New trailer for Gatsby- Page 5

[Jungle Red]

Posted: 5/13/13 at 6:05pm

I started it today but had to leave early. I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I was. I thought the casting was perfect. It was lush and tense and wonderful and I really hope I can catch the last thirty minutes or so. I left after Tom sees Myrtle's body.

[D2]

Posted: 5/13/13 at 6:19pm

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.

[Jungle Red]

Posted: 5/13/13 at 7:50pm

I agree with the things said about the 3D. It wasn't schticky and I would've hated what I saw had it not been in 3D.

Especially the part with Toby's head floating on the building.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/15/13 at 5:27pm

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-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 5/15/13 at 6:53pm

Besty,I couldn't agree with you more about the MOULIN ROUGE comparison. As I think I've said a lot on this thread and others, MOULIN ROUGE is one of my all time favorite movies, I just love it so much and have seen it an embarrassing number of times so I know it really well. It turned me off a little that Luhrman stuck so closely to that movie, the structure is very similar and there are moments played exactly like they are in MOULIN ROUGE (Gatsby's entrance and its lead up is cut/scored/shot exactly the way Satine's entrance is).
I hadn't considered that aspect about Daisy and Mulligan's interpretation/casting. It makes a lot of sense. I didn't love the acting overall though, I thought DiCaprio was good but made some expected choices, I could not stand Tobey Maguire's blank interpretation (I had huge problems with this, in the novel the character has so much more complexity). Jason Clarke, Elizabeth Debicki and Joel Edgerton were huge stand outs for me.
Overall, I thought I was going to love it and, instead, I enjoyed it but have some major problems with it. The first 30 minutes are great and then it just starts going through the motions of the novel. I wanted it to be even more out there actually. The 3D was good but I disliked the effect of the letters on the screen, so sometimes the 3D felt overused. I do think I liked this better a tad more than LES MIS which the more I think about it the less it worked for me.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/15/13 at 7:23pm

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.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 5/15/13 at 7:39pm

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.

Couldn't agree more, Besty, and the movie mimics that relationship by shooting Mulligan in the most romantic of ways and creating a contrast with the character, which remains largely empty throughout. As I think about it now, it definitely works and I'd be curious to rewatch the movie keeping that in mind.
I agree with you re Nick, but at least in the novel he does things and he has a very specific idea about how he feels about all these people. I wasn't happy with them doing away with the relationship between Jordan and Nick, which adds so much to the role (and Debicki played Jordan so deliciously). You also don't get an idea that Maguire feels anything about what he's exploring that goes beyond a goofy wide smile, that is just such a boring interpretation of the character; ultimately, I think he was too old for the part (I chuckled when the character says he's turning 30, Maguire has been playing these roles for over a decade now) and too safe. Ewan McGregor had a similar role in MOULIN ROUGE and it's one of his great performances, no one will remember Maguire's Nick.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/15/13 at 7:49pm

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.

[BwayTday]

Posted: 5/16/13 at 3:21am

I liked parts of it but I don't think it ever came together as a cohesive piece. I'm not terribly familiar with Baz's work so that might be one reason I felt the style went wayward at times. I feel as if the atmosphere he was trying to create (which did work absolutely wonderfully at points) took precedence over the script and the characters (even though yes the actual plot is like a soap opera). It just felt like a lot of things that didn't quite mix. I think if some of the motifs were dropped the film would have been a lot stronger as a whole.

I really enjoyed Leo and even though I suppose some of his choices were a bit obvious I think they all worked very well to create an interesting characterization. I thought Carrie Mulligan nailed the character perfectly although I preferred her performance in the first half of the film more. I'm tend to love her in everything though. I would agree with best12bars that I really enjoyed that her characterization wasn't very compelling because Daisy isn't very interesting. She's vapid. Debicki and Edgerton also stood out in doing so really nice work. The only person I really actively disliked was Maguire.

I really wish that the movie didn't pull so much dialogue from the book. It just didn't work like it does on the page and hindered the actors. I think the music worked really well but I didn't like the disconnect between the modern beats and the more traditional underscoring. I also (This next part is a spoiler of the tone kind of I guess) really disliked how the end of the film almost spun Gatsby as some kind martyr and victim of the times. Gatsby is crazy and delusional.

Also I didn't see it in 3D and the thing with Nick's floating head was very ridiculous looking. You could tell that many of the moments were meant specifically for the 3D and nothing else.

Updated On: 5/16/13 at 03:21 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/16/13 at 8:20am

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

[Jungle Red]

Posted: 5/16/13 at 2:12pm

I haven't read the novel in years but I believe Daisy is first introduced as wearing white. White is empty. White is void. I think that sums up Daisy pretty well.

Jordan is still my favorite part of the movie.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/16/13 at 2:42pm

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

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/16/13 at 10:57pm

I liked it more than I thought I would too. I did a reread of the novel last week before seeing it tonight in The Third Dimension. There were a few moments I wished there were such a thing as a pause button at the movie theater. I wanted to look at the city building with all the scenes going on in the dozens of windows for about an hour.

I am wondering how through sheer force of will, DiCaprio somehow ended up looking like the perfect genetic cross of the young Robert Redford and the young Brad Pitt, who looked like the young Robert Redford when he was younger anyway.

Does anybody else wonder if Shawn "Jay Z" Carter has any awareness that the whole thing is a critique of the very same stuff he peddles to rake in his millions?

[larrystyles]

Posted: 5/17/13 at 12:36am

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

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