Ensign Lestat's Film Log, 05/06/2013
Hollywood these days is all about adaptations, remakes and reboots. Films and stories that were revered as game-changers in the past, must now be dragged through the money-making mud-track and made into a piece of garbage with the same name.
However, with the development in technology, many previously unfilmable stories have become works of art. There are pros and cons to every story.
My initial reaction to the film adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's classic novel 'The Great Gatsby', was one of great apprehension. The trailer I saw worried me. This was certainly headed for grandiose, pretentious shallowness. With my head in my hands I wondered how the idea was greenlit.
But, then, I began reading the book. Truth be told, the great American novel focuses too much on being a love story. I'm not knocking the book, by the way. I would never dare. I just had a different expectation of it.
However, I concede that the melancholic tone of the book was evident. Writers of that era had been through a lot, and it changed their view of the world. The experiences they had always wound their way into their writing. As it did in 'Gatsby'.
Reading the book made me look at the trailer differently. Maybe, just maybe, this wouldn't be that atrocious.
With continued trepidation in my heart, I finally went to check out the film. Baz Luhrman's 3D extravaganza had already received a lot of opinions. Most, I could see, were negative.
I have not seen much of Baz Luhrman's stuff. My first encounter with his work was 'Moulin Rouge!'. We had run off to watch that film primarily because of Ewan McGregor. Looking young, beautiful and singing to his heart's content, the film easily found itself on the list of my favourite films. The family has watched it often. Surprisingly, when we caught it again earlier this year, we thoroughly enjoyed ourselves again. I then searched out the songs I liked (almost all) and listen to them often. So, if not an eternal classic, still a fun film.
I have also seen 'Romeo + Juliet' - that did not leave much of an impression on me. I liked the juxtaposition of Shakespeare's ancient dialogue against the modern world, but there's little else to recommend it.
And, let's not even begin with 'Australia'. That overlong film, which I thought was actually about Australia, was a love story that happened during a lot of events in Australia. I cannot remember that film. Nada. Zip.
When sitting for a Luhrman film, it is evident that grandeur, pomp and the surreal will be on display. Well, that is exactly what made 'Moulin Rouge!' so refreshing. At the same time, I can see why a lot of people wouldn't like it. Hollywood is entrenched in reality. Even its sci-fi and fantasy can't get away from it. So, with Luhrman's stuff, which has heart at its center, but the cinematography is about connectedness and swift-panning cameras, it can seem a little too different. I don't mind tinkering with the surreal, as long as the story makes sense.
'Gatsby' is very similar to 'Moulin Rouge!' in style. Actually, I was taken aback by how close the two were. After 'Australia', which was doggedly normal, this was a surprise. We are back to aerial cameras racing through the crowded streets to fast-forward our characters' arrival at a destination. The first act is replete with colour, grandeur and the grandiose. We are introduced to characters that are at once mysterious and at the same time bizarre. And, most importantly, the story is told in hindsight. Our audience stand-in, Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire), has been asked to put his story down on paper. Cue, familiar scenes of him at his type-writer, harking back to Christian (Ewan McGregor) in 'Moulin Rouge!'.
Another similarity to 'Moulin Rouge' is the use of modern, contemporary music in a post-WWII setting. Though the music is overwhelmingly Jay-Z, it certainly lent itself well to the mood, style and scenario. Though I won't be adding this soundtrack to my iPod, it's a stylish characteristic to the director's style that I hope doesn't die out.
The film is utterly faithful to the book. Another surprise, since most films couldn't be bothered to bring the page to life. Granted, the book is very visual and lends itself well to the medium of film. But, to use the actual dialogue meant an intrinsic connection to the book - the book really did come alive.
I was enjoying the film, till, as usual, the female characters were introduced. Carey Mulligan as Daisy just seemed to take me out of the film. She was probably doing an admirable job, coming across as an over-the-top waif-like butterfly. Elizabeth Debicki as Jordan Baker also appeared to be jarring. But that is actually the point of them. Carraway's view of these people are similar to our own. He is a young man, with once a promising ambition, now in a lonely city working as a stock broker. So, when he turns up at Daisy's mansion, everything is larger than life.
We are then introduced to Tom (Joel Edgarton), Daisy's husband. Everything is not kosher in the relationship, as becomes evident that evening.
As Carraway goes about his life, he often sees his neighbour's house alight with parties. When finally invited to one, and surprised to find that he is the only one probably ever invited, he meets his mysterious neighbour, Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). However, and this is one of the greatest issues with today's film world, Gatsby's introduction is ruined because we've already seen that introduction in the trailer.
Carraway is wandering around when a voice starts speaking to him. The audience knows the voice. Carraway asks to be introduced to the host, when the voice says that he is the host. Camera then zooms in on the youthful face of Gatsby. Voila! Except, there is no voila, because we know the face and what he looks like, because we've had to sit through the trailer about one hundred times already. Surely, there could have been a way to conceal this big reveal? In this day and age, watching a trailer means watching the best parts of the film. Nothing is left to the imagination. Hence, there is an overriding feeling of discontent when you actually pay money to watch a 2-hour feature film. It's always boring in the middle, because the development scenes weren't in the trailer, only the big action sequences were.
I shouldn't complain. But that scene just made me think. The director had one thought in mind, and that was completely ruined by the trailers, promos, and the like.
Anyway, we soon find out why Carraway was invited. Gatsby wishes to use Carraway's connections to meet Daisy, who he has a history with. And, from there, we begin a proper love story. An old-fashioned love story - a forbidden love story.
DiCaprio is wonderfully youthful in the film. His re-introduction to Daisy is hilarious, as he's all fingers and thumbs. At the same time, when he is on a business call, he is a completely different person. Forceful and firm.
First up, the 3D was unimpactful. I couldn't see it at all. Never came alive. Very disappointing.
Another point, and this occurred several times during some long shots in the initial scenes - the dialogue and the characters' lip movements were not in sync. I readily confess that this is poor direction, however, it did not distract from the experience. So much so, that I only belatedly recalled this while writing this review.
The entire cast does a great job in the film. I enjoyed Tobey's performance. Even though he has little to do, his melancholy comes to the fore. He and Leo have a believable chemistry, seeing that the two grew up together and continue to be friends. The fact that the two characters become somewhat dependent on each other is understandable. But an aura of mystery remains around Gatsby throughout.
The story is old; the idea is old. This rendition however, is fascinating. Staying so true to the book, that every word comes alive, makes this a great adaptation. Luhrman effectively channels the shallowness and melancholy of those youths. He shows us just how much of a sham some of the characters' emotions are. How some characters just never saw the real truth. It is a sad story, but feels real. We may not have embarked on such love affairs ourselves, but we have, often, misinterpreted someone's motives, actions, or the person in general.
In the end the story is an extremely sad one. Gatsby was barking up the wrong tree throughout. The only one who remains by his side, was the person who was least appreciated by him. This was a doomed story, and one way or other, things would always have ended in blood.
Despite my apprehension, and initial repulsion to the characters, I actually did enjoy the film. It was as refreshing as 'Moulin Rouge!'. The style and arc were similar, and yet stood up to the original story.
People have been divided about the film. They saw a deep meaning in the book, that they apparently couldn't find in the film. I do not know why this is. I felt the director effectively presented the deep-seated uncertainty of that generation, even while playing up the artificiality of the rich.
Of course, there's a problem if people don't like the style. You're just not going to get sucked into the film if you inherently hate Luhrman's style. Which I know a lot of people do. It's their opinion. I was apprehensive too. But, one has to open their mind. I did. And it liked what it saw. I don't like Carey Mulligan, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pan her portrayal because of that.
The trouble with reviews and reviewers is that they often forget that they are human. Humans are fallible. Sometimes you just don't want to like something. And you won't. My sister wanted to like 'Iron Man 3' - she ended up loving it. I was very skeptical about that film (I don't know why, maybe I'm getting old), and hence I moderately enjoyed it, but didn't feel much of a cinematic impact.
I know I wanted to love 'Thor', because I love Natalie Portman, think Chris Hemsworth is the embodiment of a Norse God and love Tom Hiddleston's deliciously relate-able Loki. I have now seen that film more than five times. Several of those times has been with my entire family, because we all love it. Others love 'Captain America', so be it. I didn't like that film, even though I love Chris Evans and think he is the embodiment of a Comic Book God.
That's life. That's us, humans. But, no, reviewers will sit on their pedestals and decree that such and such is not good because that's how they feel. There can't be objectivity, no matter how hard we try. So, yes, the 'Gatsby' has many failings, of which I can recall a few, it can still be enjoyed, and it still remains true to its source. To complain that the film is too rigid in its adaptation, is the same as complaining that a film is too liberal with its reimagining. Either way you lose.
Seems like most of this review has been more of a defense of the film. Perhaps I am a bit defensive about it. This 'The Great Gatsby' is different, but yet very much the same as its source material. Like it, love it, hate it, ignore it - I believe it's a valuable addition to cinema.
Hollywood these days is all about adaptations, remakes and reboots. Films and stories that were revered as game-changers in the past, must now be dragged through the money-making mud-track and made into a piece of garbage with the same name.
However, with the development in technology, many previously unfilmable stories have become works of art. There are pros and cons to every story.
 |
| Baz Luhrman's 'The Great Gatsby' |
But, then, I began reading the book. Truth be told, the great American novel focuses too much on being a love story. I'm not knocking the book, by the way. I would never dare. I just had a different expectation of it.
However, I concede that the melancholic tone of the book was evident. Writers of that era had been through a lot, and it changed their view of the world. The experiences they had always wound their way into their writing. As it did in 'Gatsby'.
Reading the book made me look at the trailer differently. Maybe, just maybe, this wouldn't be that atrocious.
With continued trepidation in my heart, I finally went to check out the film. Baz Luhrman's 3D extravaganza had already received a lot of opinions. Most, I could see, were negative.
 |
| The Spectacular, Spectacular 'Moulin Rouge!' |
I have also seen 'Romeo + Juliet' - that did not leave much of an impression on me. I liked the juxtaposition of Shakespeare's ancient dialogue against the modern world, but there's little else to recommend it.
And, let's not even begin with 'Australia'. That overlong film, which I thought was actually about Australia, was a love story that happened during a lot of events in Australia. I cannot remember that film. Nada. Zip.
When sitting for a Luhrman film, it is evident that grandeur, pomp and the surreal will be on display. Well, that is exactly what made 'Moulin Rouge!' so refreshing. At the same time, I can see why a lot of people wouldn't like it. Hollywood is entrenched in reality. Even its sci-fi and fantasy can't get away from it. So, with Luhrman's stuff, which has heart at its center, but the cinematography is about connectedness and swift-panning cameras, it can seem a little too different. I don't mind tinkering with the surreal, as long as the story makes sense.
'Gatsby' is very similar to 'Moulin Rouge!' in style. Actually, I was taken aback by how close the two were. After 'Australia', which was doggedly normal, this was a surprise. We are back to aerial cameras racing through the crowded streets to fast-forward our characters' arrival at a destination. The first act is replete with colour, grandeur and the grandiose. We are introduced to characters that are at once mysterious and at the same time bizarre. And, most importantly, the story is told in hindsight. Our audience stand-in, Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire), has been asked to put his story down on paper. Cue, familiar scenes of him at his type-writer, harking back to Christian (Ewan McGregor) in 'Moulin Rouge!'.
 |
| Nick Carraway recounts the unusual tale of his time with Gatsby. |
The film is utterly faithful to the book. Another surprise, since most films couldn't be bothered to bring the page to life. Granted, the book is very visual and lends itself well to the medium of film. But, to use the actual dialogue meant an intrinsic connection to the book - the book really did come alive.
I was enjoying the film, till, as usual, the female characters were introduced. Carey Mulligan as Daisy just seemed to take me out of the film. She was probably doing an admirable job, coming across as an over-the-top waif-like butterfly. Elizabeth Debicki as Jordan Baker also appeared to be jarring. But that is actually the point of them. Carraway's view of these people are similar to our own. He is a young man, with once a promising ambition, now in a lonely city working as a stock broker. So, when he turns up at Daisy's mansion, everything is larger than life.
 |
| Mulligan and Debicki. |
As Carraway goes about his life, he often sees his neighbour's house alight with parties. When finally invited to one, and surprised to find that he is the only one probably ever invited, he meets his mysterious neighbour, Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). However, and this is one of the greatest issues with today's film world, Gatsby's introduction is ruined because we've already seen that introduction in the trailer.
 |
| Leo DiCaprio as the titular Gatsby. He wasn't on-screen much, but looked young and comfortable in his role. |
I shouldn't complain. But that scene just made me think. The director had one thought in mind, and that was completely ruined by the trailers, promos, and the like.
Anyway, we soon find out why Carraway was invited. Gatsby wishes to use Carraway's connections to meet Daisy, who he has a history with. And, from there, we begin a proper love story. An old-fashioned love story - a forbidden love story.
DiCaprio is wonderfully youthful in the film. His re-introduction to Daisy is hilarious, as he's all fingers and thumbs. At the same time, when he is on a business call, he is a completely different person. Forceful and firm.
First up, the 3D was unimpactful. I couldn't see it at all. Never came alive. Very disappointing.
Another point, and this occurred several times during some long shots in the initial scenes - the dialogue and the characters' lip movements were not in sync. I readily confess that this is poor direction, however, it did not distract from the experience. So much so, that I only belatedly recalled this while writing this review.
The entire cast does a great job in the film. I enjoyed Tobey's performance. Even though he has little to do, his melancholy comes to the fore. He and Leo have a believable chemistry, seeing that the two grew up together and continue to be friends. The fact that the two characters become somewhat dependent on each other is understandable. But an aura of mystery remains around Gatsby throughout.
 |
| Tobey and Leo's off-screen chemistry rubbed off on their characters, who came across as believably trusting and close. |
In the end the story is an extremely sad one. Gatsby was barking up the wrong tree throughout. The only one who remains by his side, was the person who was least appreciated by him. This was a doomed story, and one way or other, things would always have ended in blood.
Despite my apprehension, and initial repulsion to the characters, I actually did enjoy the film. It was as refreshing as 'Moulin Rouge!'. The style and arc were similar, and yet stood up to the original story.
People have been divided about the film. They saw a deep meaning in the book, that they apparently couldn't find in the film. I do not know why this is. I felt the director effectively presented the deep-seated uncertainty of that generation, even while playing up the artificiality of the rich.
Of course, there's a problem if people don't like the style. You're just not going to get sucked into the film if you inherently hate Luhrman's style. Which I know a lot of people do. It's their opinion. I was apprehensive too. But, one has to open their mind. I did. And it liked what it saw. I don't like Carey Mulligan, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pan her portrayal because of that.
 |
| A Gatsby Party, precursor to the inevitable tragedy that will befall Luhrman's characters. |
I know I wanted to love 'Thor', because I love Natalie Portman, think Chris Hemsworth is the embodiment of a Norse God and love Tom Hiddleston's deliciously relate-able Loki. I have now seen that film more than five times. Several of those times has been with my entire family, because we all love it. Others love 'Captain America', so be it. I didn't like that film, even though I love Chris Evans and think he is the embodiment of a Comic Book God.
That's life. That's us, humans. But, no, reviewers will sit on their pedestals and decree that such and such is not good because that's how they feel. There can't be objectivity, no matter how hard we try. So, yes, the 'Gatsby' has many failings, of which I can recall a few, it can still be enjoyed, and it still remains true to its source. To complain that the film is too rigid in its adaptation, is the same as complaining that a film is too liberal with its reimagining. Either way you lose.
Seems like most of this review has been more of a defense of the film. Perhaps I am a bit defensive about it. This 'The Great Gatsby' is different, but yet very much the same as its source material. Like it, love it, hate it, ignore it - I believe it's a valuable addition to cinema.
Comments