A wonderful experience for the eyes and ears, Baz Luhrman’s latest leaves a lot to be desired by the mind. Nevertheless, it is outstanding entertainment. I went along to the screening knowing that I was going to write a review, and during the film occasionally wondered about the title. Early on, I was contemplating “Spectacular! Spectacular!” or “Sparkling Diamond”, but was forced to settle for something a little less praising. This is not a bad film, but I wish that Luhrman had occasionally relaxed and directed it similar to Strictly Ballroom instead of Romeo + Juliet . Upon seeing the film a second time, though, I found it to be twice as magical as before.

During production, someone must have told Luhrman that more can be less [yes, I mean it that way around]. As a result, the later dance sequences are much less extravagant than the first, which includes “Lady Marmalade”, “Diamonds are a Girl’s Best Friend”, a techno version of the can-can, and (would you believe it) “Smells Like Teen Spirit.” This first sequence has everything, from loud costumes, scores of extras, over-the-top choreography, and splicing that distracts more than anything else. No shot is allowed to linger for more than a few seconds (if that), which creates problems rather than keeping us dazzled. If Luhrman had kept everything else the same, but used fewer camera set-ups and allowed us to see what was happening before jumping to the next shot, the first sequence would have been much better.

The sequence I liked best was the “Roxanne” sequence. [A note – even though the film is set in 1899, the songs are by Elton John, Nirvana, the Police, U2, KISS, Madonna, David Bowie, the Beatles, and more. The film spoofs The Sound of Music , “Les Miserables”, Gilbert and Sullivan operettas and Singin’ in the Rain . The soundtrack never attempts to make the music sound like nineteenth century Paris. This would be a problem if the film didn’t regard itself as a fantasy. More on that in a minute.] It begins with two dancers, simple yet impressive moves, and builds from there, until it is an extravaganza worth watching. It is much less obnoxious and far more thrilling. Elton John’s “Your Song” isn’t quite as good as “Tiny Dancer” was for Almost Famous , but the slightly-used “Smells Like Teen Spirit” is great, and “Like a Virgin” is the best performed of the modern songs.

Using modern songs could have been a problem for Luhrman. Instead, it works wonderfully well. One sequence has Ewan McGregor (as Christian) quoting and singing songs with the word `love’ in the title. It culminates in Whitney Houston’s “I Will Always Love You”, and miraculously, it is hilarious rather than cringe-worthy. Here the movie is making fun of ideas on love and of love in song, and later shows us what true love looks like. When Christian is quoting Elton John, the feeling is first disbelief, before realising how silly the whole thing is. I would have preferred it if Moulin Rouge had had more original songs, as Luhrman was trying to reinvent the musical as well as poke a little fun in homage to it. As it stands though, the soundtrack will be a huge seller.

The songs are made all the better by imaginative and dazzling choreography. Film choreography lost its way after the Busby Berkeley-directed sequences in 1930s musicals, and was generally lacklustre until the watershed West Side Story broke new ground in 1961. Choreographer John O’Connell stages elaborate dances, whether they are love songs for McGregor and Kidman or massive numbers that are a choreographer’s dream. His handling of the green fairy is hilarious. In “Like a Virgin”, he gets away from merely dancing, and uses props such as bottles of champagne. “Roxanne” has an excellent Latin style (that made me remember the climax of Strictly Ballroom ). “So Exciting” (if that is the song’s title) sometimes looked deliberately ridiculous, and was still entertaining.

One thing I am sure you will have picked up from the trailers is how great the film looks. The cinematography could well be the best we’ll see this year. The colours are vibrant – reds, blues, and yellows come up wonderfully in sharp contrast to black. Frequently the camera tries to fit as much of the beauty as it possibly can, and somehow manages to capture everything. There are also moments when the shot looks as though it is done in black and white (Satine’s introductory close-up), as cinematographer Donald McAlpine plays with light as well as colour. He also works well with O’Connell in showing the dancing to be energetic and joyous, and showing it from all sorts of angles. The film’s sets, costumes, and make up are likewise all terrific. The look of the elephant and windmill is just spectacular. They are all over-the-top, but aren’t displeasing as a result.

Where the film does fail to please is in the script. Luhrman had a truly wonderful playing (for this film, I’m not going to call it `working’) with his cinematographer, set designers, costume designers, musical directors, choreographer and visual effects engineers, he forgot to develop a complete story. His and Craig Pearce’s screenplay shamelessly copies Shakespeare in Love in places, even if it is more entertaining. There is a plot – that Satine, a courtesan, falls in love with poor poet/writer Christian, but is forced to be with the Duke of Monroth, who is putting up the money for the show. This is a plot we all know and can enjoy, but in order to be excellent, it requires excellent characters that are interesting, entertaining and a little unpredictable. Unfortunately, we get none of them. My girlfriend told me that if the characters had been deeper and more realistic, the film would have lost its charm, as we the audience wanted to see ourselves in the characters, and the desire the party-world they lived in. She does have a point.

McGregor and Kidman hardly ever get characters at all. They are the Writer (who is kind, clever and deeply in love with her) and the Courtesan (who is beautiful, talented and deeply in love with him). They rarely do much other than sing and tell of their deep love. Kidman, often underrated as an actress because of her beauty, is terrific when she does get to act, which is all too rare. Jim Broadbent and Richard Roxburgh are having great fun with their characters, which don’t have any depth either. All Roxburgh has to do is look and be evil and lust after Satine, while Broadbent unfortunately repeats `the show must go on’ every few scenes, in what is otherwise a staggeringly lively performance. John Leguizamo, who did a slight disappearing act after his role as Tybalt in Romeo + Juliet is good as Toulouse, but can get really annoying with his silly voice, and unfortunately has the worst line in the film (to the tune of “That’s the reason….” I would spoil a plot point if I give the real line away, but you’ll know it when you hear it. It’s straight out of “Treating Audiences like they’re Dummies”). I give the actors tremendous praise for their singing though, as their musical performances are excellent (yes, all the actors did their own singing, according to the end credits).

These are minor faults in a film that is concerned first and foremost with being a visual and aural feast. It definitely succeeds in that level, with a directorial energy that is lacking in many films today. The only point for which I will criticise his directing is that we never get a sense of the decadence of the place. There is no sense that the Moulin Rouge is attractive and repulsive at the same time, Luhrman paints it as a simply wonderful place. It is interesting that the last great musical was Cabaret , which featured some of the same elements (I’ll wait before calling this one great). That film, however, tried for realism, and had the fault that its dancing and singing was too good for the seedy, dirty nightclub the Kit Kat Club was. Here, they would be too good as well, but in a fantasy like Moulin Rouge , they work perfectly.


Recommended:
Yes

Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older