October 2nd, 2002
|08:17 pm - bohemian rhapsody|
so moulin rouge was on like 3 times yesterday, for whatever reason. i never realized before how immoral a movie that is. not that it's about hookers and druggies, i dont care about that, but-- the duke, the big villian, this is a guy who everyone else in the movie is taking advantage of, in teh worst possible way. these bohemians keep saying how nothing is more important and vital to life than love, and living for love. so what do they do? they get him in love with satine, she pretends to love him back, and they take advantage of this to get him to hand over his money. theyre abusing the thing they value most in the world. i would rather have a hitler who is doing what he believes to be right, despite what i think of it, than a ghandi who violates his own moral code. being a relativist, that is my closest definition to evil. so anyway, all the horrible (i'm not denying they are) things he does come directly from everyone else taking advantage of his emotions.
and then- satine and whatshisname's plan to run away and leave everything behind and go be in love somewhere, to escape. this sounds like a grand romantic notion, but think about it for a second- they would be screwing over everyone they care about and who care about them. all these people hve invested in the show and the scene would be brought down. the duke would own the moulin rouge and be furious. they would all be turned out. thus ends their bohemia
state: not that i dont still love hte movie
np: The (International) Noise Conspiracy - A New Morning, Changing Weather - Capitalism Stole My Virgini
i think you're skewing the ideas of love and lust in that theory of yours.
the duke calls it love and who am i to argue with him? (actualy i do argue with him, but he seems sincere about it. wiht love people need to be basically taken at their word).. the scene where he's criticizing the end of the play, he say something to the effect of "the maharaji is offering her a lifetime of comfort and security, that's REAL love!" he accuses the sitar player of being the one just after lust
it's just that it reminds me of all the times on jerry springer when the hurt party says "but i did everything for you - i bought you all that stuff," as if that's the ultimate proof that they love the other one. not that jerry is too good of an example as to what makes love real, but i don't think that the idea of security should ever enter into it. i think the duke thinks he loves her because that's her job, to make men adore her, and she's good at it. but love in itself has to be based on something more than a one-sided physical attraction, and they don't have that. maybe the bohemians are actually staying more true to their ideals by going agaist the duke, because it's a false love that he has for her. they get to concentrate on love _and_ truth.
yay comments from 3 months ago!
i agree that security does not make love. but neither does passion, which seems to be most of satine/christian's relationship. i don't agree iwth teh duke that once their lust is satisfied it will end, but their relationship as it stood was flimsy. all they had going for them that the duke didnt was that it was mutual.
and whether or not the duke's idea of love matched with theirs, or made any sense, nonetheless they all worked to make him think he loved her and she loved him, just to get his money. and that's pretty nasty
|Date:||October 2nd, 2002 03:27 pm (UTC)|| |
the only thing i don't understand from that movie is why they're all so scared of the duke, like saying he's "dangerous" and "powerful"
the only thing he's got going for him is that bald guy with the gun.
christ!! it's only a bald guy with a gun for fuck's sake!! the bohemaians could just throw the john leguizamo midget at him and be done with it.
dude! a BALD GUY! with a GUN! you don't fuck around with that
and besides, the duke is rich. if the bald guy failed, he could always hire TWO BALD GUYS. and there's no getting away from that
|Date:||October 3rd, 2002 05:19 am (UTC)|| |
*GASP* TWO BALD GUYS?!?!!?
with only one john leguizamo midget at their disposal, the future of the bohemains seems bleak.
leguizamo could always start doing the themesong from house of buggin'
|Date:||October 3rd, 2002 01:54 pm (UTC)|| |
god, i hope not......
well, it's based on the orphean myth... theoretically everyone there is in hell... christian is supposed to be the only moral character in the movie...
yay 3 month old comments!
i think this was based on orpheus in much the same way "o brother where art thou" was based on the oddyssey. ie, not very much, but they wanted to claim a classical basis for their ideas
(wait, orpheus is the dude who goes to fetch his wife from the underworld and then looks back at the end and loses her, right?)
|Date:||January 20th, 2009 05:34 pm (UTC)|| |
I totally don't remember making this comment, but I'm yonking this icon for future use!