FotM: Pulling Back the Curtain

I will be the first to admit that as Baz Luhrmann’s films were being released (and I was enjoying them in the theatre) I had no idea that they were related as anything more than three distinctive films by a rising director. As a fan I simply assumed that these three films were done in Luhrmann’s directorial style; little did I know that Strictly Ballroom, Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge! were actually a trilogy – The Red Curtain Trilogy.

The Red Curtain Trilogy is not a traditional trilogy following characters through one epic story (i.e. - Star Wars or Lord of the Rings) but three films that celebrate and showcase a style of filmmaking. Due to this, defining the trilogy becomes complicated; lucky for me I am a Luhrmann geek and I’ve seen the three films so many times that picking out the patterns in the three films was much easier than it should have been – my film school education put to good use.

What attracted me to Luhrmann’s films before I knew they were a trilogy is the hyperkinetic sense about them. Everything about Strictly Ballroom, Romeo + Juliet & Moulin Rouge! is loud, colorful, and tweaked. In a way so specific to Luhrmann, reality is in his films but altered enough that it comes off as pure fantasy, yet enough of the real world is present that we are able to empathize with the characters plights, romances, and random happenstances. Luhrmann makes the kind of film that reminds me about the creative possibilities of the medium – not just the unique stories you can tell but how greatly a filmmaker can control the environment in which stories take place. For me it’s like being a kid that’s discovered the movies all over again.

Part of this uniqueness is of course the images and colors that are key to Luhrmann’s assembly of his trilogy; there are other elements that hold his trilogy together but I feel this obvious touch makes the tie between the movies the most obvious. Before Australia I assumed that the bold color choices and fast moving camera were what Luhrmann uniquely contributed to his films; I now know that while Luhrmann still composes strong images and beautiful colors, the editing, camera work and colors attributed to his first three films are indicative to the style of The Red Curtain Trilogy. This visual style was evident in Strictly Ballroom and Romeo + Juliet but I do believe it culminated in Moulin Rouge! - I still remember my younger brother telling me that he loved the film but the colors, motion, etc., made him dizzy.

Besides the crazy visuals of Luhrmann’s trilogy there is one very obvious thing that holds all three films together – the dumb thing is that even with a degree in film it was so obvious that I didn’t notice it until it was pointed out to me. Each of Luhrmann’s first three movies begins in a theatre with a red velvet curtain that must be drawn back before the audience is introduced to the story, hence the red curtain in the name of the trilogy. Looking back you might assume that this was put in the DVD releases after as a marketing ploy but I assure you it was not. Having seen both Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge when they were first released I can tell you that the curtain was always there.

One thing I feel I also must point out is the beginning of each film. I am a person that hates using exposition in films; with the exception of the Star Wars trilogy and that crawl that comes up at the beginning of each film I kind of feel like exposition in general – but especially at the beginning of a film – is a weak story telling device, it almost always seems like the writer put it there because he thought the audience was too dumb to figure it out themselves. I hate exposition. However, Luhrmann does exposition at the beginning of each Red Curtain film beautifully and it becomes another thing that ties all three films together.

At the head of each film after the red curtain opens Luhrmann has a sequence that is unlike the body of each movie and this sequence gets the audience up to speed with where the characters are at this point in their world. In Strictly Ballroom the opening is a faux documentary where everyone in Scott Hastings life laments about how he is throwing his career away; in Romeo + Juliet the opening is Shakespeare’s traditional chorus monologue told through a news reporter on a TV set which launches us into a beautiful expository faux title sequence; finally, Moulin Rouge! has the opening black & white/silent film-esque sequence where we are brought up to speed on Christian’s life that has led him to Paris. Each sequence sets the style tone for the film but is different enough from the body of the film to stand out as being visually apart from it. I do think this is something that very few filmmakers could do and make it feel natural but Luhrmann manages to pull it off which is just another reason he is one of my favorite directors.

I do have to say that The Red Curtain Trilogy is one of my favorite trilogies because it manages to inspire, thrill and entertain me without ever making me feel like I have to shut down part of my film filled brain and not think about what I am seeing in order to enjoy it. Personally, Luhrmann just has a unique way about his visuals and stories that just makes my love of film renew each time I watch one of them; just as The Red Curtain Trilogy is not a typical trilogy, Luhrmann is not a typical filmmaker and that is more than fine with me. As long as he keeps making movies I will keep seeing them opening weekend and if his four films so far are any indication I will be able to find something fresh and breathtaking in every one.

The Australia Controversy

australia poster
Originally uploaded by Asso Pixiel

For those in the know the post production on Baz Luhrmann’s Australia has been a thing of controversy. For weeks now it’s been rumored that the film isn’t finished, that the studio and Lurhmann are in fights, etc. Awhile ago I had a chance to see an advanced screening of Australia; as with most advanced screenings the film was nowhere near done – that’s just how it works. However, it was readily apparent that Australia would be a good and entertaining film but there were rumors about what was happening behind the scenes. The rumors were that the studio a) wanted to cut the film down, and b) hated the ending. While I know it’s not that common for studios to give a director final cut of their film any longer I would argue that Luhrmann should have it – particularly on a film of epic proportions like Australia.

My first argument would be to look at the classic films like Gone with the Wind and Lawrence of Arabia - these are films that are huge in all senses of the word and they are probably the two films I can think of that are most similar to Australia. I have already been telling people that I think Australia is Gone with the Wind for Australia; both films are grand, lavish love stories that are set in a very distinctive time and region. I also think Australia can be compared to Lawrence of Arabia which is a love story about the land and the culture. Both Gone with the Wind and Lawrence of Arabia are over three hours long, and as much about the images on the screen as they are about the story being told and are considered to be some of the best in the film cannon. My point here is that while long movies may no longer be widely sought by studios & audiences, well made epics endure forever no matter what their length and Australia is nothing if not an epic.

The studio thinking that audiences will not sit through a long movie is completely untrue. In the past decade Titanic and three Lord of the Rings films have proven that an audience will sit through a movie of any length as long as it is a good and compelling story. I tell you now that while I may not be able to say with finality that Australia is a perfect film, I can tell you that if Luhrmann was able it will be a good and moving tale.

The perfect example of why Luhrmann should be given complete control of Australia is perhaps Moulin Rouge!. Moulin Rouge! is a cinematic spectacle that no one else could have achieved and it is responsible for the resurgence of the musical into contemporary film. This Luhrmann film was nominated for eight Oscar’s and won two; the biggest travesty (which was even commented on by the host of the evening Whoopi Goldberg) was that Luhrmann didn’t get nominated for Best Director – and the film was so obviously the work of a masterful director. Luhrmann proved that he can make a visually stunning film, a film that bucks the current film trends, and make the film entertaining, a pop culture phenomenon and bring critical recognition. In my opinion Luhrmann’s previous film is the best reason why he should be left alone and allowed to make the film that he see’s in his mind’s eye.

One of the biggest controversy’s about Australia is how it is going to end – the actual film itself that is. I won’t spoil anything here but as always, it’s said that the studio wanted control over the ending as well as the running length of the film. According to at least one source Baz is firmly in control of his film; in fact this source claims he filmed three endings to the movie, only tested two and the third is the one attached to the film. One can only hope that Luhrmann really did retain the reigns of his film and we see what he wanted us to see.

I have to say that I am just as excited about seeing the finished version of Australia as I was about getting into the advanced screening, especially if it still holds a few surprises for me. On November 26 you will be able to see a full review of what I thought of the cut of Australia I saw at the advanced screening I attended and I hope to post my review of the final cut soon after; both will be available at The Director Is In. It is my hope that Australia will be as good as I hoped it would be and that it won’t be enjoyable to only the Luhrmann geeks like me.

Feature of the Month: P.T.A.

[Warning: This Article is Spoiler Heavy]

There are three excellent contributors to this blog, and we have vastly different bends on the films that we watch. One of the best ways we thought we could all form a more cohesive batch of content for this arena was to start a monthly feature where all three of us focus on one subject but get to approach it from any angle we wish. For our inaugural "Feature of the Month" we settled on one prolific writer/director, Paul Thomas Anderson.

Paul Thomas Anderson is a difficult filmmaker to try and pin down to a simple definition; he makes films that are epic in a whole different way than we are used to defining the word epic as it applies to cinema. He doesn’t make films like Lawrence of Arabia that are period pieces of a giant, sweeping nature; instead his epics focus on the average and seemingly mundane members of society, characters that are in extreme situations but when it boils down to it they are just like you or someone you know. Each and every one of Anderson’s films is completely different, new, original and never what you expect. However, there are some things that tie his films together; his films are defined by characters looking for family or a sense of belonging, and a life changing event.

Hard Eight is probably the most “typical” of all of Anderson’s films, but he establishes his theme very strongly from the opening of this movie. The relationship between John (John C. Reilly) and Sydney (Philip Baker Hall) is what defines this movie; though they are not blood related they have a father/son relationship that is just as strong as if they were biological family. John emulates Sydney in every way possible from drinking the alcohol he likes, to learning to gamble the way Sydney does – he has allowed Sydney to fashion him into the man he has become. What the audience doesn’t find out until the denouement of the film is that Sydney came into John’s life because of an event that changed both of them, an event that only Sydney knows the truth of: Sydney killed John’s father.

Anderson followed up this gambler drama with the story of Dirk Digger in Boogie Nights. This film follows Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg) who is recruited into the porn industry to become Dirk Diggler, and he is folded into the make-shift family headed by Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds) and Amber Waves (Julianne Moore). Dirk has a purpose and place to belong finally, but slowly and surely this family falls apart through the years because of another life altering event (though this one is slower than some of the others) – the inclusion of video in the porn industry.

One of the most complex movies ever made would have to be Magnolia which is one of Anderson’s absolute masterpieces. To include all of the relationships or those seeking them in this post would take far too long, but I do not think that you can deny that this film is about those bonds and the events that shape the characters. This film has many kinds of relationships focusing primarily on lovers and parent-child relationships. Everyone is looking for some kind of attention, love or respect out of the people around them, and this time the life changing even is so varied that it is hard to pin down as there are different ones for each character, but it is symbolically shown through the rain of frogs at the end of the film – life will never be the same for these characters.

Punch-Drunk Love is possibly the most simple story Anderson has ever told. Barry (Adam Sandler) is part of a large family but feels isolated and seeks love so that he can belong, he finally finds this he believes in Lena (Emily Watson), but not before being blackmailed by the phone sex line he used to endorse to get his sense of belonging. His life changing event comes in a car crash the involves he and Lena that is caused by the “henchmen” of this hotline. This event makes Barry finally take charge of the life he has built and force it into the position he wants to be in.

Anderson’s latest epic is the awe inspiring There Will Be Blood which is the only film I can imagine that he could have made to top Magnolia in scope and beauty. This film focuses on oil baron Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day Lewis) and his son; Daniel has adopted his son after a tragic accident kills one of his workers. Daniel has his family and his success until his life changing event occurs – an accident on a oil rig harms his son and takes his hearing. Daniel then becomes incapable of dealing with his family and his business and this sends his life into a spiral that completely changes things for him; this lasts until the end of the film when his son tries to be independent with his father’s blessing and Daniel strikes out and cuts his son off from his life, unable to accept that his son does not want the life he has fashioned for him. However, the story does not end there. Daniel eventually gets his revenge by destroying the person who helped start his chain of events the charismatic preacher (Paul Dano) from the community most of the film takes place in.

While Anderson may have one theme that seems to define his work I greatly enjoy him as a director because I think that on some level his films are beyond definition. They simply hold something in them that defies convention.

I am extremely intrigued to see what Anderson does next because I have a theory about his catalog of films so far. I think that he’s emerging into something new for his films; I’m not sure what it looks like yet, but I think There Will Be Blood was the first step in the next phase of Anderson’s career. In a way similar to Baz Luhrmann’s Red Curtain Trilogy (Strictly Ballroom, Romeo + Juliet & Moulin Rouge!) I think that in all Anderson’s film’s leading up to There Will Be Blood he was using variations on the same style, and now he is emerging into something new; I think his theme is being refined, and his style evolved. His next film will be one to watch for.

Recommended Viewing: Magnolia & There Will Be Blood