Gatsby: The Movie (I lasted 30 minutes...)

[3113]

OMG. It was AWEFUL! And I don't mean it was awful because of the modern music. That was the least of it's problems. First off, it comes across like a cartoon or costume party--not like you're in the twenties or even in a fetishized version of that. It's filmed like some kind of comic-book version of "Gatsby." Next, the director clearly loves the book and is often slavishly faithful to it, recreating the descriptions; But as everything is rapid-fire montage, nothing sticks.

But worst of all is the voice over. My writerly friends, if ever you have wondered what "show don't tell" means...SEE this movie! You will finally and fully understand.

I mean, I love Fitzgerald's language, too. It's some of the most beautiful in American Literature. But, apparently, the director of this movie either loved those words so much he couldn't leave them out, or felt that no one was going to understand what they were seeing on screen without them. And so Toby McGuire essentially reads aloud from the book for the whole movie. Or, at least, I think he's doing that for the whole movie. I quit when Leonardo DiCaprio turned and smiled at the camera while Toby's voice quoted the book: "He smiled understandingly—much more than understandingly. It was one of those rare smiles with a quality of eternal reassurance in it...."

Do you see the problem? If you are not told that, you just judge the smile as Leo presents it. But if the voice over tells you that...well then you're either going to say, "Gosh, yes, he does have that smile" or "Um...don't know what you're seeing, dude, but I'm not seeing that at all..." Guess which one you're more likely to say?

And that's what I really couldn't stand--Fitzgerald beautiful words telling be what I ought to be seeing, while the movie either failed to show it (however hard it tried) or left me too distracted by what I was being told to see it.

Thumbs waaaaay down on this one.

 

[sr71plt]

Haven't seen it; didn't plan to.

 

[PennLady]

I still want to see it because in my experience, a Baz Luhrmann movie is always visually interesting. Which doesn't always mean the rest of the movie is. But thanks for the heads-up.

Why is it that so few films can do voice overs in a good way? I mean, yes, I know, the studios insist on it because they fear an audience member having any questions, but still. "Blade Runner" and "Dark City" were immensely improved by the removal of voice over narration. But "Sunset Boulevard" wouldn't be the same.

 

[desertslave]

My daughter saw it and liked it, but she liked Moulin Rouge so consider the source. Maybe it's my age sneaking up on me, but I don't like these overly flashy, jerky camera angle, utterly dependent on eye candy flicks. And pairing modern music to these period pieces just pains me.

I lasted 40 minutes on Moulin Rouge, 15 minutes on Marie Antoinette, and finally learned my lesson. I've never been fond of Fitzgerald, either, so not seeing another version of Gatsby was a no-brainer for me.

 

[robertreams]

I could tell by the adds they woud fuck it up. Fitzgerald's lon, long sentences are writer's dream and an English teacher's orgasm, but should not be read aloud!

 

[HeyAll]

Apparently this book strayed from the real intent of the book.

I have no interest in seeing this, but I've got to say, his previous movie Australia starting Hugh Jackman was stunning.

It was visually beautiful, and it was very powerful towards the end. I highly recommend it.

 

[3113]

I still want to see it because in my experience, a Baz Luhrmann movie is always visually interesting.

I, honestly, did not find it visually interesting. If I had I might have lasted longer. Really, the directorial decisions struck me as either trying too hard (in a school play sort of way), or as thinking they were being cool when they weren't all that.

This was part of the none-of-it-sticks aspect, too. The direction seemed to treat everything equally; few characters or things seemed more important than others in how they were filmed, and so nothing stuck with me. This is a bad thing if, for instance, you want me to really remember that billboard of T.J. Eckleburg. Which was very nicely presented, but between the little time it was given on screen (equal to everything else) and the voice over, didn't have the power it ought to have had.

I mean, you're hearing Toby saying "...above the gray land and the spasms of bleak dust which drift endlessly over it, you perceive, after a moment, the eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg..." and instead of thinking "cool visual" you're thinking, "I'm looking at that bleak landscape and the billboard right now, why do I have to be told what it is I'm looking at?" The damn voice over really kills the power of the visuals when they have any power.

 

[slyc_willie]

I still want to see it because in my experience, a Baz Luhrmann movie is always visually interesting. Which doesn't always mean the rest of the movie is. But thanks for the heads-up.

Why is it that so few films can do voice overs in a good way? I mean, yes, I know, the studios insist on it because they fear an audience member having any questions, but still. "Blade Runner" and "Dark City" were immensely improved by the removal of voice over narration. But "Sunset Boulevard" wouldn't be the same.

Nor would A Clockwork Orange. In some cases, voice-over narrative can enhance a film's impact.

I haven't seen the film, but I would assume the reason to include a voice-over narrative in The Great Gatsby was to educate a supposedly ignorant generation on Fitzgerald's prose. Or maybe it was simply their love of the man's writing and a desire to include it.

 

[sr71plt]

I haven't seen the film, but I would assume the reason to include a voice-over narrative in The Great Gatsby was to educate a supposedly ignorant generation on Fitzgerald's prose. Or maybe it was simply their love of the man's writing and a desire to include it.

Isn't a strong accompanying narration very much in the mood of Fitzgerald and of the original book?

 

[3113]

Why is it that so few films can do voice overs in a good way?

Voice overs are really tricky things and few movies use them well. The question is: is the character there to spoon feed information into to the audience, or give them his unique perspective on events? This is why Blade Runner failed with the voice and did better without. Because it was there to explain things to the audience, rather than offering us a window into Decker's head and, by using that intimate pov, giving the story a twist.

Sunset Boulevard voice-over works because we know it's the voice of a dead man; that's a great twist. He's going to tell us how he ended up face-down in that pool. Excellent! Likewise Double Indemnity where we hear the story from the murderer's pov.

Amadeus is a wonderful example of brilliant use of voice over. Yes, he explains this musical, 18th century world to us that would otherwise be confusing, but it's all from his very bias perspective. Check out this scene from Amadeus. Note how Salieri doesn't tell us what we're seeing or hearing, but what *he* is seeing and feeling and thinking. It's not "she was on stage, wearing this dress, singing like this, looking at Mozart in this way..." it's "I don't know how or where they met but it was clear he'd had her..." (sic).

I also think that any voice over has to be done by an actor with a great voice Duh, right? And, most of all, it has to be done sparingly. Which, alas, Gatsby doesn't do.

 

[HeyAll]

Have any of you seen Carlito's Way?

Best voice over used in a movie. Amazing writing.

 

[slyc_willie]

Isn't a strong accompanying narration very much in the mood of Fitzgerald of of the original book?

It is, but it can translate poorly to the silver screen. I'm reminded of one of the kid's shows my daughter watches, which includes a narrator voice-over that describes what is already happening onscreen. Even my seven-year-old has commented to the effect that "I already knew that."

Narratives, whether in literature or on screen, have to serve a purpose. They have to add to the description otherwise provided. If they are only restating the obvious, or goading the reader/watcher toward something specific for the point of emphasis (which could be better handled without a narrative), then it's an extraneous annoyance.

But again, I haven't seen the movie. I may yet, and draw my own conclusions. This is all academic on my part.

 

[3113]

Nor would A Clockwork Orange. In some cases, voice-over narrative can enhance a film's impact.

Oh, that's another one that's brilliant--love Clockwork Orange. But again, it's a unique perspective and it's all about what that character is thinking feeling.

Or maybe it was simply their love of the man's writing and a desire to include it.

It came across as a love of the writing, mixed with a lack of trust--trust that the audience would get what they were seeing if there wasn't an explanation. Why do we have to know Leo is smiling at Nick? We see it!

Isn't a strong accompanying narration very much in the mood of Fitzgerald of of the original book?

True. But as in all books with first-person narratives, the first-person is not only offering his personal perspective on events, but also acting as the reader's "eyes." This is not needed in a movie. So, if one is going to use a voice over from Nick, one needs to weed out those parts where Nick is being used to show the reader something that a reader can't see, but a movie goer can (like a big billboard with eyes).

Which is to say, it may not have been a wrong decision to have a voice over from Nick, but what was wrong was to have a relentless voice over. One that didn't distinguish between passages from the book that would be useful in the movie, as compared to those which were pointless or, worse, distracting (like the "smile" quote).

 

[Bramblethorn]

Do you see the problem? If you are not told that, you just judge the smile as Leo presents it. But if the voice over tells you that...well then you're either going to say, "Gosh, yes, he does have that smile" or "Um...don't know what you're seeing, dude, but I'm not seeing that at all..." Guess which one you're more likely to say?

William Golding's "Adventures in the Screen Trade" has an interesting section where he writes a screenplay, then gets a couple of directors to discuss how they'd film it. (Or something like that, it's been a while.)

There's a section where he's describing a haircut in superlatives: the best-looking cut in the world, one that instantly made you want to go get one like it. One of the directors takes him to task for the same issue you mention - it's easy for Golding to write that description, but pretty much impossible for a director to film it and sell it to the audience.

 

[DeYaKen]

The book wasn't up to much

Well if the film doesn't stray far from the book I can't see it is ever going to be that good. I found it slow, boring and with no characters I could actually like. Fitzgerald fans tell me it's far from being his best work.

Still there is one consolation. No matter how bad it is, it couldn't be worse than "The tree of life" Terence Mallik's directorial ego trip.

 

[lovecraft68]

I outlasted you by five minutes so there!

I don't know what to say except it seemed clunky and just didn't hold my interest.

Wife made it all the way through and said I didn't miss anything.

 

[PayDay]

Voice overs are really tricky things and few movies use them well. .

So this thread, up until this line, had potential validity.

ASIN: Not anymore:
The Land Before Time
The Princess Bride
The Shawshank Redemption
KickAss
The Big Lebowski
American History X
The Brothers Bloom
Avatar
Fight Club
Dirty Work
The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle
PayBack
Platoon
The Road to Perdition
Sin City
American Beauty
Terminator 2
Zombieland
Casino

+ So many more.

Thread sucks. I'm going to watch the movie now just to spite.

 

[PayDay]

The previous Gatsby thread::

Hypocritical much....

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=864109

No, I haven't seen it yet time is relative.

 

[3113]

I outlasted you by five minutes so there! ...Wife made it all the way through and said I didn't miss anything.

I stand n awe of your powers of endurance It's the opposite with me and my husband. He's able to sit through movies I can't stand--not because his opinion of them is any higher (usually), but because he's stubborn and determined to watch till the end.