Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    I think Baz Luhrmann is brilliant. Romeo+Juliet was a very brave and ambitious interpretation, and he's a director with tremendous flair. He also doesn't make a whole lot of films, so it's always refreshing to see him. The 3D backlash is all getting rather tiresome though - Martin Scorsese definitively showed that films you might not initially think need 3D can benefit from it, and still be excellent works in their own right.

    It also looks like Carey Mulligan is now officially one of the biggest actresses in the world, which is nice. However, there's a distinct lack of Vincent Chase in that trailer. :sad:

    EDIT: My 3D comment wasn't aimed at you Christien (I didn't see it before I wrote my post), just at the more general youtube crowd that goes "haha, 3D is crap".

    Oh no problem at all. I don't have an issue with 3D in general unless it's retrofitted against the director's wishes or whatever (I think if they could find a way to incorporate good 3D into a rerelease of Space Odyssey it'd be pretty close to amazing). I just don't know that it'll work specifically for Gatsby. The Eckleburg metaphor for example is already blatant enough, and if he has the eyes literally pop out of the screen it's more or less tantamount to beating the audience over the head and screaming 'THEMES AND MOTIFS, THIS HAS THEMES AND MOTIFS'. But this is a problem derived from my understanding of the book and not Luhrmann's film, so I guess I should be less unfair on it.


    Also, I'm wondering what was brave and ambitious about Romeo + Juliet. It's probably the only film of his I don't really dislike, but timeshifted Shakespeare has been done before: West Side Story, Branagh's Hamlet, the Ian McKellen Hitler version of Richard III (which is seriously weird but also great), etc. Is it the fact that it's pretty seamlessly integrated into the teen film genre, or am I missing something? Genuinely curious.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abiraleft)
    :yep: It's been coming. It looks like she know how to pick her movies as well - An Education, Never Let Me Go, Drive and Shame in recent years (although also a blip with Wall Street 2).
    I once went and put a £1 accumulator on the Oscars at a bookies (where everyone in the shop stared at me like I was a lunatic). I bet on every category they had available, and the only one I got wrong was best actress - it went to Sandra Bullock, when I had gone for Mulligan in An Education. Had she got it I would have won something ridiculous like £500. Still maintain I was robbed.

    (Original post by Christien)
    Also, I'm wondering what was brave and ambitious about Romeo + Juliet. It's probably the only film of his I don't really dislike, but timeshifted Shakespeare has been done before: West Side Story, Branagh's Hamlet, the Ian McKellen Hitler version of Richard III (which is seriously weird but also great), etc. Is it the fact that it's pretty seamlessly integrated into the teen film genre, or am I missing something? Genuinely curious.
    There's a lot of things I admire about it. I think it's partly because the starting point is that it is one of the most famous stories ever (more so than any other Shakespeare play, I'd say), so you're always going to face criticism with what ever you do with it. And yet it absolutely wasn't done by halves, Luhrmann had a vision and didn't compromise it for anything. I also think it captured the mood of the time in a way that was really damned impressive - it's pretty difficult to modernise something and sink it in reality without it just becoming a vacuous mess of pop-culture references. Although I know relatively little about it, I guess West Side Story did a similar thing at the time, but the key difference for me was Luhrmann's decision to retain the original language. It was the first thing I saw that really made me appreciate Shakespeare and become interested in it because of the language, in a way that West Side Story (which I'd seen before) didn't manage to. I personally think the ambitious part of it was that it was Luhrmann's attempt to switch on a generation to Shakespeare that didn't necessarily appreciate it by grounding it in a world they'd understand. And there's something very noble about that (and far cleverer than dry Shakespeare academics who look down their noses at anything they don't perceive as respectful and lament the fact that ignorant young people don't like the works), regardless of how well you think he succeeded.

    I'm not sure I would ever appreciate a film adaptation of The Great Gatsby. For me the main attraction in reading it was the wonderful way it was written, and I'm not sure how that would ever be captured outside of a book (unless you attempt something like that really interesting-sounding play called Gatz where they just read the book - I don't know if you've heard of it?). But Luhrmann is one of the few directors I'd actually have the faith in to respect that language and make it a central part of the film.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)



    There's a lot of things I admire about it. I think it's partly because the starting point is that it is one of the most famous stories ever (more so than any other Shakespeare play, I'd say), so you're always going to face criticism with what ever you do with it. And yet it absolutely wasn't done by halves, Luhrmann had a vision and didn't compromise it for anything. I also think it captured the mood of the time in a way that was really damned impressive - it's pretty difficult to modernise something and sink it in reality without it just becoming a vacuous mess of pop-culture references. Although I know relatively little about it, I guess West Side Story did a similar thing at the time, but the key difference for me was Luhrmann's decision to retain the original language. It was the first thing I saw that really made me appreciate Shakespeare and become interested in it because of the language, in a way that West Side Story (which I'd seen before) didn't manage to. I personally think the ambitious part of it was that it was Luhrmann's attempt to switch on a generation to Shakespeare that didn't necessarily appreciate it by grounding it in a world they'd understand. And there's something very noble about that (and far cleverer than dry Shakespeare academics who look down their noses at anything they don't perceive as respectful and lament the fact that ignorant young people don't like the works), regardless of how well you think he succeeded.

    I'm not sure I would ever appreciate a film adaptation of The Great Gatsby. For me the main attraction in reading it was the wonderful way it was written, and I'm not sure how that would ever be captured outside of a book (unless you attempt something like that really interesting-sounding play called Gatz where they just read the book - I don't know if you've heard of it?). But Luhrmann is one of the few directors I'd actually have the faith in to respect that language and make it a central part of the film.

    I suppose he did make it more accessible, which is to be commended. He did seem to bend the world to fit the language on occasion - naming the guns 'longsword', 'rapier' etc.- which I thought was pretty obnoxious at the time, but it's a minor quibble, I suppose. I liked it better than Moulin Rouge and Australia, at any rate.

    I haven't heard of Gatz, but that does sound interesting. Yeah Fitzgerald's prose is essentially the main reason Gatsby's any good at all. Without significant narration, it's going to be nigh-impossible to see Nick Carraway as anything but a boring audience surrogate, or to understand exactly what about Jay Gatsby was so compelling to him (because honestly it's really easy to make him look like some sort of demanding, unreasonable stalker- some smartarse has tried this line every time I've studied the book in class). It's not an easy project, to be sure. I don't like Luhrmann for it but I don't know who I'd have instead. Fincher or a resurrected Kubrick, I suppose, but that's obvious. :dontknow:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Christien)
    I haven't heard of Gatz, but that does sound interesting. Yeah Fitzgerald's prose is essentially the main reason Gatsby's any good at all. Without significant narration, it's going to be nigh-impossible to see Nick Carraway as anything but a boring audience surrogate, or to understand exactly what about Jay Gatsby was so compelling to him (because honestly it's really easy to make him look like some sort of demanding, unreasonable stalker- some smartarse has tried this line every time I've studied the book in class). It's not an easy project, to be sure. I don't like Luhrmann for it but I don't know who I'd have instead. Fincher or a resurrected Kubrick, I suppose, but that's obvious. :dontknow:
    Yeah, it's the kind of play I'd consider going to. If the theatre wasn't so prohibitively expensive.

    I'm guessing you're an english student? I always feel a little stupid with books, it takes me so much longer to grasp subtext and motivations than with other things.

    If I had to have someone do the film then I'd give David Mamet a big sack of money, tell him to write a script to make all the dialogue reflect the narration, and then have Roman Polanski direct it. Brad Pitt would play Gatsby and Jude Law would play Nick Carraway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    Yeah, it's the kind of play I'd consider going to. If the theatre wasn't so prohibitively expensive.

    I'm guessing you're an english student? I always feel a little stupid with books, it takes me so much longer to grasp subtext and motivations than with other things.

    If I had to have someone do the film then I'd give David Mamet a big sack of money, tell him to write a script to make all the dialogue reflect the narration, and then have Roman Polanski direct it. Brad Pitt would play Gatsby and Jude Law would play Nick Carraway.

    I am, yes. I tend to apply my thought process with English lit to film and everything else (which is why I didn't do too well in my first year film class), which probably accounts for the pseudo-intellectual tone of a lot of my posts here.

    The obvious joke here is 'David Mamet's Great ****in' Gatsby' but that could actually work quite well given his mastery of dialogue. Polanski's done some interesting adaptations before as well, though his best work is original. I also thought of Pitt for Gatsby, because he's got the rough edges that make the character ill-fitting in that world (and he looks the spit of Robert Redford, who, for all the many, many faults of the 1974 film, was a pretty decent Gatsby, all told). Nick, I dunno. Tobey Maguire is actually spot-on casting, given how Nick's supposed to at least appear bland and suggestible (but inwardly grows more disillusioned with every page). In fact, I really can't fault the casting of this film at all. Joel Edgerton looks suitably nasty, Carey Mulligan can't really be argued with, and DiCaprio is probably the finest leading man working today.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Is it just me, or does Daisy not seem to be portrayed as she is read in the novel?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lapples)
    Is it just me, or does Daisy not seem to be portrayed as she is read in the novel?


    Well, it's just a trailer, but she seems more emotional and attached to Gatsby than she does in the book. She's supposed to be attracted to him chiefly in terms of money and objects, but he seems to have her all a-quiver in this. But then again, there's that bit early on where she goes on about how the best thing a girl can be is superficial and pleasure-driven in that world, so maybe there's more emphasis on the person beneath the facade she puts up. I dunno. Again, huge overanalysis of a 2 and a half minute trailer, but that's all I've got to go on until December. Mulligan's good enough to nail Luhrmann's vision of Daisy, I'm just not sure she'll get Fitzgerald's.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Going to read Great Gatsby again soon. Not too sure how I feel about it being adapted but the trailer did interest me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Christien)
    Well, it's just a trailer, but she seems more emotional and attached to Gatsby than she does in the book. She's supposed to be attracted to him chiefly in terms of money and objects, but he seems to have her all a-quiver in this. But then again, there's that bit early on where she goes on about how the best thing a girl can be is superficial and pleasure-driven in that world, so maybe there's more emphasis on the person beneath the facade she puts up. I dunno. Again, huge overanalysis of a 2 and a half minute trailer, but that's all I've got to go on until December. Mulligan's good enough to nail Luhrmann's vision of Daisy, I'm just not sure she'll get Fitzgerald's.
    Yeah, I know, but I'm still dubious about the whole Baz Luhrmann thing.
    The "beautiful, little fool" quote?
    I just hope it turns out good
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lapples)
    Yeah, I know, but I'm still dubious about the whole Baz Luhrmann thing.
    The "beautiful, little fool" quote?
    I just hope it turns out good


    I've gone on about not being a fan of his to the point where it'd be boring to continue. I hope it turns out well and I will watch it, but I have very low expectations.

    Yep, that's the one. Christ I love that book.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Christien)
    I am, yes. I tend to apply my thought process with English lit to film and everything else (which is why I didn't do too well in my first year film class), which probably accounts for the pseudo-intellectual tone of a lot of my posts here.
    At least you have a justification for it. :p: I'm consistently the only medic writing for my student newspaper, I feel like a traitor to the sciences.

    (and he looks the spit of Robert Redford, who, for all the many, many faults of the 1974 film, was a pretty decent Gatsby, all told)
    I haven't seen that film, would you recommend it?

    On a non-Gatsby aside, I've kind of decided on a recreational project for the summer when all my exams are out of the way: I'm tempted to try and watch every adaptation of Alice in Wonderland. I recently saw Disney and Burton's version and was curious if any others existed and there's a ridiculous amount - Wikipedia lists about 40 direct adaptations, and then there's a ton of inspired by films too. Cary Grant plays the mock turtle in one of them!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    At least you have a justification for it. :p: I'm consistently the only medic writing for my student newspaper, I feel like a traitor to the sciences.



    I haven't seen that film, would you recommend it?

    On a non-Gatsby aside, I've kind of decided on a recreational project for the summer when all my exams are out of the way: I'm tempted to try and watch every adaptation of Alice in Wonderland. I recently saw Disney and Burton's version and was curious if any others existed and there's a ridiculous amount - Wikipedia lists about 40 direct adaptations, and then there's a ton of inspired by films too.


    The Redford Gatsby is not definitive, but it's not as bad as people make out. Mia Farrow makes a great Daisy (if you can call any portrayal of a character defined by superficiality 'great', anyway) , and Redford's Gatsby is underrated. It doesn't capture the depth of the novel and does seem to paint it as a love story to an extent, but it's more a noble failure than an atrocity like the Demi Moore Scarlet Letter.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm looking forward to it. Gives me an excuse to actually read the Great Gatsby instead of playing the video game.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)

    I'm surprised you didn't break down when saying Transformers. :lol: I liked Shia LaBeouf in the Even Stevens TV show and as a secondary supporting character in the Constantine and I Robot films. It's the main spotlight that he does not seem suited to.


    How the **** does the internet come up with these things?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Pi!)


    How the **** does the internet come up with these things?
    :K:

    Not a bad song though. I'm actually humming it now.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Colonel.)
    I'm looking forward to it. Gives me an excuse to actually read the Great Gatsby instead of playing the video game.

    There's a video game? o.O
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Christien)
    I've gone on about not being a fan of his to the point where it'd be boring to continue. I hope it turns out well and I will watch it, but I have very low expectations.

    Yep, that's the one. Christ I love that book.
    I studied it for higher english, and I absolutely love it now, after being apprehensive of the language
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    and then there's a ton of inspired by films too
    one of my favourites:

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SirMasterKey)
    There's a video game? o.O
    http://greatgatsbygame.com/

    Quite amazing tbh
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mister Dead)
    one of my favourites:

    ****ing hell, that was epic! :awesome:
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.