Second review...

Rating: 10/10 (5 July 2002)

A previous interesting comment triggered me to write this and I hope that my humble opinions will help put more light in the interpretations of this movie. I apologize if I may offend anyone, I just feel that I need to give this movie a fair trial.
This movie is unique in the fact that it really don't have a main character. Well, it does, but it involves an inanimate object; the red violin. And when you know, if a movie is character based, there will have to be 'attachments (added values/importance)' to this main character, similar to many other movies like The Godfathers 2 etc.but in this case, it is a violin. This movie is also unique in the fact that it has two 'central point' that tells the story; the auction and the tarot cards. In most cases there is only one or at all; like the bus stop in Forrest Gump.
I agree in a certain degree that this movie is about antique collecting. But I will go as far as it is present in the movie but it is not by any means to be the sole purpose of the movie. (Like requiem for a dream is about only drug uses or pulp fiction is only about killing people) I agree, in the light of music's meaning, putting too much emphasis on a musical instrument is wrong. But in the light of a main character in a story, it is an inevitable step. But I would also suggest in my humble opinion, putting music on the emphasis on the musical instrument OR the musician is just as bad. To say music is the musician is like worshipping Mozart of his status and values and not his music. Music IS NOT the musician. One hand can't make a sound. No matter how good you are, you can't play the Hungarian Rhapsody on a out of tune piano. Music lives in the relationship between the two parties and it should not exist even in the realms of space nor time. It is the interpretation/understanding that is triggered within a subjective perceiver. Hence, it can never be truly spoken of nor discussed. So if this is the case, movies that promote musicians like `Mr. Holland's Opus' or `Amadeus' will all fall within this error. But of course, there are certain limitations to a movie and all movies have to base on a character whether if it is Forrest Gump or The Red Violin.
This movie talks alittle about auctions of a number of antiques. But is it just about collecting them? What about the monks? Do you think they want the violin because they want to collect violins for their monetary values? If so, why get the same one that happens to be related to them? There must be more than just antique collecting.
Is this just an object of history and not history itself. But wouldn't we not say that history is composed of objects/events (that is related to objects in the space-time)? It is the summation of these important events/objects that give history its meaning. The sum that makes up the whole; one can't talk about the whole without its sum. It is like trying to picture someone you love in the past. It is hard to picture that person out of context. You need to picture that person in context of something you have done/ shared the same event together.
Did Sammuel steal the violin because he wants to rebel against capitalistic values? Do you think he did all that inorder to spike the society? (If you want this issue addressed, red violin may not be the best movie to go, try Fight Club). Did you think that when the 17th Century violin maker used blood to paint an instrument from his beloved wife, he was thinking consciously, `ahh, this will be later of great value to both antique lovers and musicians and I will be rich, rich I say, RICH! Or do you think that he was just feeling pain and anger and love and hatred and emotions and things which logic and rationality that can't explain LIKE what music does to people. Don't analyze music; you can't. Once you start to analyze music, it no longer music but notes on a page.
So what is this movie about? It is about a musical instrument, its history, and the relationship of it with the musicians throughout the course of its life. It survives longer than men, and so it may seem alittle ridiculous. But having in mind that this movie is not an account of facts but of storytelling. It also symbolses that comparing to love/music/beauty, men is minute.
It does not matter how virtuous the little girl is that the father hands down the violin to, it does not matter. Nor do I think that the pleasure one finds in music or the meaning/emotions one find in music is not equal to what grade of piano you have hanging on your wall. To be able to understand the true meaning of opera does not entail you to be a fat lady. If one thinks about music parallel to skills or notation on a page, music is no more than an illusion.
Is it just about music, no. But it is related to music as it is suggested in the relationship it has with all of its owners. The love and the meaning triggered by this violin is beyond words. The symbol played by this inanimate object is a great one. It resemble freedom, love, greed, ownership, beauty and music; all entities in men. It is a pure neutral entity that will transform to whatever to the musician's subjective desired.
I hope whoever is reading this will see both sides of the coin.