Musicals: Yes or no?

redowl90 said:Lately, it feels like American movies are just flooding every theater and TV channel. Honestly, that whole Hollywood style gets on my nerves a bit, regardless of whether the movie is actually good or bad. I’m craving different styles—I want to see what a Swedish director or a Ukrainian filmmaker can bring to the table. I don't want some guy named John constantly selling me the same old Hollywood formula.
So, in my view, saying "I'm sick of American movies" doesn't have to be an automatic insult.

Look, the thing is, people tend to bash American blockbusters (think Armageddon, The Core, Pearl Harbor, Hannibal, and plenty of others like them) simply because they make a ton of money and everyone flocks to the theaters to see them... Okay, maybe that isn't the only reason, but there's definitely something to it. For instance, when films like The Hours or in The Bedroom come out, nobody says a word. Everyone stays quiet and respectful, and you might just hear some faint whispers in the background like, "That was a great film..." and so on. Then, suddenly, everyone attacks the Oscar (or the Academy) because they nominate their own kind most of the time... But the French nominate their own, the British do too, and the Spaniards do as well, yet no one complains about them. It’s just that the Oscar is the most famous award out there (and it's an AMERICAN one at that—so how dare they?!) and naturally, people are going to criticize it. Besides, you can't deny that the Academy usually nominates some of the best films of the year: thin red line, in The Bedroom, The Hours, Chicago (though that's a bad example since it's a musical and people aren't big fans of those here), Talk to Her, whirlpool life (well, I wonder what redowl90 would say about that 🙂)... Sure, they miss things—I'm not saying they don't (Memento was definitely one of the biggest misses lately, along with Se7en, Heat, and countless others)—but that's just how it is. We have to accept it and move on (of course, anyone who doesn't accept it just hates the Oscars, but that's beside the point now)...

But then, when a film like All About My Mother, or Your Mother Too, or Talk to Her hits the theaters, everyone immediately treats it like a masterpiece. Why? Because... Americans would never make a movie like that. Maybe they wouldn't, but my point is (and this is just my opinion) that Europeans (and the rest of the world along with them) want to make something different from the Hollywood style, and that resonates with our audience. We find ourselves craving something else—something that isn't American, but is still high quality. However, what bothers me is this total lack of objectivity regarding European versus American cinema among this same audience. As soon as it's European, it's automatically brilliant; as soon as it's American, it's put under a microscope to see if there's a fatal flaw in a scene or if the director didn't explicitly explain the entire point of the movie... You know? 😉

If you're upset that we don't see enough European films in our theaters, blame the distributors, not all of Hollywood—whose only job is to make money for the Novice and nothing else...

Ed Wood said:There's also the argument that Americans in Hollywood would never actually make a movie like that.

Here’s a perfect example of what I was getting at in my last post: that typical assumption that Americans wouldn't ever KNOW how to make a film like *Dancer in the Dark*. It completely ignores the fact that people like Billy Wilder or Alfred Hitchcock—both true Hollywood stars—have made films hundreds of times better than that one. (And please, spare me the "you can't compare those movies" argument. You absolutely can, because they're the same medium, and you can compare anything within the same medium. When you sit down to make a top ten list, you're naturally comparing every movie you've ever seen... but let's not get bogged down in philosophy here)

In my book, a musical doesn't strictly need to rely on songs and dance numbers to drive the plot forward; if a movie uses music and choreography to reveal the core of a character—even if it’s just through something like Selina's daydreams—then I'm calling it a musical.
So, I don't really see eye-to-eye with you on the idea that "Dance in the Dark" is pure drama—I mean, a musical doesn't have to wrap everything up with a happy ending or throw in comedy just for the sake of it, right? For instance, as far as I can recall, neither Hair nor Moulin Rouge ends on a high note anyway.
Maybe the genre has just evolved over time; it's grown up enough to move past those fluffier, more innocent vibes from back in the day when everything felt so lighthearted and cool and was basically guaranteed to leave you grinning as you walked out of the theater...
(Is that just nostalgia talking? Or am I just feeling super anxious because things feel like they're about to boil over here in the States?)

One of the real issues we face is that our entire movie repertoire seems to consist of just one slice of the massive American film industry—specifically, those big commercial blockbusters that get all the spotlight. Even though there’s still this incredibly vibrant independent scene right here in the States, and lately, thanks to how cheap digital video has become, we've seen these gutsy little experimental projects popping up everywhere, they unfortunately never seem to make their way into our local theaters.

Alright, let’s talk musicals for a second.

Musicals—yes or no? For me, it’s a resounding YES.

I honestly don't get how someone can call themselves a "film lover" while simultaneously turning their nose up at an entire genre or subgenre. I’ll say it without any shame: I’ve seen "Moulin Rouge!" in a theater three times. And honestly? I loved every single minute of it. So, I feel like I owe it to myself to step in and defend it a little bit here.

"'Moulin Rouge!' has one of the worst scripts of the last decade." Well, dear White, my response to that is pretty simple: stop looking for something in a movie that just isn't there. It’s kind of like saying Coppola’s "The Godfather" is a bad movie just because, hey, it didn't make me laugh until I cried. You catch my drift? You can't go into "Moulin Rouge!" expecting some heavy, grinding plot or deep psychological layering, because if you do, you're completely missing the whole point. Even Baz Luhrmann himself described it as a "simple story told in an unusual way." At its heart, it's a tale of love, art, and the spectacle of show business, presented as a "play within a film" (don't forget that curtain rising right at the start!), which might make the drama feel a bit thin initially. The characters aren't meant to be gritty or hyper-realistic; they are archetypes—larger-than-life figures—and the actors embody them perfectly. If you look at his style, the film is this hyper-stylized postmodern circus, a whirlwind of editing and glorious, over-the-top kitsch. Just beautiful kitsch. In an era where film aesthetics have been stripped down by the search for "truth" and "purity"—resulting in all that digital shaky-cam and various "dogmas"—this wild Australian guy showed up with the exact opposite philosophy. He took a genre that isn't "realistic" and proved just how different "dogma" and true artistry can actually be, standing much firmer in his convictions than the pseudo-artistic pretenders on the other side of the fence. But does that mean "Moulin Rouge!" is just "style over substance"? Not at all. Personally, I don't think there's a fixed formula for mixing those two in art; if there were, art would lose its ability to surprise us and sweep us off our feet. Even "dance in the dark" (which IS a musical) has those highly stylized musical numbers, which, by the way, are the only parts I actually enjoy (the rest is just unadulterated sadism committed in the name of "art"). Oh, and I almost forgot... von Trier even included a nod to the classic musical through Joel Gray (I honestly thought he had retired ages ago!). Luhrmann leans into kitsch and camp because that’s been his signature since day one. Besides, how can you not love a guy who boldly claimed that "good taste is the greatest enemy of art"?
"'Moulin Rouge!' is stuffed with songs that weren't written specifically for the film, probably just to lure the mindless masses into the theater." That was basically the sentiment floating around the Oscars threads. The truth is, the reason Luhrmann reached for a jukebox of modern pop and rock is simply because he loves those songs, and nobody can take that away from him. You think that's unoriginal? For your information, most film musicals are adaptations of Broadway shows; even classics like "Singin' in the Rain" only have two original songs, and even Woody Allen’s "Everyone Says I Love You" is essentially a collage of Broadway tunes. If you can give Allen a pass, it feels a bit hypocritical to blame Luhrmann. And so what if they're pop songs? It doesn't bother me. Sure, they’re the kind of tracks that usually make me want to yell at my local radio DJ, but Luhrmann approaches them with such genuine passion that it completely disarms me and forces me to see things from a different perspective—which is a rare gift. To claim that "pop" or "fun" stuff doesn't count as "Cinema" seems elitist, snobbish, and—sadly—just plain ignorant. Viewing film strictly as "high art" rather than "entertainment" ignores the very roots of cinema as a mass-marketed, carnival-style diversion.
To wrap this up: I am genuinely looking forward to "Chicago" and all the other upcoming musicals. "Moulin Rouge!" convinced me that there are no limits when it comes to creating art, let alone enjoying it. We are the ones who create the boundaries, and more often than not, those boundaries are just another name for prejudice and ignorance.

To wrap things up, I’d really love to throw a recommendation out there to all my fellow musical lovers: give "1776" a watch, since it's all about how the United States actually came to be. You can usually catch it playing on various networks like AMC or even streaming on some of the classics. Honestly, with all the global posturing and the tension of a potential war feeling so heavy right now—I might even be typing this just as things start heating up—I'd just ask you to please try to go into the film without any preconceived notions and just... enjoy it.

Truth, Beauty, Freedom, Love!😉

I’ve always had a soft spot for those old-school musicals. There’s just something about that relentless wave of optimism, pure joy, and unbridled happiness they all seem to radiate🙂

I definitely agree with this: if you don't enjoy at least one genre, you aren't really a movie lover... Though there are exceptions. For instance, I can't stand comedies. To me, they are the worst, most boring genre out there; most of them don't make me laugh, they just make me sad (just look at the junk available on streaming services: "completely abandon", "Ant in his underwear," and all that other garbage)... That said, it doesn't mean I've given up on them entirely, because occasionally you find a decent one ("My Big Fat Greek Wedding", "About a Boy") or even a great one ("There's Something About Mary", "Notting Hill")...

So, don't look for something that isn't there? That's basically admitting the movie has NO script! I'm not demanding every film be written with the depth of "thin red line" or "Godfather," but the writing in "Moulin Rouge" is just terrible... You've got a pauper in love with a prostitute, then a wicked, wealthy duke who wants her for himself and does everything to keep her away from the poor guy (and then people actually complain about the plot in "Titanic"—aside from the fact that Kate Winslet wasn't a prostitute).... Honestly, why watch something where we've already chewed through the exact same story in hundreds of previous films? I get what Baz Luhrmann was aiming for, but that doesn't excuse a weak narrative... On top of that, I'm somewhat used to musicals ending with a happy ending, so the fact that this one ends so tragically was another downside for me... I mean, why bother with all that kitsch and those upbeat songs if they aren't going to end up together?

I highly recommend "Chicago," as it might be the best thing you see all year (if you liked "Moulin Rouge," there's no way you won't like this one)... [/B] [/B]

redowl90 said:Look, I’m not exactly demanding that every single movie be scripted with the depth of the thin red line or The Godfather, but man, that script in Moulin Rouge was just a total disaster... Honestly, what’s the point of sitting through something when the story feels like something we’ve already chewed on in hundreds of other films?

[/B] [/B]

I really don't have anything against those classic tropes or stories told a hundred times before, provided they're presented in a way that actually feels new and fresh. It makes me wonder, though—would everyone still think Memento is such a genius masterpiece if it hadn't been told using that specific non-linear structure? The plot in Moulin Rouge is pretty basic and almost cheesy, kind of like one of those old pulp novels, which matches its flashy style perfectly. But honestly, the unique way that story is delivered is absolutely vital to actually understanding it and enjoying the ride.

I'm 100% with Richard Hernandez13 on this. If I actually cared about the plot, I'd just read the book. But the story isn't the point here. It’s all about how the story is presented. You could have a cliché story, doesn't matter. Film is its own medium. Visuals and sound are everything. Words? They aren't the priority—that's what books are for. Look, I already said that twice, but whatever.

To me, Memento bad movie. Great script, but a bad movie. Those jumps between different timelines were poorly done—honestly, they felt fake. For me, the whole thing only works because of that one final line, "Now, where was I." Everything before that was just a massive headache.

If this had been a crime novel, it would've worked perfectly. As a reader, you build the visuals and the sound in your own head (is "auditory" the right word?). Instead, we got this weird hybrid that I just didn't vibe with.

There's your proof: a great script doesn't guarantee a great movie. In fact, having a killer script just makes it even harder to make a film that actually lives up to it.

I find myself in complete agreement with Richard Hernandez13 regarding his take on Moulin Rouge. It’s honestly a bit frustrating that I don't feel compelled to write nearly as much as he does, nor do I feel quite as articulate; I suppose I just tend to wait for someone else to lay out a thought so I can step in and offer my support. Much appreciated, Richard Hernandez13.
I think redowl90 makes a valid point when mentioning that there is a significant subset of people who will reflexively nitpick every tiny flaw in a Hollywood production, yet they seem perfectly willing to overlook glaring issues in a European film. It’s a shame. It feels even more reductive when people use "American" as a synonym for "Hollywood," because the truth is that there are plenty of incredible films made right here in the US that we likely won't ever get to see, simply because the distributors decide they aren't marketable.

blueranger12 said:If I actually cared about the plot, I’d just read a book. To me, the story itself isn't the main thing—it's how that story is presented. Even if the plot is pure kitsch, it doesn't matter. Film is its own medium where visuals and sound are everything. Words are secondary; that's what books are for.

Look, from what you're saying, it sounds like the actual story in a movie doesn't matter to you at all... So, someone could write the worst dialogue in history, but if the cinematography is stunning, you'd call it a good movie...

For example: Armageddon has fascinating special effects, and if nobody said a single word and the action just flowed alongside an epic score, it would be a great film visually and auditorily... Unfortunately, though, the script is a disaster and the direction is just as bad, which immediately drags it into trash territory... But if the plot doesn't matter to you, then this movie is a winner too... Basically, any movie is good to you as long as it looks nice, right? 😉 (Man, what am I supposed to say about the thin red line, then? It's beautifully shot, but it also happens to have an excellent script and direction.)$$

Look, I’m obviously not talking about special effects or Dolby sound. When I mention directing, I mean the visuals—how someone actually translates a story onto the screen. For me, a movie isn't about *what* happens next; it's about *how* it happens. The camera angles, whether the actors feel natural or forced, the pacing of the cuts, the lighting... that's where the cinematic magic lives! All those "technical" details are what actually make or break a film. Honestly, some genius could have taken the script for Armageddon, added a layer of subtle irony, hinted at things through specific shots, and told the actors to stop acting like they're stuck in a bathroom and just improvise. It could have been fascinating. Instead, we got this total macho-garbage crap. Why? Because the guy behind the camera had a few scenes where Bruce just stares into the distance with a stone face. That's not even in the script! Sure, the script matters, but the director is what makes a movie good or bad.

So when I hear a director took a book as a template but the movie doesn't follow it closely, I think, "Hey, this might actually be good." It means they prioritized their own visual vision over the source material, which might actually create those moments of cinematic magic.

When I describe a great scene, I don't talk about the plot. Plot doesn't make a scene great. I say stuff like, "He walks into this dark alley, the camera pans up, you see a guy with a knife behind him, then sudden cut to his terrified face." That's what makes a scene for me. I don't care that he dishonored this woman, or that he's chasing her with a knife, or that they're actually siblings and don't know it... all that is way less important to me.

Anyway, hope that makes sense.

I just flashed back to this one specific scene, a total Hitchcockian moment from Psycho. That detective walks into the old lady's house, creeping up those stairs, acting all calm like he’s got everything under control. But he doesn't. You’re terrified for him because he has no clue what’s coming, and honestly, neither do you. He hits the top of the stairs, and suddenly the camera angle shifts—looking down from the ceiling while he’s looking left and right—then the door swings open silently but fast. This old woman charges at him with a massive knife and just takes him out. Man, she caught me so off guard! The sheer dread as she stalks toward him while he’s staring the wrong way... that second and a half was pure cinematic perfection. All the stuff about her actually being the son, or him keeping her in the basement, or his whole killing spree? None of that mattered in that moment. It didn't matter. The only thing that mattered was how that scene manipulated your headspace.

Now, when I watch modern horror movies that rely on some two-meter beast jumping out of the dark with a chainsaw to slice a screaming woman? That’s not scary. It’s just loud. It only "scares" you because a chainsaw suddenly blasts through five surround-sound speakers at max volume. Total garbage.

blueranger12 said:When I talk about a great scene, I’m not really talking about the plot. To me, the action itself isn't what makes a scene work.

Look, when it comes to specific scenes, the plot isn't really the point. If one particular scene hits the mark, you're going to talk about that moment itself, rather than rehashing the entire movie's history leading up to it.

I have to disagree with you there—you can't just ignore the script, even when a specific scene is carrying the weight. Take *Goodfellas*, for example. There’s that one iconic moment—one of my absolute favorites, personally—“What the fuck is so funny about me?” Sure, you’ve got brilliant performances from Joe Pesci and a great supporting turn from Ray Liotta, and their energy in that moment is incredible. But it’s also the dialogue—if you can even call it that—that really elevates the whole thing. It adds such layers to the tension. Between the writing and Joe Pesci's delivery, that scene stays one of the best for me.

Of course, some scenes really do just speak for themselves: like that tango sequence in Scent of Women, or those final moments in The Godfather III...

Is "Andalusian Dog" actually a bad movie just because it lacks a traditional plot?

I think it was Peter Greenaway who put it something like this:
"A film is far too serious an undertaking to be left solely to the storyteller."

I’d say I agree with him about 60% of the way—it’s all a little too radical for my taste, honestly.

Look, Peter said exactly what I'm saying. A movie isn't just some storybook. You have to get your hands dirty to turn a simple tale into an actual film.

blueranger12, I’m really glad you brought up Hitchcock, because for the longest time, his peers and the critics basically dismissed him as just an "excellent technician," claiming his plots and genres were nothing more than trivial fluff. It wasn't until the French New Wave came along that people actually started calling him an auteur.
If we take a closer look at the narrative of Vertigo, we’ll realize it’s actually completely unbelievable. If this story had been left in the hands of some director without a clear vision, the whole thing would have been a disaster. But Hitchcock tells it from his own very specific perspective—you know, all that psychology, Freud, sex, obsession, blondes... Just think about that famous scene where James Stewart waits for Kim Novak to step out of the bathroom; there is so much raw emotion packed into that moment, and they don't even need a single line of dialogue to pull it off.
I recently caught Shyamalan's Signs, and if you strip away his directing style, the actual plot is painfully unconvincing, if not downright silly. But Shyamalan uses his direction and his unique way of storytelling to glide over all those logical gaps so elegantly that you almost find yourself believing that super-advanced aliens, who traveled halfway across the universe to reach Earth, somehow couldn't manage to pry a few nailed-down boards off a window (I guess they were in such a rush they forgot their toolkit or something).

As for Armageddon, redowl90, I think you might be picking a bit of an extreme example (though, granted, it is extremely bad). I didn't see it in theaters, but a few years back, I was sitting right here in front of my TV, saw the trailer for Armageddon, and decided to give it a watch—only to realize fifteen minutes later that I wasn't watching a trailer anymore, I was already deep into the actual movie!! Jesus Christ! The entire film is directed like one long, continuous trailer! Michael Bay has essentially taken a century of cinematic evolution and flushed it down the toilet. It’s total culture genocide! That cinematic Neanderthal seems to believe that to make a film "exciting," all you need to do is cut the film strips thinner than how Steve Karapandža would slice them, then stitch frames together that last maybe 0.0001 seconds, creating a viewing experience that probably only appeals to people with Attention deficit Disorder. You wouldn't think Moulin Rouge! is the same kind of thing, though. I don't think it is, because the style in Moulin Rouge! actually enriches the story, whereas in Armageddon, Bay seems to think he's tackling heavy, serious themes while editing the footage so chaotically he should have put an Epilepsy warning on the screen before it even started.

To wrap this up: a movie has a narrative, sure, but it also has a visual component, and it isn't automatically a bad thing if the visuals overshadow the story (after all, we watch movies, we don't read them). I was watching an interview with Martin Scorsese recently where he mentioned how he’s still fascinated by the magic of cinema—that moment when two shots merge to create a third one right inside your head.

P.S.
Can someone please tell me how to change the 'member' tag under my nickname? Please!

transient:

Little Shop of Horrors
South Park
Bob's apartment
Everyone Says I Love You
Hair (the hairiness part)🙄

Immediate ban request:

tommy 😠
all others 😛

Peter Greenaway

It’s a perfect example, really. There isn't much else to say. Honestly, I don't think his movies even make sense to him.

Narrative, visuals, and editing—if you hit that specific trifecta, you’ve got a masterpiece on your hands. Anything else is just a gamble that usually falls flat. Most filmmakers will tell you that the story is the bedrock of everything. It's hard to mess up direction too badly if the foundation is solid; basically, an average director can take a great script and turn it into something genuinely engaging. But if the story is garbage? You're fighting an uphill battle to make it anything remotely watchable. Which, honestly, explains why people struggle to call Signs a good movie. 🙄 😉 )
Film, being such a linear medium—not necessarily in terms of timeline, but just in how the information is fed to us—doesn't really leave much room for showing off. Unless, of course, the whole point is to make something completely incomprehensible from the jump. There’s this threshold where the average viewer's cognitive processes just... snap. If a movie doesn't actually keep the audience in mind, if it lacks that basic respect for the person watching, then it’s just a waste of time. Honestly, it shouldn't even be made. Take Lynch, for example. He’s one of those directors who constantly pushes that line right up to the edge where a film turns into pure chaos. Some of his stuff is just straight-up mayhem. You see similar vibes in earlier directors like Antonioni.
I can't help but feel like there’s this specific sweet spot you have to hit—you know? There needs to be a real balance between the actual story, the plot twists, and that raw dramatic tension on one side, and then the visual flair on the other. It’s tricky. Editing is basically the connective tissue of everything; sometimes it serves the narrative, and other times it’s purely about the visual rhythm. Finding a director who actually understands how to juggle both without leaning too hard into one or the other... well, that’s probably why truly great directors are such a rare breed. 🙂

Peter Greenaway

And don't even get me started on the others: Ken Russel, Derek Jarman, and Paul Morrisey.

They are all such fascinating names to dive into... one really ought to spend some time digging through their filmographies. 😁

I just want to throw a few quick thoughts out there regarding the points mentioned earlier:

- "Moulin Rouge" — absolutely phenomenal.
- "Dancer in the dark" — total shit.
- Hitchcock? A pure genius.

(on a different note) My absolute favorite cinematic quote:
Fritz Lang once said about the cinemascope format: "It's only good for filming funerals and snakes." 😁 😁 😁