"Chicago:" The Decadence of Elitist Cinema

The Rational Argumentator ^ | February 16, 2003 | G. Stolyarov II

[G. Stolyarov II]

G. Stolyarov II is a science fiction novelist, independent philosophical essayist, poet, amateur mathematician and composer, contributor to Enter Stage Right, writer for Objective Medicine, and Editor-in-Chief of The Rational Argumentator, a journal for the promotion of Western culture at http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/index.html. He can be contacted at gennadystolyarovii@yahoo.com.

[cactusSharp]

remember the 10 Commandments ? When Moses went to the mount and came back to see em lustily sexed up ?

that is Chicago

[dep]

um, not to put too fine a point on it, but chicago is the film version of a musical that is currently, i believe, on broadway; the broadway production is in turn a revival of an early 1970s production (that starred jerry orbach, btw), which was in turn itself a revival of an earlier stage piece that was based, of all things, on a movie. so this isn't actually representative of much that is going on now, but instead of the latest interpretation of a stylized piece from a much earlier day.

dep

[CARepubGal]

Excellent review. Thanks! Something about the film stank (I have not nor will I see this soft core porn).

[G. Stolyarov II]

An interesting bit of information that is, but it merely emphasizes the fact that the media elite types existed during earlier times, during the Hollywood of the 1950s onward, and somewhat even earlier. The current producers still had to make the selection of whether or not to release a remake of this film, which in itself is an expression of their metaphysical value-judgments.

[stylin19a]

Good Grief. It's just a movie...
I saw the movie tonight. It was date night with my wife. We went to be entertained.
It's called the suspension of disbelief.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

So, what's the difference between this film and CABARET with Lisa Minelli 28 years ago? Morally speaking, of course!

[Lancey Howard]

BUMP

A very well written and thoughtful piece.
Personally, I allow myself to get caught up in the hoopla of the Oscars and I usually watch the show, but I also realize that, often, I have not seen any of the films which have been nominated. Occasionally I will have seen one of the films, like Titanic, or Lord of the Rings, or Saving Private Ryan, but most of the titles are totally unfamiliar to me. That is, not only have I never heard of the films, I don't even know anybody who has ever heard of the films.

So when Saving Private Ryan was defeated for 'Best Picture' by a movie called Shakespeare In Love, I decided I would simply watch the Oscars show, observe the Hollywood culture on display like watching germs through a microscope, and try to have a good laugh. But never in a million years would I give two craps what movie or what star wins what prize.

[G. Stolyarov II]

I was too young to see that film at the time, nor am I an enthusiast for rummaging through old sensual motion pictures, so I cannot compare the two. Is it as fleshy and devoid of contemplative content as "Chicago"? If so, then I would condemn it as just as corrupt.

[Antoninus]

Just the commercials for Chicago the movie utterly repulse me. When the live show was playing in Philadelphia, I took one look at the ads on bus stops and knew immediately it wasn't the kind of thing I'd be taking my wife to see.

Good article. You certainly aren't at a loss for words!

[A_perfect_lady]

...an impression is left of him not as a loyal, moral man but as a scum of what, in the perception of the Hollywood elites, would be the “lower classes.”

Reminds me of an obscure film called Little Voice that came out some years ago with Michael Caine in it. The underlying message is that the Star is noble and all the people who support her, agents, show biz folks, etc, are scum. The audience is of value only if they recognize the superiority of the Star, and those with refined taste (in other words, who admire the Star) are of intrinsically higher worth than those crude types who fail to recognize her superiority. Just about the most manipulative tripe since The Contender.

[TSgt]

"Good Grief. It's just a movie...I saw the movie tonight. It was date night with my wife. We went to be entertained. It's called the suspension of disbelief."

Ditto

Saw it with my wife when it first came out. Nice entertainment that's all.

[Mr. Jeeves]

"Chicago's" primary value is that every Catherine Zeta-Jones scene will make Maureen Dowd gnaw the furniture. As a movie it was mildly entertaining, but mindless.

[CFC__VRWC]

...I decided I would simply watch the Oscars show, observe the Hollywood culture on display like watching germs through a microscope, and try to have a good laugh.

I'll take watching the microbes any day - they're more entertaining.

[jlogajan]

What, one will ask, are the remaining two hours of the film occupied by? Lewd and sensuous, skin-baring dancing absolutely unrelated to the subject matter of the film as well as its parent musical.

Who is this nitwit? It is a musical, not a documentary. Plot lines in musicals are often threadbare.

Secondly, the movie/musical skewers the principles -- the lawyer is corrupt, the public gullible, the starlets are more interested in their stage careers than the people they just bumped off. There is no mistake or ambiguity about what the motivations are or who is good and bad.

Now I didn't actually care for the movie because I'm not a big fan of musicals. But to try to demand some sort of rationality in a musical is a bit off target. Musicals are for people who like to see music and dancing. Plots? That's just a way to organize the order of music scenes.

[Antoninus]

An interesting bit of information that is, but it merely emphasizes the fact that the media elite types existed during earlier times, during the Hollywood of the 1950s onward, and somewhat even earlier.

And this is exactly the reason they continue recycling the same old garbage over and over. There's always a new generation to corrupt.

[Clemenza]

It is a VERY cynical movie. Nevertheless, as entertainment, it is the best movie musical since Cabaret. I was pleasently surprised, moreover, with the performance of America's Most Famous Buddhist as the sleazy, yet charming lawyer Billy Flynn.

Not every movie has (or needs to have) a positive moral message to be enjoyed. However, I must admit that although Chicago is GREAT entertainment, great "art" it isn't.

[jlogajan]

Reminds me of an obscure film called Little Voice that came out some years ago with Michael Caine in it. The underlying message is that the Star is noble and all the people who support her, agents, show biz folks, etc, are scum. The audience is of value only if they recognize the superiority of the Star, and those with refined taste (in other words, who admire the Star) are of intrinsically higher worth than those crude types who fail to recognize her superiority.

What? In reality the movie was written to showcase the actress/singer's talent. At best the plot line was contrived to allow a reason to show her range. When she performs everyone likes her. But she only performs once because she is some sort of nut case. I really don't know where you got the rest of your interpretation of the story. It doesn't square with the movie I saw.

[oyez]

I don't know about how Chicago ends, but in CABARET Sally Boles(Lisa Minelli) and her libertine friends slam into a brick wall.I've seen the stage production of Cabaret and it is nothing like the purile movie. I suspect the same for Chicago

[A_perfect_lady]

Why were we supposed to sympathize with Elvie and her father? Because they appreciated Stars. Remember how her room was full of photos of various (often tragic) stars? But all the work that goes to put those women in the spotlight is done by people like the Michael Caine character, obviously seen as 'seedy' and low-caste. The mother is an unsympathetic character. Why? Because she's blowsy and crude, lower class. But was she really any worse a human being than self-absorbed Elvie? I didn't think so.

It was very manipulative, in my view. Elvie seemed like a selfish little twit to me, too busy being curled up in her room feeling morally superior to help around the house or pull her own weight in any way, expecting her mother to take care of her hand and foot... yeah, I hated the movie. This was my interpretation. If you didn't get that out of it, well, that's you. Me, that's what I got.