I saw this screening at AFI almost on a whim -- and almost talked myself out of it, because I've been apprehensive about it since it was new. It remains rather popular, but some viewers make it sound too weird and/or depressing. I had walked in on a private viewing in college for half a minute and found it simultaneously funny and irritating, if only for the frantic camera shifts. But 16 years is plenty of time to get used to the trend, as with some films I mostly enjoy, so I bit the bullet.
The title refers to a Parisian cabaret led by a Mr. Zidler (Jim Broadbent), where, through a series of unlikely events I won't spoil, starving but aspiring writer Christian (Ewan McGregor) develops innocently loving feelings for showgirl/prostitute Satine (Nicole Kidman), who's expected to entertain a duke (Richard Roxburgh) instead. When the duke finds them in a somewhat compromising position, they and their associates quickly make a big lie about rehearsing a new musical for the duke to finance -- one with a plot awfully similar to the actual semi-menage a trois they're in, so it seems only a matter of time before the duke catches on. But he and the nature of Satine's profession may not be the biggest threats to Christian's romance, as Satine has developed symptoms of TB.
It didn't take me long to understand why people regard it as nearly fantasy: Despite an ostensibly 1899 setting, most of the songs and song excerpts (including some spoken titles) are from sometime between the 1950s and the 1990s. With many of them exhibiting a change in instrumentation if not genre and occasionally lyrics, it reminded me of The Book of Life a bit. The few songs composed just for MR! aren't bad; I can see why AFI likes them, especially "Come What May."
Christian is artistically talented but sorely lacking in common sense, if his "hiding" is any indication. Maybe that's just a sign of him getting wrapped up in love. In a way, it's emblematic of the whole movie: What it lacks in intelligence, it largely makes up for in flair and emotion.
If anything has aged badly herein, it's the visual artistry. I'm not talking about the camerawork so much as the...computer work. Some of the images are not naturally composed, and they look like they were pieced together for a music video. Nowadays, an amateur team could probably do as good a job for YouTube.
Oddly enough, IMDb fails to mention comedy and Wikipedia fails to mention drama among the film genres. I think this touches on what many viewers found off-putting: Comedy-dramas are a delicate balancing act that doesn't lend itself to extremes. We're told pretty much up front that Satine dies, breaking Christian's heart, yet another character's narcolepsy is played for laughs. The presentation does transform along the way to accommodate increasing drama (it slows to a more normal rate, for one thing), but by that time, it's a little hard to take as seriously as merited.
I'm inclined to blame/credit Baz Luhrmann. He hasn't directed much, but we can detect something of a pattern. With Strictly Ballroom, he established himself as an amusingly over-the-top afficionado of music and dance. With Romeo + Juliet, he proved his disregard for credibility in even tragic contexts. I doubt I'll take a chance on Australia or The Great Gatsby.
I imagine that some of the backlash came by way of comparison. MR! is probably not as esteemed as its Academy Award competition, and I can think of several other 2001 films that many would nominate in its place. But I'm still glad I saw it, particularly in a theater, where I could fully appreciate the garishness and hear people laughing with me. And I like it better than La La Land for daring to go to surreal extremes.
No comments:
Post a Comment