Messy, Musical, Melodramatic: The Great Gatsby Flops!

The Good: The humor works well, Decent acting, One or two moments of direction
The Bad: Pacing, Horrible soundtrack, Dull character progression, Most of the direction, Voiceovers
The Basics: Baz Lurhmann adapts The Great Gatsby with an overwhelming sense of (poor) style over substance.


One of the most-hyped films of 2013 was The Great Gatsby and given how many people recommended the film to me, I felt some compulsion to watch the movie. Having finally taken in Baz Luhrmann’s interpretation of the classic F. Scott Fitzgerald novel, I find myself in the minority once again. Luhrmann overwhelms what could have been an amazing cinematic rendition of the novel with an erratic sense of his style: while I am usually loathe to rate movies higher based on them possessing great special effects, with The Great Gatsby I find myself unwilling to limit my negative impression of the effects to only one of the ten customary points: in other words, the special effects in The Great Gatsby are so distractingly bad that they make the film drag and they destroy the positive aspects of the movie.

The Great Gatsby uses a modern soundtrack (Jay-Z, Beyonce, etc.) in its period piece in a way that seems like Luhrmann is trying to be trendy and edgy, but is executed with such sloppiness that it guts the resonance of the film almost immediately. Even worse are the visual effects. Luhrmann makes a conscious choice to change the film grain on many of his wide, party shots. This is completely distracting and pulls the viewer out of the realism of the film. The net result is a movie whose characters tell a story that should be interesting, but is so poorly presented that it becomes excruciating to sit through. And I write this as one who recalls loving the novel The Great Gatsby. As my wife noted, “For a movie with such an interesting mystery surrounding the protagonist, this movie sucked!”

In Prohibition Era, Post-World War I New York City, Nick Carraway is suffering from insomnia, depression and alcoholism and to relieve his symptoms, his doctor recommends he writes down his story. Carraway tells the story of his cousin, Daisy Buchanan, and his neighbor, J. Gatsby. Gatsby lives in the mansion next to the small home Carraway is in and Carraway travels to the other side of the Bay to visit Daisy and her husband Tom. After a drunken day with Tom, Tom’s mistress, and their friends, Carraway is invited to a party at Gatsby’s mansion. There, he meets the reclusive Gatsby (few of the party guests actually know who Gatsby is and only Carraway received an invitation to the party). Soon, Gatsby is taking Carraway around town and trying to convince the stock broker that he is trustworthy.

Gatsby asks Carraway for a favor (through a mutual friend); for Nick to invite Daisy over for tea. Carraway complies and he begins to learn of the convoluted history between Daisy and Gatsby and their affair that ended five years prior when Gatsby did not return from the War and Daisy married Tom. As Daisy and Gatsby rekindle their romance, Tom begins to investigate Gatsby’s obscured past. Carraway is drawn into the web of lies surrounding Tom, Daisy, and Gatsby and witnesses the destruction of multiple lives around him.

It’s hard for me to tell what Baz Luhrmann hoped to accomplish with The Great Gatsby. Was he trying to make a modern reinterpretation of the 1920s? The soundtrack seems to suggest that. Was he trying to make a film that captured the tone and feeling of the past? The film grain seems to suggest that. Was he going for a literal translation of The Greaty Gatsby for the screen? Toby Maguire’s unceasing voiceovers as Nick Carraway seem to suggest that (as he is thus able to deliver some of Fitzgerald’s best lines from the book that were not in the form of dialogue). Is he trying to make a smart character-driven movie? Leonardo DiCaprio’s ever-changing accent as Gatsby brilliantly shows the viewer what they need to know (that Gatsby’s character is shifty in nature), though that sort of intelligence is the exception, rather than the rule.

What Baz Luhrmann makes instead is a mess. Lacking one cohesive vision or idea, The Great Gatsby seems to take the shotgun approach and the film is bright and musical the way that Baz Luhrmann is known for. Unfortunately, it adds up to nothing nearly as special or interesting as the viewer would hope. The soap operatic nature of the love parallelogram that the main characters in The Great Gatsby are engaged in is exaggerated in the film.

Nick Carraway is well-presented by Toby Maguire, voiceovers notwithstanding. Carraway is reserved, but lacks the nervous quality of most of Maguire’s characters and the result is a more confident, less geeky Maguire which makes Carraway easy to watch. He becomes an interesting conduit to experience the life and times of Gatsby.

Leonardo DiCaprio is good as J. Gatsby, though it is Joel Edgerton who steals The Great Gatsby as Tom Buchanan. While some might be wowed by Carey Mulligan as Daisy, it’s hard to blame Baz Luhrmann for her. The character is virtually impossible to cast, but Mulligan was a particularly white bread option for her and she is much more bland than vivacious as Daisy. Sadly, she does not have the on-screen gravitas to make viewers believe that Gatsby and Tom would compete over her. But Edgerton . . . Edgerton plays Tom as menacing, charismatic, and smart. Despite being an incredibly unlikable individual, Tom is completely credible for all of the range of emotions he goes through. That type of transition can only be sold effectively by a wonderful actor and Joel Edgerton lives up in The Great Gatsby. Edgerton is tight-lipped and carries his body with a tension that makes his character seem angry under the surface in virtually every scene. Quite simply, he rocks.

Sadly, the Baz Luhrmann interpretation of The Great Gatsby does not. The film is a drawn-out mess that uses a few key literary elements and combines them with over-the-top moviemaking to make a film that ultimately adds up to less than what it should have been.

3.5/10

For other works with Joel Edgerton, please visit my reviews of:
The Odd Life Of Timothy Green
Smokin’ Aces
Revenge Of The Sith
Attack Of The Clones

For other movie reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing.

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Baz Luhrmann’s Creativity Does Not Diminish William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet The Way His Direction Does!

The Good: Great story, Decent chemistry, Most of the acting, Moments of direction
The Bad: Most of the direction
The Basics: A modern recasting of William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet is creative and accurate, but unfortunately cut more often than not.


Tonight, perusing my wife’s DVD collection for a new (to me) film to watch, I came upon William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet. My wife enthusiastically urged me to put in the film and I was in a Shakespeare mood, so I eagerly complied. Generally, I am glad I did.

That said, I have no inherent issue with modern interpretations of Shakespeare, but Baz Luhrmann’s William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet does not quite land it for me the way it does for my wife. In the case of William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet, all that really has been changed is that the film is set in modern Verona Beach and a few contemporary songs have been thrown in. The language is Shakespeare’s (for the most part) and the story is the classic Shakespeare play adapted to use the full scope of the screen well. Unfortunately, the directing is erratic at best and some of the acting is not all it ought to be.

In Verona Beach, the Montagues and the Capulets are warring families, gangs essentially. After a fight at a gas station, Benvolio reports back to the head of the Montague family, who is preoccupied with thoughts of his son, Romeo. Romeo, brooding young man that he is, is not eager to engage in the family war and is actually more interested in love. When Mercutio invites Romeo to a Capulet-thrown party, he goes, but without any real enthusiasm. At the party, however, he falls in love with Juliet upon first gazing upon her (through an aquarium) and she is taken with him, despite her mother trying to set him up with Dave Paris.

Following the party, Romeo and Juliet reunite, flirt, and confirm their love for one another. After a secret wedding, a fight breaks out in which Mercutio is killed and in anger, after being much provoked, Romeo kills Tybalt. This earns Romeo banishment from Verona Beach and with him gone, Juliet’s mother pushes her to marry Paris. But with the help of Juliet’s nurse and Father Laurence, Romeo and Juliet make plans to reunite and run away together, before all those plans lead to inevitable tragedy.

William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet is not Franco Zeffirelli’s interpretation of Romeo And Juliet (that was the cinematic version of the story I was raised on and remains a pretty true – literal – interpretation of Shakespeare’s play) and for all the risks it takes – with guns and street fighting – it is pretty tame. In fact, there are only two real strikes against it.

The first is Baz Luhrmann’s direction. The creativity – Mercutio in drag is fine, using televisions for the narrators, etc. – is enviable, though the color palate in the first half of the film is garish. Baz Luhrmann is creative and the creativity stands on its own, for the most part. The issue, though, is with the direction. Luhrmann has created an erratic film. William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet starts lit in bright colors, flamboyant and comical performances, and cuts made so manically that it is almost nauseating. The moment Romeo and Juliet spy one another through the fish tank, the film’s direction changes. The cuts are – blissfully – more static from that point on, the exception being the fight sequence that costs Mercutio his life. The film is still artful, but it looks much more professional and does not rely upon the shock of “modernized Shakespeare” the way the opening half does. Luhrmann also appears to think his audience is idiotic in that he repeats sections, most notably the opening monologue, multiple times as if it were not clear by the words and images he puts on screen.

The only other issue is with the performance of Claire Danes. Danes has been fabulous in each and every other thing I have seen her in, but in William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet she is more often than not stiff or tentative and she stood out at several key moments, especially when playing off Miriam Margolyes (the Nurse). That said, she and Leonardo DiCaprio (Romeo) have great on-screen chemistry. From the moment they first appear on screen together, their chemistry is entirely convincing and enjoyable to watch. They portray young love perfectly.

On DVD, William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet features a commentary track and galleries of production artwork. There are also music videos for some of the music works in the film. William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet is good, but not extraordinary; it takes the incredible poetic lines of Shakespeare and assembles them in an erratically-executed fashion.

For other films based on (or about) Shakespeare’s works, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Hamlet
O
Shakespeare In Love

6/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |