MovieChat Forums > Le violon rouge (1999) Discussion > Why does Morritz's theft bother so many ...

Why does Morritz's theft bother so many viewers?

posted 16 years ago by pianofingers
29 replies | jump to latest

I don't understand why so many people are bothered by the ending. Morritz's theft was the best possible outcome for the fate of the red violin.

Besides, if you look at the violin's history, it was passed on from owner to owner either by theft, or gift, or sold at a paltry sum. It was never meant to be sold for a million dollars or in such an grand manner.

Sold cheap -- from travelling vendor to monastery
Given -- from orphan to orphan
Stolen -- from child's grave
Swindled -- by Pope from the gypsies
Given -- to the manservant (maybe even stolen)
Sold cheap -- to a pawnshop
Given -- by a mother to her daughter
Given -- to a music teacher
Stolen / confiscated -- by the Chinese government

Before Morritz stole it, the previous owners had also stolen it, seized unrightfully. It appears that the nature of the violin, aside from cursing its owners with tragedy, is also that it be passed on discreetly and humbly.

[–] CindyH 13 years ago

In their eyes, having some stupid art lover buy it is much better option because then it can sit encased without ever being truly and passionately loved again.

They don't see the that the violin must be loved. Sad, that they don't get it.

Spare me your 6th grade Michael Moore logic! ~ Secretary Heller; 24, Day 4, 7:30:00 a.m.

[–] svanatter 13 years ago

Your Subject line and your Straw Man reasoning leaves much unsaid. :-/

I _COULD_ remark to you (and others) that, "You just don't get" the esoteric/semi-gnostic interpretation of his NOT stealing it. But that would be tacky.

[–] CindyH 13 years ago

Grow up.

Spare me your 6th grade Michael Moore logic! ~ Secretary Heller; 24, Day 4, 7:30:00 a.m.

[–] svanatter 12 years ago

Scintillating.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] svanatter 12 years ago

Poor reasoning (and worse).

[–] JacintoCupboard 12 years ago

Old thread, but wth....

Why do people have problems with stealing? Really, you have to ask? Why are viewers more shocked by Morritz's act than any of the preceding acts? Because it happens in our time, and because it makes for a very unhappy ending. Now it might be very chic to have endings where the villain gets away with it, but is still going to be troubling for anyone with a moral backbone.

The hate on this thread for Ruselsky beggars belief. He's a world renowned violinist for heaven's sake, not some corporate collector.

The 'best possible outcome' imho would have been for Morritz and the violin to have been taken out by the car. I think the filmmakers ballsed out on it and gave us an ambiguous ending that was distinctly unsatisfying.

Fine film otherwise.

[–] bickeringbird 12 years ago

Here's the thing - how is the auction house/Chinese government making millions of dollars off the violin the more moral outcome? The auction house obtained the violin from a government that (for all practical purposes) robbed priceless art from the grave of a man whose life they had long since ruined, and then they sold that art at a profit that is frankly unfathomable to most people. Can you explain to me how that is better than theft?

And yes, those parties DID pay for the tests Morritz ran, but a) I'm sure those expenses were a drop in the bucket compared to what they made off the other violins, and b) Morritz actually did pay (what I assume is a considerable sum and almost certainly more money than what Duval paid for his services) for the copy he swapped.

Also, the man who won the auction got exactly what he paid for, which was not by any means the violin. Had he truly wanted the violin, he would have bought it the moment he played it; however, renowned violinist though he may have been, he had no appreciation for the instrument's craftsmanship and only felt cheated when he discovered that the instrument was famous. He paid for prestige, and since no one aside from Morritz and Williams know the truth, he will most certainly get it.

Ultimately, The Red Violin's conclusion isn't about morality, per se, it's about the value and purpose of art. Art is not a means to an end, to pay the bills or garner fame or even to assuage guilt. It is not meant to end with the life of its owner, it does not belong to any one culture or reside in any one place or fit with any one dogma. It is meant to be lived and loved.

[–] JacintoCupboard 12 years ago

The manufacture of a musical instrument is not actually art, no matter how high the craft is raised. There is no idea, no message, in its construction, it is made only to create sound.

There are two values in play (scuze the pun) here, firstly the violin's sound and playing value, and secondly its value as a commercial, tradable commodity.

Nowhere in the film is the violin compared to a great instrument such as a Stradivarius. Undoubtedly good, but still. The commercial value of the instrument rests with its provenance, having been owned by Pope. As viewers we have access to a 'hidden' provenance, but this cannot impact the value of the instrument at auction because it is unknown.

A suitable instrument for a child of unremarkable ability? Probably not. And thus the instrument 'dies', falling into obscurity and loss. And like all deaths we are saddened by that. No great violinist will ever be inspired by this instrument again if the fortune teller is right.

And of course theft is theft. We ought to be no less shocked that the violin has been stolen from the auctioneers than when it was stolen from the grave.

[–] london777 8 years ago

Also, the man who won the auction got exactly what he paid for, which was not by any means the violin. Had he truly wanted the violin, he would have bought it the moment he played it; however, renowned violinist though he may have been, he had no appreciation for the instrument's craftsmanship and only felt cheated when he discovered that the instrument was famous.
You have misunderstood the situation. The violin was a lot in an auction. It was not available for purchase except during the auction.

My reading of the scene was that Ruselsky immediately realized, after a "test-play" that it was an instrument of the highest quality. He hoped that he could bid and buy it "on the cheap", that is why he pretended to dismiss it as nothing special. He may have been a pompous bully, but he was a world-class violinist and would not have been so easily deceived.

I worked in the antique trade and auctions and that behaviour is standard among those who think they have spotted a "sleeper" and hope it will slip under the radar. So is the practice of switching lots or deliberately misleadingly describing lots so that the auctioneers' accomplices can snap up a valuable item on the cheap.

[–] aphrodisiaciix 12 years ago

Theft is theft. It's illegal and it's a crime. It's especially despicable when the act is carried out by an educated person who uses his expertise and inside information while being in the position of trust to totally abuse that privilege and purposely steal a precious antiquities.

Some people on here rationalized this felony act with the fact that the violin has been changing hands in rather unconventional ways thru out centuries. Well, that doesn't mean it's okay to rob it again. Isn't it an obtuse reasoning? Just like, they stole it before, so it's okay for me to steal it now.

Others had justified the crime by saying that the bidders were only recognized the violin for its historical and monetary values, therefore, they don't deserve to own it, and it should go to Morritz. Well, how can we be sure that is the case with all the bidders? The Chinese characters played by Sandra Oh and her bespectacled male companion did not seem to fit this assumption. But then, regardless of their intentions, these bidders had the right to bid and took possession of the successful bidding items... unless, the auction was limited to bidders with specified intentions. I don't see Morritz's intention is any more noble, since he's going to give it to his child as a Christmas present. Seems like a very selfish act to me.

Deceiving people into buying something that is not as advertised is wrong. Does anyone in here (or even Morritz) think it's okay to spend close to two million dollars for a 17th century violin, only it turns out to be a copy? Those who supported the movie's ending are exactly those that think it's okay to be deceived in that way! Don't go cry wolf when it really happens to you.

The movie was great, until the deceitful criminal act of Morritz at the end really ruined it for me.

[–] fudgenuts101 11 years ago

Well put. I thought the ending was fantastic. I took the Red Violin to partly represent the idea of perfection - Morritz stealing it represented that true passion and perfection is not attainable by money alone, no matter your intentions.

[–] first-things-first 10 years ago

It bothers me simply because it is wrong. I can't romanticize it and say he deserves it.

If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world

[–] GoodSOVeryVeryGood 10 years ago

"Why does Morritz's theft bother so many viewers?"

Because sometimes you do the "moral" thing and it is the wrong thing to do (it turns out bad), and sometimes you do the "immoral" thing and it is the right thing to do (it turns out well). Example: murdering Hitler is "wrong" but it would have been the "right" thing to do.

I think we have a real issue with the "grey" in life so we stick to the black/white as much as we can. Makes it all easier to deal with.

(I think the "theft" at the end was not for "moral" or "immoral" reasons - it was just the only way for Morritz to get the violin.

[–] cableaddict 9 years ago

One mitigating factor is that without Morritz, no one would have even realized that the violin was anything special at all.

He discovered it, so in a certain way, he had a right to it.

Look at it this way: Suppose that after he knew for certain it was Pope's red violin, he (and the acoustician guy) didn't tell anyone? The red violin would have gone on auction as simply "A 17th century Italian violin of decent craftsmanship," and sold for maybe $20,000.

If Morritz purchased it that way, gave it to his daughter and never told a soul, what then?

[–] london777 8 years ago

Look at it this way: Suppose that after he knew for certain it was Pope's red violin, he (and the acoustician guy) didn't tell anyone? The red violin would have gone on auction as simply "A 17th century Italian violin of decent craftsmanship," and sold for maybe $20,000.
My guess is that other, and more affluent, experts, seeing him bid, would have outbid him, thinking "If it is worth that much to Morritz, it will be worth more to me". Ruselsky would have been one of them. Even if none of them suspected it was the real "Red Violin".

I caught on early to the Art Nouveau Revival in the late 1950s and bought many unappreciated pieces very cheaply. But as soon as I became known as an "expert" others would outbid me without knowing what they were bidding for, and I did not have the resources to compete.

And, as posted above, I believe Ruselsky did know, or strongly suspect, that it was the Red Violin. His saying "nothing special" was just a blind to conceal his interest.

[–] bootblack987 8 years ago

Everybody else breaks into pianofingers home and ransacks the entire place. So why is it wrong for me to do it?