The Great Gatsby - Remake in the Works

[Captain Lex]

Well, the metastatement is one that, for instance, Redford's Gatsby failed to materialize.

I agree with all the good points made by Mr Jones, with an addendum: the criticism that DiCaprio "is hopeless, a little boy in his first After Six tuxedo," is in fact quite misdirected: this is Gatsby's character exactly, and Leo captures. We've seen Leo play refined, and he can do it. This is Leo playing a poor actor play refined.

Also, I disagree that Toby Maguire was effective. I thought his delivery painful beyond measure, but I soon ignored it.

 

[dhermann1]

Fitzgerald's Princeton, Edmund Wilson, said this about Scott's first successful novel, "This Side of Paradise". I think it applies to this movie. “I have said that This Side of Paradise commits almost every sin that a novel can possibly commit: but it does not commit the unpardonable sin: it does not fail to live. The whole preposterous farrago is animated with life."

 

[ButteMT61]

All of the explanations in the world don't make this a good or even decent movie. I don't even care about all the mismatched clothing and incorrect for the era cars. The music was asinine and it was a CGI mess. Thank god we passed on the 3-D. I'd have walked out.

 

[chanteuseCarey]

Hate to disagree and not join in on all the criticism, but I and my two teens just saw it. They had both read the book in HS, my son just weeks ago.

We all liked it.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

Fitzgerald's Pronceton, Edmund Wilson, said this about Scott's first successfyl novel, This Side of Paradise. I think it applies to this movie. “I have said that This Side of Paradise commits almost every sin that a novel can possibly commit: but it does not commit the unpardonable sin: it does not fail to live. The whole preposterous farrago is animated with life."

Wonderful quote!

People so often accumulate predjucies in life and the suffer the tyranny of obsessive dismissal. We should be predisposed to like and drink fully from the cup that is presented. This is, coincidentally enough, the bright side of Gatsby's nature.

Personally, I don't care if someone likes the film or not. What I love to see is someone with their own opinion.

 

[MarkJohn]

I would rather take a chance on a movie that polarizes opinion, than one where almost everyone says “yeah, it was okay” I am a Marmite lover, if that reference means anything outside the UK ... Other opinions can be useful, as going to the cinema is not a cheap experience, and we have to find babysitters etc. so I do need to feel we will get something out of the film... its not as easy as putting a disc in the player. However critics can be arrogant, and talentless {frustrated} individuals, who relish the negative to be provocative and controversial, focusing attention upon themselves.

I would rather come here and read the opinions of other loungers to gauge opinion [as a reasonable and decent bunch]... which so far suggests maybe I should see the film, rather than avoid... anyone free to babysit?

 

[ButteMT61]

Actually, I'd have been mad had I NOT seen it. Now how's that for not making sense? One place, different times - anachronisms galore. If you like that sort of thing it's fine I guess. Me, I went in spite of the bad reviews it got. I was hoping to be surprised - sadly I wasn't pleasantly surprised. But I can see how some would like it...no gripes with anyone liking it.

 

[Captain Lex]

I generally find that when I defend the film, I am defending it is an adaptation of the book - which, I must admit, I did not particularly care for - or I am defending its performers or broad creative decisions. When I criticize the film, however, I am generally criticizing it as a film: it is entirely lacking in unity, exploits the 3D gimmick in many unsavory ways, and is bracingly unevenly paced. It will not long be remembered by the annals of film history; I would say everyone who's been praising the film and everyone who has been criticizing it have been correct about their reasons. It is now up to you to decide what's more important.

 

[sheeplady]

Saw it last night, mainly because a group of girls I know were seeing it. It was interesting. I feel like it didn't do justice to some of the themes of the book- the extreme recklessness of the rich and their disregard for anyone. I did like that they used some of the original dialog and the ending lines. I thought the use of the CGI was a little over done, and I think it's going to date the film in a few years. I thought the actors did a good job... but something just seemed off. Maybe it was the historical inaccuracy, the focus on visuals, all the CGI, the small changes in the script that were trying to make things easier for the audience to understand (such as trading Myrtle's diamond dog collar for a string of pearls). It just didn't gel for me.

Gatsby physically reaching for the light seemed forced and was another detail that was over-emphasized so that the audience would "get" the symbolism. One of the girls I saw it with suggested that the entire film seemed to focus on cheapening the characters and the stories, treating the audience as too dense to understand the nuanced symbolism. For instance, she cited Myrtle's pearls and her dressing like a hooker, as if we couldn't make the connection to Tom being her lover and Myrtle being of looser morals.

Leonardo DiCaprio's use of the term "Old Sport" grated on my nerves. Everybody who cares to look knows that Gatsby is a poser, from the uncut pages in his library to his fanatical stories of his wealth. But he's a pretty good poser, which is why he has an aura of mystery around him. DiCaprio seemed to focus on using the term "Old Sport" as an indicator of his non-belonging in the world of the wealthy.

I'd give it an overall rating of "eh, it's OK." I ended up not paying for the film because there were sound problems in the theater during the first 10 minutes and we got a free voucher. That made me happy.

 

[Chasseur]

I'd give it an overall rating of "eh, it's OK." I ended up not paying for the film because there were sound problems in the theater during the first 10 minutes and we got a free voucher. That made me happy.

I'll have to second your thoughts and remarks on the film. I saw it a couple of weeks ago and a group of us made it fun by dressing up and going out for drinks after. Our dressing up and having drinks was more fun that the film...

Its not the train wreak that I thought it would be, but I'm not sure its more than just watchable. Some of the visuals were well done, and it was great they kept so much of the narration and dialogue of the novel. However, much of the CGI and things were overdone and will date very quickly.

I might one of the few people who normally likes Toby MacGuire but he seemed to be sleep walking or on Valium in the film. DiCaprio who again I normally like looked the part but couldn’t deliver the lines. In theory (and perhaps in another director's hands) he would have been the perfect Gatsby. He looks great in that pink suit at the end, but as you well said even though he’s a poseur or phony, but Gatsby is supposed to be a pretty good phony. DiCaprio just sounded too fake to be believed. His delivery was less his excellent job at being Howard Hughes and more like that high school acting he did in J. Edgar. Mulligan, as Daisy, came off more much more sympathetic than she is in the book. In contrast, I thought Debicki as Jordan met the sexy art deco image I had of her from the book.

Joel Edgerton, the Australian actor playing Tom, seemed again off for me and kept losing his accent whenever he got excited. In addition to being a rich, patrician bully, I always felt that a large part of Tom was the former high school/college athlete who was still living in his glory days in his mind. That aging former jock part of his personality did not really come through for me. Contrary to my previous thoughts the version of Mrytle somewhat worked for me, through stylistically they were channeling some cross between a 1950s gangster moll crossed with a 1920s flapper from a historically themed adult film for her costume.

As much as I like Amitabh he was really miscast as Wolfsheim… what a waste.

One thing that really bugged me, and I’m not that PC of person, is I felt this film had some of the worst stereotypical representations of African-Americans I’ve seen outside of a rap video. Every black male plays the trumpet in the background or is pimped out, every black woman is a gyrating dancer. The part in the film (that is also in many of the trailers) where they are all driving into town and pass by the “party car” full of people drinking and dancing made my whole group burst out laughing at the offensive absurdity of it. Normally these things do not bother me much but somehow in Luhrmann’s hands it seems offensive. But that could just be me.

 

[scotrace]

Seeing it this weekend, with an open mind, thanks to many of you who say its not so terrible.

 

[sheeplady]

One thing that really bugged me, and I’m not that PC of person, is I felt this film had some of the worst stereotypical representations of African-Americans I’ve seen outside of a rap video. Every black male plays the trumpet in the background or is pimped out, every black woman is a gyrating dancer. The part in the film (that is also in many of the trailers) where they are all driving into town and pass by the “party car” full of people drinking and dancing made my whole group burst out laughing at the offensive absurdity of it. Normally these things do not bother me much but somehow in Luhrmann’s hands it seems offensive. But that could just be me.

I'd agree, and maybe this is just my lack of knowledge about racial relations at that time, but it seemed totally unrealistic that Tom had so many Black/African American servants waiting on his guests. Having been in homes were there are servants in the Northeast, very few of them had Black and African American servants, and certainly there was a preference for having white servants who waited on guests among the most racist of them. (In other words, non-white servants were out of sight.) I think the director missed the interpretation of Tom's line about the superiority/inferiority of people and races- he's not just talking about a modern interpretation of race as in Black/African American, Latino, Asian, White. He's talking about class too- the idea is that people from "good" families (read rich) are of a superior race to those who are from "poor" families. He is so racist and classist that he doesn't even see anyone as human unless they meet his standards of old money- yet alone the less than human other races. He's a bigot towards everyone.

 

[saxismyaxe]

Being a Jazz musician myself, the abominable and out of place modern music score ruined the whole thing for me, among other issues. They got more wrong with this incarnation than they did right.

I very much prefer the 70's version in all respects.

 

[Kirk H.]

It bothered me at first too, but I think the director was trying to put the jazz age into perspective for a modern audience. I like the jazz of that era but for those who are not familiar with that era the music sounds old (As I have heard some complain while I cringe) One of the fashion crazes of the 1920’s was a navy blazer and grey slacks for men and it was considered daring and non-traditional. Fast forward several decades and that was common place being worn by middle aged and older men (mid-life crisis or glory days being relived, who knows) to where by todays’ standards it is very conservative. So I feel that the director was just trying to put the jazz age daringness into a perspective that the modern hipsters could relate to.

 

[Fading Fast]

It bothered me at first too, but I think the director was trying to put the jazz age into perspective for a modern audience. I like the jazz of that era but for those who are not familiar with that era the music sounds old (As I have heard some complain while I cringe) One of the fashion crazes of the 1920’s was a navy blazer and grey slacks for men and it was considered daring and non-traditional. Fast forward several decades and that was common place being worn by middle aged and older men (mid-life crisis or glory days being relived, who knows) to where by todays’ standards it is very conservative. So I feel that the director was just trying to put the jazz age daringness into a perspective that the modern hipsters could relate to.

I agree that that is what the director was trying to do, but it is a sloppy and pandering way to do it. Instead, the movie should have been honest to the period with clues and guidance given to the audience to put in the necessary context. For example, something could have been planted - background advertising from a clothing manufacturer or an off-handed comment about the "riskiness" of the blue blazer - grey slacks outfit - to educate a modern audience without sacrificing the authenticity of the time period. It might not be picked up by everyone on the first viewing, but the audience would intuitively understand that they are watching a different era. Then, the audience with have a richer experience of time travel, historical accuracy and, hopefully, a fuller appreciation of the book. This is harder to do, both for the director and the audience, but the outcome is deeper and will hold up better over time - the flash of this production will be dated and quickly boring.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

If you've seen Baz Lurhman's work; say, "Romeo & Juliette" or "Mulan Rougue" then you would have to recognize that this film was pretty tame! I was expecting Gatsby to burst into song at any moment, retro-fitting pop music into the background of Gatsby's world as the players danced their way through some pop nonsense. That is what many Luhrman fans were expecting. What he did was actually very straightforward in respect to the telling.

Imagine if Tarantino had decided to take this on? What expectations would that have raised? Would we criticize the snappy dialogue or graphic violence? Or Speilberg; his probably would have been more emotional. (I actually think that I'd like to see that!) It's not just Gatsby, but Lurhman's Gatsby.

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

Saw it last night, mainly because a group of girls I know were seeing it. It was interesting. I feel like it didn't do justice to some of the themes of the book- the extreme recklessness of the rich and their disregard for anyone. I did like that they used some of the original dialog and the ending lines. I thought the use of the CGI was a little over done, and I think it's going to date the film in a few years. I thought the actors did a good job... but something just seemed off. Maybe it was the historical inaccuracy, the focus on visuals, all the CGI, the small changes in the script that were trying to make things easier for the audience to understand (such as trading Myrtle's diamond dog collar for a string of pearls). It just didn't gel for me.

Gatsby physically reaching for the light seemed forced and was another detail that was over-emphasized so that the audience would "get" the symbolism. One of the girls I saw it with suggested that the entire film seemed to focus on cheapening the characters and the stories, treating the audience as too dense to understand the nuanced symbolism. For instance, she cited Myrtle's pearls and her dressing like a hooker, as if we couldn't make the connection to Tom being her lover and Myrtle being of looser morals.

Leonardo DiCaprio's use of the term "Old Sport" grated on my nerves. Everybody who cares to look knows that Gatsby is a poser, from the uncut pages in his library to his fanatical stories of his wealth. But he's a pretty good poser, which is why he has an aura of mystery around him. DiCaprio seemed to focus on using the term "Old Sport" as an indicator of his non-belonging in the world of the wealthy.

I'd give it an overall rating of "eh, it's OK." I ended up not paying for the film because there were sound problems in the theater during the first 10 minutes and we got a free voucher. That made me happy.

Pretty good review. This is how I felt about the picture. Compared to Bruce Dern, I thought Joel Edgerton did a great job. What's with Tom's crazy db vest though? Never saw anything like it before.

Edit. Sheeplady's 2nd paragraph raises a great point too. When I watched the movie, it seemed that the movie either outright explained the symbolism or made it so obvious that it ruined the message or insight. Sorta like explaining a punchline to a joke, ruins it.

 

[saxismyaxe]

Note to self: don't see any more Baz Lurhman films then.

I thought Bruce Dern's depiction of Daisy's husband was one of the HIGH POINTS of the 70's version. Truly different strokes for different folks.

 

[scotrace]

It had moments when it was good. It was certainly a wonder to see, and I wanted Nick's cottage, and a few of the sweaters I saw. Tom Buchanan was well played, and was pretty much just as I saw him in my mind. A cruel mouth and demeanor. In the end, you rather feel that Daisy is safer with Tom than with Gatsby. A interesting portrayal.
DeCaprio was quite good as Gatsby, I thought, and was a good bit of casting. I didn't know if he'd be able to dominate the hugeness that Lurhman was sure to create, but it doesn't swallow him.
If you avoid picking at the myriad impossibilities and incongruities and wrong phones and cars and clothes and gawd-awful music, you really rather end up with a simply bad film. Thought that thing would never end. "Just run over that broad and get me home to bed already."

 

[PADDY]

Saw it last night. I can now say I've done it. I'm not going to add to what's already been said.