The Great Gatsby or "Tobey Maguire and some stuff that happens around him"

Hey guys. So, yesterday I went to see "The Great Gatsby", that film that everyone seemed really excited about but for some reason I never heard anyone actually talk about.

Oh, just a little sidenote while I remember. Some of you may be wondering about why I've been reviewing things lately (let's face it, none of you were wondering that, but I'ma pretend you were) I did a very long write up on "Man of Steel" and now I'm gonna talk about "Gatsby". Will this be a regular thing? I hear you ask. Truthfully, I don't know. Lately I've been watching a lot of "That guy with the glasses.com" and I really admire what a lot of the reviewers do, particularly the nostalgia chick and critic. Thanks to this, I've been thinking much more critically about the films I see, and, being the attention seeking egotist that I am, I want other people to read my opinions. In short, I don't know if this will be a regular thing, or even if it'll survive the next few weeks but at the moment, this is what I want to write about so I plan on doing just that. And there's nothing you can do to stop me, muhahahaha!

Not to be confused with Ernest Vincent Wright's book "Gadsby", a 50,000 word novel without 
a single use of the letter "e"  

Firstly, a little background to this film. The film is based on the book by F. Scott Gerald, which I have not read. It was directed by Australian director Baz Luhrmann, who directed other such films as "Moulin Rouge" (which I will be making comparisons to, even though I've only watched the first twenty two minutes of it before getting entirely too annoyed/distracted and having to turn to something else) and "Romeo "plus" Juliet" the modern interpretation of Shakespeare's famous play (which I will also probably be drawing parallels with. I don't plan these things). There are some complications with not having read the book that I'm just going to get out of the way here. I went into this movie with no knowledge of the story other than the fact that it was set in the 20's and involved a guy called Gatsby. Because of this, I plan on critiquing the film and the story as a whole. One final note before the review proper begins, I saw this film in 2D. It was, as is rather obvious when watching the 2D version, shot in 3D. Because of this, I will make some allowances for the "cardboard cut-out" look in some of the scenes. Now, I think I've covered everything.

Oh, the following review will include SPOILERS. It will also probably not be in chronological order, except maybe for the first few bits. I feel that if I did, I would end up analysing it scene by scene and that would make this post stretch on into the end of time. There is a lot in this movie. It lasts for one hundred and forty three minutes but somehow feels much shorter than that. I will start at the start.

The first thing I noticed about this movie is that the beginning is very similar to that of Moulin Rouge (which I am by no means pretending to be an expert on, twenty two minutes and a review is the extent of my knowledge). The whole "zooming in on a screen while music plays" isn't exactly original but in recent films, Moulin Rouge is the only thing that comes to mind that uses this, off the top of my head. Hey, Luhrmann is sticking to what he knows, I guess that's not such a bad thing. We are introduced to Nick Carraway, who is visiting a therapist of some kind, to talk about his time in New York. I have to say, his voice when we first hear it sounds much older than he actually is in the film, like "old man recounting a story to his grandchildren" old. Just a small thing, no relevance. We quickly find out, from a shot of his therapist's report, that Carraway is a recovering alcoholic, he's been depressed and has a good few other mental issues. He starts talking about how he's lost faith in humanity, how the world is a terrible, terrible place filled with terrible, terrible people, so on and so forth, poetic brooding, et cetera et cetera. All this, with the exception of one "Gatsby". This opening (and I'm not sure if this is because of the book or not) feels incredibly similar to the opening of, you guessed it, Moulin Rouge, with the artist (yeah, did I mention that Carraway is a writer?) brooding in a corner and talking about how the world is full of darkness and despair. Substitute Ewan McGregor with Tobey Maguire and you basically have the same opening, give or take a few words. Also, Luhrmann does that thing from Moulin Rouge where words appear on screen as the protagonist narrates. It made sense in MR, not really here until he does actually start writing. From these patterns, I just get the feeling that Baz Luhrmann, not unlike Stephen King, likes having little things the same in all of the things he does (ahem, moody writers, ahem ahem) Aaaaaand back to the plot.

We find out that Nick Carraway moved to New York and taught himself to be a stockbroker by reading a book. He visits his cousin, Daisy, for tea and we meet his her husband, Tom Buchanan. We are told by "Carraway" (in quotations because he will never be anyone but Tobey Maguire, I will expand on this later) that he is a polo player who comes from old money. And so one of the many themes of the film is introduced: Money. Most of the main characters have much of it (everyone except some side characters and Tobey Maguire, actually). In the same scene we meet Daisy we are also introduced to Jordan Baker, a sports star and supposed love interest for Maguire, which really goes no where, for two reasons: 1. Tobey Maguire is incapable of showing emotions, except the face depicted below and neutral (which doubles as "generic goofy")

2. They have one conversation over the course of the film. I'm supposed to believe that they're involved, or that either one is in anyway interested in the other? The bromance between Gatsby and Maguire was more convincing.

No, no you won't. But that said you won't really be anyone else either.
You just aren't very good at what you do.

That said, I have no problems with the rest of the acting in this film. It's just Maguire, who I have never liked in anything. He made me dislike Peter Parker. He's Spiderman for god's sake. That takes skill. I didn't mind most of the rest of the Spiderman movies because there wasn't much Maguire in that, it was a stuntman and/or CGI dude in a mask with Maguire's voice, which I don't hate. I was so unbelievably glad when they rebooted the Spiderman franchise with the god among us that is Andrew Garfield. Rant on Maguire postponed until I've explained the plot more fully.

There's this awesome scene where Daisy and Jordan are lying on a couch and the doors are all open and white curtain are billowing around the place, simply because it looks cool. And it is cool, it just seems to have no reason whatsoever, unless I'm missing some metaphor. I keep getting distracted so I'm going to quickly summarise the plot. SPOILERS. Tom, Daisy's husband is having an affair. Jay Gatsby is a billionaire claiming to come from a wealthy family but secretly he's just a penniless nothing who saved some rich guy and learned how to be a gentleman. He and some mobsters set up a load of speakeasies and bonds scams so that he can be as rich as he can act. Gatsby, as a young soldier, met Daisy at a party and they fell in love. He had to go back to war and, because of complications, was not there to sweep Daisy off her feet before she married Buchanan for his money. Gatsby bought a house across the bay from Daisy and throws huge parties in the hope that Daisy will stumble in some night and they can rekindle their romance. When he finds out that Carraway  is Daisy's cousin, he befriends him and uses him to get into contact with Daisy again. They reconnect, have sex a few times and Gatsby starts trying to convince Daisy to leave her husband for him, so they can start off right back where they were five years ago. She puts this off until a big confrontation scene where Gatsby basically does this for her, but she refuses to say that she never lover Tom. The scene ends and on the way back to the Buchanan's, Daisy accidentally runs over the woman who Tom was having an affair with, killing her. Daisy stops talking to Gatsby, he stops having parties and his empire begins to collapse, as he waits for word from Daisy. The husband of the woman Daisy killed comes to Gatsby's house, shoots him and Carraway is left disillusioned with the world.

The main message of this film is "rich people can get away with anything" or, alternately "the world is bad and you should feel bad". I think a lot of the things I liked about this movie were to do with the story, which probably just means I like the book and not necessarily the film itself. I did say I wasn't going to try and separate the two but I feel a little ill-equipped to find the strengths of the film when I don't know the source material. It's a just me reiterating the point (ie. covering my ass), I'll power through.

Such a great scene, where we see Gatsby for the first time.
Look at the colours. Look at them.
Oh my freaking god, so much awesome!

Looking back having seen the movie, the thing that most sticks out in my memory (keep that mind out of the gutter) are the visuals. Holy crap is this a nice film to look at. The colours are bright and vibrant when they need to be, like in the party scenes and the fun scenes between Daisy and Gatsby. The night-time scenes looking across the bay or at Gatsby's house as the lights go out, spectacular. Speaking of the party scenes, it's clear that Baz Luhrmann is getting much better at these. Think back to that scene in Romeo + Juliet where Leo DiCaprio's on E and Mercutio's in drag and there's loads of crazy shit going down. In that scene, while I understand it was meant to be frantic and chaotic, the cuts were too fast to focus and it just got annoying. The same problem comes to mind when thinking about Moulin Rouge, particularly the second scene with the huge dance number. I have to say, going into "Gatsby" knowing that it was done by the same guy, I was readying the aspirin for when I got home. But no, the cuts are well timed. There's enough going on in the shot that they've captured the riotous party antics but not so much that the viewer gets a headache trying to keep up. Well done, Luhrmann, well done...

Another concern I had going into this was music related. As I've mentioned (this is only the fourteenth time, better bring it up again), I couldn't get very far into Moulin Rouge and part of the reason for this was because the modern music annoyed the hell out of me. It was never explained. I get the whole suspension of disbelief thing but I was sitting there like "are they seriously ripping off Sound of Music? Is this a parallel universe where different musical eras never happened and so they all occur at once? And if so, how is it that the bohemian "can-can" period could still happen more or less on par with this reality?" Ugh, I just- I couldn't endure it. But I digress. I knew that there was going to be modern music in this but I also knew that the characters themselves would not be singing, which gave me some ingot of hope. For some reason R'n'B and hip-hop were the musical genres of choice, because that's exactly what comes to mind when one thinks of jazz age New York. But... it worked. Don't get me wrong, I do question why they didn't just go with, you know, jazz but honestly, the decision began to make more and more sense as the film progressed. If you think about it, the attitude towards jazz at the time was not hugely unlike the attitude towards R'n'B and hip-hop today (or, at least when the genres were new). Jazz was edgy in its day. It was associated with loose, fast living, partying every night and throwing caution and consequences to the wind; much like the type of thing that R'n'B is associated with today. There's also the fact that a large number of successful jazz musicians were and are of colour, the same can be said for R'n'B and hip-hop. Jazz and R'n'B, one in the same (I never thought I would find myself saying that)

Jay Gatsby;
on Wednesdays he wears pink

What else was there in this movie? I have to say, I thought the pacing was very good. Gatsby is not properly introduced until a good half hour into the film and the build up is very well executed. You really get the sense that he's this infamous guy, you know the one, the guy who you always hear about but have never actually met. Like a cross between Chuck Norris and Regina George, he's more legend than flesh and blood. Gatsby is encapsulated incredibly by DiCaprio's performance, I love how suave and classy he is when we first see him, but we also get just how nervous he is to see Daisy for the first time in five years (he actually climbs out the window, he's so scared). That childlike impulse to run from the thing he's yearned for (to the point of obsession) for years, is very human. This makes the character so likable, a much necessary trait given the idol he's been built up as. The desperation to get back what he feels has been stolen from him, and the anger at those he feels responsible for taking both time and the love of his life is truly heartbreaking and tragically genuine. Not that I can relate or anything. And, oh, his eyes are so blue, it's crazy. His refrain of "Old sport" (pronounced "Spawt") is a tad annoying but I let him away with it because I love so many other facets of the character. I also like a lot of what they didn't show in this movie regarding Gatsby's private life dealing with mobsters and corrupt officials behind the scenes. I saw this film with my boyfriend and this was something he criticised but I felt it added a lot to the tone of the film. Because, in real life you don't see a lot of what goes on with these people. The complex nature of Gatsby as a character comes in part from the fact that the audience doesn't fully know how he's gotten this money until much later in the film. His calls from mystery businessmen give a more sinister layer, while his reluctance to answer them while spending time with Daisy reminds us of his true motive: love.

Small sidenote: The motif of phones ringing reminded me a little of Tom Stoppard's play "The Real Inspector Hound", I kept half expecting a ditsy maid to answer it and break the fourth wall.

I loved all the performances in this except for the aforementioned Maguire. Tom Buchanan was great, he had the "I'm rich so I can do whatever the fuck I want" thing going on, but he is also very human. Watching him, you can't help but think of every sneaky, lying, smug douche you've ever known. Every word that comes from his mouth makes you hate him, yet he's also strangely relateable. His fear when he feels that he may be losing his wife and mistress in one fell swoop is very real, though terrible in it's nature. The conversations between him and Gatsby are deliciously snarky and awkward, every word they say to each other on screen is delightfully hate-filled. I love Carrie Mulligan's Daisy, she has the frivolity and materialism of the type of girl who marries into money, but we do see her genuinely conflicted when Gatsby reappears in her life. Her resolution (SPOILER, she chooses Tom in the end because he promises to keep the whole hit and run scandal away and he has money) is believable because she was never painted as a morally strong character.

Grrrr...

And now to the weakest part of the film, in my opinion: Tobey Maguire's Nick Carraway. This character does nothing. He learns next to nothing, he shows barely any emotion and he is almost totally unaffected by the incidents that happened around him in New York, even though he's supposedly scarred mentally. What, has he recovered so fast from this traumatising experience? You get to the end of the film and you realise that you know nothing about this character. He's not much of a stock broker, that's for sure. It seems like the film is trying to tell you his calling is writing but, as an writer myself, he lacks conviction, the passion needed to be a true wordsmith. The councillor has to persuade him to write about his experiences, surely if this guy considers himself a writer this would be his instinct? Aside from throwing fancy words around and observing things, Carraway doesn't actually appear to have any creativity, it just feels forced. I blame Maguire but that may just be me and my bias. Another thing that really bothers me is his high and mighty morals in this. Now, again, not having read the book, I don't know if he's written to seem entirely hypocritical or if he does really grapple with the issues of loyalty that are put to him in the book, but here? Maguire's character moans beginning to end about how terrible humanity is, how awfully people can treat each other yet the character is totally passive when it actually gets down to it. Tom Buchanan actually brings Nick along while he's meeting up with his mistress (there's a really funny moment where Maguire is sitting, passive as always, in an unfamiliar apartment while he can hear Tom and his mistress (played by Isla Fisher, a great character) going at it in the other room). You'd think that this character, with all his moral fibre, would tell his cousin about the affair, which she already suspects. But no, apparently "bros before hos" applies to family as well. Dammit Maguire, get your shit straight!

Overall, I liked this movie a lot. I thought the story was great, the pacing and build up well handled, the colours were breathtaking and I found most of the characters engaging and real. If I had a star system or something this film would definitely be in the top fifty percent. Tobey Maguire drags things down, regardless of how well written the piece is. Visually fantabulous, except maybe for a couple of the scenes where we're shown New York from above, it seemed a little fake to me (though this might be down to my seeing it in 2D when it was shot in 3D).

Embrace the Madness