Well, yes and no. The plot follows the book pretty closely, so the messaging is still kinda there. For me, I felt like Baz made the parites look like fun and he didn't find a way to subtly show us the dark side of the parties. If we saw more of the aftermath, or people in the corner looking sick from drinking or something, maybe? Baz has always been a director of excess, and sometimes it works (like with Simply Ballroom and Moulin Rouge!) and sometimes it doesn't (Romeo + Juliet).
Again, I do like his Great Gatsby, because I find that Fitzgerald's message comes through, even if it is under the Luhrman patina. But I wish he'd just shown more of the ugliness, especially as the movie goes on.
I also thought it was a mistake to make Nick an alcoholic and to change Nick's father's advice. In the film the line is, "In my younger and more vulnerable years, my father gave me some advice, 'Always try to see the best in people,'..." In the book, however, the line reads, "In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice... 'Whenever you feel like criticizing anyone,' he told me, 'just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.'"
That's a huge difference. Even though Nick takes away from that a lesson of non-judgement: "I’m inclined to reserve all judgements," he says, it's still a big difference in how to perceive the book and Gatsby.
Nick isn't judging Gatsby, but not because he shouldn't, it's because he's remembering Jay's hard life and upbringing. He isn't advantaged. So it's no surprise that he's chasing dreams he can't have (Daisy) and trying to buy them with money he used to dream of, and consequently believes can solve problems. It's no surprise that he throws ragers and doesn't care about them. But we don't get that in Luhrman's version because he changed the line.
It seems like I dislike this film; I don't. But it has some missteps, most of which I think I've spelled out here.
reply
share
Leodicaprio (6426)
3 years ago
I get the whole age of sin and decadence ect. But there was so much going on, and the cuts so quick, nothing was going on. Because I couldn't appreciate anything I was seeing in the frame. I couldn't focus or hone in on anything single thing because it was like a massive "where's Waldo" of so many costumes and things going on at once.
Agreed it works in Moulin Rouge where it breaks the fourth Wall and its a musical. but the modern music seemed so out of place in this film.. And others have said how do you adapt what is basically a series of conversations in rooms into an interesting film.
hmm that makes a lot more sense and would make Jay more understandable and sympathetic for the audience. if they keep the original advice you are right.
I don't dislike it per say, just as one comment said its as if Zach Snyder took acid and made a film. Another said its as if Baz does not trust the actors enough to maintain the audiences attention. so he cuts nonstop. there was one scene in particular where mid conversation it cuts to an empty room in the Mansion where nothing is going on?
Weirdly by the end I found Joel Edgerton's character to be the most interesting, he seemed the most flushed out, and weirdly the most normal in their weird world
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9574)
3 years ago
Luhrman talked about the modern music in an interview (at least one). He said it was because he wanted it to sound to us like how jazz would've sounded to people in the Roaring '20s. He selected modern music specifically from African-American genres that have a similar reputation now to jazz's rap back in the day. I'm not sure it was 100% the best choice, but I can respect that reasoning.
12 Angry Men. That's how you adapt conversation to the screen. There are ways to keep people hooked on character, into the plot, and upping the tension just with dialogue. A common misconception I run into are people parroting, "Show, don't tell," and then criticizing, "Too much talking...like a play!" They forget playwrights follow the same adage. Showing doesn't mean "don't talk", or "just actions." Action can be done through dialogue. Think about, "I want a divorce," that's pure language, but it's full of action. In fact, Gatsby has a brilliant example: the scene where Jay, Nick, Daisy, Jordan, and Tom are in the hotel. That's tense as heck.
I never understood that line change. Why mess with what is obviously an essential line by a brilliant writer like F. Scott Fitzgerald? I don't know why Luhrman thought he could improve it. I think maybe he was "cutting to the chase", going right to the no-judgements part (which Nick does talk about), and/or handholding for audiences, but... come on. Not a good idea.
Haha. The Zach Snyder thing is pretty accurate. I think Baz just likes that kinetic energy. It doesn't work here. It also really killed Romeo + Juliet. Well, that and 98% of his actors not knowing what they're saying (DiCaprio in particular...y'know... one of the two leads...) And Luhrman just has them SCREAMING things and cutting and... it's just butchery of Shakespeare's words, words, words.
I can see being morbidly fascinated by Tom. That's a trainwreck of a dude. Even in the book, I was always more drawn to Jordan than Daisy. Daisy's the "it" girl, but not for me.
reply
share
Leodicaprio (6426)
3 years ago
That's a good and fair explanation. Unfortunately what a director wanted to convey doesn't always work, just ask Lucas.
haven't seen 12 angry men bit older than myself but I do certainly like some older films. If I didn't know better it was a book adaptation id have bet money on it being adapted from a play. since it seems like a series of set pieces.
Agreed I think that saying has more to do with exposition rather than some natural revelation of characters motives or moving along the plot. I would say Tarantino is an expert of Dialogue showing, while Bay is an expert at mindless exposition dumps. Not sure as you said it completely alters the message of the film... For whatever reason bad wanted his message to be that...
exactly def a morbid fascination., incredibly flawed, maybe he truly loves daisy, maybe he used to but no longer does, maybe like his trophies in the first scene we meet him he just likes collecting pretty things and he just can't stand losing his collection. But at least there seems to be a there there of some character development and complexity.
As for Gatsby himself clearly I am a fan of Dicaprio, but after hearing "old sport" for the 50th time.. I get it I get why. They used it but like the use of modern music the fact a director had a purpose doesn't mean they it was effective and worked in the execution.
ask anyone to describe daisy's character? She was........ umm I can't think of anything...torn because the two guys..... besides the love interest. but describing her role in the narrative is hardly character development
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9574)
3 years ago
Intent means squat if it doesn't come across - absolutely. Well, not squat, but... next to squat? Squat-adjacent?
12 Angry Men is a great movie. Classic. It is based on a play - so the one-room conversation-as-plot makes sense there, but it's super-riveting. It's really great. If you like older films at all, give it a shot for sure.
It is mostly about exposition. It's also saying that there are less blunt ways of doing things. You've got a good handle on it, though; your comparison of Tarantino to Bay is perfect. Hans Landa is intimidating while being friendly. Why? Show - not tell. Tarantino makes him say affable things, but he's always working an angle, which we sense (thanks to the dialogue, the performance, and the direction) and it's much more interesting and powerful than a nasty SS officer coming in and saying he'll kill anybody who stands in his way.
He might not even be capable of what most people think of as love. Nick observes it later about the Buchanan's (interesting that Daisy's lumped in with the repulsive Tom) just breaking things and going away - callous and uncaring. But, yes, he's a well-written character.
They could've toned down "Old Sport". He says it a lot in the book, but I think it's easier to do that on the page than out loud in a film - a little goes a long way.
To me, Daisy is indicative of the rich-people-rot that the book criticizes. She's friendly, personable, and fun to be around. This is how she attracts people like Jay Gatsby. She's adored for these charms. But underneath, as I mentioned, she's kinda just another Tom. She's kinda Paris Hilton or a Kardashian, or like one of Gatsby's parties: gaudy, vapid fun that belies an unappetizing reality. She's not totally unsympathetic... I think she's kinda trapped and surviving in this weird elitist world. I think she was idealistic, was once nicer, but she's slowly grinding it down. I think she's holding on to sadness, and I think in her own way she's looking for a "green light on the dock", too. We see this sadness when Nick meets her and she laments about Tom's affairs and hopes her daughter will be a "pretty fool".
reply
share
Leodicaprio (6426)
3 years ago
Agreed lots of people are now talking bout the Star Wars prequels as masterpieces because Lucas referenced a bunch of shots used in old westerns. apparently "I reference it so my art is elevated" is their argument. Meh just ask Tommy Wiseau how his homage to citizen Kanes room destroying scene elevated his art.
I may check it out tonight .Like I said I was hoping to have a dicaprio-thon after watching catch me if you can, but Gatsby ground that to a halt lol
Maybe ill give Gatsby another chance one day when im less overwhelmed by the first time experience and can pick up on the subtitles. but like I said the cutting is too quick it is hard to pick up on anything. water its the miss en scene or the actors expressions.
FYI inglorious just came out on 4k I believe.
in the book it probably worked better as the slow pacing of reading wouldn't make it seem so repetitive even if it was said just as much.
Makes sense. I think overall despite my other problems I mentioned, I just didn't really care or wasn't that interested in any character (except tom). Even if thats what he was going for, the vapid privileged Paris Hilton type, its hard to care about those characters.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9574)
3 years ago
My theory on a lot of the renewed interest in the prequels is twofold. First, I think a lot of people grew up on those movies. I'm not saying nostalgia is the only way somebody could love those films, but I think it's a factor with the recent spike in prequel-love. The other reason is that people are grumpy about the sequel trilogy, so they are elevating the prequels so they can dump on the newer films. I'm an OT fan myself. To each their own, but I didn't care for any of the other six movies, or the spinoffs. Some of them are okay, but none of them hit the heights of the originals, and all of them (in my opinion) weaken the Star Wars mythos.
Dead-right about references not making something art. Allusions and references (to other film or literature, mythology, etc.) is only valuable if it augments an already-great story. It can't replace story or character development.
We're in agreement about the cutting; Luhrman has always been a mixed-bag director (for me).
I honestly can't remember how much he says "Old sport" in the book vs. the film.
I understand where it'd be hard to care for some of the people on screen. I like Nick just fine, but he's narrating, and is more of our window into the world than a primary participant. I guess what I enjoy is the exploration of these themes. People throw "Gatsby parties", so this superficiality is valued - unfortunately - and so the story is relevant. I like that whole "mirror up to nature" thing.
reply
share