The Great Gatsby: The movie

First, I am indebted to bookssnob (a book blogger, whose review you can find here) because I read a positive review on her blog that inspired to watch this movie despite all the negative, scornful reviews.

I love this shot. Particularly Leonardo DiCaprio in it.

On another note, does anyone else despise Daisy as much as I do? It's very un-subjective and un-analytical of me, but I can't help it. Especially with DiCaprio as Gatsby.

I saw the Baz Luhrmann version of The Great Gatsby recently (my review of the book can be found here). This seems to be one of those movies people love or hate. Despite whatever flaws I think the movie had, I think I fall squarely in the love category.

Let me start with Leonardo DiCaprio's performance as Gastby. I read some reviews where the critics where not of that opinion, but personally, I can hardly see what he could've done better. Maybe say 'old sport' a little less, because that definitely felt slightly overdone, even if it was in the book, and is one of Gatsby's (only) trademarks. I understood Gatsby through DiCaprio's interpretation in a way I never understood it through the book. I don't know how close his portrayal is to Fitzgerald's idea, but to me it seemed pretty damned close. If another director, with completely different sensibilities were to make The Great Gatsby, and cast DiCaprio in the same role again, I would watch it, as long as his interpretation stayed similar. I felt the tragedy, the irony, the pathos, the true emptiness that Gatsby's death leaves, because I was captivated by his performance. If Daisy (played by Carey Mulligan) were real - I could truthfully say she'd probably be one of the people I most hated on the planet, because to me, almost nothing could justify a betrayal of a love so total and so magnificent. For some reason, although there is actually very little similarity, I was reminded of Dhanush (Kundan) in Rhanjanaa, a recent Hindi movie. Maybe it's the level of devotion to an ideal that only they see. But in Rhanjanaa, Dhanush is something of a stalker. I can understand, even forgive Sonam (Zoya) for what she does. Gatsby's passion, while being a similar level of infatuation, is less stalker-ish, less possessive... I can understand how such a passion could be too much for someone to handle (particularly someone who maybe doesn't reciprocate that passion with the same level of intensity). I can perhaps understand - if I try really hard - Daisy's cowardly disrespect of Gatsby's memory (by not acknowledging his death), but I cannot, as reader or a viewer, forgive it.

I am slightly more mixed about Carey Mulligan as Daisy. I think she is a good actor, but I'm not quite sure how much she was Fitsgerald's Daisy. I hated her as much - or more - in the movie, but I don't think that's enough of an indication that she matched the idea of Daisy. In the book I was sympathetic to Daisy all the way until Gatsby's funeral, and then I lost it. That is, of course, in a way the point of the story - Gatsby's enormous potential and passion lost on a woman who cannot even decently mourn his passing - it very poignantly brings home the vast hollowness behind the glittery facade and the raucous, hedonistic parties. In the movie, Daisy seems more weak than 'careless' (one of the most famous lines from the book is "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy--they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money of their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made"). I'm not sure this completely comes through in the movie, although this line is quoted verbatim.

I liked Toby Maguire as Nick Carraway. Carraway was almost completely overshadowed in the movie by Gatsby, but I liked Maguire's performance nevertheless. There was one scene particularly - where after having waited the night, Gatsby is still expectantly awaiting Daisy's call and says something to that effect to Carraway. Carraway murmurs some agreement but you can see in his eyes the knowledge that Daisy will never call. It was a perfect expression - a moment that spoke volumes.

I thought one of the flaws of Luhrmann's Gatsby was the nearly non-existent portrayal of Carraway's and Jordan Baker's relationship, and the complete under-development of Carraway's and Baker's characters. It's unfortunate, because Baker was such a wonderful character in the novel - one of my favourites, in fact. Here she has - or seems to have - a very minor role comparatively.

Luhrmann has been criticized for his lack of subtlety in this movie. I think that there are some scenes - such as the party ones at the Gatsby mansion - where subtlety would be a mistake. Gatsby's parties should be completely over-the-top and overblown. It's fitting. But there are places that I thought his portrayals were childish, literal interpretations - and depictions of certain sentences in the novel. For example, when Carraway goes with Tom to Myrtle's place one night, and they have some sort of party, Carraway says something about being within the scene and without at the same time. In the movie, this is - literally - shown as two Maguires, one within and one without. That is a subtitle that I think viewers could do without. It's a little insulting to their intelligence.

But overall - I came away from the movie somehow moved by the story. It might have had more to do with my finally, actually understanding what I'd earlier read in the novel, than with the actual movie itself. But I'm not quite sure. I think there was some magic in the movie, a life that DiCaprio breathed into Gatsby that showed me his character, and a depiction that helped me understand the undertones and themes of the novel in a new way. If I were a movie critic, I'd find this movie extremely difficult to rate.

You've got to have some guts to meddle with a classic of this stature. And for his guts and vision, I'd give Luhrmann 4 stars out of 5. 

The Great Gatsby

Well, so much for my grand announcement to post something everyday. I've been wanting to post for a week now, but this is an auspicious season, and I've been attending a number of family functions, besides attending music classes, an Art of Living course (which was amazing) and having my little cousin over, so this post was sadly delayed.

The Talisman Ring was an enjoyable read. I think Heyer is good for a light, pleasant, humorous read. I like her style of writing and her language, and am looking forward to reading more of her books.

The next book I read was The Great Gatsby. I've had the book for a few years, and the Baz Luhrmann movie spurred me to finally read it (although I haven't seen the movie yet). I have to confess that the book went largely over my head, although I think I understood the themes well enough. I think I would have to read the book another time to fully grasp it. So I may possibly say things that are utterly obvious or completely wrong.

My opinion on the characters and my sympathies are mixed. I'm not sure to what extent I liked whom. I know I didn't like Tom at all, and I also came to dislike Daisy towards the end. I liked Jordan Baker. I'm not sure about Nick Carraway; he seemed decent enough, but he seems a bit - taken in? - by Gatsby, and he behaves abominably to Jordan Baker after the clash between Tom and Gatsby.

When it comes to Gatsby himself, I think he is charismatic and magnetic. His devotion to Daisy is in a way touching, but also seems delusional, and a waste of his enormous talent (that he uses it solely to find and please Daisy). He gives these fantastic, showy, extravagant parties, and then, when he finds that Daisy doesn't like them, he stops completely. I also think that it would have been easier to be sympathetic towards Gatsby if he'd come about his wealth in an honest manner. Nick constantly skirts the issue, but the means Gatsby  uses to become wealthy seems to taint Gatsby's love (atleast for me), make it more of an obsession, something dangerous (he will do anything for her or to reach her). He loves an idea of Daisy, an impression of a lovely time in his past that he simply cannot let go of and tries his hardest to bring back. And yet, he comes across to the reader as a much better man than Tom, who is violent with Myrtle, and who is hypocritically aghast at Daisy's affair although he has one of his own.

I did not like Daisy. In the end, she doesn't seem worth so much devotion. She is cowardly (or careless and reckless) enough to let Gatsby take the blame for the accident. And when he does so without complaint, after he dies, there is not so much as an acknowledgement from her. I find Jordan Baker far more admirable (despite her being dishonest and a liar) because she knows her own mind, and I get the feeling that she would not have behaved like Daisy were she in Daisy's position.

I feel somewhat doubtful about the objectivity of Nick Carraway as a narrator. As a reader, you can't be sure about what he glosses over, what he emphasizes, what he exaggerates...you know, however, for a fact, that he mostly ignores how Gatsby came across his wealth, that he is fastidious, and unable to take any sort of blemishes on situations or characters he has idealized or formed an idea of (symbolized by his wiping off the dirty word that someone has written on Gatsby's doorstep at the end of the book).

I shan't talk about the themes, because whatever I have to say has probably already been said. I also didn't understand the book well enough to come up with any new inputs.

I understand that Fitzgerald made the description of the accident graphic to create a certain impact, but I still didn't like it. It almost put me off my food for a few days.

On a side note, can anybody explain to me why it is that most so-called 'great' novels have to be depressing, tragically ending, and/or somehow dispirited, devoid of hope in life, and convinced that humans are a species for which there is no hope? Do books have to be cynical to be considered of literary merit? I read The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy (for IB English Literature) and absolutely hated it. I'm sorry if anyone reading this has a different opinion and is offended. She does write well, but I didn't enjoy the book at all. I do not like any book that makes me feel that life is not worth living, and it seems to me that all the 'great'  works I've read in the past two years have left me feeling this way. To me, a great book is one that inspires you to live happily or in a principled, strong manner no matter what, or that makes you think in a way that develops your knowledge or understanding. Perhaps I am being simplistic, and I am not in the least suited to 'literature'; in that case, so be it. In the particular case of The God of Small Things, it seemed to me that so many tragic things could not possibly happen to one family or in one story. It seems to me, that even just one of the many 'bad' things that happen in this story would be a strong enough focal point to base a book on. Also, she simply bashes you on the head with a number of issues and themes, from love to politics to caste-ism to abuse. It just left me feeling heavy and wishing that I had never read the book. The Booker Prize did not convince me otherwise. I also felt that if even one of the characters had survived these ordeals in a healthy manner, I might have been able to tolerate the book. As it was, I felt as if something ugly and nightmarish had been imprinted on my brain. I do not have the attitude that ignoring ugly things makes them disappear. But I also do not have the attitude that focusing solely on ugly things would somehow solve problems.