the great gatsby
26 Jun 2013 03:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mayoraaseiIt's rare that I watch a movie after which I end up agreeing with probably every review I've come across, both positive and negative.
It's been probably 10 years since I read the book (feel tremendously old at the thought). I remember liking no one in it, except maybe the narrator Nick, but oddly enough I enjoyed the book. In a way the course of the tragedy ran a bit like The Chocolate War: shit may hit the fan but it never falls on the rich and powerful. I remember disliking Daisy a lot, I remember her mostly for her superficiality and weakness that went unpunished. Gatsby was a genius and a fool, and a hopeless romantic who fell in love with a dream that wasn't worth the effort.
The movie made Daisy a lot more easier to sympathise with, or perhaps I hadn't bothered to read the nuances properly. I never thought that Daisy had any real feelings for Gatsby, attracted simply to his huge estate, the endless parties, the "beautiful shirts" and so on, the love of being loved. Hence, when beckoned to leave the security of her life, she hesitated and chose instead to break Gatsby's dream. The movie suggests more, that she perhaps did have some sort of love for Gatsby, that the five years had mattered...though that might just be Nick's wishful thinking.
Nick is a little too...unjaded in this movie, if that were possible. That said, I much prefer Tobey Maguire here than as Peter Parker. LOL.
A lot of people really enjoyed Dicaprio's portrayal, but something was off for me. To begin with, his accent was jarring, an uncomfortable mix of almost-British but mostly-American, yet not in that vintage way in yon days of ole. Then...perhaps I'm remembering my Gatsby wrong, but as talented as Leo is, I wasn't convinced. I wasn't convinced that Nick could be convinced, that the jaded man could look back on this version of Gatsby and say with heartfelt sincerity that he was the most hopeful man he was ever likely to meet. This is because despite that purest, dearest of dreams, Gatsby was a man with faults, yet the movie had opened with the lines - and hence challenged us to accept - that he was the only one in the story above reproach. The movie, and Leo, really wasn't able to redeem Gatsby from the lies and the falsehood and what seems like the overarching vanity of his actions by giving the audience the conviction of his vast imagination and the vitality of his dreams.
Then there are the complaints of Luhrmann's directorial style, and boy are there many, and many I agree with. There is a lot of glitz and glamour and head-spinning shots, but it doesn't give you much breathing space to appreciate the depth of the emotion. This matches the superficiality of the age he's trying to project and perhaps of the story as well, but sometimes it's hard to be convinced it was intentional. It is as gimmicky as Joe Wright's Anna Karenina and I say that without compliment. Gatsby's first appearance was made into a dramatic revelation resplendent with fireworks set to Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue. The last time I heard that song was in a ridiculously joyous rendition by the S Orchestra in Nodame Cantabile, and I just could not take that scene seriously. The reunion between Daisy and Gatsby was hilarious and sweet but so tonally different from the rest of the movie that it seemed to have dropped in from a chick-flick.
The style is show and tell, and by that there is a lot of show and a wholly unnecessary amount of tell. As people have pointed out, many scenes are accompanied by Maguire's reedy-voiced narration. There is little regard for subtlety and little need for interpretation. Everything is presented on a platter with a commentary and a detailed placard. The friggin, pardonnez mon Francais, narration even appears as typed text on the screen. A less patient audience may feel rather insulted.
It is a spectacle, an extravaganza, a high octane vehicle of glamour and whatever else the media have called it. It is something to be seen once and forgotten, and let the book be remembered instead.
It's been probably 10 years since I read the book (feel tremendously old at the thought). I remember liking no one in it, except maybe the narrator Nick, but oddly enough I enjoyed the book. In a way the course of the tragedy ran a bit like The Chocolate War: shit may hit the fan but it never falls on the rich and powerful. I remember disliking Daisy a lot, I remember her mostly for her superficiality and weakness that went unpunished. Gatsby was a genius and a fool, and a hopeless romantic who fell in love with a dream that wasn't worth the effort.
The movie made Daisy a lot more easier to sympathise with, or perhaps I hadn't bothered to read the nuances properly. I never thought that Daisy had any real feelings for Gatsby, attracted simply to his huge estate, the endless parties, the "beautiful shirts" and so on, the love of being loved. Hence, when beckoned to leave the security of her life, she hesitated and chose instead to break Gatsby's dream. The movie suggests more, that she perhaps did have some sort of love for Gatsby, that the five years had mattered...though that might just be Nick's wishful thinking.
Nick is a little too...unjaded in this movie, if that were possible. That said, I much prefer Tobey Maguire here than as Peter Parker. LOL.
A lot of people really enjoyed Dicaprio's portrayal, but something was off for me. To begin with, his accent was jarring, an uncomfortable mix of almost-British but mostly-American, yet not in that vintage way in yon days of ole. Then...perhaps I'm remembering my Gatsby wrong, but as talented as Leo is, I wasn't convinced. I wasn't convinced that Nick could be convinced, that the jaded man could look back on this version of Gatsby and say with heartfelt sincerity that he was the most hopeful man he was ever likely to meet. This is because despite that purest, dearest of dreams, Gatsby was a man with faults, yet the movie had opened with the lines - and hence challenged us to accept - that he was the only one in the story above reproach. The movie, and Leo, really wasn't able to redeem Gatsby from the lies and the falsehood and what seems like the overarching vanity of his actions by giving the audience the conviction of his vast imagination and the vitality of his dreams.
Then there are the complaints of Luhrmann's directorial style, and boy are there many, and many I agree with. There is a lot of glitz and glamour and head-spinning shots, but it doesn't give you much breathing space to appreciate the depth of the emotion. This matches the superficiality of the age he's trying to project and perhaps of the story as well, but sometimes it's hard to be convinced it was intentional. It is as gimmicky as Joe Wright's Anna Karenina and I say that without compliment. Gatsby's first appearance was made into a dramatic revelation resplendent with fireworks set to Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue. The last time I heard that song was in a ridiculously joyous rendition by the S Orchestra in Nodame Cantabile, and I just could not take that scene seriously. The reunion between Daisy and Gatsby was hilarious and sweet but so tonally different from the rest of the movie that it seemed to have dropped in from a chick-flick.
The style is show and tell, and by that there is a lot of show and a wholly unnecessary amount of tell. As people have pointed out, many scenes are accompanied by Maguire's reedy-voiced narration. There is little regard for subtlety and little need for interpretation. Everything is presented on a platter with a commentary and a detailed placard. The friggin, pardonnez mon Francais, narration even appears as typed text on the screen. A less patient audience may feel rather insulted.
It is a spectacle, an extravaganza, a high octane vehicle of glamour and whatever else the media have called it. It is something to be seen once and forgotten, and let the book be remembered instead.
