[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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Maceman]

This movie sucked worse than anything has ever sucked before. The songs -- maybe with the exception of "All That Jazz" -- are utterly unforgettable.

The dancing is awful and phony -- all put together with cuts and editing to make it look like people can dance when they really can't. Kind of like when they try to make it look like Bruce Willis is a martial arts expert.

I hated almost every minute of this movie. I was dragged to it by my wife, who loves dance. I suffered through the thing, only to find out that my wife hated it too. I didn't want to spoil her evening by telling her during the movie how much I was hating it, so she figured I liked it, even though she was hating it too.

Turns out she would have been happy to walk out on it if I had only let her know I was feeling the same way. I guess there's a lesson there about honesty in a relationship. If I were a movie critic, I would not give stars, but watches -- one watch for every time I looked at mine during the flick. This one was a five watcher.

Major turkey. Can't believe it got so many nominations.

[snowstorm12]

I loved it and thought it was great. I especially loved the cell block tango where they sing about killing their husbands and boyfriends.
I can't wait to get it on dvd.
I will put it right next to my other favorite musical dvd of Jesus Christ Superstar.

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

Lighten up, Francis.

[montag813]

The plot of the film is so primitive that I likely would have been able to write a similar scenario at the age of five using my left foot.

This writer is an imbicile. He should put that foot in his mouth.

[Ziva]

I've seen the Broadway show twice, and the movie six times. Yes, I enjoyed it immensely. The costumes in the 1995 Broadway revival for all the characters was basically underwear, particularly for the dance numbers. They were more covered up in the movie. The show has the entire orchestra in the middle of the stage in bleachers. There are virtually no props.

The 1975 show was based on the 1943 movie called "Roxie Hart" starring Ginger Rogers and Adolph Menjuie (sp). The story is based on a true story of two murderesses in the 1920s. Reporter Maureen Watkins wrote a stage play in 1927 based on her coverage of the crimes. (I own two copies of the original play.)

It is interesting to see how the show has changed in each incarnation, but a great deal of it has remained the same. (In the 1943 movie, Roxie gets divorced and marries one of the reporters.) By reading the original play, you can see the inspiration for many of the songs, most of which I thoroughly enjoy.

I dragged my reluctant husband to see it yesterday. He hates musicals, and didn't like this one either, calling it a "chick flick." I asked a number of other men exitting the theater their reactions, and the ones I spoke to really enjoyed it.

I don't see any of the characters coming across as particularly sympathetic, except for the husband Amos. So what? Does it show decadence? Sure it does - that was what the jazz age was about. Decadence led to crime, even though it was used as a false excuse, in a sense, it really was the reason for the crimes.

The seeming temporary celebrity of the murderesses was shown to indeed be the celebrity of freaks, as Roxie said. The public in the film were not so taken with the women because of their criminality but because of the sensationalism and novelty, and they proved quite fickle.

I avoid many films for moral reasons, but this one just doesn't strike me as deserving approbation.

[ikka]

I would point out that what I took away from the movie is:

The characters are so simply drawn that it is obvious to the objective observer what is going on. The woman did kill her husband, deserves life without parole or even the death penalty, etc. The CHUMPS in this drama are the adoring public, who make a celebrity out of a female thug. Without Roxie having any celebrity imparted to her by the public, she would have been in jail. A society gets what it tolerates.

[motexva]

Well, it couldn't be much worse than "Daredevil."

[sonserae]

This review is pure drivel.

[Smittie]

Seeing the name Richard Gere in the credits should give anyone a clue not waste their $7.00 on the film.