Sunday 2 June 2013

Film Review: The Great Gatsby (Baz Luhrmann, 2013)

What up...old sport?

Really quite good. Well, it's certainly the best Baz Luhrmann film.

For those for whom Luhrmann's previous films were somewhat...loud, the Great Gatsby will initially seem not dissimilar to works like Moulin Rouge! and Romeo + Juliet (Anybody else refer to this as Romeo Plus Juliet? No? Just me, then.*) in its resolute gaudiness, the director pouring champagne on any traditional definition of good taste, and drowning out the cries of the detractors with the juxtapositional din of the soundtrack Jay-Z "executive produced." Sometimes the music stops and, behind incessant chatter, one can hear the director flicking through banknotes, or set and costume design specifications.

[*I'm surprised he didn't think to add some quirky punctuation to this one, ie. The Great Gatsby? or The Gr8! Gatsby]

Much has been made of the film's post-modern treatment of the "Roaring Twenties," and it truly is ludicrous; amidst the Bacchanalian excess of the party sequences, the guests seem to pour alcohol over people and things as much as they actually drink it. So much for prohibition. At one point, the protagonists drive their CGI car past a vehicle full of African-Americans who are...wait for it...splashing alcohol around and listening to Jay-Z. Yeah, I think Luhrmann could do well to take a closer look at the social history of the United States.

What's remarkable is that, at around the halfway point, the film becomes good. And, I mean, really good. Its greatest scene, a tumultuous hotel-room summit featuring all of the primary ensemble, is light on "Luhrmannisms" and heavy on character and dialogue. When he allows himself a brief technical flourish, towards the scene's climax, it is particularly deserved, and especially effective.

Once the film gets into its groove, you realise that, for example, instances of the gimmicky culture-clash soundtrack (can I just set the record straight and say that I actually really like Jay-Z, and consider 'The Blueprint' to be one of the 21st century's finest albums) are, in fact, few and far between. It's like Luhrmann spends the opening portion of the film luring his fan-base into thinking they're in their comfort zone of "ooh! look! bright colours! shiny things! fast cars! lovely dresses!" and then decides to actually do The Great Gatsby.

The turning point was, for me, the scene wherein Nick, at Gatsby's request, invites Daisy Buchanan for tea. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to explain The Great Gatsby's plot to anybody; it's a book that absolutely everybody needs to read. I tried to adapt the aforementioned scene into screenplay form for my A-Level English coursework, writing it in the style of a Woody Allen comedy. The "comedy" pretence proved to be just that, upon my realisation that Fitzgerald's masterful prose was infinitely funnier than anything I could hope to write. There is little of the novel's bitter, satirical humour in the picture, but this scene balances it perfectly (and, a rare occurrence in this adaptation, relatively faithfully) with heart-wrenching drama. DiCaprio continues his winning streak with a wonderfully charismatic and vulnerable performance that adds immeasurably to the whole "show." Carrie Mulligan manages to nail Daisy's shallow charm, but it is far from her best work; disappointingly so, as she is generally excellent in everything, and was a primary reason for looking forward to this adaptation. Toby Maguire, whilst never the most arresting screen presence, carries the film; it would fall apart with work less solid than his.

Yet, despite its cast of the talented and the beautiful, The Great Gatsby is a flawed film. Perhaps - ironically when one considers its contemporary and historical context - the financiers just gave Luhrmann too much money? Whilst it was certainly a decadent time for America's privileged classes, and Gatsby's lower-class aspiration remains at its heart, the critical near-consensus that it is simply an overbearing aesthetic for a novel of such nuance and subtlety is hard to disagree with.

Oh, and I saw it in 2D. Baz Luhrmann can make a reasonably enjoyable film, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pay him extra money so I can put a pair of glasses over my glasses. I'm not a total asshole.



3 comments:

  1. I saw this t'other day, and drew many of the same conclusions. Having consumed a few reviews beforehand, it actually wasn't quite as lavish as I was expecting, and even though I'm certainly not a fan of Jay-Z, I didn't find the soundtrack jarring at all.

    Luhrmann certainly isn't shy of making his audience only too well aware of whose film it is they're watching. I suppose one could say the same about Hitchcock or Tarantino or Allen, but the difference here is that the trademarks are audio-visual as opposed to thematic or dialogic. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I think it annoys me less than it used to. On the other hand, I made the effort to watch this film at the cinema (2D of course) because it was Fitzgerald, rather than because it was Luhrmann.

    For a while I tried to dislike DiCaprio, but I didn't get very far with it. He's remarkably consistent in selecting worthwhile roles in worthwhile films. Now I can't remember the last time I questioned his judgement.

    I've always liked Maguire. He invariably lends believability and charm to a film, and certainly does so here. Perhaps there is a tad too much focus on the male leads, resulting in a lack of space for Mulligan and the rest of the ensemble to exploit.

    I might add half a star to your three, but wouldn't go as far as a four.

    Really good review, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Literally no excuse for you not commenting on my last short story, you negligent motherfucker!

      Kidding - you're absolutely right on many points; DiCaprio has an awesome working relationship with Martin Scorsese, and has done great work in Inception and Django Unchained. He's really got to the point where he's so rich and famous (critically respected, too) that he doesn't need to do any films that aren't an interesting project or with a great auteur.

      Interesting you mentioned Woody Allen - did you feel Luhrmann was paying homage to him with the fireworks/'Rhapsody in Blue' part? Definitely brought back memories of Manhattan, although Allen will never be as grandiose as Luhrmann. I saw the film for Fitzgerald too. And Carrie Mulligan, who was underutilised in the end. Good movie, though, yeah.

      Glad you thought it was a good review!

      Delete
  2. There isn't an excuse for my lack of comment, you're right. Mind you, your techniques of persuasion might need a little work...

    In all honesty I find it far more difficult to offer remote comment/criticism on fiction than I do to chip in on a film review or opinion piece. But leave it with me, okay?

    DiCaprio's judgement is just spot on. I know he's younger, but I'm drawing comparisons with maybe Pitt and Cruise as A List leading men, and they both make more than their share of turkeys, whereas Leo seems unable to put a foot wrong. I hope he turns his hand to some directing soon.

    It was impossible not to think Manhattan with the Rhapsody in Blue / fireworks thing going on. There's no way Luhrmann could be unaware of the inevitable comparisons, although he's of course portraying the seedier side of that city, whereas Allen's is a reverential reflection on his home town.

    Never call me motherfucker again. I know where you live.

    I'm not kidding.

    (Yes I am).

    ReplyDelete