all jazz but no substance: baz luhrmann's (not really) great gatsby

you never know what to expect from a baz luhrmann movie - you can be dazzled, electrified, enthralled and infatuated like a naive young lover; or you will be bored to death that death itself is a better alternative than watching the tedious ruckus and hocus pocus on the big screen.

%%%%%%%

the first time i watched a baz luhrmann movie, i was ecstatic. i was also pleasantly surprised. the film was romeo and juliet, a modern adaptation of shakespeare's beloved obra about two tragic young lovers from warring families. it starred the then gorgeous and best actor of his generation leonardo dicaprio (before he became a supernova via titanic and became obsessed with winning an oscar for best actor) and the lovable claire danes (i will always love her even when she was declared a persona non grata by the city of manille after she spoke the truth about the city's cockroaches, filth and bad smell).

i don't normally read movie reviews before watching a film. so i was surprised to find out that while the story and dialogue (written the way the barb had written them - ths and thous and thees) of luhrmann's romeo and juliet were almost faithful to the original text, the movie was set in modern times with the characters acting as hip as the next new yorker on the streets, brandishing guns instead of swords, riding in cars instead of horses, dressed in punk and dancing to loud rock and roll music. i luv!

this was unexpected, especially since the only romeo and juliet movie i had seen prior to luhrmann's version was the one by italian director franco zifferelli (shown in nineteen sixty eight, but watched it in the eighty's through betamax) starring the gorgeous pair of olivia hussey and leonard whiting (who looked delicious in those tight fitting pants that prominently displayed his enormous....pair of legs).

it helped too that at that time, like many other girls and gays, i was so into leonardo dicaprio (i loved him in what's eating gilbert grape) and claire danes. they looked perfect together, just like olivia and leonard before them.

&&&&&&&&&&

then moulin rouge came and baz enchanted us with electrifying visuals and outlandish songs, music and dances. it offered us the very gorgeous nicole kidman, a prostitute in love with an impoverished would be writer played by the fabulous ewan mcgregor.

until now, i can't forget nicole's song and dance routines, most especially material girl and diamonds are a girl's best friend. the movie is so gay, it's like watching the adventures of priscilla all over again. its tragic heroine played by nicole is unforgettable to this day.

sadly, baz and nicole along with fellow australian hugh jackman failed to dazzle with the epic australia. it was a pain to watch nicole as she struggled through a role that was ill-suited for her. the very long movie was too boring, i fell asleep several times. even the hunky and talented wolverine, i mean hugh jackman and his biceps could not keep me from napping. apparently, i was not the only one who felt that way. the very expensive movie flopped big time and laid giant eggs at the box office.

#############

with these in mind, i watched baz luhrmann's adaptation of f. scott fitzgerald's american classic set in the trippy and excessive nineteen twenty's (when stocks soared to record highs and everybody wanted to work on wall street) --  the great gatsby.

honestly, i wasn't expecting much. i have seen the nineteen seventy four version written by the great francis ford copolla starring the oh so adorable robert redford as the mysterious billionaire jay gatsby and mia farrow as daisy buchanan, the object of his obsession. i love that film, the fashion, the music and especially the two leads.

luhrmann's take is dazzling, entertaining, especially during the first half. the parties at jay's humungous estate are brash, brazen and full of bravura that i wished i was invited to attend them (but then again, as nick mentioned, you don't need invites to these soirees. just show up in fabulous costumes and have fun). it's moulin rouge all over again.  only much, much more grand. the illusion is therefore complete. the fashion is awesome (prada, brooks brothers) too, the houses are shot straight from glossy architectural magazines, the cars are flashy, the jewelry is pricey, and the style is chic. all of these captured the elegance, extravagance and excesses of the era. or at least those who could afford them like golden boy gatsby.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

the casting of carey mulligan as daisy is welcome, although she isn't that impressive. she was so good in an education (where she was nominated for an oscar for the first time), never let me go, shame, and drive that i expected her to be even better as daisy. but sadly, she failed to capture the character's complex personality. all she managed to show is to seemed sad and bored all the time. she doesn't even look gorgeous, unlike in an education where she was so beautifully photographed. so you ended up wondering what's all the fuss about her? why is gatsby crazy about her when countless others like her best friend jordan baker is even prettier? and more interesting?!

i still prefer mia farrow's interpretation of daisy - shallow, sad, tragic, trapped in a life she never wanted in the first place. she was gorgeous in every scene, but with so little words she was able to communicate her character's empty existence.

mia and robert redford also had a certain chemistry that's lacking between leo and carey.

&&&&&&&&

leonardo as jay is something else. why does hollywood keep on giving him important roles that should have gone to actors who are more deserving of them. after titanic, leo's acting has gone from bad to worse. he looked and acted the same in most of his movies - gangs of new york, aviator, inception, j. hoover, django unchained, shutter island. he is always begging for an oscar nomination. his voice and manner of speaking too are irritating. his voice does not befit his age.

&&&&&&&&

the casting of leo as gatsby is the biggest flaw of the film. he is neither charismatic, charming, mysterious, gorgeous nor dangerous. his jay is caricaturish. especially in that confrontation scene with tom (daisy's husband) at the plaza. he looks so gay (and unintentionally funny) in that scene,  the antithesis of the macho war veteran who endured everything as he climbed his way up in society.

at this point, leo should just relax and enjoy doing a movie. stop aiming for an oscar. he should do more catch me if you can (fun movies in other words) than these ambitious films that only managed to showcase his limitations as an actor. i really don't know what happened to the great promise he showed in his earlier movies particularly what's eating gilbert grape?

i still prefer robert redford's cool, suave, dashing and mysterious gatsby, especially in the final scene in the swimming pool before his tragic end.

^^^^^^^^^^^

imagine if the role was given instead to jake gyllenhaal or ryan gosling.

or even garrett hedlund (who was fantastic and adorable in on the road, an adaptation of jack kerouac's age-defining book).

$$$$$$$$$$$

perhaps without intending to, baz made the movie so gay (nothing wrong with it). in fact, this only made the film more watchable. the homoerotic undertones in their scenes together are so palpable, i was expecting there would be a tender love scene between jay and nick (a struggling wall street bond trader and daisy's cousin; he is gatsby's neighbour who made it possible for the two lovers to be reunited after being separated for five years).

you see, nick is obviously obsessed and in love with jay. the fact that he ended up in a mental institution after jay's death only highlighted this.

there are several scenes in the movie that captured the intimacy between nick and jay - in the car, in each other's houses, in the garden at night, in the seedy bar slash restaurant. while nick is walking towards his house and then he turns to look at jay for the last time. jay, on the other hand, is at the window watching nick and he waves at him. you can see it in nick's eyes when he casts a longing look at jay. those quiet, admiring, not so secret glances from a distance.

the casting of tobey maguire as nick and leo as gatsby only added to this gay touch. tobey and leo are long time bffs in hollywood and they were even rumored to be lovers before. tobey is of course happily married now with children, while leo remains a bachelor and continues to date gorgeous women much like george clooney, also long been suspected of being gay.

&&&&&&&&

having said that, i enjoyed the movie. it was entertaining. superficial. shameless in its materialism,  hedonism and consumerism. the lavish costumes and production designs are divine. a dream. i love the clothes, the houses, the cars and the modern music by jayz, beyonce and company.

but if you are looking for more substance, a soul into the story that will capture the book's longing, melancholy and obsession, then this is not a film for you. i don't think that's baz luhrmann's primary goal in making this film (i could be wrong). the fact that he decided to do a three d version of this movie says a lot about his overall intentions.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

on the whole, it's a movie  that's worthy of your two hours time.
but unlike its title, the movie isn't even close to being great.

&&&&&&&&

here's the trailer of the baz luhrmann version:

and the older one by director jack clayton: