Your 3rd draft of a college essay is due on Friday, May 31st.
Do Now:
Think about yesterday's viewing of The Great Gatsby.
- By what were you the most impressed ?
- By what were you the least impressed ?
Prepare to share your thoughts.
SWBAT:
Critically assess the modern adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, by combining several current movie reviews with the student's own observations.
Your assignment:
Create a movie review of the modern version of The Great Gatsby. Take on the voice and persona of a movie critic. Make sure to substantiate your claims with specific evidence from the novel and movie. You must quote from at least one published movie review in your own review. Movie reviews must be a 250-300 words and are to be posted to the blog by Thursday, May 30th.
1. A truly great ‘Gatsby’
DiCaprio dazzles in ‘Baz Age’ tale
Baz Luhrmann’s “The Great Gatsby” is the first must-see film of Hollywood’s summer season, if for no other reason than its jaw-dropping evocation of Roaring ’20s New York — in 3-D, no less.
Given the director’s penchant for visual bombast and the superhero-sized budget at his disposal, it’s also surprisingly satisfying (and text-faithful) as a dramatization of F. Scott’s Fitzgerald’s classic novel — thanks to stellar work by Leonardo DiCaprio in the title role and Tobey Maguire as his neighbor and only true friend, Nick Carraway.
Luhrmann and co-writer Craig Pearce (his collaborator on "Moulin Rouge''!) have emphasized Carraway’s role as Fitzgerald’s alter ego by first showing him as a patient at an alcoholism sanitarium, urged by a shrink to exorcise his memories of the fateful summer of 1922 by writing them down.
Warner Bros. Pictures
CLASSY CLASSIC: Leonardo DiCaprio stars as Jay Gatsby and Carey Mulligan as his love interest, Daisy Buchanan, in Baz Luhrmann’s “The Great Gatsby.”
Matt Hart
The faintly homoerotic relationship between Jay Gatsby and Nick at times tends to overshadow Gatsby’s doomed and tireless romantic pursuit of Daisy (Carey Mulligan) — a one-time sweetheart and Nick’s cousin who is now married to Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton), a boorish scion of old money.
Gatsby, who lives in nouveau riche West Egg, devotes seemingly endless hours staring across the harbor at a green beacon in front of the mansion where the Buchanans live.
The enigmatic millionaire and rumored bootlegger certainly isn’t much interested in the spectacular parties he gives in his own, no-less-impressive mansion. But director and master showman Luhrmann certainly is, and it’s the closest any of us will ever get to that gilded and vulgar age of nearly a century ago. (The fabulous production design is by Luhrmann's wife and longtime collaborator, Catherine Martin).
The first party scene -- there are two big ones, as well as a definitive speakeasy sequence -- is a real wowser, with exaggerated colors that give us a look at what that era's two-strip Technicolor might have looked like in 3-D. Overall, I don't think the 3-D adds anything, and it's downright distracting when when the stereoscopic effect lags behind Luhrmann's hyperactive camera in the early part of the movie, not to mention the strange-looking stereoscopic conversion of colorized stock and newsreel footage.
Yes, he does deliberately mix and match period details, like the Empire State Building rising a decade too early, or Beyoncé sharing musical honors with George Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in Blue.”
But it works a lot better than you'd expect, because it's consistent with Luhrmann's vision, which also plays up Gatsby's status as a tabloid figure, something previous screen versions -- including the pretty but lumbering 1974 effort starring Robert Redford and Mia Farrow -- have played down.
Gatsby, memorably introduced with the backing of Gershwin and a spectaular fireworks display, makes a rare appearance at one of his own parties because he wants a reluctant Nick to arrange a reunion with Daisy, never mind that she’s married with a child.
Maguire provides some much needed levity, something in short supply in previous screen renderings.
When Gatsby arrives at Nick’s humble cottage with an army of servants bearing flowers, he earnestly asks Nick “Do you think it’s too much?’’ and his host replies diplomatically, “I think it’s what you want.”
Gatsby even slips through the back door when Daisy shows up — even though it’s pouring — and returns, as if he’s just arrived, sopping wet. It’s a bold directorial choice that telegraphs just how the character’s over-eagerness will eventually dash his romantic dreams.
Even better is a showdown in a sweltering hotel room between Gatsby and Tom -- a role that Ben Affleck was born to play and had to relinquish to the less suitable Edgerton because of a schedule conflict. Luhrmann has never handled actors anywhere near as well in the past.
Mulligan, who plays the fickle Daisy, gives a solid if uncharismatic performance and rocks period fashions. It’s hard to see how her Daisy would inspire Gatsby to reinvent himself as a wealthy faux gentleman to win back her hand. The role should have been handed to Elizabeth Debicki, who makes a stunning US debut as Daisy’s haughty pal Jordan Baker (though she doesn't have much to do in the second half of the movie).
As “The Great Gatsby” hurtles like the antihero's roadster toward its tragic climax, the crucial subplot centering on Tom’s mistress, Myrtle Wilson (Isla Fisher), and her garage-owner husband, George (Jason Clarke), is compromised by miscasting. And whose idea was it to have Indian actor Amitabh Bachchan play Jewish gangster Meyer Wolfsheim?
But DiCaprio makes a splendid, Oscar-caliber Gatsby, capturing the dark side behind his affected bonhomie as no actor has done since Alan Ladd in 1949. He's perfectly abetted by Maguire's hard-drinking Nick, whose yearnings may never be fulfilled. The actor also gives a fine reading of the narration taken mostly from the book, which also appears from time to time in text form on the screen. That's one way to get young audiences to read the classics.
But then you look at Luhrmann’s astonishing re-creation of Fitzgerald’s Valley of the Ashes (now Flushing Meadow Park), where the Wilsons live under the merciless gaze of a dentist’s sign. To me, this sight alone is worth the price of admission for a movie that may not be truly great but certainly stands out like a beacon in a sea of silly blockbusters.
2. Jazzy visuals drown out the subtlety of the classic American novel.
Frenzied and overwrought, Baz Luhrmann'sThe Great Gatsbyis a glitz-filled folly.
The director has fashioned a gaudy long-form music video — all kaleidoscopic spectacle and little substance — rather than a radiant new take on an American literary classic.
F. Scott Fitzgerald's epic tragedy is lost amid the lavish excess (** out of four; rated PG-13; opens Thursday night in select theaters and Friday nationwide).
So much effort seems to have gone into the eye-popping production design, swooping camera work and anachronistic musical score that the result is hyper-active cacophony rather than enthralling entertainment.
For those who don't remember their high school English classes, The Great Gatsby is the tale of the mysterious self-made millionaire Jay Gatsby, as seen through the eyes of his next-door neighbor Nick Carraway.
Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) has bought an impossibly luxurious mansion on Long Island for one purpose: to grab the attention of Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan), the socialite he has obsessively loved since they courted five years before. He throws outlandishly sumptuous parties in the hopes that one day she will stop by.
FASHION: In 'Great Gatsby,' polished fashion pizzazz prevails
GUIDE: USA TODAY's Summer Movie Calendar
MORE: The latest movie reviews from USA TODAY
GUIDE: USA TODAY's Summer Movie Calendar
MORE: The latest movie reviews from USA TODAY
Daisy is married to Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton) and lives across the water from Gatsby. Nick (Tobey Maguire) is her distant cousin. When Gatsby learns of their connection, he persuades Nick to invite Daisy to tea, intent on rekindling her affections.
For a while their passion flares, but things end badly for this party-hearty bunch.
Luhrmann is drawn to tales of impossible love — see his William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge! So Gatsby would seem to be in his wheelhouse. But while his version is undeniably resplendent, the story's emotional beats fall flat.
In the novel, when no one shows up for Gatsby's final gathering, it's a poignant moment. But in the movie that scene is almost glanced over.
The performances are generally lackluster. DiCaprio has some of the haunted qualities of Gatsby, but also comes off as dully aloof. He and Mulligan lack chemistry. Edgerton plays the role of Tom as if twirling a villain's mustache. Maguire is serviceable, but bland.
Luhrmann's 3-D visual flourishes feel superfluous: Occasionally, words pop out across the screen as Nick feverishly writes Gatsby's tale, and feathers, confetti and streamers fly toward the audience during Gatsby's orgiastic soirees. None of it contributes to a sense of immersion.
The melange of hip hop, pop and jazz might have worked if the rest of the film hadn't been bent on overkill. Interspersing the music of Jay-Z, Beyoncé and Lana Del Rey makes commercial sense for attracting young audiences. But it feels more calculated than artfully integrated.
The film conveys the decadence of a moneyed crowd in the Roaring '20s. But nothing about the story is moving, or remotely subtle. While it can be argued that Fitzgerald employed rather overt symbolism, his words were also marked by nuance, which Luhrmann essentially obliterates.
A key scene stands out for its significance: Gatsby takes Daisy on a tour of his estate. Elated to have her in his house and conscious of his vast wealth, he goes into his bedroom, pulls out dozens of custom-made tailored shirts and throws them on the bed. Daisy buries her face in the shirts and sobs at their beauty.
It's as if Luhrmann used that scene for his template. His version of The Great Gatsbyis stylish, colorful material piled on in excess and tinged with overheated melodrama.
3. The Great Gatsby: Film Review
9:28 PM PDT 5/5/2013 by Todd McCarthy
The Bottom Line
A hugely elaborate, well-cast adaptation of an American classic that will provoke every possible reaction.
Opens
May 10 (U.S.), May 15-17 (Europe) Cannes Film Festival (opening night) (Warner Bros.)
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald is one of the great American classics; after reading the original novel and watching the recent modernized movie version of The Great Gatsby, there seems to be quite a few differences and similarities between the two. For example, the film does follow the correct plot and demonstrates the overarching meaning of the novel, moreover, most characters seem to be portrayed correctly and the casting seemed pretty well done. Overall, personally, I feel that Baz Luhrmann has done a good job in portraying the setting of the novel, where it sets place during the Roaring Twenties, and within the film it seems to depict the time period well, whereas it shown very extravagant party scenes, interesting wardrobe, and heavily displayed the amount of alcohol: due to the fact that the time period also included the Alcohol Prohibition, which means people would have gone out of their way for selling or receiving alcohol illegally. Thus, the film seems to have portrayed the novel well in terms of the setting, and just like the review from USA Today ‘Jazzy Visuals Drown Out The Subtlety of Classic American Novel’ states “much effort seems to have gone into the eye-popping production design, swooping camera work.” Although the film has its strong points, there were some areas which seemed to not work well in comparison to the novel. For instance, the film contained a lot of sexual promiscuity, making the novel seem not so much of a Jazz Age, modernist, and manner filled novel. Moreover, The Valley of Ashes within the film seemed to be very different from how the novel describes it, whereas, the Valley of Ashes literally seems like a place of no important, where it should represent moral and social decay and how the poor is completely different than the rich, overall, this important piece of the novel seems as if it was overlooked during the production of this film. Consequently, The Great Gatsby film can be said that it did have many similarities and minor differences to the novel, and overall it would be a great film for those who never read The Great Gatsby to capture the essences of what it is all about.
ReplyDeleteRyan Lawson
ReplyDelete5/28/13
A.P. Literature and Composition
Gatsby Movie Review
What can I say about Gatsby? Is it brilliant adaptation of an equally brilliant work of literature? Certainly not. Could one refer to it as an insult to a beloved literary work in that it completely lost sight of the original message of the work? No, not quite. While the most recent movie adaption of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Gatsby was definitely entertaining, it was riddled with faults.
First of all, let me get the well-deserved praise out of the way. Kudos to Director Baz Luhrmann for his ability to smoothly modernize a setting derived more than 70 years prior to current day. Lahrmann’s penchant for stunning scenery and design also created a visual spectacle that never left time for one’s eyes to become bored. The cast was generally well selected, with Leonardo DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire performing their respective roles as Jay Gatsby and Nick Carraway beautifully. On a final note of praise: that soundtrack. Coming from someone who isn’t very much a fan of Jay Z’s work, I must admit that his combination of modern hip-hop with 20s style jazz turned out to be honey for the ears, and is perfectly suited to add to the effect of modernization that Luhrmann had already created with the visuals.
Now that we’ve moved past the good, it’s time to examine what made this film ugly. First and foremost, the lack of focus on dialogue was a major problem. By this I am specifically referring to the camera’s constant tendency to cut to shots of the hectic atmosphere, even during scenes containing important dialogue. Also, many key symbolic points from the book were excluded, much to the personal annoyance of myself as a reader of the original material.
Everyone has heard of the Great Gatsby; whether it is in school where it was a reading assignment, or alluded to in other books (The Fault in Our Stars by John Green) or even songs (Take “We Didn’t Start the Fire” by Billy Joel”). In one way or another, we all know of the controversial work, which has now been brought to the big screen for all to see. The real question is, is this movie worth all the hub bub it is receiving? Well the answer is yes and no.
ReplyDeleteThere are some inaccuracies in the movie in relation to the book, including the end where our narrator Nick Carraway (Toby McGuire), claims he was the only one who showed for the funeral of Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). In the book though, Gatsby’s father shows up and the man from the library early on appears at the burial. This is a slight inaccuracy, probably chosen to show just how alone Gatsby was supposed to be portrayed to be, however what is the point of recreating a classic if they cannot get the small but crucial things correct?
The cast was a breath of fresh air for most except for the role of Tom Buchanan(Joel Edgerton), husband of Daisy and rival of Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). With Tom, I wish I could tell you the man did a smashing job of playing the man we all love to hate, but now I just dislike him all together. He was nothing like Tom was described in the book, and throughout much of the movie it seemed as though he didn’t really put his all into the part of a very important character. DiCaprio makes an amazing Gatsby, portraying thick, gut wrenching emotions when need be, or throwing amazing parties where he blends in with his guests. McGuire portays a great Carraway with his outward view on the whole story just helping a friend, for example as he replies to Gatsby about the vast number of flowers he has brought to his house saying “I think it’s what you want.” Though there were times he could have put a little more pizzazz into his role. The role of the lovely Daisy Buchanan played was taken by storm by English actress Carey Mulligan. Her beauty is all that I imagined for the role, yet sometimes she doesn’t show that emotion, that power and attitude that one could only associate with Daisy. Following up the rear is her husband Tom (Joel Edgerton). Finally, on Daisy’s left we have Ms. Jordan Baker. Played by Elizabeth Debecki, Jordan stands at a tall height of 5 ft. 9, making her seemingly intimidating at first glance (okay maybe the next 10 or so as well). Thought she didn’t have much to do in the 2nd half of the film, she did her job very well as best friend though they should have tried to turn a little focus on her unhonesty that is highlighted in the novel. All in all, this movie blew me away from the amazing soundtrack to cast and visual display of one of the greatest controversial pieces ever written.
Sana Suhail
ReplyDeleteMay 29, 2013
Mrs. O’Donnell
AP English Lit. and Comp.
What Makes “The Great Gatsby” Great
Considering the difficulty of adapting a Jazz-age novel to today’s modern film, Baz Luhrmann does a meritorious job bringing F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby to life in the elaborate, yet classy movie, “The Great Gatsby,” which opened on May 10, 2013. Luhrmann’s meticulous attention to the characters in the original novel led to an appropriate cast of actors that truly embodied the personas of the characters they played. From the villainous Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton) to the aloof and detached Jordan Baker (Elizabeth Debicki) to the “great Jay Gatsby” himself (Leonardo DiCaprio), the eclectic cast of the film breathed life into the diverse characters of the novel. In addition, Luhrmann portrayed the essence of the Jazz age seamlessly through the deliberate integration of jazz music in amalgamation with modern genres as well as the vibrancy and extravagant party scenes, complete with alcohol and immoral purges.
In terms of remaining faithful to the novel, there are times that the film does so devotedly, yet other times, the audience is left dazed at the overt disconnect between the film’s plot and the novel’s story, such as the quick description of Gatsby’s passing and funeral, whereas in the novel, this is the moment of moral redemption for Nick, as he learns a series of valuable lessons. In an attempt to capture the intricate plot of the novel, Luhrmann occasionally skims over some critical points of reflection. However, before we begin criticizing Luhrmann’s efforts in recreating Fitzgerald’s epic tragedy, we must consider the purpose of a film in comparison to the purpose of a novel, and the role that each has to establish with its respective audience. Along with remaining true to its original timeless source, “The Great Gatsby” also had to be entertaining and relevant to moviegoers of today, including those who haven’t read the classic novel, and are exposed to the complex plot for the first time. In which case, Luhrmann’s deviations from the plot are justified, for the sake of the cohesiveness of the film to an audience member who is not familiar with the novel.
In conclusion, Baz Luhrmann does an exemplary job adapting one of America’s classic pieces of literature to the modern day big screen, through the integration of a novel music genre to a just representation of America in the Jazz Age, to an indispensable cast of actors that played their parts dutifully. F. Scott Fitzgerald himself would have applauded Luhrmann in his effort to recreate the America presented in The Great Gatsby in his modern day film, an accomplishment that many directors often fail at.
Baz Luhrmann’s “The Great Gatsby” overall turned out to be a pleasant surprise and was dramatized well from the book. The addition of Nick Carraway telling a psychologist the story of Jay Gatsby seemed to fit in well in the beginning of the movie because otherwise Nick would be narrating a story to no one. The inclusion of that scene really helped put the rest of the events in context as well and helped the audience characterize Nick, the narrator, as a depressed alcoholic with anxiety issues.
ReplyDeleteApart from the excellent inclusion of certain events and genius music from the likes of Jay-Z, Beyoncé, Lana Del Rey, and others, the casting of characters was not well done. The actor who played Daisy had a lackluster performance. As Claudia Puig writes in her review, “The performances are generally lackluster. DiCaprio has some of the haunted qualities of Gatsby, but also comes off as dully aloof. He and Mulligan lack chemistry. Edgerton plays the role of Tom as if twirling a villain's mustache. Maguire is serviceable, but bland.” This statement I truly agree with and sometimes the acting in the movie seemed strained. Also, the fact that an Indian actor, Amitabh Bachchan, was selected to act as the Jewish Wolfsheim is interesting. Although he played the role well, Luhrmann could have surely picked a more realistic actor for Wolfsheim’s character.
Overall the movie was good. If I were to rate the movie out of five stars, this would be a 3.5. The music and screenplay seem to make up for the crude selection in actors and the thrilling plot Fitzgerald composed in the 1900’s tips the scale more on the positive side.
The Great Gatsby, a movie adapted from F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic novel with the same title, created a huge excitement among everyone before its release. But is the movie worth all hype? Not exactly, while there were some parts in the movie that was brilliantly focused and accurate from the text, there were also other parts of the movie that tended to be a little confusing. Some things that are really worth mentioning of the movie are the casting. Baz Luhrmann did a great job by choosing the cast which fit into the characters role perfectly. As the article A truly great “Gatsby” states “DiCaprio makes a splendid, Oscar-caliber Gatsby, capturing the dark side behind his affected bonhomie…” not only Dicaprio, but others like Nick (Tobey Maguire), Daisy (Carey Mulligan)and Jordan baker (Elizabeth Debicki) fit perfectly into their roles and carried them out well.
ReplyDeleteAnother highlight of the movie was the music from many great artist. The music mixes the 20’s to the present to make the audience connect well to the movie and also the music seemed to attract many young audience. Also, You can tell from the movie that Luhrmann spent a lot of time of the visuals such as the party scene and tried to depict the valley of ashes perfectly. However, while a lot of time was spent on the visuals, the main story tends to get confusing. Also, a lot of scenes that are important for the text in not emphasized in the movie such as the funeral scene. Luhrmann could have done a better job at the end which was different from the text. Overall The Great Gatsby was an above average movie that has some good parts and some other parts that drag it down. If a person has read the original text then the movie would be clear however if a person who did not read the text watches the movie, they would be little confused.
In my opinion, if a romance hero and a superhero take the stage together as best friends, it doesn’t matter if a Rose or a Mary Jane Watson shows up in the movie, that movie is automatically destined to be a hit. However, since the movie is based on F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, it is a different story. I have read the novel and have seen the movie with my fellow movie critics and noticed quite a few differences between the two. Almost everyone will expect them to be the same page by page, but the differences small and big ranged from a nobody-would-care difference to a complete disappointment. For instance, some of the areas where Mr. Baz Luhrmann who by the way did a great job casting these amazing actors, from DiCaprio to Maguire to Bachchan (childhood Indian hero) who not only are famous in real life but fit the description of the characters especially Jordan Baker. Getting back to the disappointing differences, Mr. Luhrmann did not emphasize Gatsby’s death, the significant role of key figures such as Wolfshiem and the man with owl glasses in his death. Also, it seemed as if Mr. Luhrmann characterized George Wilson as a frustrated poor man who is seen hit his wife. To a lesser extent, Mr. Luhrmann does not portray Jordan Baker as she was in the novel, she was a liar whom no one mentioned and the fact that she was so tall made it difficult to picture her like that. The movie starts where Nick is with a therapist reciting his past with Gatsby which did not happen in the novel but worked well with the rest of the movie nonetheless. Mr. Luhrmann did a great job with the music used in this movie, hats off to Jay-Z. In one scene where Nick meets Wolfshiem for the first time, his song “100 song bill” is playing in the background and as Ronny as graciously pointed it out during the movie, the lines of the actors in that scene were actually part of the song too. That was exciting to know. I had no complaints with the casting of the movie (unbiased opinion) and the parties and the cars were just the exact representation of the novel. However, the valley of ashes was represented as if it was really a place filled with ash. Mr. Luhrmann made it seem as if it was all covered in ashes, where all the inhabitants were covered in black ash all over. It was actually a symbolic name used to show the social decay of the societies, rotting American Dream. Furthermore, the costume director did a great job designing the clothes of Daisy, Tom and especially Gatsby, those were some expensive looking pieces of merchandise. Movie critics like Shaun Munro think, “The Spider-Man star might not look like he’s aged a day since he first played Peter Parker, but he’s a pleasant counter-balance to the bombastic aesthetic of the film,” (www.filmschoolrejects.com) which I both agree and disagree with. I agree that Maguire plays a convincing Nick Carraway; however, I disagree with Munro’s remark that the film as a whole was terrible.
ReplyDeleteThe Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald is one of America’s classic novels. After seeing the Great Gatsby in 2D I was able to understand the story better than the book because it was visual. However, there were scenes where I was glad that I read the book because the book made that specific scene understandable. One other thing about the movie was that it did leave out some major parts to the book. When Gatsby goes for a swim the movie portrays a different seen on how Gatsby is killed and how Mr. Wilson is killed. In the book Gatsby is floating on a raft and is shot there. Then later no one has any interest in his death. While in the movie they show Gatsby swimming and being shot as he got out of the pool, which is not what the book portrayed when Gatsby died. Also in the movie, there were a lot of reporters around the body of Gatsby which is also not what the book portrayed.
ReplyDeleteOne other scene that was important that was left out was during Gatsby’s funeral and Nick’s confrontation with Tom in New York after Gatsby is killed. At the funeral in the movie there are reporters and in the book there are none. One of the things that the book and movie have in common in this scene is that they both talk about how none of guests that were at all of the parties came to his funeral. The movie also skips the ending of the book where Nick runs into Tome in the City and reluctantly shakes his hand and calls Tom out on leaving and taking Daisy and their child with them.
Overall the movie is missing some key parts to the book. But in my opinion the music and all of the effects in the movie were well but together. I would give this movie a rating between a 3.5 and 4.5.
Josaua Desai
ReplyDeleteAP English Literature and Composition
Mrs. O’Donnell
5/30/13
The Great Gatsby a fantastical journey of a man from “rags to riches”, living life to the fullest was portrayed in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s original novel, through romance, character development, and a plot that kept the reader going. Baz Luhrmann’s interpretation of this text on the “big screen”, was fairly successful, however could have used some major improvements.
Luhrmann’s choice in cast was fairly well done, in placing DiCaprio as the protagonist of the text, Gatsby. Additionally, his selection of Tobey Maguire (aka Spiderman) as Nick and Carey Mulligan as Daisy, also seemed to fit well into the plot in that the actors were able to effectively portray their characters. However, his choice of Joel Edgerton seemed to be a huge miss, with Edgerton unsuccessfully portraying Tom. As a result, the character’s role and antagonistic sort of attitude is overlooked and missed out upon. In addition, this movie was missing several key elements that allowed the book to be fully understood, such as in the final seen before Gatsby is shot. The scene in the movie depicts Gatsby lying on a inflatable chair in his pool, looking at the menacing world and coming to a final realization before his death. However, through the movie, we see Gatsby going for a swim, still stuck on Daisy and her phone call. Consequently, this displayed Gatsby as never learning; when in fact he saw the horrors of the world, before being shot by Wilson.
Furthermore, the soundtrack was absolutely stunning and combined the 20’s and modern times very successfully. Overall, the movie flowed fairly smoothly and most of themes were successfully captured, making the movie “surprisingly satisfying (and text-faithful) as a dramatization of F. Scott’s Fitzgerald’s classic novel”, as stated by Lou Lumeneck in A Truly great 'Gatsby'. As a result, this film deserves an overall score of four out of a five star scale.
I was most impressed with the fact that “SPIDER MANS’S” act for Nick was really awesome! He showed all of his emotions, and expressions as just how it sounded in the book. The fact that he is depressed and delusional in the book, I’m so glad that they showed that in the movie because it made his character very different from how the others act. He took his role in the movie very serious which made him look good. I honestly thought that this movie was going to be nothing like the book because as soon as I saw the actor for Jordan, I was completely thrown off. They should have made her a little bigger, and less tall. They made her the complete opposite. But the good thing was that if it wasn’t for her, Nick would have really not found out any of what was going on between Gatsby and Daisy. My last favorite thing that impressed me the most was the scene where they are all sitting down for dinner, and the telephone keeps ringing for Tom. It sounded just as good when I was reading the book during that scene.
ReplyDeleteThe most biggest thing that threw me off was when After myrtle had died because of Gatsby’s car, he started to tell Nick things about how he was born penniless, and what his real last name was and etc.. I feel as in if that was not a good time and place because people already don’t like you for what you just caused.. and to start opening up more about his life was probably just way to much on Nick’s plate. He should have saved that maybe for another day.
Is the "Great Gatsby" truly great?
ReplyDeleteAfter sitting for Baz Lurhman's new adaptation of F.Scott Fitzgerald's classic piece, "The Great Gatsby," I can honestly say that the movie had its fair share of hits and misses.
The separation between the positive and negative emanate from the critics stance. From a solely entertainment-based stance, Lurhman earns himself a reputable three out of four stars.
When it comes to "capturing the alcohol induced 'insanity' and liveliness of the infamous Jazz age," Lurhman hits it out of the park, as Tom Long writes for the Detroit News.
From the swinging music to the dependability on alcohol, the roaring 20s resonated throughout the movie. However, the flashiness of the movie also produced a few negative effects.
For instance, I found that the movie was flashy when the scenes were not necessarily crucial to the plot (i.e. the party scenes) and interest seemed to be lost when the plot was needed to drive the movie.
On that note, looking through Fitzgerald's eyes the movie was slightly more disappointing. Although Lurhman attempted at directly pulling from the novel, he could have done better.
Owl Eyes' role in depicting Gatsby's layered and "real" complexity was overlooked. The ending scene was also a failure. Lurhman flopped in his meager attempt to integrate Gatsby's funeral correctly.
Gatsby's father was not introduced and Owl Eyes never showed. Although it might seem pointless, their appearances were crucial as final insights into Gatsby's life.
Asha Chen-Phang
ReplyDeleteMay 30, 2013
AP Literature
Ms. O’Donnell
Review: The Great Gatsby – The Film
So, all this rave for the recent dramatization of the late J.D. Salinger’s novel The Great Gatsby. Is it truly worthy of all of the hype and praise that it has been receiving since its release Friday May 10th? I would respond to that question by saying “Of course it is.” This adaptation to the popular novel concerning the life of a mysterious millionaire, known as Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), is revealed through the perspective of his neighbor and sole friend, Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire), who details his entire experience in New York to a therapist. Exquisite presentation and effects accompanied by outstanding performances really did make this production spectacular. The scoring of the movie done by Jay-Z as well as others especially served to enhance the film, making it anachronistic and giving it a slightly more modern feel without losing the essence of the age of the Roaring 20’s. As Jay-Z said, “Timeless music is timeless music” and as executive producer he manages to incorporate modern tunes seamlessly.
There were, however, some aspects of the movie that could’ve been better. For instance, certain parts of the story that held great significance, such as the scene of Gatsby’s funeral, were easily overlooked or altered so that they could no longer carry on that deeper, underlying meaning. Some of the symbolism was lost in the transformation to the big screen, though I must admit a great job was done in expressing and emphasizing the importance of the green light located at the end of the Buchannan’s pier that Gatsby was constantly reaching toward. Also, there seem to be somewhat poor chemistry and choice of cast, especially for the roles of Tom Buchannan and Wilson.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThough well done and interesting to those who haven’t read The Great Gatsby, those who read the book before seeing the movie will be disappointed. Significant scenes were either done poorly or completely missed, causing the movie to lose much of the emotional turmoil felt when reading the book.
ReplyDeleteThe loss of the funeral scene caused a great deal of emotion to be torn from the story when it was changed from book to movie. In the novel, nobody arrived to Gatsby’s funeral save for his own father, whom he had left behind, and the man with the large glasses who points out how few people went to his funeral, though there had been so many at his parties. Without this scene, viewers fail to see just how alone Gatsby had become due to his need to have Daisy.
Just as well, Wilson was not portrayed properly in the film. In the film, Wilson seems to be a rough around the edges, dull witted man who abused his wife when he discovered she was cheating on him. However, he is portrayed in the novel as a the only redeemable character in the whole story. In the movie, this quality is removed, and again it takes away some of the feeling behind the whole story.
Then, the casting. Some roles were properly assigned. DiCaprio was excellent for the role of Gatsby, fully exemplifying the emotional state Gatsby was in and the charisma that surrounded him. However, the actress playing Myrtle did not have the look that many of the readers would have expected. The model was far too pretty and it makes viewers forget the fact that Tom was cheating on his wife because he was bored, not because his mistress was gorgeous and tempting.
Giovani Martinez
ReplyDeleteMovie review
The Great Gatsby
The Great Gatsby is a classic, high school tragedy about a man’s long lost love, and his efforts to repeat the past, ending with a gruesome fate. The movie clearly exhibits the essence of the novel, while maintaining a hip, interesting vibe, to lure in young watchers. Apart from Gatsby, Nick, Jordan and Daisy, the casting could have been done more accurately, such as with Tom, Wilson, and Myrtle. The combination of 1920’s slapper and jazz music caused, with nuanced rap and dubstep, singers like Jay-Z and Beyonce to become “…characters themselves,” actors say.
Although it is argued that the movie was lacking, shallow and childish, it couldn’t be further from the truth. The movie wasn’t focused on literary analysts, researchers, and critics, it was focused on children and young adults who’ve read it or will be reading it. The movie WAS lacking in the terms of acting and casting, while it excelled in music and artistic expression of this millennium. Of course books are never perfectly portrayed in film, if so most movies would be regarded as terrible.
Overall the movie was a chic interpretation with great cg, costumes/dress, party scenes, and about 8/10 literary accuracy, despite the artistic license and freedom to express things as needed. Because of the “in your face” repetition of symbolism, some people may feel as though it is dumbed down, but it has to be realized that the movie is for people who haven’t read it all as well as people who’ve read it long ago. Though offered in 3D, the movie is best seen without it. The occasional popping party scene, and hit and run car accidents are flashy and distracting, and at some times, physically painful.
Shakira Thompson
ReplyDeleteMs. O’Donnell
A.P Literature
May 30, 2013
Gatsby Review
After seeing the movie the Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, I thought that it was very interesting and amusing not to mention breath taking. It not just entertain us, it teaches us a lesson which is money is not always the best solution. It also teaches us that the old money always get away and continue to live in their riches. Last it teaches us that we cannot recreate the past.
The characters in the movie did a great job and the characters played an interesting role. There was this one character that seems to be a little off it was Tom Buchannan. It seems as if he was the second chance to play that role. The thing was that Daisy made a perfect fit even though she cried for every little thing which sort of confuses me a little. I did not see a reason why she was crying but, she felt the need to cry.
It was interesting how Gatsby took the fall for Daisy when she hit Mrytle with the car. The reason was Gatsby still loves Daisy and he is trying to recreate the past which is impossible. When Gatsby took the fall, Mr. Wilson took his revenge and thought Gatsby killed his wife when it was really Daisy so he killed Gatsby, then he created suicide. So overall, the movie was interesting and it helps us to walk away with a meaningful lesson which is, you cannot always have what you want, but also you cannot recreate the past and life goes on.
Jossieanette Nieves
ReplyDeleteMrs. O'Donnell
AP Lit
Great Gatsby Review
So, all this commotion and praise about the movie The Great Gatsby makes one think if it is really worth seeing? It is undeniable that The Great Gatsby was indeed a great movie film. This idea of the life of a mysterious millionaire Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) known to be an unknown puzzle is conveyed through Nick Carraway’s perspective (Tobey Maguire) who tells the story of his experience in New York to a therapist. The way the characters were presented was a well- cast production and how they correlated with the characters from the novel were in fact one of the reasons why this movie film was great. In addition to how well the characters were presented, the soundtrack added that extra touch to the production. It was amazingly done because it gave a modernized feel while still having that essence of the Roaring 20’s like Asha mentioned. The sound track played at the right scenes and gave that final enhancement to the film. Like Ryan said, the soundtrack “perfectly suited to add to the effect of modernization that Luhrmann had already created with the visuals.”
Although I found this movie pretty amazing, there are some downfalls to it. For example, some critical parts of the novel were cut off from the movie. Like when Gatsby dies in the movie no one appeared in his funeral, but in the novel his father did appear. Some of the significant moments were lost which took away the more enhanced meaning from the novel. There are always inaccuracies to everything especially a movie that is made from an original novel. There will always be more detail and dialogue in the novel rather than the movie which was one of the downfalls of this film. The lack of important dialogue made this film less enchanted. Many symbolic points that were revealed to the reader in the novel were not found in the movie which might have made an impact on the viewer to think the movie was not as good. However, I loved how the important of the green light across the bay was captured. It showed accuracy in correlation to the novel. Overall, I loved the movie and all the bright lights and fancy parties.