The Great Gatsby
discussion
Tell the truth...
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Raena
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
May 17, 2013 07:08PM
Did anyone, besides me, cry when they saw The Great Gatsby in theaters? I found it terribly sad, in fact, I cried harder at the movies, then I did after the book?
reply
|
flag
I thought aspects of the book were sad but strangely I didn't cry. Is the movie good though? I didn't hear good stuff about it. Is it worth it to see in the theaters?
I must say I never considered the book to be something to cry over. Haven't seen the movie yet. It is entirely too long to watch in a theatre...
I cried when I read the book, I was a mess when I saw the movie. I re-read the book a week before I went to see the movie so even before anything happened during the movie I would start crying. It was really embarrassing. In my opinion the movie was extremely accurate to the book, that is other than the changes for the Nick Carraway character, I blame my tears on that.
I definitely cried and I did not cry at the Robert Redford version. I thought Tobey Maguire was not the right choice for Nick. Leonardo was amazing. He really needs to get the Oscar at some point. I don't want him to get the treatment they gave Scorcese. (He should have won for Goodfellas.)
I teared up a little watching the end of the new film. I didn't cry reading the book, and have not seen the 1974 movie.The film helped me relate to the characters more than Fitzgerald's writing did. I found his prose to be distant.
i teared up when i heard Baz Lurhman wanted to make Hamlet with di Caprio - he really is the death of cinema
I did cry in the theater, I thought it was a great movie. Hadn't read the book since high school but really love the story.
I didn't cry during the movie (I couldn't show my boyfriend how much of a baby I REALLY am) but when I was alone I cried. It's amazing to be able to see another remake of the movie, especially with Leo as Gatsby. Some of the parts were so beautiful, I teared up. I almost cried again at the end when he gets shot.
I enjoyed the movie more than I thought I would. This is one of my favorite books, but I'd read so many bad reviews about the movie, that I almost didn't go see it. But I'm glad I did. I'll probably even go see it again. I got over the anachronistic soundtrack, and it's grown on me now. Leonardo was a great Gatsby (no pun intended). If you haven't seen it, you should.
And no crying here. However, I did find the ending much sadder than in the book.
Yes, I felt moved to tears --but really they were tears of frustration, annoyance, and disgust--when I first heard they were even contemplating a re-make. Appalling bad taste. Just goes to show you the low level today's crop of Hollywood execs will stoop to.
Hunh?!?!? Feliks, I didn´t like the book, found it hard to digest and deeply flawed, but heck....why would you consider "today´s crop of Hollywood .... execs" to be "scumbags"? I am at a loss to understand.
Eh? Why wouldn't you consider them scumbags? Even basic familiarity with American history should inform you of that much. Its not a big mystery. What do you think of a bunch of money-grubbing scum who vote to get rid of 35mm film itself and switch their whole industry over to POS digital technology? Does that sound like folks who have any respect for their profession? 'The Great Gatsby in 3D'? Sweet, creeping, Jesus...
Why would I consider them scumbags? It may be obvious to you, but not to me. If people want 3D, give the people what they want. It´s not going to harm them, after all they do see real life in 3D. Did you work in 35 mm film in the industry and could not make the transition, or were unwilling to for what you consider ethical reasons?I worked as a photographer for many years in panchromatic film but never would I consider the harbingers of digital scumbags. It´s just technological change-making it easier for the general population to use digital and yes, I am very annoyed, but truthfully I don´t see it as a moral issue.
I did not cry, but after reading the book I felt really sad to see that no one cared.
Geoffrey wrote: "Why would I consider them scumbags? It may be obvious to you, but not to me...." Well all I can say --especially if you consider yourself a photographer--is to start reading up on cinema history/American history. Movie-making in the USA is currently in an uproar. An upheaval. I'm astonished that someone has yet to be apprised of this and has to learn of it via a random messageboard.
Geoffrey wrote: "If people want 3D, give the people what they want. ..."
But they didn't want it. They didn't ask for it. Its was shoved down our throats. There was no need for it. It was strictly a gimmick devised by no-talent James Cameron as a way to allow his idiotic 'Avatar' project to make its budget back. The result is that its forcing the entire infrastructure to shift over to 3d at the expense of saying goodbye to traditional movies forever.
Geoffrey wrote: "It´s not going to harm them,..."
Its 'harm' when you marginalize a creative medium which is still in its infancy and steer it into a dead-end; its 'harm' when you disenfranchise all of the talented people who were yet to work in this medium and take that technology away from them, its 'harm' when you stop making American movies for American audiences and instead make them for overseas audiences, its 'harm' when you throw out lessons and wisdom developed by your predecessors and wade out into foolhardy projects for short-term financial gain, its 'harm' when you jeopardize the longevity of your business.
Geoffrey wrote: "after all they do see real life in 3D...."
But what comes through our retinas as we look lazily around us isn't art. Its lack of art. The brain actually sees art like cinema--sees it best--in 2d. The most effective art throughout human history is 2d. The most effective films ever produced in the USA/France/Asia/anywhere for 100 years, never needed 3d--and that's because they weren't dependent on computer animation to tell their stories. Insipid, vapid, CGI-fantasy and SF films are really the only type of flicks which benefit from 3D; and that's only the case these days because American movie audiences are currently composed of little kids and adolescents. Those FX are selling the movie. That's no argument for turning the entire movie-making industry over to serve just one audience segment, unless that argument is greed.
Geoffrey wrote: "Did you work in 35 mm film in the industry and could not make the transition, or were unwilling to for what you consider ethical reasons?..."
No, I just happen to love movies. And I'm informed about them. Sorta goes together. Anyone standing in the same regard, might similarly revolt at the idea of tossing aside the core artistic medium (celluloid) of cinema after only 100 years, and switching entirely to a five-minute-old technology which looks like vomit.
Geoffrey wrote: "I worked as a photographer for many years in panchromatic film but never would I consider the harbingers of digital scumbags. ..."
I can't comment on your values; but it seems you're not really harkening to any in your comments so far, at least as far as I can tell.
Geoffrey wrote: "It´s just technological change making it easier for the general population to use digital..."
That's hardly all it is. What the heck does that even mean, anyway? 'Easier'? Tell me--are you prone to latching on to the first selling point you hear for any new trend; never studying it further to discern possible drawbacks? Swampland in Florida, bridges in Brooklyn--someone says they're for sale, and you automatically reach right down into your pocket? Not a serious question, but my goodness--I'm not sure how else to react to someone this out-of-the-loop on changes that are this sweeping.
At best, the shift to digital describes a bunch of greedy vermin deciding to deconstruct a vital and long-standing heritage of American culture--debase it irreparably--merely so they can glom up some short-term corporate profits. Its an outrage and a scam, a heist, a disfiguring; made 'easier' by apathy. An audience gets the kind of movies it deserves; and apathetically-made films are what we're receiving. The advent of 3D ensures we're going to get garbage films for probably the next 100 years.
Anyway, I can't bring you up to speed on the issues involved within just a few minutes of typing into a little white text input box on Goodreads. I can't impart values to you either (it sounds like I'm merely ranting). If you want links to essays and articles and industry-watchdog pieces, I can provide them.
Sorry, my friend, but I don´t live in the USA. Haven´t in 7 years. So when you say the film industry is in an uproar, please excuse my ignorance. I don´t subscribe to FILM COMMENT,VARIETY or any other film magazine. In fact I have not seen a US news program on TV, perhaps saving me from its decadence and half-truths.I am not particularly interested in reading about the film industry and what it thinks of digital so any links would go unread.
As for values, there is a difference between values and pet peeves. Your´s is mostly the latter from what I glean. I did see AVATAR and was amazed by the 3D effect in what would otherwise have been a very mediocre movie. I don´t have a high regard for Cameron, even a lower one when I saw him years ago talking about the TITANIC. How´s that for a value. I can´t stand the man´s conceit.
Actually as far as a faddish is concerned, I am one of the least. I still don´t have an MP3, nor a laptop. I don´t have a HD TV screen. I don´t even own a digital camera, despite owning 4 analog ones. It took me years before I purchased my first flash drive. So I could hardly be accused of being a trendy. But I am enthused about 3D. I first experienced it in the OMNI Theatre at the Science Museum of Atlanta. The effect of swimming underwater with seaweed brushing by my person was a phenomenal one.
As for a complete switchover to 3D, that remains to be seen. You may be right, but we have to see how this one plays itself out. There were friends who back in 1986 predicted that film would not be manufactured after 92 as the digital age of photo was about to take off...but guess what, last month I purchased 12 rolls of Ilford film from England. There are those of us who are diehards. And yes, I will purchase a digital Nikon camera body this year, my first ever when every amateur has made the switch more than a decade ago. I used digital professionally back in 94 for the first time and hated it so much that I refused to use it ever again, but you know what, it´s like everything else, it has its uses but analog still has it beat in my estimation. for me to get the results of my medium format film camera, I would have to spend more than 10,000 dollars on a digital camera.
I could go on and on about myself, but this message thread is not about me. It´s now about digital vs. film. And again, if people want to see 3D, the Hollywood tycoons are going to make.You, yourself, admitted that Cameron resorted to using it because otherwise he would not have recouped the expenditure of making AVATAR. So people did go to see the movie because they wanted the 3D.
I just saw STAR TREK 3D and to tell the truth it was one of the worst movies I have seen in the last 2 years. The ONLY saving grace was the 3D
The movie industry is hardly a new one. Basic filmmaking has been around since when?-1896 or thereabouts. It´s had a run of 115plus years. There have been many changes. Those that work in the industry who are willing to make the change to 3D do so. Those who aren´t, won´t simple. I worked as a photo lithographer for many years-I was not willing to go the Photoshop route-didn´t like it, still don´t particularly despite having done some. I changed careers and went into teaching. Yes, it was difficult but I did it. Others have to do the same. When your particular industry goes belly up you do what you have to do.Up until the 1840´s cameo artists made a lively trade doing portraits. Photography killed of that craft entirely. Cameoists, if there is such a word, had to learn to use a camera, develop wet collodion plates or see their lifestyle go by the wayside. Sorry, those are the economic facts.
I haven't bothered to come back and read two followups from Geoffrey about digital vs 35mm cinema taking place in this thread. Although now I am glancing at them as I contribute some follow-up of my own.Frankly, I trailed off because it was making my skull throb to have to laboriously lead anyone by-the-hand, over such fundamental history and concepts. Were this an actual discussion, (or, a discussion as best as we can manage over the internet) I'd simply have to redirect the chat to some hasty blog site I would have to create where we could walk down approximately 200 links I've been amassing on the topic. Expert commentary by Roger Ebert, Christopher Nolan, Walter Murch, Ridley Scott...all decrying the rush to digital. Even then, if someone refuses to acknowledge all the inputs, what else is there to do? All we have available to debate with here, are 'links' ..to other internet pages. I can't walk someone down to a library.
But I'll poke my head back in here momentarily because of a juicy article which just appeared on StudioDaily:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news...
TinyURL:
http://tinyurl.com/pe2b2td
Conveniently..none other than George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg themselves, echo the truth of my remarks in recent speeches at USC. Ironically, the two guys who helped do the most damage.
In the pre-digital era, (let's rather just say the classic era for convenience, specifically 1890 to 1980) you would never see anything like this looming disaster Spielberg warns us about. Good business practices went hand-in-hand with good movie-making practice. Today's industry is not just flirting with new techniques; its investing a whole stack of wrong-headed decisions on the 'gamble of digital'--which steer the whole medium towards a collapse.
What justification lies beneath all this? None. Its not innovation. New tools to make art with, are never the guarantee of better art. This has never been the case. That's why when 3D originally appeared in the 1950s it was soon tossed aside. CGI adds nothing to the betterment of adult films emphasizing acting and actors. Hitchcock showed us that with 'The Birds'. Returning to silliness like 3D (as we've been stampeded into doing by James Cameron) is merely the indicator that today's Hollywood is in flight from any kind of serious, mature, moviemaking. Clutching desperately onto the gimmick of FX is the sign of an eviscerated talent-base.
Telling me that good craftsmanship 'has to (fall by the wayside) to make room' for hacks and incompetents ...is like, telling me to I should worry foremost about whether hangmen and executioners will have to go on welfare if we repeal the death penalty. Its absurd.
Geoffrey wrote: "I can´t stand the man´s conceit."You have a lot of company.
I live in the Bay Area where the final sound editing on Avatar was done at the Lucas werks. I have a filmmaker friend who was in and out during that time. (The Lucas werks contracts out their facilities and staff to other flmmakers.) This guy said no one could stand Cameron--that he was a screamer.
I saw Avatar soon thereafter, in 2D, and it was a worn-out Star Wars I shoot-em up plot. I almost walked out at the halfway point. Great CGI, but it's got to mean something, and giving a half-hearted nod to the environment was not enough for me.
3D wouldn't have redeemed it for me. It's a gimmick, and I outgrew gimmickery in grade school.
If you can't render characters and you can't render a compelling plot and setting, resort to gimmickery.
Feliks wrote: "Frankly, I trailed off because it was making my skull throb to have to laboriously lead anyone by-the-hand, over such fundamental history and concepts."(I always look forward to Feliks' posts.)
Monty J wrote: "Feliks wrote: "Frankly, I trailed off because it was making my skull throb to have to laboriously lead anyone by-the-hand, over such fundamental history and concepts."(I always look forward to Fe..."
I always enjoy his posts also....he is very knowledgeable about film and a cool person as well.
Years ago I saw a 3d that was made in the 50`s at the Greenwich Village Movie house, near Mulberry st. famous for Dr. Seuss and was amazed by it. I also was a proud owner of a Viewmaster and had a small collection. I am still enamored of 3d. However, if there is a mad rush to 3D, yes, I would be upset as well. Serious art films need to avoid the gimmick. It`s best for the crappy film blockbusters and satisfies the audience. Whether it will fade out, I don`t know. I hope not, but then again I don`t want it to take over the industry.I think as long as there are people who don`t want to see it in their filmwatching, there will be films without it. But for the extreme action, shoot them up flic, its allure is evident.
As for the allusion to Lucas and Spielberg, I have not seen any reference to what you are saying, Feliks, but did note that they said that the financial situation of Hollywood has worsened since 2007, ie. profit margins have decreased considerably, and that if there is a consecutive run of 5-6 mega blockbusters that the industry will be in serious trouble.
And Feliks if you read the article carefully, you will note that they say that Hollywood has been playing it too safe and that is why the impending calamity.
Really? People cry over Gatsby? Every time I read this novel (and it's pretty often as a high school English teacher) I hate each and every one of the characters anew. I can't feel bad for any of them because they bring all their misery on themselves. There (at least for me) is not a single sympathetic character.Truth is, I simply don't "like" the book. Doesn't mean I can't or don't appreciate it, but I'm pretty sure I will never like it.
It took me a while to decide exactly what I felt about the movie. I've finally decided that it was, in fact, very well done. I walked out of the theater feeling exactly the same way I do as when I finish reading the book. Empty. Like the characters. And vaguely disgusted with mankind. It's not a good feeling by any stretch of the imaginatination, but the fact that it was nearly identical emotionally to my regular reaction to the book, I would have to say that the movie was well-done and very true to the spirit of the text. Clearly there were some discrepancies between the two, and there were actually a couple of things about the film that downright annoyed me, but overall, worth seeing--even if only to see whether or not you think it's faithful in spirit.
the movie's really loyal to the book. the cast did justice to their characters. leonardo did an AMAZING job, carrey, too. she played daisy really well, as for ms. baker, ms. baker. i don't particularly like TGG, but it's nice.
The movies, in my opinion, highlight the weakness in the book. The book is a good book, but not as good as its hype. I've never found Fitzgerald to be a particularly interesting writer, at least he never grabbed on to me. I started Gatsby when I was in high school. I finally sat down and finished it when i turned 59.
A book that is less than the sum of its parts.
Right on Bill. It`s interesting that so many people have said the same but in so many different ways.
Indeed, I was never impressed by the book. Fitzgerald spends time inserting symbolism into the scenes to make the story more meaningful, but - in the end - it really isn't very interesting. The individual scenes may be beautiful, but as Bill says, the sum is less than the sum of its parts.
MarkoAre you saying that Fitzgerald is a bit pretentious when you write that "Fitzgerald spends time inserting symbolism into the scenes to make the story more meaningful?"
No, I'm not. It was the way people wrote their stories in those days, inserting references to each others' stories and previous masterpieces etc.I'm just saying that in this case Fitzgerald concentrated more on writing beautiful scenes than coming up with an engaging story. Not that every story needs to be engaging, but that's one of the reasons I was never really taken by this novel.
Yes, I agree with you on his "writing beautiful scenes than coming up with an engaging story". Some writers are not particularly visual, others love the sound of words, (as Joyce was), others wax poetic. Fitzgerald had a strong visual sense and polished off his writing considerably. I would say that he focussed more attention on being elequent and painting the picture. The dialogue is trite, which serves his purpose as he wished to downplay any positive qualities of his characters, especially Daisy.
I've never cried over The Great Gatsby, but I think there is a lot to cry about--how social class in America alienates people from one another. How some individuals (Gatsby) grow up feeling inferior to others--and compensate by giving away any chance of having an authentic sense of self. How money contributes to the creation of careless people who lack all empathy. Lots to cry about.
This is a universal problem. It`s a human condition. In a stratified society those on the bottom of the totem pole get shatted on. It`s a travesty of human nature. It`s a crying shame, but as a species, we have a long way to go.
I just spent the past half-hour reading the argument between Geoffrey and Feliks, and all I have as a result is a headache (even though I laughed a bit and enjoyed hearing both sides, I assure you). Although I don't really support the over-editing of photographs and some of the new technological additions in the movies these days, I am a photographer myself and I still don't care enough to make a fuss about it. I saw The Great Gatsby and have read the book three times now. I don't particularly like the characters, but being a psychology buff, I see more behind each one, and even though they all [other than Nick, of course] disappointed me in various instances, I still enjoyed reading the book. The movie simply brought it to life for me, and I thought it was a decent film. Even though it was a little exaggerated with the wardrobe and the lifestyle. I read an article somewhere - I forget where and I really don't feel like finding it at the moment - that said they'd wanted to exaggerate all that on purpose to help us view that life the way the people in the 20's had viewed it. Even though the colors were duller, and the parties not quite as huge, the people had seen it that way at the time. You know, each person is different. (When you visit a different country, do you not see it differently than the locals?) It's a sort of psychological thing, but I think it helped sell the movie. But whatever; now I'm rambling.Oh! And for the point of this post: Hell no, I did not cry.
I cried at the film. It was so sad and related to the book well. I hate Daisy.
It's easily the best version of the book. But don't read The Great Gatsby for the story. We know that all that glitters is not gold. The American dream was always a shallow one. Don't read it for the characters, either. Read it for the language alone.
I thought they did a decent job of the movie. I thought they tried to stay pretty close to the book. The movie helped me imagine the book better.
They ruined everything by using rap music instead of jazz- The Great Gatsby is a book from the 20s and its essence is the 20s. That's also why today most people find it a bit dull.
That's why they should've had jazz. It's impossible to get a 20s atmosphere without jazz. I know the directors wanted people associate the Great Gatsby with our times or whatever, but it's impossible to understand it without a 20s atmosphere.
Bia wrote: "That's why they should've had jazz. It's impossible to get a 20s atmosphere without jazz."Agreed. Jazz is some of the best music ever created, and rap well..., it just doesn't compare and detracted from the film's realism.
But I doubt realism was an objective, considering the way the film was rendered.
I did cry when I saw the movie. The book felt distant though.
Honestly, I don't cry when I saw the movie, I just feel sad because for Gatsby and Nick Carraway and angry for the Daisy and Tom Buchanan.
I surprisingly did not cry during the movie.
No, I didn't cry, but the first time I wanted to when Young and Beautiful because it's such a beautiful song. Though, I might have almost cried when Nick lost Gatsby, I mean I found that really sad.
I appreciated the movie in a way, for allowing us to peek into one of Gatsby's parties and lavish lifestyle to be honest. I don't think it entirely captured the feeling of the book, well the way it had made me feel anyway. I find this book heartbreaking. I don't know why I feel so incredibly saddened by Gatsby's struggle but I do. He just was soo lost but soo hopeful. Living his life for everyone but himself. He really just needed to wake up from his dream.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
