8mm Forum: The Great Gatsby

This is topic The Great Gatsby in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002538

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on May 10, 2013, 08:05 AM:

The new The Great Gatsby with Leo DiCapprio is not getting good reviews at all. Just two stars in the local review.
Apparently it is high on 3D glitz and low on character and dialogue, and the music is totally out of context for the 1920's period.
We watched the Robert Redford/Mia Farrow version a couple of nights ago, and I thought it was very good, and certainly a beautiful film to look at. But from what I read the best version so far might be the 1949 version with, believe it or not, Alan Ladd. Apparently Ladd does a great job, although I have never seen this version.

Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on May 10, 2013, 10:37 AM:

Saw the Alan Ladd version as a child and remember being quite shocked by the last scene where Ladd was shot by the swimming pool. Amazing considering I would have been five! I've seen since on TV, but having never seen any other versions couldn't compare.

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on May 10, 2013, 11:42 AM:

Maybe I'll save using my union card for this Fitzgerald Fiasco - I constantlt say these films should NOT be re-made with people of little talent for them

Posted by Guy Taylor, Jr. (Member # 786) on May 10, 2013, 02:10 PM:

This was made by the same guy that made Moulan Rouge. He likes adding modern music to period pieces.

Posted by Thomas Murin, Jr. (Member # 1745) on May 10, 2013, 04:33 PM:

Baz Lhurman also had Romeo & Juliet set in the 1990's with rap music and rival gangs but the actors all speaking Shakespeare's text. I haven't seen it so can't say how well it works.

I liked Moulin Rouge and expect to like Gatsby.

BTW, Francis Ford Coppola, who wrote the 1974 version of Gatsby, was a consultant and did some uncredited writing on the new version.

Anachronistic music in period pieces is nothing new. Ladyhawke is set in the 1300's and has a hard rock score. Plunkett & Macleane, also set in medieval times, features rock songs on the soundtrack.

Personally, I like it when a filmaker actually uses his imagination and gets creative. Even if the end result does not really work, the effort remains interesting.

BTW, the 1949 version is considered the WORST adaptation of the novel though most like Alan Ladd's performance. Haven't seen it myself so I can't say.

I did enjoy the 1974 version very much and am looking forward to the new movie.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on May 10, 2013, 04:46 PM:

Have to agree with Joe,some films just don't need a remake,
although the subject is not to my taste, the Robert Redford film is now regarded as a classic and is going to be a tough act to follow.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on May 10, 2013, 06:17 PM:

I just saw a clip from the Alan Ladd version on youtube. I must say that Ladd looks impressive in the role, I wish the film would be released on DVD.

Posted by Guy Taylor, Jr. (Member # 786) on May 10, 2013, 11:07 PM:

I like Moulan Rouge as well. Will give this movie a try.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on May 11, 2013, 12:54 PM:

Gatsby is a book that just cannot be done justice to on the screen.That's always been my opinion anyway.
[Smile]

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on May 13, 2013, 05:16 AM:

caught it last night, long, should have been more concise

Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on May 14, 2013, 04:09 PM:

Talking of Gatsby raised my interest again, and I just ran an off air recording I made long ago of the Alan Ladd version. It's very much of it's time, and a fairly typical piece of Hollywood film noir, and quite haunting in it's own way. Ladd gives his usual tough but vulnerable performance.

Posted by Laksmi Breathwaite (Member # 2320) on May 14, 2013, 07:30 PM:

I liked the colorful parties and Spiderman Toby. But Gatsby's worth the whole Dam group of all of them put together!

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 549) on May 16, 2013, 06:33 AM:

The people want to see it; it's taking big bucks for a period piece.

Posted by David M. Ballew (Member # 1818) on May 16, 2013, 01:52 PM:

I saw this movie two nights ago. I thought it was perfectly awful.

The cutting, camera movements, and even on occasion the shutter speed of the camera created a manic and disjointed impression that did not complement the themes of the story, though that may have been their intended purpose.

The film looked like it had been production designed by the late Thomas Kinkade. I don't mean that in a good way.

Although I am a huge 3-D fan, the stereoscopy in this film left me cold. I wound up watching maybe 40% of the film without my glasses, just to get a better sense of what was going on with regards to the stereo. I can tell you, their team made some inexplicable choices. While there were no textbook technical errors, the aesthetics of the 3-D were lacking. Some individual shots looked as beautiful as anything I've ever seen. Others looked as flat as a marble table.

If you were to watch the film projected in 3-D but without your 3-D glasses on, as I did, you would notice that many close-ups and medium shots have a sufficient but limited amount of parallax (that is, image disparity or "doubling"). But long shots, for some baffling reason, have almost no parallax. A few shots had no parallax whatsoever, making them 2-D.

As a long-time stereo photography hobbyist and 3-D movie fan, I can tell you that the ordinary approach is to bring one's stereo lenses closer together the closer you get to your subject, and farther apart the farther away you get. (This is a very broad guiding principle, not a hard-and-fast law that must be followed.) But the filmmakers behind Gatsby seem to have done just the opposite.

In my honest estimation, this film is a waste of your money whether you see it in 2-D or in 3-D. But, as always, your mileage may vary. I will be glad to hear contrary opinions.

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on May 16, 2013, 02:57 PM:

My entry was free, I found the story lacking depth in character, sauce and no substance as it were - Why bother with 3-d at all, show the story - There was no dimensional effects on the previous 2 filmed adaptations, so why now? - Sorry, I'm old-fashioned, should have been shot b&w, first of all

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on May 17, 2013, 10:14 PM:

Saw the 3D version tonight, and came to the following conclusions:
The 1974 Robert Redford version is better. Leo does a good job but Redford makes for a far more elegant Gatsby, and the '74 musical track is a joy, as opposed to the crummy rap music of the current version, which is totally out of context for a 1920 period film.
Visually, the new version is often stunning, but a lot of the 3D also looks strangely artificial with vivid super saturated colors (Digital projector settings?). The 3D is often a distraction rather than an aid to what is going on in the scene.
The current film is way too long and at least 30 minutes should be left on the cutting room floor.
Still I think it is worth seeing, but by no means does the film live up to its publicity hype. No academy awards here I'm afraid.

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on May 18, 2013, 08:06 AM:

Thnak you for echoing most of my sentiments - Stupid Hollywood

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on May 18, 2013, 10:26 AM:

Has anybody noticed how in 3D movies the actors often seem to have big heads and small bodies in close up shots, and the facial features often seem exaggerated or distorted? I noticed this a lot in Gatsby, in fact with this distortion, combined with overly saturated colors, much of the film seemed to have an almost cartoonish appearance.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on May 18, 2013, 04:07 PM:

Film scores should compliment the visuals and not be a distraction. The use of rap, is totally wrong,that kind of music
was never even thought of at the time (thank God).One has only
to think of a film like "Chinatown",where the music evoked the
1930s period, I just watched the TV version of "Gatsby",that didn't
exactly stick to the story, but the period flavour was enhanced by
the music score,which was similar to Jerry Goldsmiths.A mistake
often made is in period film,the actors speak in the modern idiom,which immediately dispels the illusion.One has only to
view Wyler's "Ben Hur",when on reading the script, he immediately had the playwright Christopher Fry,rewrite all the
dialogue,to make it sound authentic.Alas the care and attention
present in the classic films seems to have been forgotten in present day cinema,there is a series of programmes on the BBC
that highlights the gaffes that are made in films,and you guessed it,they're all modern day blockbusters.

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on May 20, 2013, 12:01 AM:

Thomas mentioned the execrable "Romeo and Juliet." More than not I pick movies carefully before taking the plunge, but Luhrman's "Romeo" is one of the few movies I've sat all the way through that was altogether distasteful to me. That "Gatsby" is making this much money is an interesting commentary on the state of our culture, given everyone's negative comments. And your comments are all things I'd likely be highly sympathetic to.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2