Okay, so it wasn't a true double feature: we didn't really go see two movies, one after another. We went to see The Great Gatsby on Friday night and finished off our book of discounted movie tickets this evening with Iron Man 3. We went from classic literature to comic book series, from adulterers to Avenger.
Enough with the comparisons. Short version: I'd recommend them both, and here's why.
The Great Gatsby was Baz Lurhman's glitzy take on the book that generations of high school students across America have read. It is the tale of Gatsby's love for Daisy, a woman married to the wealthy bigot Tom. Gatsby, since his brief acquaintance with Daisy during WWI (he was an officer on leave, she was a society girl), has made his fortune in unsavory business dealings. His weekly parties are glittery, gaudy, glamorous shindigs that no one is invited to and hundreds of people attend. Eventually, Gatsby meets back up with Daisy not through the parties (as he had planned) but through his neighbor Nick Carraway, the narrator of the book/movie and Daisy's cousin.
The problem with having taught a unit on the Jazz Age multiple times and having seen the Robert Redford movie several times is that I was constantly picking out anachronisms. It really messed with my willing suspension of disbelief. But that's not the point here. Once I got about 45 minutes into the movie, I was fully absorbed enough in the plot to ignore blatant anachronisms.
The music was interesting -- (kudos to Jay Z) many of the pieces would start out sounding like from the 1920s, but would morph into something more modern because, let's face it, there aren't that many pieces from the 20s that audiences today would enjoy. As the music played during Gatsby's parties, the dances that people were doing would also start out looking like something from the 20s -- stills from the movie would look a lot like illustrations of flappers' dancing from the period -- but looked very modern. A nice contrast occurs when Nick and Daisy do the Charleston in Gatsby's house, which really showed the difference between the modernized dances and the more traditional dance.
The visuals from the movie were quite good, although the CGI felt fake at times, particularly when transitioning from live actors to panning across the landscape. Maybe it was because I went to a 2D showing? Given the bright colors and surreal scenes at Myrtle's apartment (Myrtle is Tom's mistress, and Tom is Daisy's husband, for those not in the know), maybe the 3D would've been worth it.
The actors did a great job, I'd have to say. Leonardo Dicaprio made an admirable Jay Gatsby -- similar enough to Robert Redford to pay homage to the 1970s version and different enough to have taken on the role himself. The problem is that the Gatsby of the book had dark hair and blond Gatsbys always bother me. Carey Mulligan was a very good Daisy, portraying someone who wished she had the wide-eyed naivete that she pretended. Tobey Maguire was adequate as Nick Carraway -- he overdid the rusty old man voice at the beginning of his narration (from a sanitorium -- a frame story that was the innovation of the filmmakers). During much of the movie, he played Nick as a young man who has been somewhat sheltered and gets dragged into things by others. Joel Edgerton's Tom was frankly not as good as the 1974 movie, although he did look like a pig, which was amusing. He did do a better job than Bruce Dern at genuinely seeming to care about Daisy as she waivers about leaving him for Gatsby. "You mean you never loved me? Not even that day where I carried you so you wouldn't mess up your shoes?" actually had me believing that he genuinely did have a heart, even if you never could trust the jerk. Myrtle was suitably annoying. Wolfsheim was frightening. Wilson was a simpleton. As it should be, though Wilson was a bit overly stupid.
Have I mentioned that this was the one book I read in high school for school that I genuinely enjoyed? (Okay, there was Fahrenheit 451, too) So I was one of those people who was constantly comparing the book to the movie. It really worked against me because I wound up missing out on the "aha" moments that first-time viewing really requires.
There was a nice Easter egg for fans of the 1974 movie: one of the most memorable lines is where Daisy explains to Gatsby why she didn't wait for him -- "Because rich girls don't marry poor boys, Jay Gatsby!" The writers managed to include the line by having Jordan Baker's date say it at the first of Gatsby's parties that Nick attends. (Jordan Baker is Daisy's best friend and Nick's love interest in the book.)
Overall, will I buy it? Probably not. But was it worth seeing? Definitely. And the big-screen experience was worth it. The heart factor? I'm not willing to say it had enough -- for an epic love story gone Jazz Age, it fell oddly flat now and again. But it was good, and I would definitely recommend seeing if you like the story or are interested in seeing a non-action movie with lovely visuals and fun music. Just don't expect a happy ending. It is a Fitzgerald story, after all.
Now, if I haven't lost your attention totally, on to Iron Man 3, which will now get the short end of the stick because I'm tired and I have to go to work tomorrow.
Tony Stark returns, an insomniac who gets panic attacks when he thinks about the "New York thing" too much. Stark has grown up in that he can now acknowledge the role of his own actions in creating the situation that nearly lost him everything -- both his own life and Pepper Potts'. Stark is fighting his own inner demons and villains who are terrorizing U.S. targets (including Stark's own house) using super-soldiers with amazing regenerative abilities -- so long as they don't literally overheat and blow up. Some of the best moments in the movie are between Stark and a 12-year-old sidekick who helps him recover from the near-death of his suit.
Pro: Nonstop fun action sequences.
Pepper Potts could become another Avenger.
Con: It could have been improved greatly by exploring the PTSD side of things more. Nonsequitor moments in a therapist's office with ironic comments would have underscored the action and shown treatment of the psychological disorder that Stark now faces. Ultimately, Stark thinks his way out of his PTSD, his own shrapnel-approaching-the-heart problem, and Pepper Potts' being injected with the super-serum of melty-explosive doom. Not in a plot-oriented kind of way, but in a let's-wrap-things-up-with-a-big-bow way. Because Americans are just supposed to get over mental problems. Not have them treated. (Yes, there is the cute scene after the credits that seem to contradict this a bit, but one scene with that guy doesn't really count. Stark is still fixing himself through useful thoughts.
And I saw way too many women's rib cages. Good grief, for a movie set around Christmas time, you'd think they could have women fully dressed.
Overall? Worth going to the movies for. Would see again. Had a satisfactory amount of heart, though not abounding with it. Not likely to buy, though will probably rewatch before The Avengers II. Definitely best on the big screen.
No comments:
Post a Comment