Talk:The Red Violin

Title

Since this movie is in several languages (all of which appear in the title card), why is the French title given preference? I would understand if it is a legal issue for a movie from Quebec, but I hope it is for no other reason. -Acjelen 01:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Special issuses

I've written some text about this film. My english isn't good enough. So I don't add this text directly to the page. I hope somebody correct it and add:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Film is based on one main editing trick. Been effectively used, it makes you feel the gratest emotions. You fall in abyss of controversal empathies applying to heroes. One scene is repeated many times over the film line. Different views, different accentuated details. Scene intermits with stories from the past. Every single story builds some information about man or woman presented in the main scene. So, you see the final minutes of the whole film with best knowledge of any detail of whole story. Every person on the screen is congenial for you. You may hate him. You may like him. You overfilled with them all. Detective and mystical (very accuretly represented!) components raise your spirit more and more. And no more film brings you such experience. ru:Участник:Qkowlew

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Austrian?

Why is one of the film's languages listed as "Austrian"? I realize that Austria has some dialects which vary from standard German, but the term "Austrian" for the German spoken in this movie seems nonstandard. --Metropolitan90 July 8, 2005 05:45 (UTC)

Other >4 multi-language films

This seems incidental, but both Grand Illusion and Apocalypse Now have only four languages listed on IMDb (and only one each listed on their WP articles). Obviously four is not "more than four". I haven't seen Grand Illusion and couldn't make it through Apocalypse Now, so I can't say if IMDb is incorrect. -Acjelen 23:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the whole section. Apocalypse Now isn't "in four languages", the relevant dialogue is always in English even if there are occasional words in other languages; this is nothing like The Red Violin. Cop 633 01:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Historical figures?

Vienna

• Christoph Koncz - Kaspar Weiss
• Jean-Luc Bideau - Georges Poussin

Oxford

• Jason Flemyng - Frederick Pope
• Greta Scacchi - Victoria Byrd

What historical figures are these based on?-69.87.199.48 12:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Khe-khe. Nice freaks, not real persons. Georges Poussin is from present time. Look for him in Google, for example. Film provocates you to look for more links. Nice job. ru:Участник:Qkowlew

Poster image (woman / violin)

I'm trying to remember who it was, but a very early famous photographer pioneered that idea for a photo and I think the picture is trying to emulate the photo which I saw reproduced in an issue of Mental Floss. I'll have to remember who the photographer was. --Bobak 21:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're thinking of Man Ray. Here's a link. http://www.roland-collection.com/rolandcollection/section/18/568.htm --Mrs Scarborough 17:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Redviolin.jpg

Image:Redviolin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Pope's "presumably shattered" left hand

diff The last time we see Pope, he has the violin in his left hand, holding it by the root of the neck. In following scenes, there is an obvious patch in the wood of the neck root, looking very much like repaired bullet damage, commented on and re-done to a higher standard at the auction house. Without other motive plainly stated, the bits of cinematography mentioned above strongly suggest that the loss of the hand, or the loss of the use of it, is what prompts him to end his life. Comment? __Just plain Bill (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism re: length of description

Whomever put that criticism about the description being 'excessively long' has obviously NEVER seen this beautiful film. One can't talk about this move and keep it concise. It has many facet to it and to 'dummy' down the description would be absolutely CRIMINAL. Please keep it as is. Don't cater to people with short attention spans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.115.10 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

In my work on this article (expanding production, release, reception, etc.) I've tried to condense the plot summary. It's not just summarizing for low attention spans- needless detail can infringe copyright, and there were a lot of details. But you do have a point that this was a very tough one to condense. There's a lot of plot packed in. It's still a little bit longer than conventional, but "There is no universal set length for a plot summary" Ribbet32 (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The big reveal?

The revelation for the reason behind the violin's unique color was kept for the end of the film. Not just the scientific analysis, but the scene where it's creator, the Nicolò Bussotti character, in his grief, brings his dead wife {the Anna Rudolfi character) to his workshop and collects her blood to use in the varnish. He even creates a brush from her hair with which to apply it. It's the climax of the film and the reason why the tarot card reading follows the history of the instrument beyond the life of Anna Rudolfi. The theft is another, milder climax, then the rest is dénouement. In this article, the reveal occurs in the text in the earliest chronological section, Cremona, 1681, diluting it's significance. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Much better now in my opinion. Thank you! Wordreader (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Original research?

The “Plot” section of this article contains no citations. Is it original research? It is also perhaps too long and detailed. Additionally, based on my own original research (!), the identity of the violin which Morritz takes home at the end of the film is deliberately ambiguous. Stating otherwise is, I believe, an error. Design (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Plot sections on Wikipedia are never referenced; the film itself is the source for plots. You are incorrect about the ending. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The Film is the source for the plot, but the written summary here is an ‘original research’ interpretation. The assertion that Morritz leaves with the Red Violin is not supported by the film. The identity of the violin Morritz takes is ambiguous, and actions in the film can support the contention that he leaves with the London copy violin.Design (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, which "actions in the film can support the contention that he leaves with the London copy"? Just plain Bill (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m not here to fight! Why the ending is ambiguous. Here’s my take on it: No-one verbally confirms the identity of the violin Morritz leaves with. [EDIT: We see the two violins together very briefly when Morritz makes the swap, but with not enough detail for the audience to make their own visual judgement]. The identity is implied, open to interpretation, and ambiguous.

In the movie we have seen Morritz arrive at the auction house from multiple angles and views, each time we revisit we are given more information about the characters. This device is part of the unfolding of the movie, and is used to create suspense. Will he steal it? Will he get away with it? The very first time we see Morritz arrive he seems calm. The final scene is a ‘twist’ where the audience’s expectations are confounded.

As I recall in the final scenes: (1) Morritz is leaving Montreal to go home to NY to his wife and daughter, then changes his mind and rushes to the auction house, (2) where he swaps violins at the last minute. He is not calm. (3) Evan the tech (and Morritz’ confidant/accomplice) is shocked to see him arrive at the auction house. (4) Morritz is not struck by a car, while crossing the road. (5) He phones his wife and apologises for not being in contact.

(1)(2) and (3) are all consistent with Morritz arriving with the Red Violin or the London copy; which violin is not explicit. The haste and shock could be for either scenario.

(3) Evan assists Morritz in making the swap. Given that there are more people present and watching this violin than at any other point in the Montreal timeline, which is more likely: Evan hastily helping to return the Red Violin, or steal it?

(4) In the ‘mythology’ of the film, those who try too hard to hold onto the Red Violin usually meet a bad end. The violin holds a sort of curse. It’s not logical or consistent, but it is there in the film. Morritz is not struck by the car because he doesn’t have the Red Violin!

(5) Throughout the film Morritz has been lying to others that he is calling his wife when he is secretly researching the Red Violin. We learn at the end that he has not contacted his wife. The revelation of the blood in the finish of the Red Violin has shocked him. Perhaps he has learnt that relationships are more important that material possessions! The moral of the story! And he still has an excellent 19th C. violin to give to his daughter. Design (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a huge amount of original research and analysis, and completely novel. Everyone saw Morritz stole the Red Violin and this is observable in more reputable sources than the above [1] [2] [3] Ribbet32 (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there a director’s commentary, or similar, on the DVD? I’d be interested to know their take on this issue of the ‘ambiguous’ ending. Design (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I realize this is rather pointless since this is original research but I figured I would share. I recently viewed the movie again and came across this discussion on the talk page, so I figured I would go back into the film and see if I could actually find any evidence supporting either narrative, and I did realize one thing. Since the violins are deliberately designed to be identical, perhaps the only way of distinguishing them visually would be by the tuning pegs:

(1) At about the 1:59:55 mark (the scene where Morritz swaps them) we get a clear shot of both violins side-by-side. The G and D pegs of both violins are both oriented nearly perpendicular to the viewing angle (and parallel to the body of the violin), so no help there. However, the A and E pegs of the fake are roughly parallel to the viewing angle, while the A and E pegs of the real violin are roughly perpendicular to the viewing angle. This is perfect. Now we just need a clear shot of the tuning pegs for the violin that got put up for auction.

(2) At about the 2:00:36 mark (when the wall rotates) we get that exact opportunity. The A and E pegs are clearly both roughly parallel to the front of the violin, and roughly perpendicular to the body, just like the fake violin.

I mention this in case this discussion somehow evolves in the future, but since it's been two years without comment I doubt that will happen. -- Mocha2007 (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)