The Great Gastby (2013) or: The Bi-Decade Baz Luhrmann Acid Trip
46 replies, posted
[QUOTE=kimchimafia;40797649]Party music back then was not smooth jazz.[/QUOTE]
Fine slightly faster jazz
Point is is that nobody in this day and age under the age of 70 years old would connect Jazz as party music. People going haam to jazz music would've killed the fuck out of my immersion in the movie.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;40797665]Fine slightly faster jazz
Point is is that nobody in this day and age under the age of 70 years old would connect Jazz as party music. People going haam to jazz music would've killed the fuck out of my immersion in the movie.[/QUOTE]
Really? I mean do you have to something as modern music to immerse you into the roaring twenties?
[video=youtube;4weoiY5jj_Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4weoiY5jj_Y[/video]
It doesn't matter what people of this day and age would regard 'party music' but it freaking takes place in the 1920s. Hearing modern pop music blasted into scenes of the roaring twenties killed the immersion for me and I don't see how you can think the other way round.
[QUOTE=Corporal Yippie;40797407]rhapsody in blue
_______________________________________________
[img]http://g.bfbcs.com/30009/pc_MikstaSmurf.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Thanks!
[QUOTE=kimchimafia;40797720]Really? I mean do you have to something as modern music to immerse you into the roaring twenties?
[video=youtube;4weoiY5jj_Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4weoiY5jj_Y[/video]
It doesn't matter what people of this day and age would regard 'party music' but it freaking takes place in the 1920s. Hearing modern pop music blasted into scenes of the roaring twenties killed the immersion for me and I don't see how you can think the other way round.[/QUOTE]
It fit in the context of the scene not the context of the setting which is a perfectly fine cinematic tool.
Plus the parties in the film are full on ragers not the uptight party you posted
I connect the music like that in the scene to like a circus or a dick tracy movie not a party
Also who the FUCK calls music "pop" you sound like a square
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;40797866]It fit in the context of the scene not the context of the setting which is a perfectly fine cinematic tool.
Plus the parties in the film are full on ragers not the uptight party you posted
I connect the music like that in the scene to like a circus or a dick tracy movie not a party
Also who the FUCK calls music "pop" you sound like a square[/QUOTE]
See this where I have to draw lines. Its stylistic choice did not fit well with me and its depiction of the roaring twenties, the good and bad, fell short IMO. It was more of an emphasis on 'man the Jazz Age was fucking crazy' instead of showing both realistically whilst keeping the spirit of the jazz age alive. For example, the 'uptight' party was what 'ragers' were back then. Flappers with unconventional short skirts, casual sexual activity, drinking everywhere and party dancing. I could see perfectly well of how much they're having fun but also see through the smoke behind it all because I didn't live there which is a bonus point for what Fitzgerald was trying to get across.
So yeah, I didn't like the stylistic choice they went with the music. It's a perfectly valid opinion to have.
Also who gives a shit if I called it 'pop music'? It is a genre of music same with swing, rap and rock. Don't see why you have to nitpick that.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;40797866]It fit in the context of the scene not the context of the setting which is a perfectly fine cinematic tool.
Plus the parties in the film are full on ragers not the uptight party you posted
I connect the music like that in the scene to like a circus or a dick tracy movie not a party
Also who the FUCK calls music "pop" you sound like a square[/QUOTE]
Okay, NOW youre sounding pretty flamey
[QUOTE=Birdman101;40797972]Okay, NOW youre sounding pretty flamey[/QUOTE]
No
If I were to flame somebody I wouldn't say somebody sounds like a square
I would say something a lot worse and you know ACTUALLY derogatory so stop with the whole backseat mod thing and contribute something
So yea thats fine you didn't like the stylistic choice but don't go around saying that it flat out ruined the movie. The movie isn't trying to be a realistic portrayal of the 20s its supposed to be events as recalled by Nick Carraway in a hindsight biased way about him and Gatsby. Its not exactly what Fitzgerald wrote but it was a great adaptation of the novel and the music did indeed fit in what the director was going for, now whether or not that fit with you is all up to you.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;40798107]No
If I were to flame somebody I wouldn't say somebody sounds like a square
I would say something a lot worse and you know ACTUALLY derogatory so stop with the whole backseat mod thing and contribute something
So yea thats fine you didn't like the stylistic choice but don't go around saying that it flat out ruined the movie. The movie isn't trying to be a realistic portrayal of the 20s its supposed to be events as recalled by Nick Carraway in a hindsight biased way about him and Gatsby. Its not exactly what Fitzgerald wrote but it was a great adaptation of the novel and the music did indeed fit in what the director was going for, now whether or not that fit with you is all up to you.[/QUOTE]
I didn't say it ruined the entire movie man. I just said I didn't like the stylistic choice they went with the music and recommended Boardwalk Empire as another perspective into another creator's vision of the same 1920s with both the good and the bad. Ha, I didn't even rate the movie yet.
All in all, I felt the movie was a pretty good adaptation of the book. I really liked the casting (I especially liked the guy they picked for Tom) and visuals although I wished the movie portrayed the relationship between Jordan and Nick and they removed some scenes I really liked in the book. Good movie, worth seeing in my opinion. Also, I found it funny both my parents complained about the amount of "ol spohrr" said.
[QUOTE=kimchimafia;40797948]See this where I have to draw lines. Its stylistic choice did not fit well with me and its depiction of the roaring twenties, the good and bad, fell short IMO.[/QUOTE]
Well this is a dramatic interpretation of a fictional work. Not a documentary attempting to educate people on the lives of early 20th-century American life.
I mean it sounds like the [i]only[/i] reason you thought the music was ineffective was that it was anachronistic.
Like, the fact that characters in 300 speak a modern language makes that a worse movie. Sure, that case is different because nobody really knows what a thousands-of-years-old language sounds like, but wouldn't it be more effective to just make up a random gibberish language than to go with modern-day English?
[QUOTE=Loofiloo;40799963]Well this is a dramatic interpretation of a fictional work. Not a documentary attempting to educate people on the lives of early 20th-century American life.
I mean it sounds like the [I]only[/I] reason you thought the music was ineffective was that it was anachronistic.
Like, the fact that characters in 300 speak a modern language makes that a worse movie. Sure, that case is different because nobody really knows what a thousands-of-years-old language sounds like, but wouldn't it be more effective to just make up a random gibberish language than to go with modern-day English?[/QUOTE]
No see if I picked out every little thing that was anachronistic I wouldn't stop on the music, I would go further to how the Jazz Age was depicted, the parties, the flappers, the clothing, the cars and etc... I explained that I thought the music was ineffective because IMO it sacrificed a lot of substance for style. You could of easily gone with the same idea Fitzgerald had of showing the highlights of the 1920s whilst depicting its ugly sides too without the modern music. Perhaps it might have been better because the audience is able to see both the party life style of the 20s and the downside to it because they're aren't swept up in the weird surreal stylistic world of Baz's depiction of the roaring twenties without sacrificing immersion. With greater freedom, the director can easily switch back and forth or show simultaneously the wonder and the ugly sides of the 1920s which was the world the story takes place.
You have to admit, some people have felt jaded about the use of modern music and you can't really blame them for feeling it. It's not a math question they got wrong, it's just what they felt from watching a piece of entertainment.
I simply thought it was unnecessary for what the story was about. However I must admit that it fit what Baz was going for with his adaption and if that's his creative vision then I can't really do much other than say some of his choices didn't go as well for me.
'300' is a different case because that's an adaption of a Frank Miller graphic novel which dramatizes the famous ancient battle with a heavily stylized look which Zack Snyder directed it to be an incredibly faithful adaption of the graphic novel which seemed to take the pictures right out of the novel. Right from the get go, I knew what it was going for, I knew what story it was going for and I read the graphic novel. Randomly shoving in an ancient language with subtitles 'Apocalypto' style and 100% historical accuracy to the real battle would not only be unfaithful to the source but it would've been detrimental to the movie. Plus, I liked what Snyder was going with. Some others, just don't like the style and they would prefer something along the lines of 'Rome' which I can't blame.
Remember, this is just my opinion on one creative choice they took with the film and I think the movie would've been a little better if they took a different direction.
EDIT: Basically it all falls down to the style Baz Lurhmann took with the film and frankly, I didn't really enjoy his works before this. You're welcome to like/love this movie of course and the opinion would still be valid in my eyes but in simpler terms, I don't like his style. Still I liked this movie more than Romeo + Juliet and a lot more than Australia. All in all, a decent movie for me.
[QUOTE=Corporal Yippie;40796815]also all the scenes with that ridiculous gangster fucker
MR GATSBY URRRR THERES CHICAGO ON THE LINE......
completely fuckin uneccesary[/QUOTE]
They were in the book, line for line. The idea was to keep people guessing as to how Gatsby has all of his wealth.
[QUOTE=Loofiloo;40797148]Is there any [i]reason[/i] it didn't work?[/QUOTE]
I find that it just honestly did not make sense to do that when Fitzgerald even coined the term "jazz age". It just didn't leave a good impression on me really and I can't particularly say why.
Also, this is coming from someone well versed in jazz and I can say that if it had been a fitting type [as in what kimchimafia posted] then it really would've been that much more.
Just saw this. It had some stunning visuals but I tought it lacked some substance. I left the theater feeling literally nothing.
And about the music, I thought it would be much worse, I dare to say that in some parts the soudntrack was surprisingly fitting.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;40801988]They were in the book, line for line. The idea was to keep people guessing as to how Gatsby has all of his wealth.[/QUOTE]
you can speak the lines without looking/sounding like fuckin lurch from the adamms family
theres very little room for guessing when you make the guy talking about it have the disposition of a bad mobster villain
That Beethoven character had me laugh my ass off.
[editline]9th June 2013[/editline]
I really want to watch this movie again.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;40797665]Fine slightly faster jazz
Point is is that nobody in this day and age under the age of 70 years old would connect Jazz as party music. People going haam to jazz music would've killed the fuck out of my immersion in the movie.[/QUOTE]
It worked fine in Ray and countless other biopics to have music of the era....
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.