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

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Anything can happen in Little Storping. Anything at all.

The Avengers 2.22: Murdersville
Brian Clemens' witty take on village life gone bad is one of the highlights of the fifth season. Inspired by Bad Day at Black Rock, one wonders how much Murdersville's premise of unsettling impulses lurking beneath an idyllic surface were set to influence both Straw Dogs and The Wicker Mana few years later (one could also suggest it premeditates the brand of backwoods horrors soon to be found in American cinema from the likes of Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper).

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Moonraker (1979)
Depending upon your disposition, and quite possibly age, Moonraker is either the Bond film that finally jumped the shark or the one that is most gloriously redolent of Roger Moore’s knowing take on the character. Many Bond aficionados will no doubt utter its name with thinly disguised contempt, just as they will extol with gravity how Timothy Dalton represented a masterful return to the core values of the series. If you regard For Your Eyes Only as a refreshing return to basics after the excesses of the previous two entries, and particularly the space opera grandstanding of this one, it’s probably fair to say you don’t much like Roger Moore’s take on Bond.

The protocol actually says that most Tersies will say this has to be a dream.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)
(SPOILERS) The Wachowski siblings’ wildly patchy career continues apace. They bespoiled a great thing with The Matrix sequels (I liked the first, not the second), misfired with Speed Racer (bubble-gum visuals aside, hijinks and comedy ain’t their forte) and recently delivered the Marmite Sense8 for Netflix (I was somewhere in between on it). Their only slam-dunk since The Matrix put them on the movie map is Cloud Atlas, and even that’s a case of rising above its limitations (mostly prosthetic-based). Jupiter Ascending, their latest cinema outing and first stab at space opera, elevates their lesser works by default, however. It manages to be tone deaf in all the areas that count, and sadly fetches up at the bottom of their filmography pile.

This is a case where the roundly damning verdicts have sadly been largely on the ball. What’s most baffling about the picture is that, after a reasonably engaging set-up, it determinedly bores the pants off you. I haven’t enco…

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

My dear, sweet brother Numsie!

The Golden Child (1986)
Post-Beverly Hills Cop, Eddie Murphy could have filmed himself washing the dishes and it would have been a huge hit. Which might not have been a bad idea, since he chose to make this misconceived stinker.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991)
(SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

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…