MOULIN ROUGE! - DVD review

Thrilling, glitzy, audacious, daring, silly, spectacular, excessive, dazzling, dizzying, sensational, decadent, respectful, rude, electrifying, stupefying. Take your pick of adjectives; all of them apply in one way or another to this 2001 pop-fantasy musical from director Baz Luhrmann.

The Hollywood musical has been close to dead for years, and this new entry in the field will either help resurrect it or put one more nail in its coffin. If it were up to me to decide, and I love musicals, I'd be lowering this one into the ground. But "Moulin Rouge" has a tremendous zest and sparkle to it that for a lot of folks longing for something new may just win them over. It's a film I hated not to like.

The setting is Paris at the turn of the twentieth century, and a poor, young English writer living in a garret is telling us in flashback his story of the year before. His story of first love. He writes, "The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return." He's a romantic, as you can see, and his story is a romanticized, sentimentalized, musical comedy. In a lot of ways it's guaranteed to test the limits of your endurance for schmaltz, gloss, and hype. But, my, what energy it possesses! Its vigor alone is surpassing; characters, plot, and music be damned.

The young man's name is Christian, and he's played by young Ewan McGregor, trying his best to break out of his young Obi-Wan persona from "The Phantom Menace." He's new in town, innocent, settling into the bohemian section of Paris known as Montmartre, with the famous old Moulin Rouge night club, dance hall, and bordello nearby. He's in town to experience life firsthand, specifically to learn and write about love. He isn't arrived but two minutes before he's induced into scripting a stage musical called "Spectacular Spectacular," co-produced by none other than the celebrated artist Henri Toulouse-Lautrec (John Leguizamo). And he's not there much longer before he falls madly in love with the star of the Moulin Rouge show, the singer and courtesan, Satine (Nicole Kidman). While I had no difficulty accepting McGregor as the naive youth, I did have a little trouble with Kidman's girl-next-door looks doubling for those of a sultry, sought-after temptress. Turns out, though, that Satine is really just trying to get out of her high-priced sex-for-sale racket, become a real actress, and find true love. She's tired of making men believe what they want to believe; she wants a real life. In other words, she's a harlot with a heart of gold.

Anyway, all of this is beside the point, the main thing being the music, and the gimmick is that it's all modern. You may remember Luhrmann and cowriter Craig Pearce teaming up several years before with their updated version of "Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet," the characters sporting guns instead of swords. Here the idea is for the singers (and both Kidman and McGregor do their own singing) to vocalize their hearts out with things from Rodgers and Hammerstein to the Beatles, Elton John to Madonna. Indeed, the first numbers we hear are "The Hills Are Alive with the Sound of Music," "Love Is a Many Splendored Thing," and "All You Need Is Love," with "Diamonds Are Girl's Best Friend" and "Material Girl" coming shortly. Well, Christian does describe his previous year's adventure in 1899 as his "summer of love," after all, so we know the whole film's going to be a throwback. Shades of the Haight-Ashbury. But why, beyond its obvious attention-getting appeal, Luhrmann insists upon bringing a modern sensibility to an essentially old-fashioned love story through contemporary music is anybody's guess. Luhrmann says he's following an old Hollywood tradition in doing so, and I've heard a few other guesses, too, none of them persuasive. I simply found the music banal, lacking in freshness.

Among the other participants in the movie are Jim Broadbent (from "Topsy-Turvy"), who plays Harold Zidler, the owner and MC of the night club; and Richard Roxburgh as the Duke, the underwriter of the new show, who really wants Satine herself in return for his cash. Thus, he becomes the much-needed villain of the piece, which otherwise would suffer from terminal tedium.

Oh, I should also mention that Satine is dying of consumption, today known as TB. Everything in the story is purposely borrowed from somewhere else: The plot comes from the old Greek legend of Orpheus (Christian) searching Hades (the underworld of Montmartre) for his true love (Satine). It's the same tale used by Jacques Offenbach in his operetta "Orphee aux Enfers," from which the famous can-cans originated. Then, too, we are supposed to be reminded of Puccini's opera "La Boheme," with its doomed bohemian lovers. And let us not forget John Huston's 1952 film of "Moulin Rouge," with its more realistic characters and period music. So, to say the film is derivative is an understatement, but it's meant to be derivative, to remind us of the past while reveling in the present. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's reveling in the past to remind us of the present. Whatever.

Yes, the movie is boldly dramatic, with smashing cinematography, Arabesque set designs, kaleidoscopic visions, and Busby Berkeley choreography. But it's also little more than a loud pop phenomenon, partly slapstick, partly rock concert, partly comedy of the absurd. The question is, Is it all worth it? Is it ultimately entertaining or enlightening? For me, the answer was no. I found the high energy level exhilarating, but tiring, too. By the second hour, which had turned from melodramatic romance into melodramatic potboiler, I was hoping for all of it to be over, but then it had an ending that went on forever. No escape.

Video:
While I didn't exactly find the movie overwhelming, I did find Fox's THX-mastered image breathtaking. It is as perfect as I would imagine it could be in a standard-definition transfer. All of the film's visual opulence and aural vitality are captured in the transfer's 2.13:1 ratio anamorphic widescreen picture. The visuals are bright, brilliant in fact, cleanly defined, with rich, deep colors. They're gaudy but effective.

Audio:
The Dolby Digital 5.1 sonics (DTS 5.1 for those who can use it) are as encompassing as one could ask for, with music, voices, sound effects, and applause coming at one from every direction. What's more, the sound boasts extremely deep bass, excellent frequency and dynamic ranges, and a quick transient response. Obviously, the technical aspects of the disc's audiovisual reproduction do the film justice.

Extras:
For bonuses, there are not a lot: a production commentary with Baz Luhrmann, Catherine Martin and Don McAlpine; a writers' Commentary with Baz Luhrmann and Craig Pearce; and "Behind the Red Velvet Curtain," an interactive feature that lets you glimpse a historical, technical, and artistic view of "Moulin Rouge."

Parting Shots:
I'd take my review with a grain of salt. I admired the craftsmanship in every moment of "Moulin Rouge," all the while getting a headache from it. Maybe it has to be seen on the big screen and not at home on a television. It's the kind of film people will react to differently, and no reviewer can tell you how you will respond. For me, the music was overly familiar and repetitive, the characters shallow, the story line trite, the allegory superficial (all on purpose, apparently), and, worst of all, the spectacle overindulgent. For you, the film may incite exactly the opposite passions; what I found merely flashy and sentimental, you may find the celebration of life and love that Luhrmann intended.

Will the film in twenty-five years take its place in the upper echelon of screen musicals with the likes of "My Fair Lady," "Oklahoma," "Cabaret," and "The Music Man"? I think not. Yet "Moulin Rouge" has all the earmarks of a future cult classic. Certainly, while a lot of people I've talked to have been indifferent or downright hostile to it, an almost equal number have loved and defended it. I suspect that if you enjoy the lively action and refulgent colors of a favorite circus, "Moulin Rouge" will be the greatest show on Earth. The one thing that can't be denied is the quality of the DVD transfer and production; these are first-rate all the way and may even persuade a non-believer to enjoy the film. I'd say an outright purchase is an iffy proposition for the buyer who hasn't already seen the picture, but a rental is a definite possibility with little to lose.