Aside from enjoying movies, occasionally I will read a book. I was an English major in college and so that's where that comes in. But anyway I was so excited when I found out that a new movie version of the Great Gatsby was being directed by Baz Luhrman. Wait a minute you ask, who's Baz Luhrman? If you were thinking shortstop for the New York Yankees you were dead wrong. If you were thinking dictator of the New World Order, well first of all there's no New World Order, secondly you are wrong.
If you said Australian director of such films as Australia, Romeo+Juliet, Simply Ballroom, and Moulin Rouge, you would be right. So that guy who loves bright painfully bright colors is directing a movie that has about five gazillion (3 or 4) refrences to a bright green light sounds pretty good so far. He's beloved by all the usual demographics: women, Nicole Kidman, effminate gay men, just regular effeminate men, opera fans, squirrels, bull-fighters, second graders, and all those other people who just really love colorful things or who have ever wondered how it feels in the arms of some strong Australian dude (it feels pretty dreamy by the way).
Now here's the rub: Baz said he was doing it in 3D. Yes you heard me--3D. One of the most beloved books of all time done in the same style as Piranha 3D and My Bloody Valentine. Now some of you are probably saying, "Hey Avatar looked pretty good." You would be correct, but that was because there were spaceships and weird Pteradactyl things. What could possibly be improved by adding 3D to Gatsby? A Rolls Royce that goes through the screen? A wicked long dance number that has nothing to do with the rest of the movie? Yeah I could definitely see these things in the Great Gatsby and especially Baz Luhrman's Gatsby, but the problem that you get is that you focus to heavily on the glitz.
Yeah, it's no secret that Baz Luhrman loves glitz. It's comparable to saying that Michael Bay loves explosions or Quentin Tarrentino loves cheesy seventies movies or Martin Scorcese loves guidos or Jim Jarmusch loves hipsterism. Different directors have different styles and for all those who love the gritty realistic feel you have a Baz Luhrman who is about as opposite from gritty realistic as you can get. Gatsby is lyrical and there are a lot of colors, but I hope that Baz doesnt get carried away with himself. You also have to remember that there is a lot of pondering and I wonder if Baz ever considered that the 3D would distract people from the pondering, which is of course part of the point in the Great Gatsby.
Of course, Baz is going to do what he wants. He's Australian and known for doing things that shock people like having a Romeo and Juliet with guns or jumping into a shark tank (okay he didnt do that, but some Australian probably has). All I can do is hope he doesn't screw it up so badly that I vommit in the theater. At this point, I'll settle for one that's about as good as the 1974 adaptation with Robert Redford, which looked stunning but wasn't particularly that enchanting cinematically. Anyway, I sure wish that someone more like a David Fincher would take this off Baz's hands ( he did wonders with Fitzgerald's short story, Benjamin Button). But alas I guess I will have to sit through the Baz Luhrman 3D version. Oh well.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Modern Times Forever: Ten Long Days at the Movie Theater!
I love movies. I'm doing a blog about them so I guess I should love movies. I'll even watch long movies that no one wants to watch because they're panzies about runtime and they think that 90 minutes should be enough to tell a story (it rarely is). The Godfather, Apocallypse Now, and Once Upon A Time in America are some of favorites and are known as long movies, but my friends they have nothing on Modern Times Forever.
Modern Times Forever, clocking in at a whopping 240 hours( that's right hours), makes any director even Andy Warhol (Empire is eight hours) seem positively concise. This movie, which is light on plot and lighter characters, was shown in March in Helsinki, Finland (because March in Finland what else are you going to do? Am I right?). Anyway, it was displayed on the side of a building because very few people would (willingly) spend ten days watching a movie about: decaying buildings.
It's an interesting premise that is depicting the decaying of buildings and what decay will do to modern Architecture. I guess you could call it an existentialist mind-fuck in 12 days and I respect the director for doing something so monumental, but I would like to ask him (even though I don't speak finnish) why the hell couldn't he have done it in a day or two days or even just eight painfully long hours. Then again, it was his decision and I will respect it and I respect him for making such a long movie, but I will tell you one thing, there is no way I could sit through this movie. No way in hell!
Modern Times Forever, clocking in at a whopping 240 hours( that's right hours), makes any director even Andy Warhol (Empire is eight hours) seem positively concise. This movie, which is light on plot and lighter characters, was shown in March in Helsinki, Finland (because March in Finland what else are you going to do? Am I right?). Anyway, it was displayed on the side of a building because very few people would (willingly) spend ten days watching a movie about: decaying buildings.
It's an interesting premise that is depicting the decaying of buildings and what decay will do to modern Architecture. I guess you could call it an existentialist mind-fuck in 12 days and I respect the director for doing something so monumental, but I would like to ask him (even though I don't speak finnish) why the hell couldn't he have done it in a day or two days or even just eight painfully long hours. Then again, it was his decision and I will respect it and I respect him for making such a long movie, but I will tell you one thing, there is no way I could sit through this movie. No way in hell!
Monday, April 25, 2011
RIP Sidney Lumet
I realize that this is old news to those of you who keep track of current celebrity deaths, but this should be of note to those of you who are not in the know. Several weeks ago on April 9th, Sidney Lumet, director of such classic films as Dog Day Afternoon, 12 Angry Men, and Network died due to complications with lymphoma. It is amazing how great that these films are even today in the age of digitization and special effects. Although, you can do a lot with great special effects, it certainly does not make a movie.
Look at Star Wars: A New Hope. This movie has paltry effects by our standards and yet it capitivated audiences in the seventies and continues to capitivate them today, this is not because the special effects are great (they were pretty crappy), but the story and the characters drew us in. Like Star Wars the movies of Sidney Lumet captivated audiences because of their characters.
In Dog Day Afternoon Al Pachino plays a bungling gay bankrobber. He is not effeminate or passive as gay characters can sometimes be depicted, but instead portrayed honestly and forthrightly with all of the intracacies(the strengths and the flaws) that make great movie characters. This shows great dedication to Konstantin Stanislavski's ideal of realistic acting and not caricaturing a gay man which could have been and might have been done by a lesser director.
One of my favorite parts of Dog Day Afternoon is the opening sequence which depicts different parts of 1970s New York City to the soundtrack of Elton John's "Amooreena" (also a great song). This extended sequence displays New York, documentarian style, in all of its beauty and ugliness without making apparent judgements before moving onto the action. This action pits the forces of authority vs. the forces of countercultralism. This is also shown in the great Serpico, which set the police department against the individualistic and corruption averse Officer Serpico(also played by Al Pachino). This shows a dedication to realism as well as an awareness of the need for social reform, seen over and over again in Lumet's great movies.
Lumet, to me, will go down as one of the great American directors along with Orson Welles, Paul Thomas Anderson, Martin Scorcese, Francis Ford Coppola, and various others who make up the cannon of American film and who have shown that there is a difference between making movies and making movies. There are so many great and different Lumet films from the prescient Network to the mad cap Dog Day Afternoon as a movie lover and a fellow American I salute Lumet's fantastic and noble efforts for great social realism and for great storytelling.
Look at Star Wars: A New Hope. This movie has paltry effects by our standards and yet it capitivated audiences in the seventies and continues to capitivate them today, this is not because the special effects are great (they were pretty crappy), but the story and the characters drew us in. Like Star Wars the movies of Sidney Lumet captivated audiences because of their characters.
In Dog Day Afternoon Al Pachino plays a bungling gay bankrobber. He is not effeminate or passive as gay characters can sometimes be depicted, but instead portrayed honestly and forthrightly with all of the intracacies(the strengths and the flaws) that make great movie characters. This shows great dedication to Konstantin Stanislavski's ideal of realistic acting and not caricaturing a gay man which could have been and might have been done by a lesser director.
One of my favorite parts of Dog Day Afternoon is the opening sequence which depicts different parts of 1970s New York City to the soundtrack of Elton John's "Amooreena" (also a great song). This extended sequence displays New York, documentarian style, in all of its beauty and ugliness without making apparent judgements before moving onto the action. This action pits the forces of authority vs. the forces of countercultralism. This is also shown in the great Serpico, which set the police department against the individualistic and corruption averse Officer Serpico(also played by Al Pachino). This shows a dedication to realism as well as an awareness of the need for social reform, seen over and over again in Lumet's great movies.
Lumet, to me, will go down as one of the great American directors along with Orson Welles, Paul Thomas Anderson, Martin Scorcese, Francis Ford Coppola, and various others who make up the cannon of American film and who have shown that there is a difference between making movies and making movies. There are so many great and different Lumet films from the prescient Network to the mad cap Dog Day Afternoon as a movie lover and a fellow American I salute Lumet's fantastic and noble efforts for great social realism and for great storytelling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)