Moulin Rouge

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.

I've always had a great affection for this film, although I realized long ago that it has its problems. Most casual viewers and amateur reviewers apparently like it, but it seems to rub some people decidedly the wrong way for various reasons.

Old-fashioned it certainly is, especially when compared to Baz Luhrmann's frenetic rock video-style musical. Though Luhrmann's film is in no way a remake of Houston's, you could legitimately compare the depictions of a night at the Moulin Rouge that occur early in both films. Luhrmann's objective seems to be completely different from Houston's. As flashy and exciting as his images are, the hyper-fast editing and use of pop music from the mid to late 20th century demonstrate absolutely no interest in evoking a sense of the time and place. What I like about Houston's depiction of the Moulin Rouge is the sense of atmosphere, the way a smoky haze can be seen hanging in the air, and the dances seem to more-or-less belong to the era. Interesting, too, is the way images from Toulouse-Lautrec's work are incorporated into this extended scene as he might have originally observed them. Those familiar with his paintings can recognize Moulin Rouge dancers like the tall, bizarre-looking Vincent DeSossier and "La Goulue," looking just as they do in the famous poster, and the sprightly black dancer "Chocolat." Patrons like the two women waltzing together serenely, and a pair of rather reserved Englishmen sitting at a table, are also familiar from the paintings.

I've always found Georges Auric's musical score rather effective. One of "Les Six," the group of avant-garde French composers who pushed the envelope of musical style in the early 20th century, he was a seasoned and sophisticated film composer who worked with Cocteau. Maybe the producers of "Moulin Rouge" thought an authentic French composer suitable for the project, and his score is sec (dry), not the least bit melodramatic, and lyrical in a way that seems to me distinctly French. This musical score may contribute to the reserved, stately, or detached quality that some reviewers see in the film.

For me that sec musical score seems appropriate to Jose Ferrer's portrayal of Toulouse-Lautrec. A pathetic figure, he does not beg us for pity, nor does the film itself turn maudlin or try to manipulate us to tears, which makes the final scene all the more moving. Some of the trick shots showing Ferrer kneeling with shoes stuck to his knees are a bit unfortunate. Too bad they couldn't come up with a better effect for this illusion. As for Zsa-Zsa… Well, nothing's perfect, I guess, but I don't think a touch of kitsch kills this film. Made in the early 1950s, it's not surprising that "Moulin Rouge" avoids the raunchier aspects of turn-of-the-century bohemian life, but I still think it evokes the era admirably. A classic? I don't know, but definitely a classy film that has its staunch admirers, including me.

It's colorful, it's inspiring, it's striking....it's an artwork come to life. "Moulin Rouge" is an extremely well-made movie about the life of the famous French painter Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. The first time I saw this movie it automatically became one of my all-time favorites. John Huston, the director of this movie, did an excellent job in depicting the life of Toulouse-Lautrec, a painter who lived a life of hardships yet became one of the most respected painters in the world. The twenty minute opening sequence is outstanding, showing a night at the Moulin Rouge, with its diverse performers. The sets throughout the whole movie are wonderful; you get to see everything from the brightly-lighted Moulin Rouge to the dark alleys of late 19th century Paris. The cinematography is just as wonderful; the shots perfectly capture the dance sequences. The performances are amazing. Jose Ferrer is great in the lead role. In fact, he plays two roles: as the painter Toulouse-Lautrec, and the painter's father--two great performances in one. Also, the actress named Collette Marchand gives a fantastic performance, playing the prostitute named Marie in the movie. Furthermore, it was interesting to see a then-young Zsa Zsa Gabor in this movie. She was actually pretty when she was young. I think that the most notable thing about this movie is how the director focused on Toulouse-Lautrec's sadness. In his moments of deep sadness, the painter was able to produce some of his greatest works of art....in spite of his alcoholism and his overall gloomy life, he made some very colorful paintings. 1952 was a very interesting and noteworthy year for movies. This movie was one of the motion picture highlights from that year. **** out of ****.

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.

This romanticized treatment of the life of artist Henri Toulouse-Lautrec is literally one of the most colorful films ever made…

All the hues and colors in the palette go whizzing by in the Parisian streets, country homes, and cabarets of the late 19th century… Can-Can girls in reds and blues, against a misty brown-gold backdrop, flourish their silks and feathers in the face and soul of dwarfed painter who could recreate their essence on canvas, yet never possess them physically…

It is the tragedy of Lautrec's (Jose Ferrer) life which bounces around the rainbow framework… The cruel prostitute (Colette Marchand) to whom he gave his love and the young woman (Suzanne Flon) who befriended the artist motivate the narrative, from the crippling-fall in the home of his father to the death-fall in the dirty-looking saloon…

Brilliant work by Ferrer, fine support by Marchand and Flon, and the gaiety of Zsa Zsa Gabor cap the film