> > Now, my question is, have I missed something? Did others see something in it that I didn't? I'm very open to interpretations which reveal more depth in the movie than I saw.
>
> There was a quote in a recent Roger Ebert column that I think is called for. "My feeling is that we go to books for facts, and to movies for feelings." The quote was given to defend the film "A Beautiful Mind" against criticism that it is not, as the book is, wholly factually accurate.

No, no, no! This I will not buy. Ick! Some books, indeed, are written and read for the purpose of sharing facts (like dictionaries and encyclopedias, and some biographies.) But I am talking about stories here, and God help the man who tries to tell me that story books are not about feelings, that their virtue lies in the facts they contain. Faugh!

All right; I realize that these are Roger Ebert's words, not yours, and even he may not have meant what he sounded like he meant. I have neither read nor seen "A Beautiful Mind," so I will give him the benefit of the doubt in assuming that he was talking about something much more specific to that story. Anyway... a rather unnecessary little outburst, but that quote was too repugnant for me to simply let pass.
>
> I would apply it to Moulin Rouge. There is no "book" to contrast it with, but it illustrates where the greatness of Moulin Rouge lies. It's not about ideas but about feelings. Few movies (in fact, I can't even think of one) do a better job at portraying feelings, textures, emotions, atmospheres.

I'm with you there.

> It's a musical not only in the aural sense but in the visual as well. Watch it with the sound off and there is music in the imagery. It even breaks down in the structure of a music program: a fast-paced first act that functions as an overture, a slower middle movement that builds up to a climax of a third act.
>
> This is why you did not find meticulously depicted original characters but rather lots of romanticized archetypes. The movie glories in them. Archetypes, because they are recognizable to us at a glance. Romanticized, because that's how it brings to life such a the gold mine of feeling. The movie's purpose is not to sit down and explain something about people to you. It's designed so that you can start watching at any point in the movie, take one glance at one frame, and instantly understand what character is what and probably how they all fit together. Just as it is unnecessary to think and study and analyze a Beethoven symphony before you can hear a snippet of one and have the sound resonate within you, so also can you glance at Moulin Rouge and have it speak to you. Of course it's best, just as with one of Beethoven's symphonies, if you experience it starting from the beginning and ending with the end, because that is how you experience the complete arc of emotion.

The comparison with music (and Beethoven in particular, who is one of my favorites because of the emotional force of some of his music), is intriguing. It's given rise to several trains of thought which I'll have to play with more.

>
> I do agree with you on one point. With a few exceptions (all of which substitute story with character study) movies must have a strong story or they're doomed. But ultimately what determines good vs. bad is not the depth or originality or complexity of the story (there are a lot of bad movies with original and/or complex stories) but how that story is put to use in creating a cohesive whole. Moulin Rouge has a great story. It's not original; like the characters, the story is a romanticized telling of an age-old, instantly recognizable classic plot arc. All it takes is a single glance at the three main characters and, poof, you know what the story is -- so that frees up your mind from trying to figure out what happens and instead focus on what the movie *does* with that plot arc to evoke such a vivid, visceral experience.
>
> I mean it when I say I can't think of another movie that does this and does it so well. There is certainly no shortage of movies that have nothing to offer but great sounds and great visuals. These are technical exercises, interesting in the sense that fireworks and kaleidoscopes are, and ultimately insubstantial. But I argue that Moulin Rouge is anything *but* insubstantial, because it is not just an experience of beautiful sound and stunning imagery but of pure and compelling emotion as well.

(Clipping the rest of Sam's excellent review) Thanks. It makes more sense to me now. I am even prepared to put Moulin Rouge on my list of good movies. It doesn't make the 'great' list, because I still feel that, for a movie to be great, it should leave the watcher changed in some way (even a very subtle way), and I don't feel that Moulin Rouge did this. What it did do, as you pointed out, in creating a rich and throbbing emotional atmosphere, it did beautifully.

I was very tempted here to put forth my views on the nature of stories, but that is a *big* topic and I'll need to sort my thoughts out more. Once I have, I may start a new thread about it (hoping it's not one of those discussions that everybody here has already had and is tired of.)

Lire"may have to read that Roger Ebert column in hopes that it will absolve him and make me stop wanting to beat him over the head"lyn