By Brett Blake “I could use a drink.” That’s the first thing I thought to myself as I walked out of the early matinee showing of this new iteration of THE GREAT GATSBY. Why did I need a drink? Because, frankly, I was kind of amazed by just how much I disliked the film. It’s competently made, but for the most part, it’s a mess, a loud and flashy interpretation of a nuanced and introspective classic of American literature. Everything is heightened, everything is cranked up, as if the filmmakers have no faith than an audience will “get it” without slamming them over the head. But before I get too far into this, I do think I should offer some background regarding my relationship with the auteur at the helm of this particular ship - Baz Luhrmann, he of ROMEO + JULIET and MOULIN ROUGE! fame. To be honest, neither of those are movies I have much use for, though - in all fairness - that might be more my fault than his. Luhrmann and I have never really been on the same cinematic wavelength; I generally find his films splendid to look at, but ultimately pretty hollow experiences. I’m the weirdo who thinks that AUSTRALIA is his best movie, as it’s the one where he seems the most restrained (it’s the least Baztastic, if you will). So, going into GATSBY, my expectations were not terribly high, but I was hoping for the best. I’m going to assume most are familiar with the broad strokes of Fitzgerald’s novel (didn’t we all end up reading it in high school?), so I’m not going to bother with tedious plot descriptions. Suffice it to say that, after an unnecessary and somewhat odd framing device, the movie launches into a fairly standard blow-by-blow telling of the novel. The film’s strongest attribute is its look, which is legitimately stunning. The 1920s are brought to vivid (though stylized) life by the lush cinematography (I saw the movie in 2D, so I can’t comment on how well the gimmick of 3D was applied), incredible production design (granted, much of the environment appears to have been generated in the digital world), and striking, opulent costume design. So the film looks great. Perhaps too great, as I did begin to find it somewhat garish by movie’s end. I’ll be charitable, though, and assume that Luhrmann intended for this to be the case as a commentary on the decadence of the Roaring Twenties, which - again, if intentional - is a smart way to communicate that idea to an audience so far removed from the time period. Everything other than the look of the film is problematic, chiefly the acting. I’m sort of baffled by the underwhelming performances given by the fantastically talented cast. Leonardo DiCaprio is one of my favorite actors currently working - he’s given consistently great performances since 2004’s THE AVIATOR - but for the life of me, I have no idea what he thought he was doing with the character of Jay Gatsby. The accent/cadence he adopts is a bit strange (granted, I believe there’s talk in the novel of the character having a peculiar kind of sound, but DiCaprio occasionally sounds like he's playing his Hoover character from J. EDGAR playing Gatsby), and even more strange is the uneven temperament he brings to the role. I know Gatsby is a difficult, interior sort of role, but DiCaprio underplays everything… except for the moments where he sails wildly over-the-top. It’s the most unsatisfying performance I’ve seen DiCaprio give, and I’ve seen his work in CRITTERS 3. As the object of Gatsby’s love, Carey Mulligan’s Daisy Buchanan is basically a non-entity; neither bad nor particularly good, she’s just there, leading one to wonder exactly what it is about her that inspires the passion inside of Gatsby. Tobey Maguire gets the somewhat thankless role of Nick Carraway, our narrator and audience surrogate, and a lot of his youthful naivete comes across as an affectation rather than a genuine reaction. The only actor in the cast who really delivers is Joel Edgerton, who conveys the more unpleasant and menacing aspects of his character, Tom Buchanan, in a fully-formed and compelling way. One last thing that irked me is the soundtrack. Much has been made about Luhrmann’s decision to take an anachronistic approach to the music (as he did in MOULIN ROUGE!), and I understand on an intellectual level that he wanted the story to feel fresh and modern, but the songs really seemed to be hugely inappropriate to me. Now, I’ll freely admit that I’m a total square when it comes to contemporary music (my sonic interests tend to come predominantly from the ‘60s - ‘80s), so I was probably never going to warm up to the likes of Jay-Z and wil.i.am and Beyoncé contributing to the film. Even so, the modern music is a jarring element; needless to say, I’m not rushing out to buy the soundtrack album. On the whole, the movie looks too tremendous to completely ignore, and if it’s up for some of the technical awards come Oscar time, I won’t be complaining, but a satisfying production of the novel this is not. The movie pays lip service to the introspection and subtext, but they’re overshadowed by the more surface concerns. I suspect the movie will work for a lot of people who'll just sit back and enjoy the imagery and the melodrama, but I am not one of these people. I think a somewhat more reserved touch was needed, and Luhrmann - love him or not - doesn’t do reserved. Perhaps THE GREAT GATSBY is truly an unfilmable book, as evidenced by the fact that it’s now been filmed multiple times over the decades, and it's yet to be truly nailed. If you feel you absolutely need to see a cinematic version of this story, seek out the Robert Redford version from 1974; though it completely lacks any visual flair, it does get the substance right. Or you could always read the novel again.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|