Skip to main content

You're wrong about the past, old sport. You're wrong.

The Great Gatsby
(2013)

I have to admit, I didn’t expect much from this. Not out of some allegiance to F Scott Fitzgerald’s literary heritage (I haven’t read the damn thing) or out of a preference for the Redford incarnation (I’ve not seen it since I was at school - perhaps it was shown in acknowledgement of the novel’s absence from English school syllabuses – but it left little impression). Rather, because the hand at the tiller was the dread pirate Lurhmann. One man and his diarrhetic directorial style. So I was surprised at how immersive (in 2D, I hasten to add) and involving I found his adaptation. With caveats, of course.


I can’t say I’ve really liked a Baz Lurhmann film since his debut, Strictly Ballroom. Romeo + Juliet was fine and all, but it felt like a version designed to make studying the play at school bearable (and West Side Story had the same basic conceit, but did it much better). I persevered with Moulin Rouge. I suffered through it at least twice but, more than the barely controlled chaos and frenzied musical interludes (I do like the soundtrack, I should add), the lack of chemistry between the leads killed any lingering openness to persuasion. As for Orstralia, it might have been a ridiculous, idiotic treat if only Baz had the balls to be consistently dumb rather than only when the moment took him. As it is, it’s a catastrophe.


And it’s not as if Baz has reined in any of his more uncontrolled (I’m not sure any are controlled, to be honest) impulses with Gatsby. His camera is all over the place, he has in no way curbed his inadvisable predilection for frantically sped up zooms across (CGI) cityscapes, any moment he can emphasise with an on-the-nose musical reference he’ll take (Love is Blindness stands out as particularly egregious), there’s an ADD quality that insists he fills the screen with as much activity as possible – irrespective of whether it adds anything (Nick’s written words appear as he speaks them) or is any way appropriate to the tone of the scene.


But somehow a lot of Gatsby actually works. Perhaps it’s because, for the first time since he dabbled in the Bard, Baz has a strong story to tell. It’s one that can stand his utterly at-odds detours into slapstick, and his desire to punctuate any recollection or flashback with a miasma of montages. The gaudy excess that was celebrated in Moulin Rouge isn’t particularly filtered here; Baz is no more prone to allowing the aching emptiness play out through visual lulls but, during the second half of the film, the hyperactive frenzy of party-central, the rap-tastic ‘20s dancing and the enthusiastic decadence do coalesce into something approximating a purpose. Gatsby’s elaborate manifestation of decadence is utterly empty. It is wrongheadedly motivated, and so leads to his inevitable in securing and possessing the love of his life. Who only has so much feeling for him, and no more.


It’s probably more of an equation that this film is a partial success; Baz hits more marks in total than he misses, but he’s certainly indulging a fair bit of the latter. Those constant cuts back to a billboard advertising the all-seeing oculist, or his CGI-fuelled imagining of dustbelt poverty, dirt and hardship (it’s Baz’s 99% commentary, you see). There’s a sheen here that ensures certain points just can’t hit home. Because the poise behind it is resoundingly glib. There’s no more depth than the seemingly Speed Racer inspired car chase between Gatsby and Tom. If you’d asked me at the halfway mark, I’d have said that, as engrossing as the story is, there’s zero room for nuance or understatement. But I don’t think that’s quite fair. It’s more the case that Baz allows, or is unable to prevent, his cast from instilling pathos into the proceedings. Which is not to say he delivers a picture as devoid of story beats as Michael Bay, another ADD director who unable to distinguish a big scene from a small moment.  Baz is aware of the course of his story (just listen to those music cues; he’s blasting it out), but it’s his performers who ultimately guide the film to something approaching an affecting denouement.


If you take a look at imdb, much of the conversation that isn’t hating on the soundtrack seems to revolve around the cast or perceived miscasting. Which is understandable if you’ve been force-fed a “great American novel” as an impressionable youngster. You’re bound to have preconceptions. I thought DiCaprio was pretty great as Gatsby, transitioning from sureness and an unruffled veneer of confidence to wretchedness and the desperate delusion that his love will come to him if only he wishes hard enough. Perhaps because I don’t know the novel, I was repeatedly reminded of another legendary exemplar of the American Dream: Charles Foster Kane. In both cases, there is a mystery to be uncovered as to what makes them tick, and riches hide emotional poverty or at least yearning. All the money in the world can’t enable Gatsby to turn back the clock. There’s also the slightly jowly resemblance DiCaprio bears to the young Orson Welles (though Welles, the light that shined twice as brightly, was more than 10 years Gatsby Leo’s junior when he played Kane).


Joel Edgerton also stands out as Tom Buchanan, rich through class and breeding, whose contemptible views can’t hide a piercing insight into the flaws of his peer group. Edgerton is every bit DiCaprio’s equal for screen presence, but it does mean that other characters get slightly lost. Is Carey Mulligan’s Daisy supposed to be something of a cypher, merely a reflection of the desires of Gatsby and rejection by Tom? If so, then the role is a success. She certainly elicits no empathy, even less so as the tale descends to its tragic adieu. Elsewhere, Isla Fisher and Jason Clarke do well with broad, trashy caricatures. Elizabeth Debicki is fabulous as Daisy’s friend Jordan; for which she has received nigh-on universal plaudits, no matter what critics have thought of the movie as a whole. And the best compliment one can pay her is there isn’t nearly enough of her character.


The kind-of weak link is Tobey Maguire’s writer/narrator/watcher/voyeur Nick. I can’t make a call on the literary Nick but the main problem here is that Maguire is playing Maguire. Wide-eyed and innocent, it’s not difficult to believe he and (real life pal) DiCaprio are close to a decade younger than their actual ages because neither has the weight of experience in their faces. In Maguire’s case, it isn’t that he can’t hold a scene, or that he’s unable to portray the constantly reflective Nick (and Maguire is a winning actor); it’s that he seems exactly the way he does in every movie he makes (that’s a little unfair; he’s quite distinctive in Brothers, but perhaps that the exception that proves the rule).


So there you go. I was fully prepared to bet I could never possibly like a Baz Lurhmann film ever again. Orstralia seemed like his apotheosis, or nadir, if you will. But the colour, and excess, the anachronism and opulence; they work in The Great Gatsby’s favour. It’s quite clear Baz can’t make a (period) movie without marbling it with his own particular vision of contemporaneity, but in this case the abandon succeeds in relaying the sadness and lack underneath. That, and a fine performance from Leo.


***1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Believe me, Mr Bond, I could shoot you from Stuttgart und still create ze proper effect.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
(SPOILERS) Some of the reactions to Spectre would have you believe it undoes all the “good” work cementing Daniel Craig’s incarnation of Bond in Skyfall. If you didn’t see that picture as the second coming of the franchise (I didn’t) your response to the latest may not be so harsh, despite its less successful choices (Blofeld among them). And it isn’t as if one step, forward two steps back are anything new in perceptions of the series (or indeed hugely divisive views on what even constitutes a decent Bond movie). After the raves greeting Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan suffered a decidedly tepid response to his second outing, Tomorrow Never Dies, albeit it was less eviscerated than Craig’s sophomore Quantum of Solace. Tomorrow’s reputation disguises many strong points, although it has to be admitted that a Moore-era style finale and a floundering attempt to package in a halcyon villain aren’t among them.

The Bond series’ flirtations with contemporary relevance have a…

Remember, you're fighting for this woman's honour – which is probably more than she ever did.

Duck Soup (1933)
(SPOILERS) Not for nothing is Duck Soup acclaimed as one of the greatest comedies ever, and while you’d never hold it against Marx Brothers movies for having little in the way of coherent plotting in – indeed, it’s pretty much essential to their approach – the presence of actual thematic content this time helps sharpen the edges of both their slapstick and their satire.

On account of you, I nearly heard the opera.

A Night at the Opera (1935)
(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers head over to MGM, minus one Zeppo, and despite their variably citing A Night at the Opera as their best film, you can see – well, perhaps not instantly, but by about the half-hour mark – that something was undoubtedly lost along the way. It isn’t that there’s an absence of very funny material – there’s a strong contender for their best scene in the mix – but that there’s a lot else too. Added to which, the best of the very funny material can be found during the first half of the picture.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

This better not be some 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea shit, man.

Underwater (2020)
(SPOILERS) There’s no shame in a quality B-movie, or in an Alien rip-off done well. But it’s nevertheless going to need that something extra to make it truly memorable in its own right. Underwater, despite being scuppered at the box office, is an entirely respectable entry in both those arenas from director William Eubank, but like the recent Life (which, in fairness, had an ending that very nearly elevated it to the truly memorable), it can’t quite go that extra mile, or summon that much needed sliver of inspiration to set it apart.

I still think it’s a terrible play, but it makes a wonderful rehearsal.

Room Service (1938)
(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers step away from MGM for a solitary RKO outing, and a scarcely disguised adaption of a play to boot. Room Service lacks the requisite sense of anarchy and inventiveness of their better (earlier) pictures – even Groucho’s name, Gordon Miller, is disappointingly everyday – but it’s nevertheless an inoffensive time passer.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Goodbye, Mr Chimps.

At the Circus (1939)
(SPOILERS) This is where the brothers sink into their stretch of middling MGM movies, now absent the presence of their major supporter Irving Thalberg; it’s probably for the best this wasn’t called A Day at the Circus, as it would instantly have drawn unflattering comparisons with the earlier MGM pair that gave them their biggest hits. Nevertheless, there’s enough decent material to keep At the Circus fairly sprightly (rather than “fairly ponderous”, as Pauline Kael put it).

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…