The Great Gatsby

Jay Gatsby, the specimen of Fitzgerald’s imagination, is a man which encompasses hope and the epitome of the American Dream. So it comes as no surprise that to watch the new Baz Luhrmann adaptation I was full of hope which slowly diminished through the course of the film. Not like the green light which incessantly made its dominance cast over the whole film.

I normally intend on rereading the book version of any adaptation before I go to watch the film and this was the first time I actually did so. (Maybe, the short novel layout helped in this aim being fulfilled.) But Fitzgerald’s most famous novel was no stranger to me and its a novel which often revives itself in my mind. So my hope for the new adaptation was strong, especially as it had to follow the footstep’s of the previous adaptation which followed the novel so closely, 1974’s version directed by Jack Clayton.

The film began with Nick Carraway in a mental institute (Or that’s what it seemed to be) that was an interesting take on the story. I suppose the last section of the book would make you believe that Nick did lose his faith in humanity. This ‘loss’ places him in the institute. A creative twist, which renewed the novel, and one I did appreciate. This twist brought to the fore the character of Nick as an author. Him with a type writer. His creative process. The embalming of Jay Gatsby made this feature of Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation stand out and animated the character of Nick more so.

For me the story of The Great Gatsby gives the reader an insight to the Jazz Era. Parties. Flappers. Smoking. Alcohol Consumption (the prohibition restriction in America made this mundane act rather scandalous.) All of which was achieved through the means of money. Whether is was NEW or OLD money. It bought many things. But for the new money it never bought acceptance which was an issue captured by Joel Edgerton’s interpretation of Tom Buchanan very well. It is this, beside the whole issue with Daisy, which further adds tension to Tom’s encounter with Gatsby.

I could easily go on and include other features of the film’s adaptation from the novel but I feel this blog has to end somewhere. That somewhere is with the appreciation of Leonardo diCaprio’s casting as Jay Gatsby. It was played perfectly by him. He brought to life the Gatsby I first encountered when I read the novel, and it was refreshing to actually be satisfied for once with the casting of a character I love. The above picture is from the very endearing scene of when Gatsby meets Daisy for the first time!

SO RIGHT:

The casting (except Myrtle, whom I had imagined a little on the chubby side, she is meant to be the opposite to Daisy. But the only opposition I saw was the blonde hair to the red.)

BUT OH SO WRONG:

The excessive effects (however that could have been effective in 3D- another call to the cinema’s may be on the agenda)

The music (this feature annoyed me a little, so many classical Jazz inspirations, so why not evoke that genius? A jazzed up version of Crazy in Love, really?) A bit of Bessie Smith- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfnmpQv79no would have been appreciated.

Even with the pros and cons I will be watching this film again. Delving into the Jazz era is a true pleasure and I am thankful to Fitzgerald’s transcription of such an era!

Frankenweenie the new Frankenstein

This is my first ever blog, and I’ve always said to myself that when I do start it would be with, Tim Burton. What’s better is that it is also with one of my favourite books, Frankenstein by Mary Shelley.

There are many things about Frankenstein which make it a stand out piece of literature; its scientific, it critiques society, it reveals the concept of monstrosity. It does a lot, so it comes as no surprise that my little sister came home from school to tell me she was going to study it for her GCSE. This got me excited.

That was not the only thing which made this piece of literature crop up in my life. Tim Burton wanted to release his movie Frankenweenie after making a short film in 1984. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rcPe9sojpc There was going to be a motion picture Disney production which was released last year (2012.) This got me even more excited.

My last revival of the classic is the fact I just handed an assignment in, it was about monstrosity in the nineteenth century, which inevitably meant Frankenstein was going to feature. This urged me to write the blog.

When I first read the novel it is without a doubt that my love for the nativity of the monster/ creation/ deamon, was apparent. So I was pleased with the amalgamation of Frankenstein’s name with the creature or pet, Sparky. Frankenweenie. It was a good decision on Burton’s behalf because he creature is often referred to with the name of the maker. Don’t tell me that someone didn’t think the monster was called Frankenstein… Just me? I’ll take it because for me the real monster was the Victor.

But that is not the case at all with the film because Victor in Frankenweenie is lonely boy who found companionship with his dog. It is a story that could be any little boys and thats what makes this adaptation a delight to watch. The animated figure of Victor is typical to that of Burton’s other works, such as, Victor VanDorf. (A personal favourite)

The movie is in black and white, it was advertised in a very old fashion form of cinema, with the cheesy tense music, the large words which flash across the screen that look like goo. It really is a film which is a ‘blast from the past’ as my mother referred to it.

I basically wanted to state in my blog that, the film was a refreshing take on the classic, which has unconsciously for children brought to light what Mary Shelley did for the critical audience of 1818. There is nothing more delightful that making the youths of today interact with great works of literature even if it is incarnate through the vision of Tim Burton.