This is why I hate 1990`s, the movie is full of racist prejudices.
1) Gypsies are shown as thieves and grave-robbers!
2)Chinese servant was an opium dealer!
3)The last but not least the famous moist disturbing- a black person is portrayed as a thief. The black man is a Robber! why couldn`t it be a white male?
It really makes you think doesn`t it?
So what do you think?
If thief would be white instead of black, that could also be interpreted as racism - against the white people. There are white bad guys in the movie you just didn`t register them. You are just over exaggerating and have prejudices, not the 1990s.
shareNo. Asians had opium. Gypsies have robbed graves before. It's a movie. They can show any stereotype they want. It's fiction.
shareIt would be racist if these things were untrue and used to only stereotype. Morritz could have been any color, he just happened to be black. Countering that, he's one of the world's foremost experts in violins. That expertise makes him quite a rarity.
Look: you can find racism in anything: do you accuse BET of racism?
..Joe
Just saw this movie a few days ago and I knew someone would start a thread based on racism. lol...
I don't think it portrayed stereotypes, it was written in a way as to not make it seem like they're trying to create stereotypes, the characters in this movie just happened to be gypsy, black, Asian etc... the violin makes it's way around the world. So, sure, we're going to see different characters and ethnic groups, I thought it was handled tastefully.
Overall, I thought this movie was pretty good. I wasn't thrilled by it but it's a decent story, I think it drags on for a little to long and the ending could have been slightly different in my view. I think there is one plot hole in it that didn't make much sense, we don't get a thorough explanation of what happened to the violin after China. Maybe I missed it? I don't know but this kind of hurt the movie in my view.
I give it a 6.5 out of 10. Good but not groundbreaking.
Chinese government kept the violins found in the old man's house and many years later sent to the West to be valued and auctioned off. At the beginning of the auction, China was thanked for the instruments.
shareThanks for the bit of info, keelai. I still wonder what happened to it.
shareYou're welcome.
Why? The movie explains it.
I didn't think so... at least not the ending.
shareOh... You mean AFTER the ending. Moritz gave it to his daughter. I assume she was a violinist and kept it.
Movie's a bit dumb. Why would the young expert risk prison by committing grand larceny to help Moritz when he gets nothing out of it?
Ugggg. it's been a while since I've seen this film. I'd have to re-watch it before discussing it in more detail. I just recall the ending being a little flat and not fully explaining the ultimate outcome of the violin.
>>>You mean AFTER the ending. <<<
Exactly...
I watched it two days ago. I was disappointed with the ending.
Not a great film, but at least they tried to be original.
Did you like the violin love scene? lol...
Those two going at it while he's playing the violin is hilarious. :)
I liked it but yeah, 6.5/10 in my book. What would you give it?
An odd threesome. There was a famous divorce in which a musical instrument was involved in the couple's lovemaking.
I hated Victoria. She left Pope and then becomes upset when he finds another women.
7.5/10
"The Strumpet with the Trumpet!" Old headline just popped into my head. Roxanne Pulitzer was accused of sexual relations with her trumpet during divorce.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1990-07-06-9002250339-story.html
A trumpet? Odd fetish 🤔
I'm just glad I don't have any weird sexual desires... 😉
They did a TV movie and I vaguely remember hearing a trumpet behind closed doors during the sex scene.
Story update. Her rich ex-husband became poor and she became rich writing books and marrying money. Her rich 5th husband just saved her ex from destitution.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joselambiet/2011/11/15/roxanne-pulitzer-peter-pulitzer-bankruptcy-loan-mortgage/?sh=58dd9eeb591c
Interesting, that link is behind a pay wall, are there any other articles on this story?
I do somewhat remember it but wow, it's been a long time. And my memory is not the greatest ever.
And whats the name of the TV movie?
Strumpet with a Trumpet just popped into my head. I was ssurprised.Just Google Roxanne Pulitzer movie and it should popup.
old article:
"Reversal of Fortune: Thirty Years After Sordid Divorce, Roxanne Pulitzer Declared The Winner!
Despite it all, the celebrity-by-sex who became a household name in 1982 as she went through a nasty divorce from Palm Beach publishing heir Peter Pulitzer, takes care of her own!
Roxanne, now 60, recently had fifth husband Tim Boberg help stave off the bankruptcy and foreclosure on the citrus growing business that her ex Peter and the twins they had together have been running.
According to records in Okeechobee County, Fla., where the aging playboy Peter and 34-year-old Mac and Zac Pulitzer own a 800-acre farm, the Colorado management consultant Boberg now holds a $220,000-mortgage on the property!
Boberg also told the Palm Beach Daily News that he guaranteed another $1.3 million-mortgage that was about to default, and pays the $6,000-a-month interest on it. Boberg also extended the Pulitzers a $400,000 line of credit.
“We would have lost everything without him,” Mac Pulitzer told the Daily News. “The bank would have foreclosed on it all. He was our white knight.”
Peter Pulitzer, now 82, was slightly more mitigated.
“I want to thank Tim for any help he has given,” Peter Pulitzer said. “But this is not a subject that I want to talk about.”
The Pulitzers said their financial trouble began in 2006 when they lost 88,000 grapefruit trees to citrus canker. They’ve been besieged by debts and liens since.
It’s been an only-in-America turnaround for Peter and Roxanne Pulitzer, thirty years after a never-seen-before divorce that delivered sordid tales of drugs and threesomes and sex with trumpets.
It exposed Palm Beach’s high society as decadent before a national audience, something for which the old money ostracized Roxanne.
In 1982 Peter, the grandson of newspaper magnate Joseph Pulitzer, may have been worth $25 million, according to filings in the Roxanne divorce. She, meanwhile, walked away with $2,000-a-month for two years in support and was $700,000 in the hole because of legal bills.
She often credits the sale of several books she authored, including her best-selling autobiography The Prize Pulitzer, for helping her rise back up.
“It’s an ironic turnaround that no one would have expected,” said Boberg, Peter’s benefactor, when asked about his helping Peter out. “Someone (Roxanne) who was so destroyed was able to come back.”
Thirty years later, can Roxanne finally be declared the winner of what was once known as the divorce of the century?
“I never thought Peter would run out of money,” Roxanne told the Daily News. “The pendulum swings. It’s a different ending.”"
Stereo-types exist because mostly.... they are true! Yes, even those against my own race and gender. That is just the way it is. The Red Violin is such a lovely film, it is a shame you couldn't just enjoy it. I loved it from beginning to end..... "stereotypes" and all.
shareUhh your an idiot. Seriously that's what I think. Find a new hobby that doesn't involve your sharing your idiot opinion about anything.
shareI will agree that the protagonist role would be better fitting for a white guy, and a better actor for best results
Some gypsies are thieves just as some whites are thieves. For the purposes of the movie gypsies should rob the grave, this is what the script said, nothing wrong with that. Same goes for the Chinese.
It's not a racist movie, it's a good movie ruined a bit by bad choice of the protagonist whose should be white because he is moved, according to the script, by violin music not trap
You telling me none of those examples of those races ever existed? That every single one of them have been perfect, upstanding citizens and beacons of humanity?
Of course not. Take the most horrific example of any race, including white, and they’ve existed throughout history and still today. And if they’ve existed, they can be used in stories.
Movies like this — for the most part — aren’t saying every member of a particular race acts the way the characters are portrayed. They’re saying the characters in that story act that way.
Period!
So this cockeyed notion that you and others have that showing any negative depiction of a character — especially if people like that exist — is offensive to any race is rediculous.
So please STOP promoting censorship!
Movie reinforces old stereotypes. Unconscious bias.
share