New trailer for Gatsby — Page 5

Actually, it's the fifth movie adaptation: 1926 silent film, 1949 (w/Shelley Winters as Myrtle!), 1974, 2000 (TV) and the current one.

I saw it last night. I loved it for what it was, I hated it for what it wasn't. I saw the 2D version, and throughout the film I kept thinking I was missing something. I'm going to see it again, in 3D.

---

I'm not sure if I should feel guilty about this or not, but I really liked the movie a lot more than I thought I would.

Maybe it's because I went in with such low expectations and a completely open mind. I wasn't distracted in my seat, ticking off every deviation from the plot or of character. I expected the film to go wildly "off book," to be anachronistic in style and content, to be risky at times and over-the-top at times (Baz's trademarks).

For the most part, I really did love it as its own incarnation "inspired" by a favorite book. I gave up being a "purist" on Gatsby years ago, because I truly believe that a faithful adaptation of the novel would never work on stage or screen. The drama lies mostly in the writing, not nearly as much in the action. Boiled down to plot basics, it's a 1920s romantic soap opera about bad timing and unfulfilled dreams, both in love and life. (Not all that unique when you take away the prose.)

I thought Baz's spin on the story worked very well. I was not revolted or turned of by the flaunting of the opulence, but rather saddened by it---which I think is the point. When Gatsby hurls all of his fancy shirts and handkerchieves at Daisy in his two-story bedroom, and she starts to cry and then says "how sad." I totally got it. And I agreed.

I liked the use of music, but the one thing I think prevented this film from really taking off as "thrilling" is that with the same style as Moulin Rouge!, in the choice of songs and underscoring, I kept expecting the main cast to break out into song. I think this would have worked well as a musical, perhaps even better.

I did see it in 3D, which as others have pointed out, was utilized to great effect. I loved seeing a supersized 1920s New York through modern high-tech visuals with a mix of old and new music.

I also thought the cast was great, especially Leonardo, who was an excellent Gatsby on screen, and in my mind, by far the best. I even liked that Carey Mulligan wasn't the most interesting choice as Daisy, because what makes Daisy interesting is Gatsby's love for her, despite the fact that she's really not all that interesting aside from her nice (enough) looks, her wealth, and her breading. When she and Tom slink off together to Europe at the end, you really see them as upper-class candidates for the "skank tank." Both of them.

I left the theatre replaying many of the scenes and moments in my mind. It's not a perfect film, nor is it a definitive interpretation of the novel, but it worked very well on its own terms as a movie inspired by a great and mostly-unfilmable novel (IMO). I'm glad I took a chance on it.

---

Updated On: 5/17/13 at 05:27 PM

ray, I think Nick may be the toughest role to "realize" (on screen or stage). because so much of who he is is internalized in the writing. Unless he's reading his own written words (which he does in this movie as he writes the book), he mostly observes everybody else from the sidelines.

I also think Nick's written description of Daisy is what makes her interesting, not her actual words or deeds. She's a pretty typical generic of an upper-class newlywed who married for the wrong reason. But Nick's perception of her "romanticizes" her into more than that. And Gatsby's love for her turns her into a 1920s goddess.

---

I liked Maguire even though he was a watered-down (and edited) version of Nick from the book. I especially liked him in his scenes before, during, and after setting up the tea with Daisy at his place. I know Maguire rubs a lot of people wrong. I don't have a problem with him. I'm not a huge fan, but I think he has an affable screen presence that works well for him (most of the time).

By the way, I don't t think Sam Waterston faired any better in the '70s (terrible) film. I actually think he was worse as Nick.

---

I'm curious to see how this movie plays in 2D, having seen it in 3D.

For directors and DPs who design their films to be shot in 3D specifically, I'm sure it can be very challenging.

It's like an artist creating a sculpture that is also a painting at the same time (or vice-versa).

I'm certainly not talking about ALL 3D movies, since some of them (less and less, thankfully) are post-production conversions, trying to milk more money out of the box office.

Of the few 3D movies I have seen in 2D, I thought HUGO worked well in both formats. I originally saw it in 3D in the theatre, then bought the Blu-ray in 2D (since I don't own a 3D player or TV yet). I thought the film worked well in both formats. In fact, I might have been more distracted from the plot when I first saw it in 3D. I paid more attention to the characters and story when I saw it a second time (in 2D) at home. I'm not sure if that would have happened regardless or not. I often do have different experiences with repeat viewings. I concentrate and focus visually on different things. With a change in format (from 3D to 2D), I had no choice but to see it differently.

---

Updated On: 5/16/13 at 08:20 AM

Don't get me wrong ... I still love the character of Daisy for exactly what she is: a person who is really only interesting in the eyes of others. She is also interesting as to her dilemma of "will she or won't she" leave her husband for Gatsby. But she's not an evil person or a stupid person. And she has a heart. But she has no courage, no real imagination, no profound insight, no statement to make. She's a young, pretty, rich girl who married the wrong man. Of course in Gastby's eyes, she is the most wonderful woman in the world.

In a way I found Mulligan's performance to be perfect for the role. If she had tried to be all "sparkle and fire and wit" she would have come out hollow and inane (see Mia Farrow's Daisy). It would only serve as a phony layer to a very typical upper-class ingenue. At least Mulligan's performance came across as sincere ... so I ended up feeling sorry for her Daisy. Sorry for the fact that with everything handed to her, she was still a pretty "nothing" person who made some bad choices due to bad timing, then walked away from it all, resigned to her own fate.

Still thinking a lot about the movie 24 hours later.


EDIT: By the way, Elizabeth Debicki is really wonderful as Jordan, despite her lack of screen time. The role has been edited down to focus on Daisy, Gatsby, and Nick. But Debicki is only about a thousand times better than Lois Chiles was in the '70s film. Lois's acting in that movie marks a new low. She's horrendous.

---

Updated On: 5/16/13 at 02:42 PM

I thought Tobey and Leo's chemistry made the movie.

And the Lana Del Rey song that they played four times.