*edited to get the point across better...
"How would you characterize 'The Great Gatsby'?"
"He was... uh... great!"
- Rodney Dangerfield, Back to School
At this point you're either under 18, not a film goer, or an idiot if you haven't formulated an opinion about the work of Baz Luhrmann. He's such a hyper-stylized director that you're either in or your our. For those of us who are in, it seems that when all is said and done, the best slice of Baz-ness is the much hailed Romeo and Juliet -- the film that made Leo the Leo Titanic would solidify and also the film that had me wondering -- throughout Gatsby -- whether Claire Danes could have played Daisy Buchanan.
Considering this is an awards blog -- and considering the state of Luhrmann's Gatsby, I'd be remiss not to include Moulin Rouge! -- Baz' best picture nominee. There are those, like me, who are a tad obsessed -- loving the soundtrack, thinking it might be cozy to live in an elephant. But for as many who loved it, there were people who loathed it whether they liked R&J or not. But the truth of the matter is that Moulin Rouge is the best (modern) jukebox musical -- bar none. It's a form that catches a lot of hell -- but within the form, Baz delivered. I don't know how they'll ever bring it to the stage considering Satine drops dead at the end and who the hell wants to pay $500 to take the kids to see that? And yet I know that when Mr. Luhrmann brings it to the stage, it shall he yet another marvel.
The reason I know this is that Mr. Luhrmann -- I'm just going to sail right past Australia! if you'll permit me -- is clearly now -- and seemingly always was -- an opera director. Look back over the films. What we're watching is the progression of a man who loves spectacles -- and not just the brassy pair looming over the valley of ashes. The Great Gatsby proves that the fuel to Baz' fire is not excellent storytelling, it's not even great performances, it's explosive visuals with moments of high drama.
I'm going to meander about as I assess the film -- if for no other reason that the film itself meanders about -- inviting one to critique it thusly. So let me lay out a couple of quick clear statements about the Leo Gatz...
It's better than the Redford.
It's surprisingly faithful to the book.
It is ultimately a good movie.
If you're a Bazian, you may be incredibly happy... or you may have my conflicted reaction...
Call (516) MOU-LIN2 now for great offers on FitzGerald!!!
My gut reaction is that I'm a little surprised Baz "Rouged" it in. You're really just watching Moulin Rouge! - Nassau County Edition. The camera work, the dancing, the art direction -- all quite MR. When you strip the plot down to bare bones -- they comparison is even more obvious. There are very limited differences between this story and Moulin Rouge -- Christ, if they'd said "penniless" one more time, I would have started wondering if Gatsby was a sitar player.
At the same time, you come to the realization that what makes many pieces of American literature great is that they are, at their core, very simple stories. Our experience of them through the author's selected word choice is really what matters. As I was watching this film I couldn't shake the feeling of, "Well, yeah, that's it." that kept washing over me. The thing's faithful. And, to be honest, something about it feels -- despite the cartoonishness of it -- a bit more faithful than the Bob Evans.
What today's release proved, if anything else, is that Gatsby is one of those rare novels that simply can't be filmed. The loss of language destroys it. It didn't matter that you heard Nick Carraway speaking direct quotes about our being "borne back ceaselessly to the past." What struck was that the emotion is unfilmable. What are you going to do, show a rowboat tugging on its mooring? You know what the rhymes with? Boring.
You realize, too, that's not really a sentence whose saying aloud gives a sense of revelation -- unless we're talking about The Hotel New Hampshire.
Baz gussied it up and sent it down the runway. Millions of English Lit students rejoice!
However, I have to say that as a bona fide Fitzfan, it felt empty. True, it could be that there was something to the film's picture and sound process that gave the feeling of disembodiment. But for a novel from such a tragic figure, that has a love story many rank as one of the all time greats -- it just doesn't have a convincing heart. Again, that heart seemed a medium based loss.
The only performance that one need speak of is Leonardo DiCaprio... Gatsby himself.
It was interesting to see that there were shots of Leonardo DiCaprio that were phantoms of his Romeo. For me, those moments highlighted the fact that it has been a long time since Leo has been in a convincing romantic relationship on screen. His roles are always so damn tragic: he's always winding up unhappy and dead. Gangs of New York, Aviator, Departed, Blood Diamond, Inception, and Shutter Island weren't exactly laugh factories. Nor did they have many warm beds. One of the few times he's been momentarily happily married ended up being Revolutionary Road. The audience is estranged from watching Leo be romantic. It's a dangerous place for him to be -- especially when Ryan Gosling's strutting through every other picture, desperately in love. Obviously this kid's staying at the top of the pack for a long, long time. He carved himself out a leading man niche that's on par with Nicholson, Beatty, and Clooney (though it's been a while since George had a love scene, too). Leo'd be wise to show us he can have convincing on screen sex with someone who lives happily. Vera Farmiga, Tilda Swinton, and Kate Hepburn don't count as convincers. He needs to show us that he doesn't always have to be the isolated character -- unless he plans on being Eastwood -- the problem is Ben's already doing that.
Leo is still the king. Let's not forget.
No comments:
Post a Comment