|
Author
|
Topic: The Great Gatsby
|
Paul Adsett
Film God
Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted 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.
--------------------
The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection,
Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade
Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar
Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas Murin, Jr.
Master Film Handler
Posts: 260
From: Lanoka Harbor, NJ, USA
Registered: Sep 2009
|
posted 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.
--------------------
My crummy Deviant Art account. Read my poetic tribute to the internet comic strip Ozy & Millie and view my crappy attempts at art.
http://cougartiger.deviantart.com/
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David M. Ballew
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 113
From: Burbank, CA USA
Registered: Nov 2009
|
posted 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.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Paul Adsett
Film God
Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted 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.
--------------------
The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection,
Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade
Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar
Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted 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.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
