Within the film, though, there's no evidence that the choice really is as absolute and schematic as both Lermontov and Julian present. For them, it's not a matter of time and attention, it's that Victoria has to choose now where she will put her heart for the rest of her life.
I think for Julian it was a matter of pride--that Vicky would go off and do this thing with a man who'd become Julian's nemesis. I think he expected Vicky to understand that her working with Lermontov was too much of a blow to Julian's ego, so he assumed it was deliberate defiance of him that drove her to Lermontov. While Lermontov felt that Vicky's considerations for Julian's hubris would be a distraction which, in fact, it proved to be. I think both men are probably right--if Victoria's priority is to achieve great art, sooner or later it's bound to conflict with what Julian wants her to be--the relationship would be about compromise, while great art is about not compromising.
But secondary characters like Grischa or the set designer Ratov or the rest of the corps de ballet are delighted with the affair between their principal ballerina and their composer-conductor—they would happily see them married and assume the company will continue to run as usual afterward, and I don't think we're meant to view them as second-class artists because of it.
True, but notice we never see any evidence that any of them are married or seriously involved romantically. It could be that Lermontov chose each of them at least partially for that reason, whether or not they realise it themselves.
Of course, I'm treating all of this in non-fantastic terms. What matters is that Victoria put on the red shoes: and there's only one way to take them off.
Yeah. I gotta love that boldness. It had to be pretty challenging for audiences at the time, thought the film was extremely successful.
It's interesting to note that Michael Powell considered Walt Disney to be the most relevant filmmaker at the time.
I almost never listen to commentaries or watch deleted scenes. Which I will admit is a little inconsistent, since I find story notes fascinating.
I'd say deleted scenes are quite optional when it comes to enjoying a film--I usually figure they're deleted for a reason. But commentaries can be quite enjoyable for different reasons. Some, like The Red Shoes commentary, are interesting and illuminating discussions of the film. Others, especially the ones by film historians, are sort of like spoken essays. The quality the filmmakers' commentaries is dependant on how articulate the individual filmmaker is--Terry Gilliam's great, talking a mile a minute, while Ridley Scott tends to leave a lot of dead air. It's nice when they come in groups--I always like hearing Ang Lee with his producer/screenwriter James Schamus.
It can be kind of hard to find a context to listen to commentaries, though. It's convenient for me to listen to them while colouring or inking. But since I haven't been doing that lately, I've been accumulating un-listened-to commentaries.
no subject
I think for Julian it was a matter of pride--that Vicky would go off and do this thing with a man who'd become Julian's nemesis. I think he expected Vicky to understand that her working with Lermontov was too much of a blow to Julian's ego, so he assumed it was deliberate defiance of him that drove her to Lermontov. While Lermontov felt that Vicky's considerations for Julian's hubris would be a distraction which, in fact, it proved to be. I think both men are probably right--if Victoria's priority is to achieve great art, sooner or later it's bound to conflict with what Julian wants her to be--the relationship would be about compromise, while great art is about not compromising.
But secondary characters like Grischa or the set designer Ratov or the rest of the corps de ballet are delighted with the affair between their principal ballerina and their composer-conductor—they would happily see them married and assume the company will continue to run as usual afterward, and I don't think we're meant to view them as second-class artists because of it.
True, but notice we never see any evidence that any of them are married or seriously involved romantically. It could be that Lermontov chose each of them at least partially for that reason, whether or not they realise it themselves.
Of course, I'm treating all of this in non-fantastic terms. What matters is that Victoria put on the red shoes: and there's only one way to take them off.
Yeah. I gotta love that boldness. It had to be pretty challenging for audiences at the time, thought the film was extremely successful.
It's interesting to note that Michael Powell considered Walt Disney to be the most relevant filmmaker at the time.
I almost never listen to commentaries or watch deleted scenes. Which I will admit is a little inconsistent, since I find story notes fascinating.
I'd say deleted scenes are quite optional when it comes to enjoying a film--I usually figure they're deleted for a reason. But commentaries can be quite enjoyable for different reasons. Some, like The Red Shoes commentary, are interesting and illuminating discussions of the film. Others, especially the ones by film historians, are sort of like spoken essays. The quality the filmmakers' commentaries is dependant on how articulate the individual filmmaker is--Terry Gilliam's great, talking a mile a minute, while Ridley Scott tends to leave a lot of dead air. It's nice when they come in groups--I always like hearing Ang Lee with his producer/screenwriter James Schamus.
It can be kind of hard to find a context to listen to commentaries, though. It's convenient for me to listen to them while colouring or inking. But since I haven't been doing that lately, I've been accumulating un-listened-to commentaries.