In my continuing quest to make up for my lack of reviews last week, I have another new movie review for you fine viewers. On Friday night, I had a nice date night with my girlfriend, and our movie of choice for the night was The Great Gatsby, fresh off the two of us watching Moulin Rouge!. Unfortunately, I need to review this film on its own, without comparing it to F. Scott Fitzgerald’s book since I have not read it since the 10th grade. I did, however, do a little research to check a couple things, because I remembered some things, but had to see if it was true to the book otherwise. (Maybe if one of you fine viewers have already seen Gatsby and know the book better than me, you could let me know if it is true to the source or not, thanks!) And I am not going to do a “duel review” and compare it to the original, as I can already tell that they are far and away too different in terms of style. In any case, Gatsby for long stretches feels like a Baz Luhrmann film, as his signature style of quick cuts, bright images, and oodles and oodles of narration. But it relied just a little less on narration that Moulin Rouge! and allowed long stretches of dialogue without interruption. Unfortunately for Baz, some of these moments felt empty– emptier than how Gatsby feels in the third act.
I will say, however, that I enjoyed my time watching it. I didn’t expect myself to be one of these people, but I am drawn into Luhrmann’s style and find it visually appealing and exciting, regardless of what else might be happening. There were some really cool camera shots that I am still holding onto today, and party scenes were reminiscent of MR!, but was easier to follow overall. However, with all of that being said, I couldn’t help but feel that there was something missing in the midst of all the glamour, pomp, and circumstance. I didn’t feel anything. I felt the wonderment of the parties, because that is what Baz knows how to do well. But I failed to feel sorry for Gatsby, despite the fact that the author of the book and the director of this movie rightfully put him on a pedestal (he is the protagonist, after all). I kept getting the feeling that everyone mistook his “unlimited sense of hope” for blindness to see what was really going on. Of course he was not alone in this quest, as his main squeeze was just as much to blame for being wishy-washy in her judgment as well, holding onto a dream-like relationship when she was (at least a little) happily married. I know, I sound like such a pessimist, and I hope I am not off-base, as these are my opinions, but my point is that Gatsby failed to connect with me. I’m sure I may be in the minority here, but that was my impression anyway, so I didn’t feel that much for him. I sound a little harsh, don’t I? Alright, so there was some emotion there, and definitely some cute moments, and there was a little depth as well in the character of Jay Gatsby, but obviously not enough was done if I felt this way. (Feel free to disagree in the comment box below!)
The movie on the whole was a fun time though. Despite the lack of deep-feeling soul, there was some fun acting, and of course when the parties were hopping in 1920’s New York, the scenes were exciting and full of color and sound and marvel. Scenes of long dialogue sometimes dragged, but otherwise it was Tobey Maguire (Spider-Man) narrating every other inch. He plays Nick Carraway, who is writing about his experiences, because he is of course a writer, just like Ewan McGregor was in MR!. Leonardo DiCaprio is of course our protagonist, and he spews off “old sport” like it is going out of style and he needs to spend it constantly like an “Everything Must Go” sale. I thought it was odd how many times he said it, but upon doing some research, “old sport” was said over 90 times in the book, so perhaps the movie was not that far off. Leo-DiCap is fine, sounding very debonair, walking around with a cane and a confident strut that just said “I am the most important person here.” Our leading lady was Daisy, played by Carey Mulligan (Drive, An Education), and she was pretty good at going between extremely happy to either sad or regretful. Daisy is Nick’s cousin, and she has a history with Gatsby, so these characters’ lives will intertwine in a significant way. There were a lot of supporting actors as well, including Joel Edgerton, Jason Clarke, Isla Fisher, and Elizabeth Debicki.
I am sure if you read the book, you know what is going to happen, but I won’t spoil anything anyway. There is a deeper story revolving around materialism and fate, but all in all, this is a love story. Many characters love each other during the film, some familial and some romantic and it is a main driving point of the movie, for better or for worse. Luhrmann shows that he has mastered the craft of making parties look even more exciting by the use of camera shots, angles, and a quick pace thanks to the editors, but the movie as a whole lacks some soul. Oh, and I should mention that popular rapper/producer Jay Z is executive producer, and it gives the Roaring 20’s a hip-hop beat. This really threw me off, because everything else from the outfits, to the cars, to the stores, and houses are all from an olden time, but the music ranges from rap, to hip hop, to dubstep beats that just feel out of place. The beats lend an excitement to the already frenetic pacing, but make little sense when you put everything together. Also another sort-of gripe I had was the use of on-screen text, which only happens twice during the whole film, once at the end of the second act and then once at the end, and otherwise the technique is never used. It felt odd to me that such a style would only present itself at a random moment in the middle, and then at the end again… why not use it the whole time? It seemed like it was highlighting a poignant quote, but there were several quotations that could have been showcased. In any case, you can see what I did and didn’t like, but to me, it is not a bad movie. It will probably be one that I watch again at some point, because I am one of the individuals that is drawn in by the artistic style. The story is enough to keep you engaged, but not to the extent where you will be a changed person. If you have not seen it yet, perhaps you can wait for a matinee’ pricing or wait for the second run theatres to show it, because I cannot in all good faith recommend you pay full price. BUT I say this without comparing it to the book, so if you are a big fan of the book, I cannot tell you if you would enjoy it less or more. So proceed with caution, old sport.
Michael Night's Miscellany 