THE RED SHOES (1948) Discussion

Seeing it today. Pretty excited.

I finally saw this a few months back, and I really loved it. The colors are just so vibrant and gorgeous, they really just blow you away. The story is pretty standard, but its the telling that really sets this apart from anything else. Powell and Pressburger really were masters of the form, and this is definitely their high watermark. I was afraid that I would be bored by the extended ballet sequence in the middle of the film, as I'm not really a big fan of the art form, but it was shot in such a way that I was enraptured. I thought it was fascinating how they looked at dance through the prism of film techniques, and it really helped to keep the whole thing exciting and involving, even for someone who isn't that keen on ballet. Overall, this is just a remarkable film, and I really would love to revisit it again sometime soon.

An astonishing movie. If you have the chance to see the new restoration print that's been making the rounds, do so. It's gorgeous and almost flawless. I don't think I've been this completely moved and awed by a film since All That Jazz. The part that gave me goosebumps, though, was Lemantov's speech followed by that empty spotlight. Just wow. What's great about the ballet sequence, that, unlike An American in Paris, which is just inserted to kind of show off, the ballet sequence works as an important part in the story. I loved how Powell and Pressburger combined film and dance techniques to literally illustrate the conflict inside Vicky's head at that moment, as she was giving the performance of her life.

I'd also like to hear what people think the ending of the movie is saying and where it's coming down on the "art vs. life" debate/theme. I still need some time to process, so maybe I'll check back in later.

This movie has a lot of great quotes, too.

The AV Club made a passing mention that one reading of the film is that Lermantov is gay. I didn't get that from my viewing (although Wallbrook was), but I can see how it fits, and going along with that reading makes the art vs. love theme all the more intense. Lermantov isn't jealous because he loves Vicky, too (although he does, in his way), he's jealous because Vicky and Crester have a great public love, something he'll never be able to have. You could also argue that because of who he is as an (apparently) closeted gay man in a public position, Lermantov has pushed his romantic feelings for anyone down to a point where he is just about the work. Compare that with Crester, who has the potential to be a Great Composer, but also seems to be kind of flighty, who throws himself into his passionate affair with Vicky the way he threw himself into composing The Red Shoes (an affair that he, by his own admission, doesn't seem to think will last). Both men are passionate individuals, but this read on the story makes Crester a purer representation of Life (and living it), where as Lermontov is completely devoted to Art.

Finally got around to watching this on Netflix Instant last night. Went into it pretty blind, simply having heard praises for it from Scorsese and other leading film buffs. For the first, oh, hour or so, I found myself thinking, "This is certainly a very good backstage drama, with some exceptional camerawork, but I'm not sure I see justification for the 'masterpiece' label." Then the Red Shoes performance started. Wow. Pure cinema. Like Maya Deren and Dziga Vertov collaborated on a film with Dr. Caligari-style sets.

Not sure how I feel about which side of the life vs. art divide the film comes down on. Lermantov is certainly monstrous, in his way, and analogous to the trickster shoemaker. But Krester becomes noticeably absent from the film in the third act, and really doesn't do much to inspire sympathy in the screen time he does have.

It's a real credit to the ballet sequence that it's twenty minutes long and it never feels like it stops the pacing of the movie at all. It's also a great visualization of the theme of the film. I've never in my multiple viewings of the film thought Lermantov had any sort of romantic feelings toward Vicky (I also never thought he was a homosexual but I can understand that reading) and thought his jealousy came from her choosing a domestic life over art.

I've always thought Julian was presented as being more monstrous at the end of the third act when he comes to take Vicky away. This may be partially because of his costume design. There is something sinister about that black raincoat he is wearing. In fact, I thought that coat resembled something a member of the S.S. would wear. Interesting considering it was the first post-WWII film Powell and Pressburger made.

For those of you joining us at the break (like Tati), please, weigh in on the great debate of our time: Lermantov: gay, straight, or Michael Ian Black (a little gay)?

Straight, with the right touch of eccentricity to have explored in the past.

I'll say it again, amazing film.

This is one of the few films that's literally stunning. When I walked out of the theater, I was still so wrapped up in the movie I almost tried to open another person's car. I realized it after a moment, laughed at how dumb I was and walked over to my own car.

I'm gonna go with asexual-lite. He's so dedicated to perfecting his art that nothing, but nothing, has any place in his universe, including love of any kind. If it doesn't have something to do with putting on the greatest ballet performance the world has ever seen, he has no time or want of it. Sexuality of any orientation isn't something that even enters his brain.

Speaking of Lermontov, I would like to give a special shout out to Anton Walbrook for his performance. If, Cthulhu forbid, this ever got the remake treatment, this kind of character would be a vile, dastardly villain. Walbrook goes for the more ambiguous shading, which makes the film all the stronger for it.

That, and I'm always amazed by the way he plays his announcement to the audience that Vicky is dead. The way it's shot and written, it's an easy moment to play too big, or to retreat into a safe zone and play it too small. Walbrook finds just the right balance of playing the scene big and loud (he IS speaking to a whole opera house), but you can hear the anguish and heartbreak in every syllable. He's just barely holding it together.

Goddamn, I love this movie.

If a remake ever happens, i can only see Kevin Kline in the role.

Btw, the unsung hero of the movie is the guy who plays the main ballet dancer, the shoemaker (i SUCK with names of movies!, sorry)

He's simply magical every minute he's on screen.

Kline is such the spitting resemblance of Walbrook it's almost scary.

Something about close-ups in Technicolored fever dreams such as these strike fear in my heart.  It all began with Dorothy's rosy cheeks and the ruby-red slippers.  The Red Shoes was almost a film devoted to that sensation.  It struck fear in my heart. 

 

I finally watched this after seeing it referred to in any discussion of Black Swan, and it is indeed amazing.  The film almost literally becomes an animated art film during the performance of The Red Shoes.  At first, I was wondering how a stage show would achieve such optical effects and "instant shoe-wear!"  Then I realized that we weren't watching a stage show, but cinema.

 

I'm with Andrew Woods about the way Craster is portrayed in the 'final showdown.'  He suddenly becomes just as manic as Lermontov.  It did feel a bit sudden, but it also felt right, because you can just imagine Craster's opinion of Lermontov festering all those years since they met.

I'm watching David Poland's interview with Aronofsky and realized that with the mustache, Aronofsky reminds me a lot of Lermontov.