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.

[–] perorewen 16 years ago

Righ!!
I don't understand the problem either.

**********
Hugs...

[–] It_Is_Minus_9 16 years ago

Amen to that, Pianofingers. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Wackos everywhere, plague of madness.

[–] svanatter 16 years ago

Uh, some of us feel he "learns/grows" and, therefore, breaks the chain (of theft and some misfortune).

Scott V.

P.S. Anyone see "No Country for Old Men"?

[–] CindyH 12 years ago

Actually the stories leading up to the theft are exactly like his theft. In fact, it was stolen from a grave no less. His stealing the violin will only add more mystery and learning for the years to come.

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

[–] svanatter 12 years ago

That is one way of looking at it. And, so, from your point of view it must make perfect sense. There, of course, are other (perfectly valid, perfectly logical) ways of looking at it. This, even taking into account what the director has written/spoken about on the topic. [Which I posted a couple years ago.]

[–] svanatter 16 years ago

Yes, this explanation (beautiful, insightful, and ingeneous) explains away the problem that SOME have with 'theft.'

I don't have problems with the 'theft' -- I just like a more Zen-like interpretation/growth on his part. (And I like being contrarian.)

[–] tennismenace 16 years ago

Awesome words, again, Dato.

You must be a writer, or a philosopher. Your words have power to them. Thanks for the analogies to make your point so crystal clear.

Well done, and thank you.

- The Truth is Out There, and I found it in Christ!

[–] sabar-1 16 years ago

The only problem I had was that I was envisioning an ending with it back in the grave of the boy at the monastery. Since that didn't happen, I like the ending.

Rachel

[–] mlaiuppa 14 years ago

Well, first, if he had stolen it, Moritz would have suffered the same fate as all previous thieves. Or his daughter would have.

But I don't believe he stole it. I believe he did switch it and in the end he switched them back and it was the Pope copy that he legitimately purchased that he was taking home with him for his daughter.

[–] chad-sobodash 14 years ago

Am I the only one who thinks that the overlying themes of reincarnation make it acceptable for Morritz to steal the violin? The way I viewed it, Anna's soul was trapped in the violin, which found its way to the reincarnation of her lost child (who was supposed to be a great violinist) the way it was originally intended to, over and over. However, because the reincarnated soul of Niccolo was absent (as he was absent when she died in childbirth) from the lives of each of these reincarnations of her child, the death of her child was doomed to repeat itself, and she would go on searching for a time when her whole family could be together. Morritz does not play on the violin at any point, but recognizes Anna's soul within, indicating that he is the reincarnation of Niccolo and, at the end is finally on his way to take her home, where Anna will find the family she desires.

At least, that's what I think. The curse is lifted because Anna has finally found her family. If it were your generic, run-of-the-mill curse, then why would all those shown passing the violin down to others not be effected by it? The violin changes hands almost constantly in the film, but we are very specifically drawn to these people.

That's my interpretation.

[–] facebookblows009 12 years ago

Morritz did the right thing in stealing the Red Violin. He saw the red violin as a beautiful piece of art that is not about money.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]