Aesthetic, Gimmicky Dragster

Rating: 10/10 (24 June 2004)

The Concept: 'Romeo' meets 'Buckaroo Banzai' meets 'eXistenZ'
This is your only spoiler warning...
Film is, first and foremost, an art form--no different than paintings, sculpture, music, literature, or theatre. The fact that we abuse film into entertaining us or just telling stories is humiliating. When placed in that context, all film is art that varies in quality. 'Moulin Rouge!' is so rich in detail that it has to be fattening.
I wasn't planning on liking this one. Romance/Musicals aren't my forte. However, examining Ang Lee's "Eat Drink" allowed me to rethink my criterion. Granted, most entries in the genres are insipid, appealing to our quest for affections, but some have other intentions. Once you get past the silly little love story, it gets VERY interesting.
Consider:
--This is a movie about a book about a play with actors existing in various levels of reality.
--There is a distinct layering of images, sounds, and thoughts. Compare this to any bare-bones Alan Parker musical where everything exists "onstage", never in relation to the audience.
--Very competent editing, better than 'Blackhawk Down'. 'Blackhawk' relied on an audio rhythm. Here the cuts are for visual fluency, it takes exposure to learn this method. Notice how elaborate tracking shots substitute for jump cuts or editing transitions. Watch every little nook and cranny for details and keep your eyes open for the use of color. The sound here wasn't as good as I was expecting, 'Amelie' was 2001's best.
--Modern songs (from the Beatles to Madonna) are implemented not as fashion statements. After all, why wasn't Tina Turner's "What's Love Got to Do With It" used? No, the music is also prostituted: cheap and tawdry. Hence 1899 as the "summer of love", 1967 all over again. We even have a supporting cast of Bohemian hippies, probably the most colorful things you will ever see.
--Pay attention to the brainstorming/rehearsal scenes for "Spectacular Spectacular", the entire ending is explained. Notice how we accept it as good humor at first, then as "drama" when it's revealed. Clever, huh? Makes the "love" concept all the more disposable.
--The battles between the artists and the financiers. Every real artist goes through these stages, frequently degrading their original visions for the sake of commercial appeal.
2001 was a good year for film (with 2 Scott films, a Lynch, this, and 'Amelie', how can you lose?) and the advances made then will probably carry us through the rest of the decade. Too bad the Oscars got everything screwed up. If you ignore 'Pearl Harbor', 'Lord of the Rings', and 'Planet of the Apes', it isn't that bad.
As for Luhrmann, I'm going to keep an eye on him. His control here is paramount and he has a near-Scott level of attention to detail, but he's still young. Here, in particular, he begins to run out of gas about midway (hence the "dragster"), so I'm holding off on my final judgment on him. Let's see how his "Alexander" comes out.
In the meantime, let's see Oliver Stone make a musical. We'd need it after the disaster of 'Chicago'. Now THAT had no interesting layering, just 'Sound of Music' all over again.
Final Analysis = = Learn from this...