Moulin Rouge

With the appearance of the 2001 movie entitled "Moulin Rouge" (see review) I went back to the Jose Ferrer version to add a review of it. Note that both films are entirely different in style and purpose; to equate them is to compare apples to pineapples.

This version, so well directed by John Huston, is not a wild frenetic musical but a very touching and moving character study of the great artist Henri Toulose-Lautrec, whose legs were badly mishappen and shortened by an accident early in his life leaving him basically a midget. His frustration at his appearance, and unattractiveness to women, forever scarred his short life that was curtailed by drink and other excess. Jose Ferrer was superb as this tortured yet brilliant soul; Ferrer also played expertly Henri's powerful father descended from French nobility.

"Moulin Rouge" began with a long scene in the club itself filled with dancing, exciting music, beautiful women, good friends,and lots of drink. The sets and costumes and were colorful and beautiful. After about half an hour we follow Henri home - and we see him, alone, so short and vulnerable, walking all alone through the dark streets of Paris. The contrast was most effective. Such was the REALITY of Henri's life. The remainder of the film focused on his unsatisfactory relationship with a prostitute he befriends, along with flashbacks to his privileged wealthy childhood.

Perhaps the most emotional scene was at the end. With Henri dying in his bed his father there tells him that he is the first living artist to be honored by having his work displayed at the Louvre. As he appealed for forgiveness for his previously harsh treatment, saying "I didn't understand", all Henri's old friends from the Moulin Rouge, as spirits (or hallucinations), visited him.

Like with the fine movie about Van Gogh, "Lust for Life", this even better movie is not necessarily always true to historical fact, but it is a cinematic classic.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

Believe it or not, when I watched the 1952 Moulin Rouge, I had no idea who Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec was. At least I knew that the movie held no similarity to the 2001 "musical" - which is imperative to be able to appreciate the film. So, as I saw the opening scene of the dancing can-can girls in 1800s Paris, I got sucked into the colors, sounds, and lovely full frames from director John Huston. José Ferrer sat at a little table, drinking and drawing the girls in his sketchpad. At the end of the scene, all the patrons, including Joe, left their tables and emptied out of the club. Just in case you're a young person reading this review and also don't know who the famed French artist was, I won't reveal anything else about that first scene.

Ferrer's performance, once again, was fantastic. He's a wonderful, trained actor and he was able to immerse himself in the character, stay faithful to the historical man, and also bring him to life for 1952 audiences. Parts of the movie make you feel like he's part of his own paintings, and that somehow advanced animation has made him move and speak in front of a camera. Other parts make you cry as you get sucked into the romantic melodrama (which was cleaned up for Hollywood's sake).

As long as you're not expecting the flash and glitz of Nicole Kidman singing "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend", there's a lot to appreciate about this movie. The beautiful theme and song "Where Is Your Heart?", an English and French version, was written for the film. When you're done with this heavy drama, pop in Deep in My Heart for Joe to cheer you up.

Set around the fictionalised experiences of Toulouse-Lautrec this is a quite moving account of one man's search for love and artistic acceptance whilst struggling with his own sense of remoteness brought on by his disability.

The film is a touch longer than I felt it needed to be (some of the musical numbers could have quite easily been cut) and occasionally seems to lose it's momentum but is saved by gloriously gaudy direction and a great performance by Jose Ferrer as the diminutive Toulouse-Lautrec.

The scenes in the Moulin Rouge don't really convey how outrageous this club must have been back then - but I suppose that says more about our society than the film. Having said that, most of the dances come across as saucy fun and give you a bit of an idea of the atmosphere in the club.

This stands alone as a well crafted film that needs no comparisons with any other versions of Moulin Rouge due to it's focus on the difficult love and remoteness of it's main character. That said it does have patches that drag and sometimes it is easy to lose your concentration.

Along with Gauguin, Rodin, Seurat, van Gogh, and several others, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec is regarded as a major contributor to the French art movement of the late 19th century, known as post-impressionism. "Moulin Rouge" (1952) is the somewhat romanticized cinematic version of the life of Toulouse-Lautrec. As a biography, the film is "sketchy"; it focuses mostly on the artist late in his life. Though talented as an artist, an accident in his childhood left him with two stunted legs. At maturity, he was 4 1/2 feet tall. The result was a certain amount of social ostracism. Despite being from a family of wealth, he chose a bohemian life as an adult, and he spent much of his time in the seamy areas of Paris, where he would create sketches, drawings, and paintings in the cabarets and brothels.

As Toulouse-Lautrec, Jose Ferrer, together with the film's screenplay, portray a man who was extremely intelligent, lonely, emotionally isolated, and depressed. Much of the film centers on the Moulin Rouge cabaret, where he would make sketches of the patrons and dancers, and drink excessively.

Ferrer gives a highly credible performance. The film has excellent cinematography and production design, and interesting costumes. The overall tone of "Moulin Rouge" is one of sadness and melancholy, in which a talented but lonely artist eschews luxury, to devote his adult life to his passion for art.

Whether or not the film accurately portrays the life and personality of Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec correctly, one thing you certainly have to say about "Moulin Rouge" is that it is a gorgeous movie. Not surprisingly, it won two Oscars--for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Color and Best Costume Design, Color. I am also a bit surprised it wasn't nominated for Best Cinematography, Color--as the film was exquisitely filmed--giving it a look and color that is second to none. It also received quite a few important nominations--including Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Director (among others). So, it is clearly a standout film for the era. I also suspect that the film might have been overlooked a bit over the years since, as an even more spectacular biopic of a painter, "Lust for Life" gained even more notoriety in 1956. Both films are absolutely gorgeous.

As to the life story of Lautrec, I am far pickier than most because I am a (among other things) a retired history teacher. I look for inaccuracies others might not notice. So, when I see Lautrec brooding CONSTANTLY in the film, I ask why they almost never show him smiling or acting human?! Sure, the real life character was a pathetic man in many ways, but he was a man--a three-dimensional man. Although Jose Ferrer did good in many ways, his performance lacked the fullness of a real man. He got the main and depression quite well--just not anything else. I also think that the film sanitized and over-glamorized Lautrec's relationship with one particular prostitute--whereas the real Lautrec had MANY sexual relationships--many. In the film, however, he hangs out with prostitutes and is quite chaste! Part of this, I am sure, is due to the Production Code. Sure, it was being relaxes in the 1950s--but not THAT much! Overall, a wonderful film but one that isn't perfect--but incredibly beautiful--breathtakingly so. For a great double-feature, try watching this immediately preceding or followed by "Lust for Life".

By the way, I realized why they changed Lautrec's life here and there for dramatic reasons, but he never fell down the steps and broke his legs. The legs actually were very brittle and broke doing much more mundane activities--such as falling out of a chair and breaking one of them. In other words, his genetic problems caused the break and the dwarfism--not some dramatic fall.