Regarding: this heinous attempt at a cinematic rendering of Fitzgerald’s Jazz Age classic “The Great Gatsby.” (2012, Baz Luhrmann)

Regarding: my multiple, well-founded, respectfully articulated problems with this. (Read: I may be righteous, but I’m also right, and I know I’m right.)

“Civilization’s going to pieces. I’ve gotten to be a terrible pessimist about things…” -Tom Buchanan,The Great Gatsby(by F. Scott Fitzgerald)

a) Replacing Redford and Farrow. Understandably, these two are well past their Gatsby-and-Daisy days. However, Leo DiCaprio and Carey Mulligan don’t come close to cutting it. More work is needed. This casting seems like it was made out of convenience rather than a real vetting of every actor in Hollywood worthy of these parts (a classic story like this deserves nothing less). I understand the convenience of casting these two: Mulligan has the wispy, soft-spoken blonde thing down; Leo is capable of adequately mimicking a Redford-esque austerity. But that’s exactly it: these two are cast because they *already* fit the roles, the archetypes, not because they have the subtle essence that the 1974 crew (I’m not sure who vetted them exactly) was able to pick up. Simply put, Luhrmann is slacking and it shows: even in the trailer, DiCaprio’s attempts at the classic Redfordisms of the ‘74 version are affected and formulaic, while Mulligan brings all the delicate feminine charm with none of the subtle emotional disturbances that made Farrow positively become Daisy.

b) Replacing the ensemble. Okay, obviously it seems like I’m holding the 2012 film crew responsible for the fact that the perfect 1974 cast has aged out. But, again: TRY HARDER. Despite the fact that every time I watch the ‘74 version, I’m half hoping expecting Waterston to say that line about how men should rot in hell, but that’s not his jurisdiction (I’m sure it would fit in there somewhere… metaaaaa), there’s no denying his perfection as Nick. Waterston’s charm in the role came precisely from his awkwardness, which added a sense of vitality and truth to Nick’s unaffected candor. Tobey Maguire is far too slick for a role like that. As far as I can tell, Tom, Jordan, and Myrtle are also cast improperly (although I never loved Karen Black in that role). I mean, ISLA FISHER?!?! REALLY?!?! I love Isla, and she does the ditzy thing really well, but Myrtle is no ditz. She knows exactly what she wants when she seduces Tom, and she goes after it. Tom looks too polished in this version, and not smug enough; Jordan is a maybe, but she looks too corporate (Debicki is the modern woman for 2012, while Jordan was supposed to be the postmodern woman for the 1920s, creating a clear disparity.) Furthermore, the film is clearly and painfully relying on the star power of the DiCaprio-Mulligan pairing, using unknowns to relegate the ensemble cast to the background when it’s the ensemble (especially Jordan, in my opinion) who make the storyline. I don’t presume to have some ideal cast for this movie lined up in my head (though I did float around Marion Cotillard as Jordan; I think it’s as close to perfect as 2012 will get), but these people are professionals; surely they can do it themselves? …wait, apparently they can’t.

c) Oversaturation, in more ways than one. In my opinion, watching a Baz Luhrmann film is like being under that kind of anesthesia that leaves you semi-awake: overall it’s painless, but you’re aware that it’s being made to feel painless, and that, were your brain not being tricked (pain is in the brain, my darlings) it would, in fact, be quite painful. Meaning that when I watch his films, I find myself swept away by the dazzling visual displays of bright color and high cinema, but I’m *aware* that I’m being swept away by the dazzling visual displays of bright color and high cinema. It’s one thing to be critically aware of cinematic devices, and another thing entirely to feel like you’re being bought as a viewer, tricked into being blissfully naive to the fact that underneath all the pretty colors, there’s nothing really happening. (Seriously, Moulin Rouge is basically “this is a story about how I slept with my costar, a whore who choked and died.” Meanwhile, Baz Luhrmann attempts to distract us: “Gotta love that hair though. Isn’t tuberculosis a great way to die? Ehmagawd, Paris is SO cool. Guns bouncin’ off the Eiffel tower and shit. LOOKATTHEPRETTYCOLORRRRRSSSS.”) ” Luhrmann is a master of creating aesthetically pleasing but palpably non-substantive film, and a Fitzgerald rendering quite obviously deserves better: it deserves substance, art, and, most importantly, a sense of subtlety. The ‘74 version is charming precisely in the way its cloudy colors bring us back in time and we can languish in the appropriately-paced scenes as though we’re suffering through the summer heat.

d) “Yo Daisy, I’m really happy for you, but I was the best lover of all time.” 3D? FITZGERALD IN 3D?!?! Let me just channel Seth Meyers for a moment and REALLY?!?! I can understand the temptation, what with all the dancing feet and whatnot. But does a film so dumbed-down that it’s already kicking you in the face (see part c) really need to give the effect of literally kicking you in the face? And I can’t even discuss at length the presence of a KANYE WEST SONG (see above) or my computer may overheat because I’m hitting the keys with too much rage. Not only is it anachronistic, but it is INSULTINGLY pandering to the audience. Why not throw in Jennifer Aniston or even Kim Kardashian (even when I knew I was being sarcastic, my brain just went “NO”) in there while we’re at it? We may as well admit that we were a smarter country in the 70s because WOW. I mean at LEAST the music in the 1974 version was accurate to the period (recall Klipspringer’s horrid but somehow endearing rendition of “Ain’t We Got Fun”). But if you’re going to pepper this wretched colorsoaked catastrophe with a modern song (God forbid American citizens be exposed to alternative art forms for 2 hours), why not pick something good? But the specific music choice is a personal preference; the modern music should have been left out altogether.

I’m still torn as to whether to go see this film. (Yes, I derived all of the above from the trailer.) I have to bear in mind that when I fell in love with this book at 14, I was hesitant to see the 1974 version of the film for fear that it would ruin the book for me. (As an avid reader with a vivid imagination, I’m not one who takes well to being told what the book should look like in my mind.) However, I quickly fell in love with it. But given my cynicism about my generation and general dislike for Leonardo DiCaprio (90s-girl heresy, I realize), I don’t think I can handle a version of the film made for a generation with which I find myself largely incompatible. But the jury’s still out…

i’m currently procrastinating bored, so i’m making a blog. hopefully i finish/continue what i started.