...My own personal critique as follows...
I did not like the opening of the 2013 movie with Nick in the sanitarium. In the 1974 version, the movie begins with scenes of Gatsby's empty manor then it proceeds with Sam Waterston (whom also plays Nick Carraway) rowing a boat to the infamous East Egg as he starts to tell his tale. In the '74 version, Waterston's portrayal of Nick is way more confident and mature than Maguire's character in Luhrmann's version.
I was slightly disappointed and at times disgusted by Nick Carraway's character in the 2013 film. Tobey Maguire did an excellent job at portraying Nick; he could only be as good as his role was written, and in my opinion, it was written badly. In the 2013 version, Luhrmann made Nick appear very weak and feeble. As I stated above, Maguire did well with what he was given, but with his version of Nick, he comes across like a naïve little school boy with a man-crush on Gatsby; almost too sycophant-like. If I did not like Maguire, I would have completely disliked Carraway in this movie. Overall, Nick is supposed to be more innocent and green than stupid. The '74 movie nailed his character while the 2013 movie crushed it.
In the 2013 movie, Gatsby was not as sincere and likable as he was in the 1974 movie. Leonardo also did good with what he was given, but he might have nailed the role of Jay if he had not tried so hard to copy, or perhaps to outdo, the earlier role of Redford. DiCaprio's version of Gatsby came across too rehearsed so each time he had to say "old sport," he just seemed too impish, matter-of-fact, annoying, and he just said it way too much. Redford captured the aura of Gatsby to the letter so whenever the script called for him to recite "old sport," he came across very sincere, unrehearsed, and just rather nonchalant (in a good way)! I especially liked that he did not utter the tag phrase as much.
IMO, movies are made not just to entertain us, but also to make us forget that we are merely watching a movie. Redford always takes me to the world where his movie resides. The 1974 version had me thinking I was visiting the fictitious Egg Islands of New York where residing on East Egg means you have "old money" and living across the sound means you have "new money", which is bad.
Ugh, and then there is that Daisy. Daisy was not a nice person by any means. I was happy with the way she was portrayed by Farrow (1974), but the way Carey Mulligan (2103) portrayed her almost dared the audience for sympathy. No, we are never supposed to feel sorry for Daisy. She does not mind that others might see her as a bit narcissistic as long as they do not really see her for who she really is. Daisy is a self-loathing person with extremely low self-esteem. She allows herself to be blind to Tom's philandering ways; it is okay that Tom has extramarital affairs as long as he comes home to her. She is okay with being married to him because he belongs to that elite group of society with old money. She cares too damn much about what others think of her. What a pathetic woman she is. She is part of the American Caste System.
As we should not feel sorry for Daisy, we should disregard any sympathy for Tom Buchanan. Tom was not a nice person! He was a philandering, elitist, carpet-bagger, socialite, and all-around son-of-a-bitch! He was also an instigator, and he never took responsibility for the ill things he did. It was always someone else's fault and Tom knew how to take blame away from himself--never caring who paid the consequences. Bruce Dern (1974) for sure, IMO, did so much better than Joel Edgerton (2013) with his right-on portrayal of the wayward Buchanan.
So I have torn apart the key characters in the 2013 version, but here is what I found mostly disturbing in the modern-day remake...
In the 2013 movie, Gatsby was not as sincere and likable as he was in the 1974 movie. Leonardo also did good with what he was given, but he might have nailed the role of Jay if he had not tried so hard to copy, or perhaps to outdo, the earlier role of Redford. DiCaprio's version of Gatsby came across too rehearsed so each time he had to say "old sport," he just seemed too impish, matter-of-fact, annoying, and he just said it way too much. Redford captured the aura of Gatsby to the letter so whenever the script called for him to recite "old sport," he came across very sincere, unrehearsed, and just rather nonchalant (in a good way)! I especially liked that he did not utter the tag phrase as much.
IMO, movies are made not just to entertain us, but also to make us forget that we are merely watching a movie. Redford always takes me to the world where his movie resides. The 1974 version had me thinking I was visiting the fictitious Egg Islands of New York where residing on East Egg means you have "old money" and living across the sound means you have "new money", which is bad.
Ugh, and then there is that Daisy. Daisy was not a nice person by any means. I was happy with the way she was portrayed by Farrow (1974), but the way Carey Mulligan (2103) portrayed her almost dared the audience for sympathy. No, we are never supposed to feel sorry for Daisy. She does not mind that others might see her as a bit narcissistic as long as they do not really see her for who she really is. Daisy is a self-loathing person with extremely low self-esteem. She allows herself to be blind to Tom's philandering ways; it is okay that Tom has extramarital affairs as long as he comes home to her. She is okay with being married to him because he belongs to that elite group of society with old money. She cares too damn much about what others think of her. What a pathetic woman she is. She is part of the American Caste System.
So I have torn apart the key characters in the 2013 version, but here is what I found mostly disturbing in the modern-day remake...
Out of everything that was wrong with the 2013 Gatsby movie, and everything I could have bitched and complained about, it was using those famous words at the wrong time; wrong time, wrong person! 'Rich girls don't marry poor boys' is important. Who says it, to whom it is said to, and the time during which it is said is important. Darn that 2013 version.
You decide for yourselves which movie version you prefer. You might even watch the other versions not listed in this post. Personally, I will always pick the Redford, Mia Farrow film. For that reason is why the review and comparison of the two versions was the one I liked and agreed with the best via Tinsel and Time. TT also liked the 1974 film the best.
Jack Clayton directed the 1974 film while Francis Ford Coppola wrote the screenplay, and the way they allowed the characters to be portrayed was wonderful. The key parts of the story were allowed to be key. Luhrmann did a terrible injustice to the characters and to the storyline; he bumbled some of the most touching moments and instead covered it all up with loopy music. But I still like and approve of how he used "Young and Beautiful" by Lana Del Rey. That was one of the few good things. Had the 2013 version been the only one made, and perhaps if the novel had not preceded it, then I would have liked it. I really did like it as I stated, but in comparing the two--it is apples and oranges.
You decide for yourselves which movie version you prefer. You might even watch the other versions not listed in this post. Personally, I will always pick the Redford, Mia Farrow film. For that reason is why the review and comparison of the two versions was the one I liked and agreed with the best via Tinsel and Time. TT also liked the 1974 film the best.
Jack Clayton directed the 1974 film while Francis Ford Coppola wrote the screenplay, and the way they allowed the characters to be portrayed was wonderful. The key parts of the story were allowed to be key. Luhrmann did a terrible injustice to the characters and to the storyline; he bumbled some of the most touching moments and instead covered it all up with loopy music. But I still like and approve of how he used "Young and Beautiful" by Lana Del Rey. That was one of the few good things. Had the 2013 version been the only one made, and perhaps if the novel had not preceded it, then I would have liked it. I really did like it as I stated, but in comparing the two--it is apples and oranges.
I still cannot fathom why Luhrmann would use the "rich girls don't marry poor boys" line out of context. Can you imagine the line from another classic movie (Gone With The Wind)-- "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" --being recited by a character actor to another character actor instead of by Clark Gable to Vivien Leigh (Rhett to Scarlett). Utter craziness!
In closing I will combine some famous movie lines to one Baz Luhrmann as I express my disappointment towards his putrid attempt at remaking a classic:
"Rich girls sometimes do marry poor boys,
and if some people don't like it, frankly, my dear Baz, I don't give a damn!"
Just my take for the day!
No comments:
Post a Comment