also have to give him some credit when things are right.
I’m also curious about your saying the film, actors, and story lacked direction. Would you mind being a little more specific? Did you feel the actors’ portrayals wavered? Were they all over the place? Were they merely being Nicole and Ewan and Leguizamo reading lines? Did the story create a world and then not stick to it? Did the story switch tones? Did you feel the shots weren’t well-thought out, just plant-the-camera-and-shoot shots? Did the editing style fluctuate, starting off attempting to do one thing and change as the film went on?
I suspect that, whether you know it or not, it isn’t that you felt the film lacked direction. You just didn’t like the direction. And that’s fine. Again, liking the film is purely subjective. But I feel that to say the film lacked direction is just unfair.
Sorry, Chuck, but that’s a steaming load. The popularity of the movie had nothing to do with my dislike of this cinematic turd, although it did make me more voluable in voicing that dislike. The plot was third-rate, recycled treacle. The entire film was totally lacking in romance, because the charaters were unbelievable and unsympathetic. The actors, almost without exception, phoned in their performances. Structurally, the film was hamstrung by the distracting and entirely unnecessary book ends with the elderly Rose. (If only Spielburg had learned this lesson when he made Saving Private Ryan.) Speaking as a white guy, it was the only film I’ve ever seen that made me feel racially insulted. I’m specifically talking about DiCaprio’s Irish side kick. I’m surprised they didn’t give him a green bowler and have him run around the ship trying to hide his Lucky Charms from hungry stevedores. Even the much touted sinking scene I found interminable and uncomfortable. This was a bad, bad, bad movie. And this is from someone who likes romances, likes costume dramas, and even likes Leonardo DiCaprio. He was far and away the best thing in Romeo + Juliet, which is, admittedly, not a great feat. (I didn’t know that Luhrman directed that. If he was responsible for that fiasco, I’m not sure if I even want to see Moulin Rouge.)
See, there’s no accounting for taste. Everyone likes something different. I likedTitanic. And I liked Lurhman’s Romeo + Juliet. But I hated Moulin Rouge.
I also hated Alan Ball’s American Beauty. But my favorite TV show is Ball’s Six Feet Under. So I’m not blindly faithful to one director.
To each his own.
I thought it was okay. It was certainly entertaining, but it wasn’t great. I thought its Best Picture nomination was ludicrous, but it was worth paying to see.
Miller:
A few questions about your assessment of Titanic. First off, DiCaprio didn’t have an Irish sidekick in that movie, did he? His buddy was Italian.
Secondly, as Cervaise has pointed out in another thread (so I can’t take credit for it) the bookends did serve a number of purposes, the most important being advance exposition of the manner in which the ship sank. Because you’re told in advance how it will happen, you aren’t struck with a “Yeah, right!” feeling when the boat splits in half and goes down bow-first with people falling off like tenpins. By ensuring you know it really did happen that way, Cameron allows for suspension of disbelief so that he can keep the story moving at that point. It was a smart move.
I agree that the bookends were unnecessary in Saving Private Ryan, although that movie was great in spite of that misstep.
Moulin Rouge was Baz Luhrman repeating both the technique and many of the ideas that he developed to better effect in his version of “Romeo and Juliet.” “Moulin Rouge” is often dazzling to look at, but empty to its core. I think it was totally insane that Nicole Kidman was nominated for best actress- I didn’t believe a single character in this film…they were all empty vessels (thanks, Halle) but nothing filled them! I think the film is one in which the sum of its parts- post-modern take on the musical (done much better in “Singin’ in the Rain” nearly 50 years ago), Bollywood spectacle (is it actually better than the real deal?)- are greater conceptions than their realization in the movie, itself. I think the film’s quick-cut editing and Luhrman’s look-at-me directing style are tiresome and not remotely innovative twenty years into the Mtv void. I don’t have a problem with unorthodox techniques and I certainly agree that film is mostly a visual medium, but I call emperor’s new clothes on “Moulin Rouge.”
