Gatsby is a Mixed Bag, with Elements,that work and some which Fail, but Overall it's an Entertaining Experience.

The Great Gatsby (2 1/2 out of 5 Stars)

Director: Baz Lurhman (Romeo + Juliet, Moulin Rouge, Australia)

Written by: Baz Lurhmann, and Craig Pearce (Moulin Rouge)

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, and Carey Mulligan

There are two ways to view this film, as an avid fan of literature who read and loved the book, or as film goer who has either never read the book or willing to let the book be manipulated into something different.  I am torn. I waited over a week to see the film, and I let the dust of the incredibly negative reviews settle.  I asked friends their opinions, and the reviews were mixed from love to hate i figure I had to settle this on my own.  What I found was a film that entertained me, but as avid fan of the beautiful novel angered me as well, as though I were a bi-polar film critic.

For me to summarize the film would be an insult, and if you have not read the book as most have you have missed out.  For those who do not know the story, the film centers on Nick Carraway (Maguire) who is narrates the story of his time living in West Egg on Long Island.  Nick's cottage is right next to the illustrious and elusive Gatsby (DiCaprio) who throws lavish parties almost constantly.  As Nick enters the world of privilege through his cousin Daisy (Mulligan) and her husband Tom (Joel Edgerton).  Tom was born into money, and he Daisy live in East Egg.  As the roaring 20s begin Nick gets dragged through the world of all these people, seeing the good, the bad, and the ugly.

That's as basic theme to this film, the good, the bad, and the ugly.  The film is a mixed bag, and the person responsible for all of this is producer, director, and writer Baz Lurhmann.  Lurhamann is the central force of gravity within his films.  All things come from him, his wife (Catherine Martin) is also a major part of all of his films.  Martin did production design on all of his films starting with Strictly Ballroom (1992), and has been a producer since Romeo + Juliet (1996).  Lurhmann has also written all of his films with Craig Pearce, except the most atrocious Australia (2008).  These three are back, and appear to be the core team behind this modern re-telling of one of the most classic pieces of American literature.  The question for many is did they capture this book, and the answer is yes and no.

Let's start with the problems, and that is namely Lurhmann himself who only recently (within the last many years according to his interview) became enamored with this story.  Lurhmann looks to be making Gatsby meets Moulin Rouge with a splash of Jay-Z.  I love Moulin Rouge, one of my favorite musicals of all time, and there is the element of the tragic love story in both, but they are different tales.  Lurhmann's lavish and fun parties mixed with drug trips feel too much like Moulin Rouge, and not like anything new or different.  On the good side this makes the movie a little more fun than the 1974 Jack Clayon version, which is a lot more subtle.  Lurhmann also needs to focus his direction a little bit more he lets length draw things out, and prevent his stories from being refined works of art. 

The script is probably one of the biggest problems.  Many of the major motifs of the book are in this film, the whole concept of the 20s, bootlegging, Prohibition, the Jazz Age, and the build up to the Depression.  Looking at the haves versus have nots, and old money versus new money was a major part of this book, and some Fitzgerald focused on as though he knew the fall or crash was coming.  Fitzgerald and his book were intuitive, and this film proves the theme does transcend time.  As financial woes become a major issue today, the film handles this topic well, showing the callous way in which people with money view the world, and the way things may not have changed.  While the film does not delve too deep into these issues they are present to make their mark and divide the characters.

The script misses the mark on many of the characters, including Daisy. I do not know if the film made me hate Daisy, but the only reason I did was because well I have read the book, and she is terrible person.  Mulligan played her part well enough, but the script from Lurhmann and Pearce made her more into a victim who was being fought over by two selfish men.  Tom is so brutish in this film, and he is in the book as well, but it almost becomes an over exaggeration, which forces you to feel sorry for Daisy because she has become a victim in the game between these two men.  Daisy is not victim; she is in fact the culprit to her own demise.   In the beginning Daisy states "All right...I'm glad it's a girl.  And. I hope she's a fool--that's the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool." Daisy's quote at the beginning should have signaled this direction for her character, but instead her foolishness becomes more pity.

In order to more closely resemble the book Lurhmann and Pearce used direct quotes from the book.  I liked this and thought it worked overall, but when you alter the material in film loses it's steam.  It's also a problem when you have Tobey Maguire as Nick Carraway the center of the film.  Maguire is one of the most wooden actor's out there; he is dry, wooden, and his emotional reactions do not come across as effective.  Maguire is the most miscast person in this film; he is not Nick Carraway.  This was the biggest problem with the film.  All of the elements people are frustrated with could be overlooked, but this role being miscast is a massive problem.  The story, and film hinge on Nick more so than Gatsby because Nick is your guide through the world of these deplorable people, but Maguire never sells the words, which Fitzgerald so beautifully put to paper.

One performance the film got right for me was Leonardo DiCaprio as J. Gatsby.  Robert Redford portrayed Gatsby well, getting the confidence part down but missing little insecurities and vulnerability.  DiCaprio hits these moments out of the park, especially the little obsessions like with the green light on the dock, or making sure his first meeting with Daisy is perfect.  DiCaprio is a great actor, and you see the flaws within the character because of his performance.  The rest of the cast loses these elements or they become muddled because of some over exaggeration.

I know many people will a problem with the flashy green screen, and the 3-D, but I found these elements to bring this world to life.  While I do not always love a lot of green screen or 3-D.  I found myself sucked in by the technical aspects of this film.  I think this film used 3-D well, and sucked me into the fast paced scenes, the lavish parties, and the journey through all the different worlds.  Simon Duggan's cinematography is spell binding, although  most of this is reliant of some gorgeous visual effects.  Lurhmann's better half Catherine Martin is the star of this film, her production and costume design are some of the best I have seen all year.  I want to run out and buy Gatsby's pink suit, and Nick's green cardigan (for sale at Brooks Brothers), they are flawless elements adding to the beauty of the look of this film.

The music within the film can be a distraction at times, but Jay-Z compilation of modern music with a 20s big band style feel, and Craig Armstrong's score help make this some memorable music.  Lana Del Rey's "Young and Beautiful" is this film's "Come What May" and it's haunting tone sets the tone perfectly for the tragic love story between Daisy and Gatsby.  

The music, the cars, the design they all scream 1920s, making these elements work in the film are important.  They add to the romanticism of this era, and of J. Gatsby himself.  This time period was a build up to the depression, and this book, and film to some extent capture the rise of the self made men to their downfall.  I think the film does a good job at tearing away at the illusions of this decade.  Were Gatsby and Daisy meant to be, or was their brief foray into love before the War (World War I) something which jaded them.  This theme of being jaded runs throughout the film, and book proving some success.

Overall the film is a mixed bag, with a weak screenplay direction, and poor casting.  The film is saved by some of the tried and true themes of the book, DiCaprio, and some incredible technical aspects.  One of the major problems is that sometimes a classic book is just that a classic, no one will ever be perfectly pleased, and there are elements which will never be just right.  I think Gatsby has elements, which work and some which fail, but overall it's an entertaining experience.

Academy Awards Snubs: The Directors (2000s)

1-Christopher Nolan-Memento (2001),The Dark Knight (2008), and Inception (2010)-The King of the snubbed directors, is also the best director of the last decade.  Nolan has made numerous films throughout the last few years which have provided both entertainment to mass audiences while expanding his craft and influencing other directors. Memento changed the face of the indie film. A film told backwards, where the beginning was the end, and the end was the beginning, challenged audiences to think outside the box.  The Dark Knight proved sequels can be better than the original, and a film based on a comic book can be much deeper.  Nolan changed the landscape of action films proving that making audiences think may not be a bad thing.  Inception is another film that proves over thinking may just have to happen.  Nolan's direction keeps audiences on their toes while never pandering to the mainstream; he is true genius.  Nolan has been nominated for Best Director from his guild but has never been nominated at the Academy Awards, a massive mistake! Who would he have replaced? In 2001, the actual winner Ron Howard (A Beautiful Mind) should not have even received a nomination.  In 2008 Stephen Daldry proved the voters are suckers for a good Holocaust story, with The Reader.  2010-While I love Joel and Ethan Coen (True Grit), their direction did nothing to advance film making the way Inception did.

2-Darren Aronofsky-Requiem for a Dream (2000) and The Wrestler (2008)-2000 was a competitive year with a lot of great films, but after a series of shorts and a small obscure film named Pi, Aronofsky emerged with a brilliant film about the dark world of drugs.  Requiem challenges the Best Picture nominee Traffic (that year) as the most realistic representation of drugs within film.  The film is a brilliant character study, and Aronofsky rose above the challenge to make one impeccable film.  After Requiem Aronofsky made the polarizing film The Fountain, which had beautiful direction but it was not until his third film, The Wrestler where his adept skills of character returned.  The Wrestler follows Mickey Rourke's character as he tries to achieve his goal and work to be a small time wrestler who never made the big time.  Aronofsky actually achieved a Best Director nomination in 2010 for his film Black Swan, but the above mentioned films deserved attention for him from the Academy.Who would he have replaced? Steven Soderbergh had one nomination for directing Traffic; he did not need a nomination for Erin Brockovich; he should have taken his place in 2000.  I feel as though I am going to be picking on Stephen Daldry and Ron Howard a good bit, but in 2008 his direction far surpassed Howard's direction of the dry Frost/Nixon.

3-Guillermo del Torro-Pan's Labyrinth-El laberinto del fauno (2006)-Moving past two men who were snubbed multiple times throughout the last 12 years.  Del Torro's direction Pan's Labyrinth is some of the most beautiful work I have ever seen.  The way del Torro blends the fantastical world in which Ofelia journey's and the modern day aspects of fascist Spain in 1944 is well done.  Del Torro uses visual effects well, and while he sometimes lets them dominate his film or overcome the subject matter, this film has the perfect blend, and is one of my favorite films of all time. Del Torro was nominated for writing this film, but did not win; he has never been nominated in the director's category. Who would he have replaced? Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu is a terrific director, and Babel is a solid film, but I feel as though Inarritu has shower rinse and repeat formula with his films, the way his direction blends the story together from the screenplay.  Babel is his weakest film (which is not a bad thing), but he did not make the same accomplishments as del Torro.

4-Michel Gondry-Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)-I could not ignore the director of the film, which was snubbed royally by the Academy.  The film itself received one nomination for Best Original Screenplay, which it won.  Gondry's direction is hauntingly beautiful; he knows how to capture the deep emotional material from Charlie Kauffman's screenplay.  Gondry has a typical style, and I have seen all of his other films, and I have never liked, scratch that, loved a film as much as I love this film.  In fact I do not like any of the other films he has directed.  Gondry has skills as a director because he uses all of the elements to create one of the most perfect films.  From the terrific performances, to the way he makes you emotional over the loss of memory.  Gondry is a master director and this film is proof. Gondry wrote the story for the film and won the Oscar along with Kauffman, but has never received a directing nomination.  Who would he have replaced? This is an easy one, 2004 had some of the worst Best Picture/Best Director nominees.  Taylor Hackford's direction for the film Ray is like a formula, nothing out of the ordinary that adds to the landscape of cinema the way Gondry evokes new meta realities.  I am actually sad as I type this that Hackford received a nomination for that film over Gondry.

5-Alfonso Cuaron-Children of Men (2006)-2006 had some of the best films, and also saw some of the worst snubs.  Cuaron is an incredible director, and this film is living proof that this man can take you a journey to a variety of places ranging from a road trip where three people journey to find themselves, to Hogwarts, and apocalyptic 2027 where people can longer give birth to children.  Children of Men is the latter, which focuses on the journey of one man who takes a pregnant woman on a journey to scientists to discover to secret to saving man.  This film came at the very last moment in 2006 on Christmas Day, and oh what a gift it was to understanding great direction.  When Cuaron steps behind the camera he depicts this dark/haunting world that often feels too close to a present day, meanwhile you feel the distance.  This film is beautifully directed, and unfortunately this man missed out on a nomination, for directing this film.  Cuaron has been nominated for three Oscars two screenplay nominations, Y Tu Mama Tambien, and Children of Men, and in the Editing category for Children of Men. Who would he have replaced? I hate to replace Stephen Frears direction for The Queen, because it was a wonderful film, and was a brillaint look at an interesting even in history, but Cuaron's direction is revolutionary.

6-Quentin Tarantino-Kill Bill Volume 1 (2003)-One of the most ambitious directors of all time, and one of the most ambitious films of all time.  Tarantino pays homage to old school marital arts films, with this tale of revenge.  Tarantino's style works incredible for this film.  Tarantino likes to break his film down in chapters/segments, and this does not always works.  In this film it feels genuine, and that it makes sense like opening the chapters of the book.  While many prefer Volume 2, I have always liked Volume 1 more because of the way it feels so naturally Tarantino.  My favorite was his use of anime in telling the origins of O-Ren Ishii.  While Tarantino's screenplays are usually the highlight of his films, this film is best because of his direction, and the great action sequences.  Tarantino has been nominated for four Academy Awards, two for directing (Pulp Fiction, and Inglorious Basterds) and two for writing (Pulp Fiction, and Inglorious Basterds); he won the Original Screenplay Award for Pulp Fiction. Who would he have replaced? Peter Weir's Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World is a snooze compare to Tarantino's film, and should have been easily replaced.

7-Baz Lurhmann-Moulin Rouge! (2001)-The return of the musical can be credited to this film, or well the modern day style of musicals.  Some groan at that notion because they prefer old school musicals, but this film did a lot in making musicals accessible to modern audiences.  Lurhmann is a style over substance director, his other films Romeo + Juliet, and Australia just do not pack the punches this film does.  Lurhmann's The Great Gatsby looks to follow the same trend as those two films, but there was something magical about this film and his direction.  This film is spectacular, spectacular!  Lurhmann's direction and work with his creative team deserve a lot of the credit for making you truly fall in love with these characters while making this one of the most fun musicals of all time.  This may be my most bias pick on this list, but I honestly do believe Lurhmann's direction is one of the most magical directing jobs in recent years.  Lurhmann was nominated as a producer for the film, but has no other nominations. Who would he have replaced?  I would hate to take away Robert Altman's last nomination (so I won't), I would have nominated Lurhmann over Ridley Scott's  work in Black Hawk Down.  This is really one of the best years for film of all time.

8-Nicolas Winding Refn-Drive (2011)-Winding Refn is the most recent snubbed director, so recent he was just snubbed last year.  Winding Refn's Drive still has some time to get legs and become more of a cult film the way Memento did, or other small films, but Winding Refn's direction will go down as some of the best because his style proves talk is cheap.  This is a strong film because of the direction, while there a few scenes where Ryan Gosling's lead man, known as "The Guy" speaks, his actions speak louder than his words, and this is mainly because of of Winding Refn's direction. Winding Refn camera work is brilliant capturing the brilliant action packed moments, focusing on unique angles as cars crash and bullets fly.  Winding Refn also does a good of highlighting the most intimate moments making you feel as though you are an intruder on the private interactions like at the dinner table with Gosling, Mulligan, and the boy who plays her son; he has never been nominated for an Oscar. Who would he have replaced? While I love Alexander Payne his direction with the film The Descendants did not thrill me as much as his earlier work, so he would have been booted from my nominations.

9-David Cronenberg-A History of Violence (2005)-In one of the weakest years in film, David Cronenberg does what he does best with this film, and that jar your senses to provoke an ethereal reaction.  The film is based on a graphic novel about a family whose world is turned upside down when the father is approached by someone saying he is a different person.  Cronenberg's directions like in most of his films uses disturbing images the get those reactions.  Yet I think one of the main reasons this is one of his best films, and best directing is because the film is straight forward dark roller coaster ride, where Cronenberg does not take you too far away from the subject at hand, but he tease at moments to give a glimpse of self.  There is restraint yet darkness here, that is brutally real.  Shockingly David Cronenberg has never been nominated for an Academy Award. Who would he have replaced? Easy, Paul Haggis and Crash, moving on.

10-Todd Haynes-Far from Heaven (2002)-I was torn on who to give this last spot to, and it was between two directors from this year, Todd Haynes (obviously), and Steven Spielberg for Minority Report.  Spielberg has been nominated for 6 directing Academy Awards (won 2), so I did not pick him.  I pick Todd Haynes for more than just that reason, I picked him because this is one of the most beautifully directed films of the 2000s.  Haynes pays homage to the Douglas Sirk era of the 1950s and 1960s which highlighted the subtle cutltural problems at the time.  Haynes directions brings things right out to the surface pointing out that what may have seemed beautiful and straight forward was claustrophobic.  Haynes direction is not in your face rather its subtle touching on the basic human emotions of love.  Haynes is brilliant at making the raw human emotions shine within his work, and this film is proof of his great writing and direction.  Haynes was nominated for Best Original Screenplay for this film, but has never received a directing nomination. Who would he have replaced? Sorry Marty, I do not say that often, but Gangs of New York is by far his weakest film.

One of the interesting trends is that most of these men have been snubbed as directors, but been nominated in the screenplay categories, many of them winning.  This just proves my theory true the writers branch is usually one of the most creative and open minded in the Academy.

Academy Awards Best Picture Revisited: Moulin Rouge (2001)

In honor of Valentine's Day I decided to hold off on re-visiting the 2001 Best Picture Oscar discussion until today.  Today is the day people set aside to celebrate their love for others, why we need a specific day is beyond me, but that's my cynic speaking.  Moulin Rouge was one of my favorite films of the 2000s.The movie speaks to the definition of love and I am honored to talk about one of the best modem love stories on this day.

Moulin Rouge was the brainchild of famed Australian director/writer Baz Lurhmann.  Luhrmann career as a director started in 1992 with the film Strictly Ballroom, which is a film about a ballroom dancer who risks everything changing partners to do a new unique routine.  In 1996 Lurhmann tackled the modern day re-telling of  Skahspeare, Romeo + Juliet, which starred two young celebrities Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes.  Romeo + Juliet started the rise of DiCaprio's career, as a leading man.  5 years late Lurhmann wrote and directed, and released another epic love story, this one-Moulin Rouge.  While many were excited for his post Moulin Rouge film, especially since he was bringing back his leading lady Nicole Kidman. Seven years later Lurhmann's 2008 major epic Australia was disappointing as a film and at the box office.  This year Luhrmann will be the third person to attempt The Great Gatbsy; he is re-teaming with Leonardo DiCaprio, and the film also stars Carey Mulligan, and Tobey Marguire.  Lurhmann appears to be in love with love; he centers all of his films around great love stories, but none are better than Moulin Rouge.

Moulin Rouge centers around two people Satine (Nicole Kidman) who is a courtesan at the Moulin Rouge and Christian (Ewan McGregor) a poet.  Christian is dragged by a group of artists to the Moulin Rouge to meet Satine to provide him with inspiration for their new play.  When Christian meets Satine he falls madly in love with her.  The only problem is that Harold Zidler (Jim Broadbent) who runs the Moulin Rouge has promised her to the evil Duke.  Christian believes in love above all, and he starts a secret love affair with Satine.  O, and of course this is musical.

This is not just any musical, but this is the musical that relaunched the entire genre that exists today.  I fell in love with musicals because of this film.  I love how the film blended modern popular/rock music in order to transcend to stuffy aspects of the genre.  This is one inherent quality that makes this one of the best films of the decade, not to mention that stylistically its well made.

While many film critics turned their noses up at this film, I applaud its bravery.  Moulin Rouge is funny, heart warming, beautiful, and sad.  The screenplay is the weakest aspect of the film, which can be a problem most of the time, but this film succeeds on every other level.  Nicole Kidman and Ewan McGroegor are magnetic, their chemistry is off the charts.  McGregor is a great leading man, and Kidman showed us that she was much more that Mrs. Tom Cruise (post their divorce).  Broadbent leaped to notoriety; he is terrific in this film and give my favorite supporting performance of the year in this film.  David McAlpine's cinematography is brilliant; he knows the material, and uses this trippy experience to help escalate the visuals.  Moulin Rouge was pick for Best Picture in 2001.

Who were the other actual nominees and the eventual winner?  The full list of nominees was A Beautiful Mind (winner), Gosford Park, In the Bedroom, Moulin Rouge, and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring.  This is not a bad list of nominees, but 2001 also produced some of the best films for the entire decade not just the year, that were left off this list of five.

I can count 8 other films that could have been considered for this category this year.  The first is Christopher Nolan's first film Memento.  Memento is brilliant film that chronicles a man with short term memory, as we follow his story backwards the pieces fall into place as to what happened, simple brilliant.  Mullholland Dr. is a masterpiece from the mind of David Lynch that chronicles the dark and twisted path of getting a film made in Hollywood.  One year after Gladiator director Ridley Scott made an even better film Black Hawk Down, which about 123 elite US soldiers dropped into Somalia. Wes Anderson's quirk was at it's best in The Royal Tenenbaums. One of the best graphic novel adaptations ever was Terry Zwigoff's Ghost World, which held an inate darkness and wit.  Jon Cameron Mitchell also made a musical film that year where he played a transgender singer in Hedwig and the Angry Inch.  Foreign films rarely find a place in this category, but the French film Amelie, is one of the most charming films I have ever seen.  The first film to win the animated feature category was Shrek, and even though most of the sequels were sub par this first film was a true gem.  These other eight films are the reason why I like the concept of not limiting the Best Picture race to five nominees.  This opens the outside world to so many different films.

My taste is always different from the Academy, and they picked five this year so I guess I will as well.

My nominees for Best Picture would have been:
In the Bedroom
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Memento
Moulin Rouge (Winner)
Mullholland Dr.

The rest of of my top ten would be:
6-Ghost World
7-Amelie
8-Hedwig and the Angry Inch
9-Black Hawk Down
10-Gosford Park

As you can see my picks are a bit different from the actual Academy Award nominations.  Even though Moulin Rouge did not win this award it was a major player in the award season.  It was nominated for 6 Golden Globes, and won three including Best Film (Musical/Comedy) and Kidman won for her performance. It had a lot of nominations and wins from the technical guilds.  It won the Producer's Guild, the American Cinema Editors, the Art Director's Guild, and the American Cinematographer's Guild Awards.  The film's ensemble was nominated for Outstanding Cast of a Motion Picture at SAG, and Lurhamm was nominated for Best Director at the Director's Guild Awards.  When the Academy Awards rolled around the film received 8 nominations, including Best Picture and Best Actress, but there was no director nomination, which usually means that the film had no chance at the top honor.

I was saddened by the film losing Best Picture, but to this day love experiencing this film. This is one of my favorite musicals of all time.  The film is about love and what love can bring to your world.  To wipe out the thoughts of the film The Vow from last night I may just have to watch this movie again. On a day about love let's celebrate and say "Come what May."