The Lesser Gatsby

So, you may remember a couple of months ago I considered why it was that Baz Lurhmann would wish to make a remake of The Great Gatsby? And I said that I would reserve my judgement? Well, I have now managed to get to see the film... just under three weeks after release. 

That's not bad for me.

So, what did I think?

Well... it was a disappointment. It was a FODJEM disappointment. But then I shouldn't have been surprised.

A FODGEM disappointment? 

Forced
Ostentatious
Device-led
Juxtapositionally-jarring
Extreme; and
Melodramatic.

Forced?
Well, this is a theme you will see running through the next few headings; but it was so forced that you felt no empathy, no sympathy with the characters. It didn't help that a lot of the other things were so distracting from the characters; but even the 'old sport' catchphrase which is supposed to be key. It's in the book, but it jars in the film - it just seems so forced, so out of character that it doesn't work in the end. Also, the fact that Nick keeps appearing in every scene is uncomfortable. I know the book is written from Nick's perspective; however for him to be there at every single companion moment is not necessary. He interrupts so many private moments that the only surprise is that Baz doesn't place him at the foot of the bed in the sex scene.

Ostentatious?
Well, I know - it's Baz Lurhmann. He's not a cheap man. But whereas the original film celebrates the washed-out, understated decadence and opulence of the jazz era in the same way as the book does; the new film does brash, bold, colourful. Almost distastefully. I know it's trying to distinguish itself, make sure that it isn't just a remake of the original (justifying itself against my post, identifying a uniqueness) however it doesn't fit. Half of the film is 1920s, half of it isn't. In fact; that isn't true... as will become clear later on.

Devices?
The film uses every cinematic device that Baz uses in Moulin Rouge! It doesn't distinguish itself in the slightest. There is so much duplication it is distracting. There is the zoom-out-to-cityscape; the model buildings; the wide sweeps; the pull-in-zoom-out. The brash colours referred to reference particular characters, particular situations in a way that Jean-Pierre Jeunet manages to achieve very well throughout his films; particularly Amelie; but which Lurhmann confuses, over-multiplies and ends up losing the reasoning behind it. It just becomes brash and forced colour; classically forced 3-D filming; and generally feeling fake, model or CGI.

As well as a cinematograpical, devices are other, story-lead devices which are introduced outwith the original story. There is a good back-story in the book, but Lurhmann advances on a full character assassination of Gatsby; whilst still expecting us to sympathize with him at the end. It's impossible. Yes, the desperation to get Daisy eventually pulls through, but the underside is overplayed to the extent that you actually don't want Daisy to care. Then there are minor themes which are overplayed to the distraction of the main story...

Juxtapositionally-jarring?
Well, I've already talked about how the colours were brash to the point of distraction and confusion. The costumery and set were in absolute disarray. Some of it seemed to be set in the 1920s-30s as should be. Some of it was set in a faux-medieval castle. Maybe that's what people spent their money on in 1920s Long Island. But it looked CGI-etched in. Then the music was a horrible slam-up between the 1920s; 1950s; 1970s; 1990s and early 2000s. Simply taking some New York artists does not make the track appropriate. It all just jarred. I know Baz is known for his juxtapositions - modern with Shakespeare in Romeo + Juliet; modern with 19th Century in Moulin Rouge! But this had so many styles, themes, sets that there was absolutely no consistency throughout the film, it was distracting to the extent of disorientating. And this is all at the same time as trying to get us to emote? 

The original was set properly in the jazz era. It may surprise to know that jazz has rules, but that they are fluid, soft rules. Assuming that you know, acknowledge and appropriate use those rules you can create good jazz. Unfortunately what the film tries to do is the opposite - look at the rules, force the breaking of those rules, and then try to make it sound good. One is free-working within rules; the other is strict-working outside of rules. Jazz works. 

Extremes?
Well, a lot of this has already been mentioned or is still to come; but again diversity is key. All of the peripheral characters are extremes. This is not set in a circus as Moulin Rouge! is, this is set in the very restrained, pre-civil rights era. Indeed, the script repeatedly makes reference to the them-and-us attitude between the dominant whites over the coloureds. And yet, in the middle of all of that Gatsby has a transgender black man performing in the middle of his parties? It just doesn't sit. But it is there throughout. 

Melodrama?
It's the only language Baz seems to speak. Buchanan is clearly the The Duke from Moulin Rouge! It's the 'extreme' category extrapolated further. Daisy isn't just wet, she is SO wet she can't decide anything. Buchanan isn't just nasty, he's almost demonic; Gatsby isn't just caddish, he's so unbelievably caddish so as to override his gallantry at the end (as apparently his friends realise); Carraway isn't just bland, he's so bland so as to be there when you don't even realise he is or need him to be there. Which is a shame as I think Tobey Maguire actually gives one of the better, more realistically believable performances throughout the film. Even the butler seems sinister. 

So it didn't work with me? Not at all.

When looking at a reason to make a remake, essentially it comes down to two reasons:
Duplication; and
Divergence

This being reasons where you can improve upon the original, either by doing the same thing better, or achieving the same end by doing it different.

Unfortunately, the divergences seem to have been at the expense of what everyone loves the original story and films for. The soft-focus; hazy summer is beautifully, opulently, subtly represented in the book and the original film; the new film (again, seeking justification for it's being) head-on challenges this with noisy (Baz doesn't do quiet), brash, garish, bright, overwhelmingness that leaves a feeling of milk curdling in the stomach.

The duplicatations?

Well, aside from the occasional glimpses with the original story (ok, now I'm being very harsh) the duplications are all those with Moulin Rouge!

Cinematographical techniques are entirely lifted. There are basically no new shots.
The green light (which, admittedly, is Fitzgerald's invention) could be the green fairy; but is most likely all of Freedom, Beauty Truth and Love.
The writing/typewriter. For goodness sake. This is all from Moulin Rouge! He starts both films out with the character basically revealing the ending all the way at the start; using the typewriter throughout to tell the story. It's a forced device that seemed novel at first, and now just seems a way to integrate the novel's monologue without being too inventive.
The glasses of Eckleburg could very easily be translated against the windmill of the Moulin Rouge, the way the camera plays upon them.
The organists in each of the movies appears to be the same. It isn't, but they are styled and directed so similarly. 
Even the parties are practically identical - the same mash-ups, the same colours, the same angles, shots, pans and zooms; the noise, the colour; the busyness; the everything.
And so many little snippets of dialogue are copied. "She doesn't love you, she loves me" - though this echoes back to the melodramatic aspects. There's only so many ways you can say the same things.

So I was disappointed. But I expected to be disappointed. Was I any more disappointed? Yes. I was disappointed at how much a carbon-copy of Moulin Rouge! it turned out to be. You could predict every camera movement; and once you started with that game it was as distracting as the noise and the harsh colours, poor reworks and flimsy recharacterisation so as to leave you entirely bereft of the film. 

But then I might be biased: myself and my friend were sat between someone who had such flatulence every ten minutes of the movie on the one side; and a couple who were determined to have oral sex on the other.