Now, if I were in an art gallery and The Great Gatsby was a painting, Baz Luhrmann would be the patron of that day's show and he would be talking about The Great Gatsby, but I, new to the paintings, would be unconvinced. He would only come off as a dilettante. That is the film, in a nutshell.
The film had its glorious moments, times when I marveled at the accurate replay of the twenties' surfeit of glamour and wondered if the producers actually came up with a budget in the first place. Each scene is an explosion of noise and color; nothing went overlooked in the production. The lines were delivered with perfect enunciation. Basically, everything is and has everything.
And that is the problem.
The film is overproduced. Replete with effects and someone's vocals (almost all the scenes have a part of the OST in loop), Luhrmann's adaptation is a flashy, boisterous display of Gatsby's equally tumultuous deterioration. I understand that the point of the CGI act is to emphasize the twenties lifestyle but the excessive visual interpretations of the script are so random they are almost kitschy. (Imagine Gatsby staring at the sky and Daisy's face appears in it, like in Lion King, only this is not an animated feature.) The cast is its ultimate saving grace, with compelling performances delivered by Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan, and Tobey Maguire.
"He is in love with me!" Possibly the world's most selfish woman, Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan) single-handedly destroys Gatsby's life. |
#
The Great Gatsby is one of the pieces of literature I love the most and it was almost serendipitous when I, upon finishing the book, found out there would be a film adaptation. I have already decided long ago that I will not practice the habit of comparing the film to the book because my disappointment mostly stems from observing that the film does not match my interpretation of the story, and that reason alone is not valid. I am not comparing the book and the film.
0 comments:
Post a Comment