“The Great Gatsby”

Rated PG-13 for some violent images, sexual content, smoking, partying and brief language.

In High School, like so many poor souls, I was forced to endure the agony of reading “The Great Gatsby” in a class that may have been labeled “How to Learn to Hate Fiction.” To add to my displeasure, it featured far too many characters that were either vacuous, vile or fops. Mr. F. Scott Fitzgerald fizzled with me. Baz Luhrmann, who mesmerized me with “Moulin Rouge”, takes on a book that in no small way stunted my interest in literature.

Mr. Luhrmann, it seems to me, makes films with retina-popping color and neck-snapping boing-boing pacing with oddball accoutrements such as in the case of “The Great Gatsby.” Mr. Fitzgerald’s most poetic phrasing appears as artistic closed captions, ghost-like, on the screen, revealing itself to make an impact, conveying the point that precise words, well placed, can appeal to the ear, the eye and the soul.

Such as, “So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Great cadence those words have, old sport. (Mr. Gatsby says “old sport” so many times in the film, I was two “old sports” shy of going into epileptic convulsions.)

The decadent splendor of the first half of the film was interesting and even entertaining. The second of the half became rather ponderous. The book is mercifully short; the film is annoyingly too long. There is a great film buried in Mr. Luhrmann’s movie, but I just barely can see it.

I know many have written that Leonardo DiCaprio, as Jay Gatsby, is at his best, but I don’t think he is the bee’s knees. And I think that Mr. Luhrman is, as usual, deliciously over-the-top in the many party-hardy scenes, but he comes crashing down for the talky-talky parts of “The Great Gatsby” that are at the very core of the empty souls that haunt this novel. Mr. Luhrmann is able to aptly convey the high notes, but fumbles with the low notes; the scenes that are supposed to demonstrate the fake facade of life that is conveyed in “The Great Gatsby’s” plot, or so I understand if I had cared to intellectually imbibe the novel back in Dull Literature 101.

“The Great Gatsby” earns three and a half bow ties out of five.

 

 

“Mud”

Rated PG-13 for some violence, sexual references, language, thematic elements and smoking.

As an antidote to the saccharine puffery of “The Great Gatsby”, I popped into “Mud”, a very Indie film indeed. While “The Great Gatsby” is like eating a bowl of raspberry jam topped with whipped cream, “Mud” is like having a platter of fresh catfish, perfectly breaded and fried, served with homemade, tongue-tangy tartar sauce and home-cut French fries.

Two teenage boys in Arkansas (think Tom and Huck in the 21st century) seek adventure. Ellis lives on a riverboat that looks more like a shed and Neckbone (yes, Neckbone) lives in a trailer with his man-child uncle (think Boo in To Kill a Mockingbird). They are seeking an adventure. They sneak out to an island (this is a dangerous river trip). There they find a mysterious character named “Mud” (perfectly cast with Matthew McConaughey) with snake tattoos, a gun and a shirt he claims will protect him from poisonous snakes. And he lives in a boat up in a tree.

Ellis is a romantic and so, when he finds out that “Mud” is waiting for his Lady Love he is motivated to assist because he himself is going through the mythical stage of love discovered. They agree to help even though they find out that “Mud” is a criminal. They are determined to get the two lovers together despite the danger. Ellis is driven and does not reconsider his goal even after he discovers he is about to lose everything he holds dear. In fact, these mitigating tragedies make him even bolder and perhaps more reckless.

“Mud” is everything “The Great Gatsby” is not and yet it is oh, so much more. What a contrast! The “we” of us that see these movies, week after week, really enjoyed wallowing in “Mud” because it has no flub-dubs at all. It is simple story telling. The dialogue is true and the acting is, well, subtly and flawlessly displayed. I cringe when actors babble about their “craft.” But I almost come to agree with the use of the noun after seeing these well-crafted works of art, these characters.

Both “The Great Gatsby” and “Mud” are about the destruction of love. Both are a romantic love story turned upside down; neither sugarcoat their tales with “happily ever after.” Mr. Fitzgerald had a more cynical ending while “Mud” leaves us with a bit of hope that love lost may be yet found anew.

“Mud”, had it had Luhrmann’s ghost captions, would appear upon the screen differently. Perhaps as, “So we beat on, boats with the current, borne ceaselessly for the future, seeking life’s adventures and finding love where and when fate permits.”

“Mud” earns four and a half bow ties out of five.