User Reviews (77)

Add a Review

  • Anyone who does not think that John Huston has a broad range as a film-maker needs to watch this and "The Dead." While he spent much of his career making gritty adventure-dramas like "The Maltese Falcon," "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre," and "The Man who Would be King," he also took the time to create well-crafted pieces like "Moulin Rouge."

    Jose Ferrer has an astounding, almost unbelievable, performance as Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, a painter from late-1800's Paris who was crippled in his childhood by a horse that ran over his legs. He now spends his days in the raunchy restaurant/dance hall populated by artists, dancers, drunks, and vagrants, sketching away at posters and portraits. Ferrer brings out Henri completely, depicting him as a man who tried to run from his problems using his art and his alcohol.

    The film itself has a tenancy to be a little too flashy and gaudy at moments, but Huston manages to keep most of it grounded in the dramatics of the characters. Collete Marchand is also very noteworthy for her performance as a prostitute that befriends Henri. Marcel Vertes' production and costume design won well-deserved Oscars.

    A genuinely moving film, a work of art in its own right.
  • With the appearance of the 2001 movie entitled "Moulin Rouge" (see review) I went back to the Jose Ferrer version to add a review of it. Note that both films are entirely different in style and purpose; to equate them is to compare apples to pineapples.

    This version, so well directed by John Huston, is not a wild frenetic musical but a very touching and moving character study of the great artist Henri Toulose-Lautrec, whose legs were badly mishappen and shortened by an accident early in his life leaving him basically a midget. His frustration at his appearance, and unattractiveness to women, forever scarred his short life that was curtailed by drink and other excess. Jose Ferrer was superb as this tortured yet brilliant soul; Ferrer also played expertly Henri's powerful father descended from French nobility.

    "Moulin Rouge" began with a long scene in the club itself filled with dancing, exciting music, beautiful women, good friends,and lots of drink. The sets and costumes and were colorful and beautiful. After about half an hour we follow Henri home - and we see him, alone, so short and vulnerable, walking all alone through the dark streets of Paris. The contrast was most effective. Such was the REALITY of Henri's life. The remainder of the film focused on his unsatisfactory relationship with a prostitute he befriends, along with flashbacks to his privileged wealthy childhood.

    Perhaps the most emotional scene was at the end. With Henri dying in his bed his father there tells him that he is the first living artist to be honored by having his work displayed at the Louvre. As he appealed for forgiveness for his previously harsh treatment, saying "I didn't understand", all Henri's old friends from the Moulin Rouge, as spirits (or hallucinations), visited him.

    Like with the fine movie about Van Gogh, "Lust for Life", this even better movie is not necessarily always true to historical fact, but it is a cinematic classic.

    HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Pros:
    • Watching the film, you get an appreciation for Henri Toulouse-Latrec, the man behind the art. He was of noble birth, but only grew to 4'8", with an adult-sized torso but child-sized legs, because of a childhood accident in combination with a genetic disorder (which was in turn due to his parents being first cousins). In a decision which estranged him from his father, he went to Paris to become a painter, and while he had a circle of acquaintances from frequenting the Moulin Rouge, was desperately lonely, and an alcoholic. Director John Huston does a great job in flashing back to tell the back story.


    • The film is a nice homage to his art as well. We see him creating sketches, paintings, and prints in various settings which give quite a taste of his style, and along the way Huston flashes through two sets of images of Toulouse-Latrec's actual artwork, sequences I enjoyed.


    • José Ferrer turns in a fine performance as Toulouse-Latrec, impressive both physically (since he was 5'10") and also in his artistic intensity, which spilled over into the inevitable emotions coming from being ridiculed, mocked, or pitied as a 'freak'.


    • While a wee bit cloying, I thought the ending was a very nice touch, with the dying Toulouse-Latrec visited by ghostly versions of his bohemian friends from the Moulin Rouge, who say good-bye to him. It seems to fit with the 'world gone by' reminiscence of the Montmartre circa 1890, and offsets the artist's sad death.


    Cons:
    • Historical accuracy. The artist's life is sanitized and watered down here. In the film, Toulouse-Latrec takes up with a prostitute and has a stormy relationship with her, but always maintains noble feelings and a sense of class. The real Toulouse-Latrec led a much more dissolute lifestyle, spending days at a time in expensive brothels. He had a protracted case of syphilis, which, along with complications from alcoholism, killed him at 37, and the STD is not even alluded to here. Have a look at the used-up, wasted, and dejected look of the women in his work "The Sofa" (1894-96); there is real pathos and a sense of squalor in art such as that, but we don't see that sort of thing in the film.


    • Similarly, the environment of the Moulin Rouge dance hall, as well as the musical numbers performed there, feel 'rated PG', and a far cry from the outrageous, wild, and dangerous place we not only read about, but see in Toulouse-Latrec's work. Huston spent a lot of time on colors and filters and the like, but seems to have missed (or not been able to show because of the production code) the real nature of the place.


    • Zsa Zsa Gabor is awful as a showgirl. She lip synchs a couple of songs and is obviously off more than once. In fact, with the exception of Colette Marchand, none of the other actors comes close to matching Ferrer's performance, and oddly, few attempt a French accent as he does.


    Bottom line: Many Hollywood depictions (and other historical accounts) are romanticized, so it's not shocking to see that here, especially as the movie is from 1952. I like the attempt to honor the man and his art, but it's particularly unfortunate to romanticize someone like him, and the Moulin Rouge. Worse seeing, but with a grain of salt.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    There were moments when I was watching this in which I felt intensely interested, and moved. But there were too many "blah" moments for me to see it as a really good picture. It's a very loose biopic of the French painter Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (Jose Ferrer), crippled in early life by an accident, shown as brilliant artist but a tragic, lonely drunk. Director John Huston and photographer Oswald Morris capture the atmosphere of 19th century Paris very well, with often gorgeous compositions. It also surprisingly captures the vulgarity of this life, with Colette Marchand's desperate, animal-like prostitute a standout. But Jose Ferrer's performance is so average that it ruins the picture. He just stands and delivers his lines in a monotone scene after scene. The relationship between Marchand and Ferrer, who so desperately wants love that it's killing him, is interesting but you can't help thinking that Ferrer is just a dumb sap, which kills the picture. And when a decent woman comes into his life later in the picture, he's too blind to see it! His obsession with Marchand just gets really irritating after a while, because her character is just not worth the trouble.
  • When a movie maker in a prudish society, such as America of the 50s, undertakes to show the life and loves of a figure in a libertine society, such as Paris of 1890, he faces the not so small obstacle that matters of sex are taboo. When that figure happens to be Henri Toulouse-Lautrec, whose life circled around the Moulin Rouge, this obstacle becomes a big hurdle, and the viewer is often left puzzled. How come the Moulin Rouge's patrons got so terribly excited about the dancing girls' long underpants? Did Henri really sleep in the loft all the time with Marie downstairs? The original novel by Pierre La Mure clarifies these things in sufficient detail - Hollywood skipped a few important pages.

    Another silly Hollywood idea - and not dictated by the mores of the times - is to let "lower-class people" speak English with a French accent. We, the viewers, do know that the story plays in France, that the people would naturally speak French, and that all their conversations have been translated for us language-challenged Americans, but we don't need to be reminded of that all the time. And speaking of the audio channel, it would have been nice to understand the words of Zsa Zsa Gabor's songs - the patrons of the Moulin Rouge seemed to enjoy them; her accent doesn't help us either.
  • A drama/biography/musical from 1952? My wife just wasn't interested. But I insisted that there's no film like the original (i.e. the REAL) "Moulin Rouge." It's a biography of the renown French artist Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec from the 1890s who had very short legs and grew to stand only about 4'11" due to an accident and bone disease. Although he was from an aristocratic family he chose to live alone in Paris to pursue his art career. He would spend time at a local cabaret, Moulin Rouge, where he'd find inspiration for his art, as well as fuel for his increasing alcoholism.

    Although Henri (José Ferrer) was brilliant artistically & intellectually, he understandably had a poor self-image due to his dwarfism, which was constantly reinforced by various mean-spirited people. Yet, he discovers love for the first time when he meets a spirited woman bred in the cobblestone jungles of Paris (Colette Marchand). Will this love enhance his life or ultimately poison him? I'll leave that for you to discover.

    INTERESTING ITEMS:

    • The opening dance hall sequences are highlighted by Katherine Kath (the redhead) and a young Zsa Zsa Gabor.


    • José Ferrer is great as the protagonist with his commanding voice and interesting dialogues. His commentaries on life are brilliant and brutally honest, but also cynical.


    • The viewer REALLY wants to see Henri find true love, happiness and victory, despite his deformity, but his cynicalism and alcoholism sadly enshroud him.


    • The story is both entertaining AND thought-provoking. My wife & I had some good discussions after the film. For instance, real-life people & couples that the story brought to mind, the nature of existence as "unattractive" and unloved, missed opportunities thrown in our laps due to poor self-image and addictions, being a "has-been" and a "continue-to-be", etc.


    • There's another significant female character who shows up in the third act, but I'm not sure of her name (in the movie or real life). In any event, the viewer will notice that she's NOT embarrassed to appear with Henri in public like the pathetic Marie Charlet. This is an important part; take note.


    Since the film is a biography it could only end one way, but I won't spoil it for you if you're not familiar with the true story.

    The film was shot in Paris and England and runs 2 hours.

    FINAL WORD: Make no mistake, "Moulin Rouge" is a masterpiece. There's really nothing else like it. It's the perfect antidote to modern 'blockbuster' drek. Disregard the fact that it was released in 1952, particularly if you have a distaste for old movies, as "Moulin Rouge" is a timeless film both hugely entertaining and thought-provoking, not to mention REAL. After watching my wife expressed how much she liked the film and thanked me because she would have never chosen it on her own.

    GRADE: A+
  • John Huston's portrait of Henri Toulouse-Lautrec is vivid, colorful and energetic when it shows the dance hall can-can atmosphere but lacks substance as a biography when it deals with the painter's personal life in detail. However, JOSE FERRER does splendidly as the crippled artist and others around him give individually fine performances.

    The cinematography cannot be faulted, capturing the essence of the painter's art as closely as any poster art could do--and the film seems authentically immersed in period atmosphere and background. But the story is a sluggish one with a downbeat ending that concludes with the artist's death and despair--nothing uplifting about it--and the somber tones of the film are reflected in the sometimes low-key photography of interiors.

    Worthwhile for Ferrer's Oscar-winning performance and a distinguished musical score--but a bit too downbeat for popular taste.
  • 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
  • Warning: Spoilers
    MOULIN ROUGE is an engaging and well-realised biopic of the French artist Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, directed by John Huston with skill and panache. It's a somewhat slow-moving mood piece that aims to depict a slice of life at tail of the 19th century in vivid and vibrant Paris, and it does that in spades.

    Tall actor Jose Ferrer plays the main role. Toulouse-Lautrec was a short guy in real life, so special effects are called into play to make Ferrer seem short. Sometimes he's doubled, sometimes he walks on his knees. It's a physical transformation worthy of the great Lon Chaney and Ferrer shines in the part, bringing the tortured artist soul to life in a believable way.

    The rest of the film can be slow in paces but there's always something visually interesting taking place to keep it moving. The cast is full of larger than life figures, none more so than Zsa Zsa Gabor as a flamboyant dancer. The scenes at the Moulin Rouge are particularly well-staged aside from the guy with the distracting fake nose and chin, but then he's used to tie in to the artist's famous silhouette. A regular run of familiar faces including Eric Pohlmann, Michael Balfour, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee helps to retain the interest, and the ending is suitably sombre.
  • tomsview29 February 2016
    When the critic back in 1952 thought up the line "Monotony in Montmartre" to describe the movie, he couldn't resist using it. It's a smart line, but wide of the mark. John Huston's "Moulin Rouge", the story of Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, deserves more respect than that.

    I have fond memories of this film. My father was an artist who was in charge of the 'front-of-house' display work for the film when it opened at Sydney's Regent Theatre in September 1953. Back then everything was painted and lettered by hand. My father who loved Lautrec's work was also commissioned to duplicate a number of his paintings as part of the promotion for the film. Although I was young at the time, experiences such as that may explain why I also became an artist.

    Nostalgia aside, more astute critics of the film noted that the film struggled to keep up the pace after the opening 20 minutes.

    So much leaps from the screen as Toulouse-Lautrec is introduced during an evening at the Moulin Rouge in 1890. He sits at a table doing sketches on the table cloth surrounded by frenetic can-can dancers, hair-pulling fights and acrobatic solo routines before a breathtaking Zsa Zsa Gabor descends a staircase to sing one of the most beautiful melodies ever written for the screen, "It's April Again". The whole thing is a kaleidoscope of colour, movement and sound inspired by Lautrec's posters; all this in the first 20 minutes!

    When the Moulin Rouge closes for the evening and Lautrec wanders on his crippled legs out into the dark Parisian night, the contrast is stunning, and that is exactly the effect I think Huston wanted to create, the Moulin Rouge was the spice of life for Lautrec; the outside world was harsh reality: loneliness, rejection and despair.

    No film about artists combines their story with their art as perfectly as this one does. The screen is filled with Lautrec's paintings and some of the settings for them are recreated. Huston obviously loved his subject's work and it is easy to see why. Lautrec captured life on the fly; his work had immediacy, no laboured slogs in the studio like many of the salon painters of his day.

    The film traces a number of his affairs. Jose Ferrer achieves an honesty here that is painful to watch, and he suffered with those strapped up legs. He projects the feeling that he is constantly on guard against rejection although he can't help being as obsessive about his love affairs as he is about his art.

    The script is full of insight and wit. I read Pierre La Mure's book years ago and I can't remember how much was sourced from there, but Huston was a brilliant writer, and I can see his touch in much of the dialogue.

    Huston was one of the great storytellers. I always ranked him just after John Ford. I haven't changed that opinion much over the years, and this film is one of the reasons why.
  • After the excruciating experience of the ear-splitting, corny and vulgar "Moulin Rouge" of Baz Luhrmann I thought I would take another peek at John Huston's film of the same name. Apart from being inspired by the same setting, the two films bear no resemblance to one another. Not that the Huston seemed very much of a work in its day but, compared to the recent monstrosity it has some things going for it; Oswald Morris's colour photography for instance; reds, yellows and greens, almost giving the impression of having been filtered through smoke, a wonderful cinematic counterpart to the art of Toulouse-Lautrec. He was to do similar marvelous things to Huston's later "Moby Dick". Nothing quite matches "Moulin Rouge"'s first reel which simply recreates a typical evening of entertainment at the eponymous pleasure house. Thereafter we are in typical Hollywood biopic country where everyone in varying degrees sports a French accent, which often seems to caricature dialogue already banal, such as Lautrec imagining on his deathbed Jane Avril saying, "Henri, my dear, we just heard you were dying. We simply had to say goodbye". Somehow however, as is often the case of the very best of "bad" films, "Moulin Rouge" has a way of sweeping you along with it. It is never boring or less than entertaining. It may lack the intensity of Minnelli's Van Gogh biopic "Lust for Life" but then Jose Ferrer is not quite an actor in the Kirk Douglas class. At two points the narrative is punctuated by montage sequences of Toulouse-Lautrec's art, delightful compilations enhanced by Georges Auric's musicianly score. It is a pity in a way that these minutes of serious cinema throw into sharp relief the almost unbelievable crassness of the sequence where the depressed artist turns on the gas to end it all but then picks up his paintbrush only to have second thoughts. At moments such as this "Moulin Rouge" is almost sublimely bad which is more than can be said of the recent film which is just plain awful.
  • RaulFerreiraZem11 August 2019
    For a film about one of the biggest names in french post impressionism, it sure is romantic. I was looking forward to watching this one, seeing that its about Toulouse Lautrec, a painter which i very much respect, but was really disappointed to find out that the film does very little justice to him as a historical figure. While my knowledge of his life is very limited it is still enough to point out some major character changes in the film's portrayal. For an example, it makes me wonder why was Toulouse Lautrec, the painter that got famous painting brothels and prostitutes painted like a prude eunuch who died of heart break? It is a wide know fact that he actually died of siffilis, most likely because he very frequently had sex with prostitutes. But no, in the film we see this poor soul ( the film makes sure that not a minute passes without the viewer feeling sorry for him) getting mislead and mistreated by women, which brings me to my second biggest complain, i just hate how some films like portraying women like these evil entities while men are ethical preys to their schemes. He might have been alcoholic and he might have been broken hearted and mistreated in any number of ways due to his height and deficiency, but i refuse to accept that these are the things worth pointing out in a 2 hour long film. We see almost nothing of him being a painter and dealing with other painters, all we get is this melodramatic sexist soap opera that happens to have Toulouse as a character. That being said, the film was well shot and the one scene where we see him producing the posters for moulin rouge was very nice.
  • Set around the fictionalised experiences of Toulouse-Lautrec this is a quite moving account of one man's search for love and artistic acceptance whilst struggling with his own sense of remoteness brought on by his disability.

    The film is a touch longer than I felt it needed to be (some of the musical numbers could have quite easily been cut) and occasionally seems to lose it's momentum but is saved by gloriously gaudy direction and a great performance by Jose Ferrer as the diminutive Toulouse-Lautrec.

    The scenes in the Moulin Rouge don't really convey how outrageous this club must have been back then - but I suppose that says more about our society than the film. Having said that, most of the dances come across as saucy fun and give you a bit of an idea of the atmosphere in the club.

    This stands alone as a well crafted film that needs no comparisons with any other versions of Moulin Rouge due to it's focus on the difficult love and remoteness of it's main character. That said it does have patches that drag and sometimes it is easy to lose your concentration.
  • loydmooney-15 June 2006
    Warning: Spoilers
    Very beautiful color, almost as though Huston is not only impersonating the painter , but Douglas Sirk. Only one other film about a painter is better, Lust For Life, and not even sure about that.

    One scene for me stands out. When Lautrec takes his whore slash love to the fine place to eat. Just about the most existential dinner in film. All of a sudden practically with lightning at her heels, she takes on such a flight from the place that it is frightening. Without warning, explanation, she jets away in such a flurry of abjection, not belonging, never was being so out of place ever better and more emotionally shown. For that matter, the character of the poor woman is so graphically and tragically done, that later when the painter kind of stumbles upon her in her sodden state, thinking he had provided for her, well, it was almost unbearable to watch. Few filmmakers have that kind of power, and Huston did.

    The rest of the movie is really rather staid, although extremely easy on the eyes, primarily because Huston was such a good painter himself. And Huston could not apparently resist the chance to do Oscar Wilde with a paint can, Lautrec is forever compulsively spouting one liners faster than Wilde himself; that said, Ferrer is touching.

    Though what good ole John had in mind using Ferrer for both father and son was a little to Bunuelesque for me. Simply ridiculous.

    Still and all, this one certainly had its moments.
  • red_schonewille6 May 2019
    With the book just read I saw this movie. So the book is based on the life of Lautrec and the film is based on the book. All I can say I enjoyed the movie a lot as I did the book. But keeping in mind that both book and film are saying more from themselves than from Lautrec. Now the book is more french and more genuie as a result. The movie is all americana and Paris becomes well a bit flat. On the other hand the pictures that could'nt be diplayed in the book were marvelous in the film. In the book Lautrec was more ugly and his girlfriends were more beautiful. I can recomment anyone to read the novel as well. But nobody seems to do that. So if you have read the novel the movie will not disappoint for sure.
  • The movie is not exactly about the Moulin Rouge but about the last years of life of Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, the heir of an aristocratic family who was born with genetic defects and turned to painting while recovering from a bad accident.

    I was afraid there would be lots of song and dance scenes, but mercifully they do away with it in the first half hour with an overdose of can can and Zsa Zsa Gabor singing and from then on it's smooth sailing into the melancholic life of Toulouse-Lautrec.

    Henri's parents were first cousins and there had been several serious health issues with children born in their families. Henri had the misfortune of carrying the genetic curse to the extreme, fracturing both legs as a teenager and never growing up taller than 1,52m (4.99").

    Not being able to hunt and to be an outdoor man like his father, whom he despised anyway, Henri lived the dissolute life in Paris, spending his evenings in the most famous cabarets of the time, like the Moulin Rouge and the Moulin de la Galette. Contrary to what shown in the movie, Henri was not celibate and he spent long hours in the "maison close", being a friend and lover of prostitutes. He was a most dispassionate witness of the low life and was never judgemental. At most, he found their customers hypocrites.

    In the movie we get a decent appraisal of his cynicism, wit and loneliness and his descent into alcoholism. Despite having escaped from the idle life of his parents, Henri did not find happiness in Paris but only temporary relief from his demons. He died probably of alcoholism and VD at only 36 years of age.
  • This haunting and most beautiful of films is certainly John Huston's most underrated work. Having seen the film many years ago, I was astonished at how well the film has stood the test of time. The opening 20 minute Can-Can sequence is wonderfully vibrant and colourful and brilliantly captures the atmosphere, thus setting the tone for the great drama to follow. This story of the dwarfish artist Toulouse Lautrec is based on a novel by Pierre La Mure and set in 19th Century Montmartre. Jose Ferrer performs one of the greatest roles in cinema so convincingly and poignantly I was completely enthralled by this most moving of biopics. Colette Marchand as the prostitute is outstanding and Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing impress in small roles. Cinematography by Oswald Morris is some of the finest ever and brilliantly captures the atmosphere and the music by Georges Auric will have you whistling for weeks. This masterpiece should be reissued on the Big Screen and I would urge everyone who loves classic cinema to see it. Score: 10/10
  • mossgrymk25 October 2023
    Like most films where the art and cinematography departments shine the screenplay/story shop is kind of, well, shopworn. Anthony Veiler's and John Huston's dialogue tends to be on the nose ("I drink to hide my loneliness, ugliness, and the pain in my legs") and between the rousing opening at the eponymous Paris nightclub and the poignant ending, where a dying artist envisions said nightclub, Veiler and Huston's story and Huston's directorial pacing sag quite a bit with, basically, a tale of two rather doleful, pallid love affairs. And speaking of boringly doleful one wearies of the twenty four seven pity party that constitutes Jose Ferrer's acclaimed performance. Give it a generous C plus for Oswald Morris' evocative camera and art directors Paul Sheriff and Marcel Vertes' ability to make us not notice or care that most of it is filmed at a studio or on a back lot. And then watch Minnelli's "Lust For Life" to see how it all should have been done.
  • Certainly one of the most beautiful ghost stories filmed in Technicolor ("The Innocents," with Deborah Kerr, perhaps takes the prize for black and white.) "Moulin Rouge" the film is itself the ghost of Lautrec's life and art. An almost minimalist script (minimalist writing being as daring for mainstream Hollywood in 1952 as the Can-Can was for fin de siecle Paris) supports and moves us through the exhilarating three-dimensional world of Lautrec's paintings come to life.

    Meticulous production design, set decoration and even costumes were created by Marcel Vertes (whose hands can be seen sketching for Jose Ferrer in closeup). Schiaparelli designed Zsa Zsa Gabor's costumes. Oswald Morris lit and photographed the sumptuous sets. The synthesis of these artists miraculously captures the essence of Lautrec's art -- yet still is but a ghost of his "real" world and life.

    Each scene plays like one of Lautrec's sketches or paintings: not an extraneous line or element . . . seemingly simple and obvious, yet rich and deep and true. The artful script is credited to Anthony Veiller and John Huston from Pierre La Mure's novel (a ghost of a life in words alone).

    Collette Marchand as the prostitute, Marie Charlet, with whom Lautrec falls in love, gives one of the most indelible and convincing performances ever captured -- almost as if Huston had found a turn-of-the-century French "child of the gutters" who happened to be a brilliant actress, instead of vice versa. Tempestuous, vulnerable, enchanting, exasperating, transparent -- Marie is a phantom of love; not the real thing. A poor uneducated child adopting the guise of the only kind of "woman" she knows. Ultimately a sham. A pretend woman. Self-destructive and destroying. Offering the only thing she knows: not real love.

    Jose Ferrer beautifully underplays Lautrec and keeps his inner pain to a barely repressed minimum, except for brief, sardonic, telling outbursts. He is, after all, almost continually anesthetized by cognac and absinthe. Not once, as the artist or the actor, does Ferrer seek our pity or sympathy. His Lautrec is a ghost of a man, haunting the fringes of the demi-monde, then, after his success as an artist, able to connect with others only superficially -- until it's too late and he loses the genuine love of Miriamme (Suzanne Flon) because he can't see it. She too is a kind of ghost.

    On his deathbed, in Huston's vision, Lautrec is visited by the dance hall ghosts of his beloved Moulin Rouge, the legendary club that still exists in Paris, in a surprisingly moving finale.

    Zsa Zsa Gabor looks, on first glance, impossibly beautiful. Turns out she's just impossible: she can't act, can't lip-synch, can't simulate dancing, can't even move gracefully. Though carefully costumed, for the most part, the unfortunate "serpentine" gown Schiaparelli designed for Gabor's second number as Jane Avril reveals hips already as wide as a barn. (These used to be called "child-bearing hips." Though Gabor may seem silly as a Hollywood personality, she was smart enough to marry Conrad Hilton and give him a daughter, Francesca, thus assuring her financial well-being in perpetuity. And she and her "franchise," such as it is, have outlived everybody else connected with this production.) Miss Gabor's singing voice is dubbed by Muriel Smith, the first black opera singer to perform Carmen at Covent Garden. She appears in "Moulin Rouge" as the black Can-Can dancer, dancing up a storm and leaping into catfights at the drop of a petticoat.

    George Auric's atmospheric score is also a triumph of mood and character: what Lautrec might have written himself were he a composer.

    Nothing, really, is as it appears in "Moulin Rouge." It's not "really" Lautrec's story, but "impressions" of it. The production design, sets and costumes aren't "really" Lautrec in three dimensions, but shadows of his soul and world. Inordinately tall actor Jose Ferrar portrays the 5'1" Lautrec. Hungarian courtesan Zsa Zsa Gabor (birth nose fortunately cosmetically altered while a teenager) portrays French chanteuse Jane Avril -- with vocals provided by a black American opera singer who relocated to London. Some of the accents are real, most are not. Two French bit parts are played by Christopher Lee (uncredited) and Peter Cushing, Britishers who would go on to revolutionize horror movies in the '60's with their Hammer Film shockers. Even artist Marcel Vertes, so responsible for the look of "Moulin Rouge" actually began his career as a forger of Lautrec works.

    Yet if nothing is "real" here, one finally must ask if the ghosts and demons that haunt us all, to some degree, as they do Lautrec and everyone else in this film, aren't "real" after all.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Huston must have been Technicolor-blinded: the film is awash in garish hues, about the only thing to recommend it. Seen the dancing girls once, you've seen them jump and yelp six or seven times. Dull script (well, Huston didn't have Dashiell Hammett as his foundation), with a flashback sequence that seems slightly ridiculous, with José Ferrer playing Lautrec AND Lautrec's father (see the virtuosity!), leaden pacing, not a single clever line. Lautrec comes across as a bearded brat, pettish and spoiled. The flash-cut sequences showing Lautrec's paintings are jumpy and amateurish and poorly timed--it's hard to believe this is the creator of The Maltese Falcon, Beat The Devil, and Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Painter loses girl, painter loses girl, painter loses girl. Nobody loves him or appreciates him, then he dies. Zsa Zsa Gabor lip-synchs bad songs badly and offers nothing as an actress except a reminder that the era required several Marilyn Monroe facsimiles. I had a difficult time staying awake, and by the time Lautrec finally closed his eyes I had long since done so myself.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    His was a rather short life. He was born in 1864 and died in 1901. But in the 37 years Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec helped change modern painting and advertising illustration, with a vivid but light line and an ability to capture movement. One of the best remembered Post-Impressionists, he managed to be the one to best illustrate the fin-de-siec age of Paris in the 1890s. While Monet and Van Gogh concentrated on the countryside, and Gaughin took his genius into the colors of the tropics, Toulouse-Lautrec concentrated on the theaters, dance halls (such as Moulin Rouge) and racetracks that the society of Paris frequented (the same society that would be shown in Vincent Minelli's GIGI six years after this film was made).

    It is hard to find a really dramatic story about most great artists. LUST FOR LIFE (dealing with Van Gogh) dealt with that artist's failure to find any responding human being to his affections and search for purity. It also dealt with his descent into madness and suicide. REMBRANDT followed the 17th Century master into his years when his artistic ability was misunderstood (after he did THE NIGHT WATCH) and he fell into financial difficulties. THE MOON AND SIX PENCE was Somerset Maugham's comment that Gaughin's brilliance as a painter did not mean he was a decent human being (his anglicized version - Strickland - uses people right and left in order to paint). THE NAKED MAJA showed Goya to be a man having to navigate his way through a corrupt royal court. THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY shows how a titan in art (Michaelangelo) painted his masterpiece (The Sistine Chapel) despite his personal war with an equally determined Pope Julius II.

    The story in MOULIN ROUGE is how Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec had everything (talent, money, aristocratic position) but had nothing. For due to an accident in his teenage years, Henri fell down a stairs and broke his two legs. His parents were cousins, so genetically his bones could not knit properly: He became a dwarf. He could perform as well as a full grown man, but he looked the size of a top-heavy child complete with mustache and beard, and pince-nez eyeglasses. He could not attract women the normal way (we see his teenage female friend reject him when he offers himself to her). So he moves into the bohemian center of Paris, and starts painting. Unlike his fellow Post impressionists, Toulouse actually had money, so he never suffered for lack of rent or for no food or torn clothes (like Van Gogh and Gaughin occasionally did). But his loneliness, and apparent helplessness led to his becoming an alcoholic, in particular of the then popular but dangerous drink absinthe.

    The subject matter of this film happened to get the right director. John Huston was usually seen as dealing with grittier and more adventuresome material (like THE TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRES). But Huston actually was very interested in art, and his use of color and casting is almost flawless here, choosing supporting players who literally look like Toulouse' poster drawings of them dancing the "can can" and other popular dances of the day. So is the choice of Jose Ferrer as Toulouse. Although the dwarf was half Ferrer's height, special braces were used to enable Ferrer to walk "normally" like his real life counterpart. It must have been painful but Ferrer never bats an eyelash.

    Ferrer's turmoil deals with the women in his life. He is known to the cast of dancers and singers at Moulin Rouge (led by Zsa Zsz Gabor as the resident chanteuse, who sings the theme song of the film, "Where Is Your Heart"). We see him meet a prostitute, who briefly lives with him, but cannot live with him or without him (she sees he is a good, kind man who can provide for her, but he is a dwarf). They split up twice in the film (he seeks her out and finds her in a more natural milieu in the gutter). This almost breaks him but he recovers, and his most creative years follow. Then he meets a more acceptable woman (Suzanne Flon) whose genuine friendship and affection he fails to recognize until it is too late. Ferrer also played the artist's father, a man who fails to realize just what an amazing son he produced.

    It was a first rate production and Ferrer got another nomination for best actor. It remains a good biography of a great artist, and one that is as pleasing to the eye as LUST FOR LIFE. It would not be amiss if both films were shown in tandem by some film society or other.
  • jacexternal19 March 2023
    Warning: Spoilers
    As someone born this century, I am extra finicky when it comes to classic films - of course, there is a collection of them, but typically they seem to me too dry, too long, too dull, or a mix of all three.

    Moulin Rouge, a biopic (of sorts) about artist Henri Toulouse-Lautrec, manages to detail life in late-19th-century Paris by skillfully telling the story of a painter troubled by both his persisting leg disability and, maybe subsequently, alcoholism.

    Through elaborate routines carried by Katherine Kath and Muriel Smith (and somewhat cheapened by Zsa Zsa Gabor's lip-syncing), Jose Ferrer's blunt portrayal of Toulouse-Lautrec matched with Colette Marchand's annoyingly effective Marie Charlet, and an overall drunkenness, Moulin Rouge combines the traits you would expect from a mid-century film with the universal lessons applicable today.

    The film loses steam about halfway through, but picks back up once new characters cross paths with Toulouse-Lautrec. The artist, while not necessarily the focus of the film, serves as a canvas off which all of the others can work. He can be seen painting at the film's titular location, opposing Gabor, Marchand, and Suzanna Flon, and dealing with his own mental struggles. Ultimately, though, it is the quotable lines delivered so earnestly that they resonate deep within.

    Moulin Rouge is dim in color, both within buildings and in the various scenes that take place on the streets. One of the more powerful scenes comes toward the latter half in which Toulouse-Lautrec encounters a former dancer, now in ruins. Despite a time remembered so vibrantly, there is a somber and utterly human backdrop to it all. Fashion takes a backseat, yet many memorable looks stand out. The costume department clearly researched the camp and gaudy fashions of the 1890s' socialites.

    The film, however, is a product of its time, with nearly all of the women solely existing as an extension of Toulouse-Lautrec. There is little movement from beginning to end, leading to it dragging on at certain points. That being said, the theme is timeless: both the Moulin Rouge itself and Toulouse-Lautrec suffer the consequences of fame; his success causes the venue to lose its sacredness, and the pressure consumes the artist.
  • I'm afraid I have cast my vote with the philistines on this one. I thought this was a static biopic with a terrible screenplay and with the exception of Colette Marchand, mediocre acting. I'm fascinated that so many people thought Ferrer did such good work and I'm wondering if this is because they viewed the movie in the theater as opposed to TV. Perhaps, his "compressed" emotional state translated better when his 4'2" body was viewed at 10' 6". I sorta doubt it.

    I have to say that as an admirer of Huston's films my expectations were high. His best films have a vitality and freshness that transcend the era they were made in. This one, for me, did not. Yes, there were plenty of tableaux vivant but after a while I felt that Huston was merely amusing himself with these recreations once he realized the film was DOA with a leaden, unimaginative script. Perhaps, he, like Lautrec, should have focused on the art instead of the artist's unhappy love life for dramatic material. One feels the heavy hand of the studio in the placement of the "romance" in the foreground and in the insertion of zaftig talent-free starlet Zsa Zsa as the tall, angular and probably far more interesting Jane Avril.

    Huston was a complicated man with a great thirst for veracity in his depictions of the human experience. That's why The African Queen or The Asphalt Jungle never seem dated and why even lesser films like Night of the Iguana have moments of startling realism. Aside from bringing Lautrec's posters to life, this movie has to be regarded as one of his failures.
An error has occured. Please try again.