Monday 20 May 2013

Film: 'THE GREAT GATSBY' (in 3D)

In 1974, when I first saw the Jack Clayton version, I had not yet read the novel. My impression then was that Robert Redford was portraying a sympathetic, yet misunderstood, character. Then I did read the book (and again at least twice more since) and discovered that the Gatsby persona is much more complex and questionable. In this new film DiCaprio captures his shifty and shady aspect perfectly, a facet which is obvious from near the very start, and soon afterwards revealed explicitly to be so.


Baz Luhrmann applies his trademark frenetic visuals as though playing to an audience suffering from attention deficiency syndrome. Everything is busy, busy, busy - completely at odds with the spirit of the short novel which, though it can be read comfortably in a single sitting, is rich and languid in temperament, consisting of beautifully structured prose, best enjoyed when gently savoured and pondered over. Not for nothing is it regarded as one of the peaks of western literature, some going so far as to maintain, not without some justification, that it's possibly the "greatest American novel ever written". Luhrmann's film seems to be based on the idea that the greatest fault a film version could have would be to bore the audience. He doesn't do that. And you know what? I really liked it!

One could go through and tick off which cast members were better in this new film than the 74 one, and vice versa, (I've never seen the 1949 Alan Ladd film) but it all comes down to personal choice. I would just say that I missed Karen Black, given a more substantial role as Myrtle in the earlier film. And then there was Joel Edgerton as Tom Buchanan in the new, sometimes looking alarmingly like Ricky Gervais! Carey Mulligan I thought was good and caught Daisy's vulnerable, flighty and troubled personality so well, very different from Mia Farrow who also was at least as good in an equally valid interpretation. Tobey Maguire as the colourless narrator was okay, but it's a rather thankless part. Why he had to narrate the entire film as a reminiscence, several years on, of a recovering alcoholic was, I think, a misjudgment, giving an unnecessary and distracting weight to a character who is essentially merely functional as a witness to the Gatsby/Daisy saga. It must have been some notion of connecting that character with the tragic reality of Scott Fitzgerald's own later,  alcohol-heavy life.
I'm not sure I cared for the frequent appearance of Fitzgerald's actual words on screen. I suppose it was as a kind of homage to the source work. It seemed needless when a huge proportion of the dialogue came straight from the novel anyway - but, not only that, I also became extra-conscious of those parts of the dialogue that had not made it into the final script. Several times I was waiting for certain lines to come up which had been lodged in my memory, but which just weren't to be voiced at all.
There are only a very  few extended scenes in the film. One of them, the longest, and near the film's end, is absolutely electric - the final confrontation between Gatsby and Buchanan, with Daisy, Carraway and Jordan looking on in utter horror as it inexorably escalates.

The music anachronisms didn't worry me so much (including the fact that Gershwin's 'Rhapsody in Blue' was actually composed shortly after the 1922 setting of the film/novel - I wouldn't have known that myself had I not read it!) but it's all par for the course with any Baz Luhrmann film.

Some of the reviews I've read have been openly hostile to this film, essentially on the grounds that its spirit is so far removed from the author's intentions. Although I agree with that, I must say that as a film I think it can more than stand on its own feet. As an entertainment in its own right I'm going to award this version of 'The Great Gatsby' a satisfyingly hefty........................7.5




12 comments:

  1. I think that's the very essence of Luhrmann. His work doesn't always make sense but it is usually entertaining in the extreme. I think it's entirely possible to not like his work and yet be entertained by it - does that make sense? How would you compare it as entertainment with Moulin Rouge - a film I love.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Craig, I think 'Moulin Rouge' his best to date. This comes close but doesn't out-do it.

      I don't know why people don't make more frequent comparisons of his films with those of Ken Russell's of the 1960s and 70s. The latter too were visually compelling in much the same way, no matter what you thought of the underlying content. Because of technical advances Luhrmann can be much flashier even than Russell was at his most outrageous.
      Whatever one thinks of Luhrmann I defy anyone not to be 'entertained' by his works. 'Boring' he is NEVER!

      Delete
  2. Hummm I am glad you liked it
    Nice to see a bit of balance..... Most critics hated it
    I will go and see it after this, a good recommendation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will be very surprised if you don't like it, J.G. - whether you know the novel or not, though I suspect that you DO. When you go please let us all know your opinion as yours is one that really counts.

      Delete
  3. I saw this because of Luhrmann and he did not disappoint. The water in the never-swum-in-swimming pool, the light at the end of Daisy's dock and the camera work at Gatsby's bacchanalian party as the camera climbs toward the ceiling and then descends through the crowd. Awesome!

    I'm happy to learn that you are aware of Ladd's "Gatsby." I always preferred it over the Redford version. These stars of the 40's and 50's always delivered and you knew what to expect. Loved Shelley Winters turn as Myrtle. FYI. The complete movie is available on YouTube if you wish to see it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one can deny that the film is a visual banquet, Paul, no matter what they think of other aspects of it. But I thought it all held together very well - and certainly worth a second viewing.
      My computer gets slower and slower and I so badly need a new model, but finance-wise that's out of the question. I'm afraid it would be pointless to try to view any film on YouTube or anywhere else. Even just short video clips keep sticking, sometimes freezing the entire computer for as long as half an hour or even more - and the sound is always out of sync anyway. But I'll bear in mind what you say about the 1949 version.

      Btw: 'Behind the Candelabra' IS getting a theatrical release here in a few weeks, which delights me no end. Has it been on TV there yet? If you've seen it I don't mind you giving me an inkling of your thoughts beforehand.

      Delete
  4. Michael Douglas gave an interview where he said that outside of the USA 'Candelabra' would be shown in movie theaters. Of course, I immediately thought of you.

    Sunday, May 26, is the big premier. Naturally, I am going to record it and keep it on my play list. Scott Thorson's book, because of the film, is being reprinted and is available on Amazon. I read that Scott, who is now called Jess, is currently living in prison. He will not be seeing the film as they do not have HBO in prison.

    Will let you know my thoughts on the film next week. They have been showing previews and it looks fab.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Paul. Looking forward to your review - it'll be a refreshing change to have you telling me about a film before I see it.
      L's relationship with Thorson is something I know very little about so I'd be watching this without preconceptions. I'll rely on you to tell me of any gross inaccuracies.
      Just read about Michael Douglas' tearful press appearance (may have been the same one you refer to) telling how this film lifted his fortunes in the wake of his throat cancer scare. Should make it even more poignant.

      Delete
  5. too much motion on a large screen makes me nauseated and this film was awful - many a time I thought 'there is no need to do this (zooming around) other than to give the 3D audience some fun and to make me go chunder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Point taken, Dr Spo, though while accepting that your experience of the film may have been "awful" I'm not so sure that that adjective could fairly be applied to the film itself. Certainly, i agree that there was no "need" for all the zooming which engendered the dizziness of which you speak, but such in-your-face flashiness is very much the style of Luhrmann, who employs that technique for just about every film he makes. One either takes it or one doesn't. I'm not convinced that the 3D version I saw was in any way superior to 'flat', and it wouldn't affect my decision to see it again - which I shall.

      Delete
  6. Thanks for this review. I know you look at things with a very critical eye. I'm looking forward to seeing this... probably in another six months when we can get it on pay-per-view!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope my reviews aren't OVER-critical, Mitch, though I will own to trying to be being honest about my very personal reactions which, by definition, must be subjective and in no way determines the positive or negative qualities of a particular film.
      I don't think it was necessary to see this film in 3D (a feature which I'm starting to find irritating in having to wear those specs) so catching this in pay-per-view should be okay. But I personally always prefer to see a film in the medium for which it was intended (in most cases) i.e. on a cinema screen.

      Delete