The style of the writing is what hooks me in a work of fiction and the flow of the narrative. It's really the same with films -- my favorite films are director's films where the style of storytelling, creating the imagery, is very important. I know, so is the story, script, acting, cinematography (it helps if the director and the cinematographer are joined at the hip during the filming), the music -- all the elements that make a collaborative effort a success. Without strong leadership style from a director, a film has little chance of impressing itself on one's memory. Just producing a film is basically spitting it out of the Hollywood machine (or Bollywood, or any production entity, naturally zeroing in on the studios themselves). I liked "A Beautiful Mind," but there wasn't much style to the film to set it apart, just two finely honed lead performances. It was too consciously a message movie and not a very honest portrayal of the real person's life. Artistic license, of course, has a lot to do with style. I'm only using style as want of a better, more inclusive word which is semantically elusive as style and technique are so closely bound in filmmaking. Hey, style and technique are also important with writers. I find with few exceptions that too much committee creativity spoils a film ("Casablanca" is an exception and not the only one). It's still unfathomable to me now Hollywood failed to use the talents of F. Scott Fitzgerald, William Falkner and Ernest Hemingway, who flatly refused to work with the Hollywood bosses. A recent example of a strong directoral style is Peter Jackson who amazingly convinced a studio to put up the money for a three film "Lord of the Rings." I thought "The Frighteners" in its genre was one of the best films, especially its intergration of special effects into the story. It was creepy and fun and the same time. "Heavenly Creatures" was extraordinary and has very strong directorial style. I've been debated on this and offered John Ford as a director who directed with little or no style even intimating that the producers were responsible for his great films like "The Grapes of Wrath." I nearly broke out in laughter. Studios would produce a few films and still do that are made for artistic integrity without a lot of expectations on big box office. That studio bosses ever produced a great movie with their thumb firmly implanted on the production values and especially the director is an absurd idea for me.
The Great Gatsby by Peter (help me here wizard) was great for me. Having read the book more that once before I saw the film I just loved the film although it was roundly criticized when it came out. I thought Mia Farrow was the perfect Daisy, she fit my image of dazed and confused by an unfulfilled live even though all that money could buy was available to her. And Redford was the perfect Gatsby, so pretty. Self centered people living in an its all about me time presented to a generation of people who were also living in an it is all about me was appealing to me. The costumes were terrific and the sets. The presentation of fluff and the pitfalls of self indulgence were appropriately presented.
I thought the poor reviews of the movie were to do people not having read and understood the book. Gatsby is so jammed packed it would probably take three movies to tell the whole story. The mystery of wealth and the portrayal of the Noveau Riche and their trials and tribulations has to be difficult by its very nature especially when done in Hollywood.
The Usual Suspects is exactly that kind of movie, Boss, have you checked that out ?
The narrative of "The Great Gatsby" is just unfilmmable. If it had been scripted by Fitzgerald, we would have seen a much different film and I don't believe it would have to be that long. There were many good things about the Redford version but it just doesn't have the power of the book. It's a distillation that captures the basic essence of the book but almost none of its complexities. Films are not unsual in that way -- they can either reel one over or kind of lie there flat. "The Great Gatsby" is one of those that's inbetween but I do understand that many do like the film. I'm rereading the authentic reprinting by Simon and Schuster and trying to go slowly to pick up on all its nuances. Each scene in the story is a story onto itself. The movie appeared to me to be episodic and slightly out of whack.
Yes that is the thing LW the book is such a gift to the world. I love Tender Is The Night too. Has anyone ever attempted to film it?
Once as a film, not too successfully:
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0056566
and a mini-series also listed at IMDB.
Thanks for the info and the link.
LW I remember discussing the Gatsby films with you in Ravens Realm but for everyone who wasn´t there I thought the Redford film was completely true to the novel-which is why it doesn´t work for me.It was SO slow while the book flew by.
And you really are an oracle when it comes to cinema.I´m astounded by your knowledge,Sir.
Oooh and "Heavenly Creatures"!!I saw it twice,back to back on video and cursed myself for not catching it at the cinema.And think that he made it after "Braindead".He jumped from slapdash gore comedys to delicate,captivating storytelling.It was as if two different directors had made those films.
I think it's also astounding that he was able to make what could be in it's culmination of all three parts, the epic to end all epics, fantasy or otherwise. Of course, theirs historical epics, fantasy epics, science fiction epics, family saga epics, et al. Not that many directors making such few films have been lauded by critics, the award voters and the film going public like Jackson.
Hebba, now stop that! Part of it is just knowing where to look and refresh my memory (and I'm sure all film buffs can't impress every fact on the old grey cells). IMDB is an invaluable source and several volumes on books including Ebert's "Ebert On Film," a compilation of essays by many film critics, filmmakers, historians and other sources.
On Gatsby again, the film doesn't get into the soul of the characters like the book. It's all too glossy, even what was to appear slovenly was too overly designed and slick. I wasn't as impressed with Farrow's performance but everyone responds to actors in different ways. I think Redford was to identifyable as Redford and therefore most of the mystery and metaphysical aspects of the character were lost. Alan Ladd played him in the previous black-and-white. The pacing of the film was sluggish and episodic for me.
The problem with filming Scott Fitzgerald is that so much of the effect of his fiction depends on the verbal music of his language. The story is secondary to the style. When you strip away his style, not very much is left, but alas that is all that can be filmed. GATSBY has a fairly strong story but what makes it a unique book is the fact that it is told from Nick's POV, in Nick's language, especially the last 10 pages or so which are like a rhapsodic meditation on what Gatsby's story means to him. In general I think novels in the first person don't translate as well on film as ones in the third person because they depend on a unique tone of voice, like HUCK FINN, LOLITA, or THESUN ALSO RISES, none of which come close to the effect of the novel.
You are correct about the importance of the prose style, larry, but also virtually lost in the film was the commentary on the wealthy elite and the emptiness of their lives (from Fitzgerald's personal experiences). The way in which Gatsby had assembled his wealth and the execution for a crime he didn't commit is only one of the symbolic aspects of the novel but it's ambiguous and unfullfilled in the film. The contrast between the classes is provocative in the novel and passed off as cinematic illusion in the film. I still find the film a burnt offering and the mini-series was ponderous and not well acted.
There was a mini-series?
Where was I?
When and who was in it?
It was on A&E early last year or year before. Can't remember it being repeated since, though I'm sure it will show up again. Haven't noticed it in video stores, but I'm sure its there to rent. $19.95 for dvd or video at A&E.
Mira Sorvino as Daisy, Paul Ruud as Nick, others I've never heard of.
Well, as I don't get cable, that explains my ignorance.
You didn't miss much, it was adequate. At least it was longer and handled the story in greater depth than the movie. But I was never a big fan of the movie.
It rambled and became so detail oriented to become tedious without communicating much of the ideological essence of the book.
All I remember about the acting was that everyone appeared to be late 20th Century yuppie in period clothing.
Well,I´ve gone and got "a bee under my bonnet" after macsm told me the title of a film I´d forgotten the name of.
"The Sweet Ride" from 1968.
Is there anyone that´s seen this recently?
It´s a film I saw as a teenager and I remember it as rather melancholy.I looked it up in two film guides I have and this is what was written:
Halliwell:zero stars"Teenage melodrama,well produced but abysmal of content."
Maltin:1½ stars:"Absurd claptrap...some of the Malibu scenery is nice."
I often vociferously disagree with both of these reviewers but this time I´m thinking they may well be right.
Obviously,I need to see it again.
