Dick
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- May 22, 1999
- Messages
- 9,937
- Real Name
- Rick
I agree the film is improved some by 3D, but 3D intrinsically just isn't all that effective for movies that utilize staccato editing. The eye and brain need a certain minimum amount of time to assimilate an image so that it makes contextual, visual sense, and the addition of 3D slows that cerebral function down some. The two most recent STAR TREK films are good examples in which much of the 3D is lost on us because we haven't the time to sort out the compositions -- the brain can't quite keep up with the short and fast images before new ones take their place. Had the film used the same patient cutting that, say, the original STAR TREK film in 1979 had used, the 3D would have been much more effective.
This modern style of cutting is bad enough with 2D, but I guess younger generations are used to it (and even demand it, probably), being A.D.D. and all. Luhrmann is all about visuals and kinetics. His quick cuts just about ruin what might have been good sequences in his films because he won't let his camera rest on anything long enough for us to really appreciate them. In 3D, the problem is magnified. Our eyes want to wander around the frame and enjoy its mood and details, but the director yanks them away bing-bing-bing before we are able to. Can you imagine if LAWRENCE OF ARABIA had been cut in this fashion? I won't even discuss Michael Bay's idiotic films, which are way-y worse in this regard
Still, THE GREAT GATSBY has fantastic art design and cinematography, Some of the performances are excellent (I especially like Carey Mulligan as Daisy Buchanan). The music is engaging. And, with regards to the film's inappropriate (for this kind of film especially) editing rhythms, Luhrmann is filling a stylistic niche that appeals to a younger generation born and raised on video games, music videos and cell phones. But this isn't TRANSFORMERS 8! GATSBY'S period costumes and sets and its anachronistic plot are simply not conducive to this kind of treatment. (I have to admit this is my opinion and may well be a minority one, since Lurhmann's updating of ROMEO + JULIET and MOULIN ROUGE! seemed to strike a very popular chord with audiences, mostly young ones).
Most high-school students in the 60's (including yours truly) were forced to read the Fitzgerald novel, and for what I suspect was the majority of us it just wasn't very interesting (i.e. it was a boring story) because we could not relate to the social class depicted here. I was actually born on Long Island and grew up in close proximity to the setting of the story for 17 years, but the novel just kept me at an emotional arm's length...I, like 99% of us, am not filthy rich. Perhaps there is satire or irony in the novel that make it palatable enough for the working class to have kept it in print since its initial publication in 1925, but the movie does not improve on or equal the book, even though it stars Leonardo DiCaprio. Of course, class disparity has become a monstrous political issue of late, but this isn't the film to address that.
Robert Harris lists a bunch of versions of this film, only one other of which (Clayton's version) I have seen. My sense is that no studio or director has ever captured Fitzgerald's characters or setting well enough to make it resound for anyone but the hyperactive "modern audience" in the case of this latest adaptation. But, as Dennis Miller says after his rants, I could be wrong.
P.S. Damn! Did I just post a very long essay about a film I only sort-of like? Must be all those college writing courses.
Last edited:
