Hi everyone! And happy Labor Day.
I finally saw Baz Luhrmann's film of "The Great Gatsby" the other night. I've always been less a fan and more an admirer of his work. Taken as a whole, his films ("Strictly Ballroom", "Romeo & Juliet", "Moulin Rouge", and "Australia") are an impressive body of work if for no other reason than the audacity of their vision. I think Luhrmann is one of the few filmmakers today who can inspire both groans of despair and sighs of irrepressible glee in the span of a single film. His films knock you over with their frenetic pace and awe with their stunning visual palate. He takes chances in ways few of his contemporaries ever do and while the results aren't always positive, one can never say a Luhrmann production lacks vision.
"The Great Gatsby" proves no exception. It worked for me in ways that I didn't expect it to. And it failed for me in much the same way. Having said that though, I think of any film I've seen thus far in 2013, Luhrmann's "Gatsby" is -- from a purely cinematic perspective -- one of the year's best.
It all comes down to his vision. This is a film that leaps off the screen in bold gleaming colors and artificial landscapes and cityscapes that have no bearing on any sort of reality. Everything is capped with an exclamation point. If this were a musical -- which it very nearly is -- it would undoubtedly be called "Gatsby!" Let me see your Jazz hands everyone...or at least your Charleston. Gatsby's estate looks like the fairy castle at Disneyland with fountains that shoot water into the sky amid a rainbow of technicolor light. The gas station which houses the ill-fated Myrtle and Wilson exists in a weird almost post-apocalyptic wasteland of dirt and industrial ash. There's no missing the contrast between the excessive wealth of Gatsby and his East Egg crowd and the desperately poor (and just desperate) milieu inhabited by the less fortunates.
And while at first blush it is all rather over-the-top and vulgar, the vision works. Some critics have wrongly, I believe, written of the film that it celebrates and revels in the excess that the novel berates. Yes, there is excess and yes there is an almost orgiastic revelry to the proceedings, but never does the viewer (or at least this viewer) feel that he wants to be a part of it. These people are irredeemably shallow and the beauty is merely skin deep. This is "The Great Gatsby" set in a certain kind of gilded hell. And added to that is the hip hop-tinged soundtrack that I fully expected to criticize but came away thinking it was an utterly appropriate (if not inspired) accompaniment to the events on screen. Who would have thought that Beyonce, Jay-Z, and will.i.am would translate as well as they do in a 1920s setting? Perhaps only in a Luhrmann film...
My biggest criticism of the film is its acting. I will say that Tobey Maguire as Nick and Australian actor Joel Edgerton as Tom Buchanan were really very good. At heart, this is Nick's story. The reader (and the viewer) see the story of Gatsby and Daisy through Nick's eyes. Maguire (while no Sam Waterston) manages to convey both Nick's awe and repulsion with a sense of humor and a plucky kind of aplomb that is a lot of fun to watch. Edgerton's Tom is blustery (a "brute" Daisy calls him in the climactic scene at the Plaza Hotel), macho, and one senses capable of real violence. His is a presence that manages to cut through the excess all around him, which is no small task for an actor in a Luhrmann film. While not entirely sympathetic, Tom Buchanan is probably the closest to real flesh and blood of any of the characters.
Carey Mulligan as Daisy and Leonardo diCaprio as, of course, Gatsby fare less well. I think Ms. Mulligan is an amazing actress (her heartbreaking performance as Michael Fassbender's lonely and tormented younger sister in 2011's "Shame" is masterful), yet there's surprisingly very little depth to her portrayal of Daisy. She pouts and giggles and poses on cue without really ever seeming fully inhabited in the role. And diCaprio's Gatsby is neither here nor there. I realize that part of the mystery of Gatsby is that he is ultimately unknowable. DiCaprio doesn't exude mystery here. His line readings are flat and he comes across as a little kid dressed up in big kid finery. And while I've liked him in other films ("J. Edgar" is, I believe, his finest moment) he is woefully miscast as Gatsby. I'd be intrigued to see what an actor like Michael Fassbender, for example, might do with the role. It would probably be a very different film.
So my final verdict on "The Great Gatsby" is that there is much to be admired in its visual audacity, its excessive cinematography and its pulsating soundtrack. I also admire the fact that it is quite faithful to Fitzgerald's original novel and I wasn't even bothered by the narrative device of having Nick relate the story from a mental institution. It made sense to me. If you're already a Luhrmann fan and have seen at least one or two of his earlier films (for sheer romanticism and epic sweep I highly recommend "Australia") you're probably in a better position to admire and even enjoy his version "Gatsby". But for the uninitiated or for those who expect more from a very talented cast, this is going to be a disappointment.
Bottom line: this is a Baz Luhrmann film. I happened to like it very much but I can also appreciate why others might not feel the same. But like it or hate it, you can't deny this film makes an impact. And I also doubt any other film this year will come close to matching its audacity.
Showing posts with label Carey Mulligan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Carey Mulligan. Show all posts
Monday, September 2, 2013
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Movie Review: Shame
Hi everyone! Hope y'all are having a good weekend.
Pretty quiet here...getting the apartment decorated for Christmas, catching up on some reading, errands, etc. I did get a chance yesterday to see British director Steve McQueen's controversial new film "Shame" starring Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan. While it's certainly not for everyone, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I think it's definitely one of the best films of 2011.
What makes this film so great are the two standout performances of its lead actors. Mr. Fassbender is sleek, suave, and eerily seductive as Brandon, a thirtysomething Manhattan corporate professional with a sex addiction that increasingly comes to dominate his life and isolates him from anything and anyone who might attempt to care for him, chiefly his sister Cissy--played by the remarkable Ms. Mulligan--a troubled nightclub singer who moves into Brandon's apartment for reasons that are never really explained. The film unflinchingly but ever so stylishly depicts Brandon and Cissy's relationship as their lives spiral out of control.
While some may find fault with Mr. McQueen's decision not to dwell on a backstory for these characters--i.e. we never really learn anything about Brandon and Cissy beyond what transpires onscreen and a passing mention of the fact that both had grown up in New Jersey--I loved the fact that we are thrown into the middle of the action and are forced to deal with Brandon and Cissy on the basis of what we witness as opposed to what we are told. It's a risky decision as it may make us less sympathetic to their very real tragedies since we never know what brought them on. But what makes this narrative device--and the film as a whole--work so beautifully is the subtle and nuanced performances of Fassbender and Mulligan. You feel their frustration, their desperation, their pain even as you are often repulsed by their behavior or just merely baffled. Is there an incestuous connection between them? Are both victims of earlier sexual abuse? Again and again you find yourself asking these questions but the film never provides answers. And while some might find this a flaw, I respected the decision not to burden us with what could quite easily have become cliche.
"Shame" is a film full of quiet moments and arresting images and yes, there is even some humor, not to mention one of the most bizarre and irritating renditions of the song "New York, New York" ever committed to celluloid. And yes, there is sex--NC-17 rated sex which leaves very little to the imagination. However, while some of it is quite shocking, I never found it to be gratuitous. Brandon and Cissy are creatures of extremes. In less capable hands, one might be inclined to view them with something more akin to contempt than sympathy. But instead, I came to feel quite deeply for them, and while the ending is not necessarily surprising given what's come before it, I found the final scenes quietly devastating.
Like it or hate it--and I liked it...a lot--"Shame" leaves an impression that isn't easy to shake. As far as emotional impact on the viewer, of all the films I've seen this year, only Lars von Trier's "Melancholia" tops "Shame" in terms of wrenching sheer emotion from the viewer. Neither of these films are going to appeal to the masses, but as far as a truly visceral, unique cinematic experience, it doesn't get much better than this.
Ciao.
QUESTION OF THE DAY: "When you go to the movies, what are you hoping to experience first and foremost: sheer entertainment that doesn't require you to think, or an emotional experience that causes you to question your values and/or your perception of life?"
Pretty quiet here...getting the apartment decorated for Christmas, catching up on some reading, errands, etc. I did get a chance yesterday to see British director Steve McQueen's controversial new film "Shame" starring Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan. While it's certainly not for everyone, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I think it's definitely one of the best films of 2011.
What makes this film so great are the two standout performances of its lead actors. Mr. Fassbender is sleek, suave, and eerily seductive as Brandon, a thirtysomething Manhattan corporate professional with a sex addiction that increasingly comes to dominate his life and isolates him from anything and anyone who might attempt to care for him, chiefly his sister Cissy--played by the remarkable Ms. Mulligan--a troubled nightclub singer who moves into Brandon's apartment for reasons that are never really explained. The film unflinchingly but ever so stylishly depicts Brandon and Cissy's relationship as their lives spiral out of control.
While some may find fault with Mr. McQueen's decision not to dwell on a backstory for these characters--i.e. we never really learn anything about Brandon and Cissy beyond what transpires onscreen and a passing mention of the fact that both had grown up in New Jersey--I loved the fact that we are thrown into the middle of the action and are forced to deal with Brandon and Cissy on the basis of what we witness as opposed to what we are told. It's a risky decision as it may make us less sympathetic to their very real tragedies since we never know what brought them on. But what makes this narrative device--and the film as a whole--work so beautifully is the subtle and nuanced performances of Fassbender and Mulligan. You feel their frustration, their desperation, their pain even as you are often repulsed by their behavior or just merely baffled. Is there an incestuous connection between them? Are both victims of earlier sexual abuse? Again and again you find yourself asking these questions but the film never provides answers. And while some might find this a flaw, I respected the decision not to burden us with what could quite easily have become cliche.
"Shame" is a film full of quiet moments and arresting images and yes, there is even some humor, not to mention one of the most bizarre and irritating renditions of the song "New York, New York" ever committed to celluloid. And yes, there is sex--NC-17 rated sex which leaves very little to the imagination. However, while some of it is quite shocking, I never found it to be gratuitous. Brandon and Cissy are creatures of extremes. In less capable hands, one might be inclined to view them with something more akin to contempt than sympathy. But instead, I came to feel quite deeply for them, and while the ending is not necessarily surprising given what's come before it, I found the final scenes quietly devastating.
Like it or hate it--and I liked it...a lot--"Shame" leaves an impression that isn't easy to shake. As far as emotional impact on the viewer, of all the films I've seen this year, only Lars von Trier's "Melancholia" tops "Shame" in terms of wrenching sheer emotion from the viewer. Neither of these films are going to appeal to the masses, but as far as a truly visceral, unique cinematic experience, it doesn't get much better than this.
Ciao.
QUESTION OF THE DAY: "When you go to the movies, what are you hoping to experience first and foremost: sheer entertainment that doesn't require you to think, or an emotional experience that causes you to question your values and/or your perception of life?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)