MovieChat Forums > The Red Shoes (1948) Discussion > A good movie, but not great.

A good movie, but not great.



Also a bit boring at times. Should have been trimmed down a bit.

😎

reply

It's a little longer than it needs to be, but I hesitate to call it merely "good."

The story is interesting enough, delving as it does into the psychology of the artists' need to create and to perform their art. And the performances are excellent all-around, including from the lead who not only can act but also requires no double to perform the ballet sequences for her.

However, I think that where the film clearly shines the most is in the cinematography and production design. Some of the images in this film are among the most striking that I've seen in any movie, ever. Sometimes in the film world we encounter the phrase "every frame a painting," and much of this film indeed feels like a painting that has come to life.

reply


Like I said, a good movie, but not great. Should have been trimmed just a bit.

😎

reply

LOL, why even bother to start a thread if you're just going to throw this snippy little short replies and you weren't actually interested in discussing the movie?

reply

Well I think it's Great-with-a-capital-G, but then I'm long-term ballet fan!

It's far and away the best ballet film ever made, one that combines dance at the highest level, with a look at both the reality and fantasy of ballet. The reality is sexual harassment and employers ruling companies with a whim of iron and plagiarism and pouring sweat and cigarette smoke, the fantasy is the dance creating a beautiful unreal world before our eyes. This movie is everything to a balletomane!

reply


Okay then. Good movie, not great.

😎

reply

The difference between "good" and "great" is entirely subjective - to you it's good, to me it's great. We're both right, because that's how we each see the film.

We're not the sort of film critics who go around insisting that our view is the right and correct one and that everyone needs to accept our view because our view is the correct one!

... are we?

reply


That's why they make chocolate and vanilla.

😎

reply

Hah! I got you to say something other than "... good but not great!".

reply


So you accomplished something. Congratulations.

😎

reply

And I got to talk about a movie I really love, and ballet. Triple win for me! Thanks, dude!

reply


You're welcome.

😎

reply

I was pretty blown away by the fact that:

1: Moira Shearer was so good, while. . .

2: This was her first film, and. . .

3: She didn't need a double to handle the dancing.

To be able to be both a great actress and a great ballet dancer, and to do it all in her very first film, is pretty mind-blowing. That's an insane level of talent.

reply

Shearer was a top-level ballerina in real life, a professional dancer with the Royal Ballet, who gave acting a whirl and found she was good at that, too! She was a dancer first, but made other British films, none of them as well-known as "The Red Shoes". Probably the best-known is the creepy thriller "Peeping Tom", which I can't stand, but my personal favorite is the bizarre "Tales of Hoffman", the weirdest opera film ever made!

FYI Shearer was a top-level dancer, but she spent most of her career being overshadowed by Margot Fonteyn, who danced at the same company. They were probably the two best British ballerinas of the post-war era, both amazing, but yeah, maybe Fonteyn really was a bit more amazing overall. But yeah, Shearer made the best movie ever made about ballet, so she was one-up on Fonteyn in at least one respect!

reply

Interesting stuff. Thank you for the info.

I looked her up on IMDB and saw that she only had 7 credits. I wonder why she didn't pursue more film roles. (I have to assume it's not because they weren't offered to her.)

I also wonder what it's like to be so talented that you can just "give acting a whirl" and knock in out of the park on the first attempt, giving a great performance in a film that I'd think was regarded as an instant classic. You'd think that would have to do crazy things to her ego.

reply

I also wonder what it's like to be that talented, because I sure as hell don't know!

The thing I really wonder is why she didn't give Hollywood a try. Yes, she was a top dancer, who had a career as a prima ballerina at one of the world's best ballet companies, and she was able to make a few films when she felt like it. But life in post-war Britain was grim, there were terrible shortages and rationing and taxes were high, everyone's quality of life was poor. Hollywood would have offered big money and the chance to compete with Cyd Charisse for roles in musicals, I wonder what Shearer turned down?

reply

I had so much expectations because of its reputation but it didn't blow me away. But it's worth revisiting it, though. Maybe it grows on you with repeated viewings.

reply


Yeah, like a fungus.

😎

reply