The Great Gatsby - Remake in the Works

[Stanley Doble]

The story requires Jay Gatsby, described as a young roughneck with a lot of animal magnetism, to try and take Daisy away from Tom Buchanan, the polo player, who looks like a magazine feature of a rich young athlete.

In other words in the picture above, that should be Tom Buchanan on the left and Jay Gatsby on the right.

But, once again, I missed the point. They are not making The Great Gatsby. They are making the 1,000,000th remake of the same hoky old piece of cheese they have been churning off the assembly line for 100 years. Don't worry nobody will know the difference except a few Gatsby fans and who cares about them? The point is to turn out another hunk of baloney we KNOW will sell.

Hope they didn't pay too much for the story rights if they aren't going to use any of it.

Notice I did not make a single mention of cars, clothes, or historical accuracy. Those things went out the window a long time ago.

Go on Mistergrey, tell me I have to lower my standards even farther. And when they hit rock bottom I have to dig a hole and lower them again.

 

[Stanley Doble]

In case the above post is too subtle, the point is they are taking one of the greatest novels of the twentieth century and throwing away all the good parts. Everyone in Hollywood must have a tin ear and a wooden heart.

If you still don't get it go to Youtube and listen to Israel Kamakawiwo'ole sing Somewhere Over The Rainbow then listen to Blink 182 sing the same song.

 

[MisterGrey]

If any book's status as the Great American Novel and its place in Western literary canon is dependent upon a pitch-perfect adaptation, then I would suggest that book is in bigger trouble than anything Hollywood could throw at it.

As it is, Gatsby has endured four adaptations/remakes, with this being the fifth. Guess what? It's still my favorite book. It's still a great book. It's still a part of the Western literary canon and many would still argue that it is the great American novel. No amount of inaccurate clothing, imperfect casting, or failure to accurately capture the spirit of the novel on film has hurt the book. If Baz Luhrman manages to accomplish decimating all of that, I suggest we hand him an Academy Award just for managing the harness the power to destroy literary legacies with 3D cameras and over-the-top musical numbers.

I also find it ironic that you would bring up Israel Kamakawiwo'ole rendition of "Somewhere Over The Rainbow" when it itself is a remake that many find inferior to Garland's original. Remember, YMMV.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

.
I saw the new movie "The Artist" last night ... and it puts the lie to every defense of Baz Luhrmann's upcoming "Great Gatsby" flick.


"The Artist" brilliantly captures the time (1927 to 1931), place (Los Angeles), and venue (Hollywood filmmaking) it's set in. Not by being 'period-perfect' (it isn't), but by taking all the right steps to evoke the heart of the period and milieu.


A wonderful, wondrous film ... and a lesson to all doubters: yes, it can be done, and you don't need the biggest budget to do it. Fitzgerald's "Gatsby" deserves (but won't get) "The Artist" treatment.


Imagine ... a feature-length silent film, made in 2011, that got last night's packed theater audience to give it a standing ovation. Was I in the twilight zone?

 

[Stanley Doble]

"A wonderful, wondrous film ... and a lesson to all doubters: yes, it can be done, and you don't need the biggest budget to do it. Fitzgerald's "Gatsby" deserves (but won't get) "The Artist" treatment."

Good to know I'm not alone. It warms my heart to hear.

How did they handle the sound track? I'll never forget an interview I read years ago with an old timer who said "we never did make silent movies. I used to watch them at the studio with no sound and think this one's no good. Missed the mark again. Then they added the music and it came to life."

Incidentally this brings up another question I have wondered about for years. Could a modern sound expert create a new sound track for an old silent movie, with appropriate sound effects, music, and even dub in dialog when the actors are talking? Maybe some old silents would be more enjoyable with a really good sound track. I don't mean modern music but something appropriate. It would take an artist to make the sound effects and music fade into the background and bring out the original film.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Incidentally this brings up another question I have wondered about for years. Could a modern sound expert create a new sound track for an old silent movie, with appropriate sound effects, music, and even dub in dialog when the actors are talking? Maybe some old silents would be more enjoyable with a really good sound track. I don't mean modern music but something appropriate. It would take an artist to make the sound effects and music fade into the background and bring out the original film.

Some of the best soundtracks for silent films were composed by the late Carl Davis. Here's an example.

[video=youtube;L7RCRlnsbe0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7RCRlnsbe0[/video]

 

[VintageBaroness]

Gabbing about Gatz

As I have noted elsewhere, what I sort of find irksome about the idea of Luhrmann's film (at this early juncture, without having seen and digested the whole kit and kaboodle), is that the very impulse to film Gatsby in 3D, to create costumes that seem to cater to "hip" mainstream American tastes, and, thus, to potentially lean the whole project towards more focus outer style/flash/marketability, seems completely at odds with the richer thematic substance of the Fitzgerald original. I.e., when Fitzgerald represented the carnivalesque and tawdry world of the 1920s glitterati, he was arguably doing so not to uncritically glamourize or aestheticize the monied classes; such imagery became central to his scathing attack on that social milieu that he saw "preying" on others. Arguably, if we are at any point meant to see the allure of the "green light," it is ultimately because Fitzgerald is pushing us to learn of its dangers, and of the dangers of looking at the surfaces of people and things without seeing the depths (or lack thereof underneath---and this is a novel filled with images of eyes, of glasses, mirrors...the narrator himself, "Nick," is a cracked pair of eyes through which the narrative is unfolded). I really hope Luhrmann's choice of 3D and costumes, etc, are employed with a similar thematic aim.

Now, regarding the clothing sneak peeks seen thus far: if this movie is really attending to the original text, rather than remaking the 70s adaptation of the original text, the costumers would be paying as much attention to conveying a clearer sense of quality to the clothing worn by these wealthy people. The text is METICULOUS at many points about exactly what the characters are wearing, which is expensive, meticulously custom tailored clothing. Gatsby, in particular, we are told, has clothing of the highest quality:
"Recovering himself in a minute he opened for us two hulking patent cabinets which held his massed suits and dressing-gowns and ties, and his shirts, piled like bricks in stacks a dozen high. ‘I’ve got a man in England who buys me clothes. He sends over a selection of things at the beginning of each season, spring and fall.’
He took out a pile of shirts and began throwing them, one by one, before us, shirts of sheer linen and thick silk and fine flannel, which lost their folds as they fell and covered the table in many-colored disarray. While we admired he brought more and the soft rich heap mounted higher — shirts with stripes and scrolls and plaids in coral and apple-green and lavender and faint orange, and monograms of Indian blue. Suddenly, with a strained sound, Daisy bent her head into the shirts and began to cry stormily.
“They’re such beautiful shirts,” she sobbed, her voice muffled in the thick folds. “It makes me sad because I’ve never seen such — such beautiful shirts before.” I'm not trying to be unnecessarily ruthless here, but the costumes I've seen so far do not look like they are made to such lavish standards.

In the end, I don't mean to be inappropriately ruthless here; at the same time, I won't deny that I'm longing for a movie that captures the thematic spirit of the book and the sartorial zeitgeist of the era in which Fitzgerald set his original text. If Luhrmann wanted to make the movie more relevant to contemporary audiences, why not set everything in the present day, rather than conveying a 60s/70s-does-2011 hipster costume aesthetic? Hmmm...at the end of the day, I'm ready to eat some (or all?) of my words once I've seen the final film. In the mean-time, forgive me as I arch my brow skeptically

 

[pjt113]

AMEN! Try coming up with some original thought or stories!

 

[matrioshka]

I may have to see this just to get new insight. I never could understand why a strong-willed guy like Jay Gatsby would expend so much effort to win the shallow heart of a veritable human vacuum like Daisy.

I'm now kind of wishing someone would do a remake of Tender is the Night. I actually like that book better than Gatsby (heresy). Possibly because I wasn't forced to read it in 10th grade English class.

I feel your pain. I was forced to read The Great Gatsby as well. My HS American Lit teacher was a Fitzgerald groupie. I should re read it, but the bile hasn't subsided yet...

 

[3PcSuit]

As I have noted elsewhere, what I sort of find irksome about the idea of Luhrmann's film (at this early juncture, without having seen and digested the whole kit and kaboodle), is that the very impulse to film Gatsby in 3D, to create costumes that seem to cater to "hip" mainstream American tastes, and, thus, to potentially lean the whole project towards more focus outer style/flash/marketability, seems completely at odds with the richer thematic substance of the Fitzgerald original.

Essentially, shooting in 3D in 2011 makes it impossible to shoot with anything other than digital cameras (not that 10% of the viewing public knows film's still used in theatres and film/television production anyway).

The extreme ugliness that this, almost by design, gives to the look of an image strongly inclines me to avoid watching digital films and television shows. Charlie Sheen drunkenly stumbling about on a sitcom set can warrant the extra cost of 35mm film, bnut a major Hollywood blockbuster set in a time when 35mm film was essentially all that was available for taking movies is ironic. Ditto on "Public Enemies," a movie made about '20s Gangsters shot in the style of an MTV skateboarding video, or "The Aviator" with such an excessive amount of digital manipulation done that it made the colors of 35mm film look more like an acid-induced nightmare than the colors of 2-strip, 3-strip technicolor.



That is my own pet pieve, though, and I'm not going to beat it over the head in every post. If something looks "funny" about the movie, even if you se it in 2D, it's the director pocketing the extra money the production saved on filmstock. Then again, film is like a 'typewriter' even here. Getting 100% period-accurate clothes is worth every extra effort, but God forbid buying a roll of 35mm film and checking the "scan to CD box." A camera phone, after all, looks great with a vintage outfit [huh]



I agree with the comment made last page about "not seeing the movie with fellow Fedora Lounge members."



Ultimately movies are never completed or perfected, they're only abandoned. . .

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I agree with the comment made last page about "not seeing the movie with fellow Fedora Lounge members."

You're just as grumpy as we are!

See the movie with a fellow Fedora Lounger. It would be fun: you'd gripe about all the digitalness, while he or she would moan about the Banana Republicness. A match made in heaven!

 

[swinggal]

Yes, I have seen some of the costumes, hair and make-up and have to say that I am very unimpressed. Being an Aussie, I love Baz, but I'm am VERY over the whole idea of modernising the look of old classics to 'appeal to a new adudience'. Isla Fisher's ensemble is such a classic 1970's film interpretation of 'how people dressed in the 20s'. Bleh.

 

[Absinthe_1900]

.

On another website, two Fedora Loungers have cracked this nut. They figured out Baz Luhrmann's modus operandi.


You see, the new version has no intention of 'channeling' the 1920s directly. It is, instead, a very deliberate homage to the 1974 film version. What you'll see on the screen is a 2011 version of the 1974 twist on the 1920s.


Oh what a clever boy that Baz Luhrmann is. So clever, it makes me want to puke.

I had a feeling that would be how this one turns out.

Time to find Mr. Creosote's bucket...

 

[swinggal]

As I said before....bleh.

 

[Mrs Chaddsley_Corbett]

a little unrelated i know but Madonna has gone all out regarding costuming, in her film about the abdication Crisis

After finishing the script and starting work on casting and production, Madonna realised that the budget of film was going to be pretty high. Simpson's character had around 80 costume changes with dresses by designers like Balenciaga, Christian Dior, Madeleine Vionnet and Elsa Schiaparelli. Most of the actual dresses were kept in museum archives, hence unobtainable to Madonna. Instead, many of the couture houses offered to create the dresses for her.[7] While casting for the film, she asked for a Michael O'Connor wedding dress, in display at the National Museum of Costume in Scotland, for a scene where Riseborough would wear it.[12] National Museum of Costume general manager Margaret Roberts said they were happy to send the dress to Madonna. "Our Marriage in the Movies exhibition is packed with fabulous gowns that tell a story not only about the history of the period they represent, but also of Hollywood glamour and style," she said. [...] This is a dress that was made for the movies, so when we received the request from Madonna's production company, we were only too happy to oblige."[12] Other fashion designers working for the film included John Galliano and Issa, who provided clothes, Pierre Cartier the jewels, and Stephen Jones the hats.[9]
She also enlisted costume designer Arianne Phillips to create the dresses for the film. The costumes designed were a combination of real vintage pieces, others were remade based on patterns that were obtained out of the museum archives, and the rest had to be freshly made.[7] In an interview with W magazine in November 2011, Philips explained that she "started doing research in 2009, a year before [W.E.] began filming... To me, Wallis Simpson was a style icon, but I didn’t know she was a couture client well before she met Edward. She was also a hungry whore for jewelry. Edward gave Wallis jewelry to make her feel royal. My first task was figuring out how to re-create those famous gifts."[13] Madonna had sent a box of her research to Phillips, so that the designer could get a head start for the project.[14] The singer understood the kind of attention to detail needed to create the costumes, drawing from her own garments which included couture. Phillips then researched the cloths on display at fashion departments of the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Costume Institute in New York, the Musée de la Mode et du Textile in Paris and the Victoria and Albert Museum in London.[14] She then went to Los Angeles, where retailer Doris Raymond, from The Way We Wore had opened up her personal library of 1930s couture. There she also Phillips watched old newsreels from the University of California archives.[14] Once filming started, the designer moved in Madonna's guesthouse in London, where they would watch the shot reels together and scrutinize the dresses.[14] Phillips established contacts with designer labels like Cartier and Van Cleef & Arpels to replicate a cross bracelet and ten other pieces.[13] For the gowns, undergarments, and dresses needed for the 60 costume changes in the film, Phillips scoured the archives of Vionnet and Schiaparelli; then with the cooperation of both houses she redesigned Simpson's clothing. The first dress in which Riseborough appeared as Simpson in the film was a re-creation of the dress owned by Simpson herself. Phillips decked the dresses with diamond bow brooch at the neck and paired with organza skirts, and was able to obtain duplicates for some of them from Cos Prop, a costume shop in London.[14]
Some of the pieces that the duchess actually ordered I thought were hideous. Those wouldn’t work for the movie, so we modified and invented. Wallis wasn’t pretty; she was handsome, at best. In England, it was noted over and over how unattractive she was. But Wallis was a lot of fun—very entertaining. She had a freedom to her that was definitely reflected in her clothes; the duchess was all about presentation. And that became her refuge, and her prison.[13]
According to Phillips, Edward's choice of cloths were specific and he rebelled against what his father dictated as the protocol for dresses. He used to wear navy blue tails, rather than black ones, as formalwear.[14] The designer was able to see the original ones he owned at the Costume Institute. To re-create the look, Phillips contacted luxury goods company Alfred Dunhill who had an understanding of bespoke tailoring available in London's Savile Row.[14] They provided Phillips with tailor, wools and fabrics from the mills that had created the original fabrics for Edward himself. Phillips tailored the baggy looks of the 1930s suits, to make them appealing for the contemporary audience. In the end, all the costumes were hand-made, with a total of 60 costumes being create
d for Simpson and 30 for Edward.[14]

WIKIPEDIA

 

[Marc Chevalier]

.
UPDATE:


A short video preview of Baz Luhrmann's "The Great Gatsy" has just been released:



[video=youtube;IMrQrBCK3Og]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMrQrBCK3Og[/video]

 

[rue]

:rofl:

 

[Marc Chevalier]

.
Better than I thought it'd be, actually.

 

[Mrs Chaddsley_Corbett]

[video=youtube;_O0wW_efh4w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O0wW_efh4w[/video]

 

[Marc Chevalier]

.
Sizzlin'!