Insulting piece of capitalistic, antique collector-minded cow-dung

Rating: Null/10 (30 May 2002)

SPOILERS I've read many reviews of this film, and it appears that most critics believe the film is about music. Allow me to correct them. One thing this movie definitely is not about, and that's music. Rather, this movie is about promoting the business of antique collecting. As such, it carries the mentality of collectors, a breed of human that sits around thinking about how much more fun life could be if an old object were to jump in monetary value. There doesn't exist a train of thought more thoroughly removed from purely musical thoughts. This is why a film like this, supposedly about the virtues of musicianship, is little more than a jumble of pretentious, lying crud.
Let's take violins, for example. My uncle was a violinist/violist and he held high esteem for a finely crafted instrument. But he also owned enough honest musicianship to know that placing too much value on a fine instrument is a mistake. The greatest example of fine musicianship, as my musical elders would say, is when the musician can take a shabby instrument and make it sing. This is the sentiment of true musicianship that I'm talking about. The Red Violin makes no attempt to share this concept to its audience. Instead, it wants to sell the opposite concept, that musicians are shallow until their instruments, if they are finely made, save them from themselves and others. What a load of nonsense... we musicians say! But antique collectors, well they fully embrace such a concept, of course. Next stop: college music courses taught by antique collectors.
Antique collectors value the objects of history more than history itself. This is demonstrated in this shallow film, which craps on four periods of history while upholding the present as better than the past. But the fact is, the present state of humanity is sickeningly capitalistic compared to the past. So the story's protagonist finds a way to pilfer an auction house of the filthy rich in order to give a young girl a priceless violin. Is this the best anyone can do to set the vicious world of capitalism right? It doesn't set the vicious world of capitalism right. Such an act in the real world of auctions for the filthy rich would cause these capitalists to be that much more annoyed at thieves, thus that much more viciously competitive. Lesson: burglary as rebellion against capitalism is a failed endeavor no matter how one attempts or perceives it.
I give now a recounting of my experience watching this film, in the form of a plot summary:
A virtuous, 17th century violin maker uses his dead wife's blood to coat one of his better instruments, making it special to both musicians AND antique collectors. God forbid they should make a movie about how musicians, but not antique collectors, favor a certain instrument, then learn through their pure musicianship that it's not the instrument that counts, but the musician who plays it. Then a sickly 18th century child is given scholarship but dies before he can use it. Wasn't the old world dreadful? But the violin survives this encounter, metaphorically informing us that violins are stronger things than humans with natural music talent. Gag meÂ….
But wait! Now we must endure a soap opera styled interpretation of musical life during the 19th century, when apparently talented musicians are so decadent that their musicianship suffers. It's a typical misrepresentation of the Romantic music culture, and entirely expected from the creative minds of 20th century capitalist bigots who think that their own century saves all. What they forget to include is the bona-fide fact that 19th century music is leagues more virtuous than any music ever created during the 20th century. Again the violin survives the musician, and now the nausea is causing the vomit to flow from my mouth. But they're not yet through with me.
First I must endure more capitalistic rhetoric when, during the 20th century in China's cultural revolution, all non-nationalistic (decadent) music is forbidden. Now the virtuous musician must sacrifice their instrument or face violent persecution. It makes for a good bit of espionage, and I'd be the first to denounce such totalitarian atrocities. Only I'm aware by now that this story is meant to serve a purpose. That is, to show us that free capitalism is better than anti-art, totalitarian socialism. Hmm. Agreed, like the lesser of two evils.
Again the violin survives the musician. Hey, this is some violin. It's indestructible! Finally, we reach the present age of technology, when real music has finally been completely obliterated by way of over analysis. A guy manages to burglarize an auction for the filthy rich, then plays Robin Hood and hands over the priceless violin to a musically aspiring young girl. Is there anything in the story explaining to us just how musically virtuous this girl is? Of course not, that's not necessary. Besides, such a digression would spoil the moments of deep sentimentality that all the would-be antique collectors in the audience are feeling towards this incredible violin. It's about the violin, you see, not musicians. If suddenly these fools in the audience were subjected to real music performance on the screen, their sensibilities would surely be twisted out of their comfortably shallow little places.
The part of the story that I sorely missed, was what happens after the ending: A few years later the girl who'd been given the priceless violin decides to quit learning the instrument and listen to some Brittany Spears with her friends instead. Since otherwise she would certainly be considered a nerd freak by her schoolmates. One must have realistic priorities these days, hmm? Hence, this film is not about music. For currently music is at a very low rung on the average citizen's list of priorities. And this movie is, after all, for the people. Finally, I pass out from exhaustion. Thank god this horrible episode of my life is over.