Six Degrees of Film

After seeing this picture, here are some thoughts on this version of Gatsby:

1) Baz Luhrmann-A talented director, I wonder why he didn’t do this as a musical? One of the highlights of this film is the music. In particular, the build up to our first on-screen sighting of Gatsby with the spectacular backdrop of the West Egg Castle/home surrounding him and the music of Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in Blue” plus a bevy of fireworks that make for splendid cinema.
2) Why didn’t they overhaul the film and make it a contemporary setting? It could easily be done with the theme of Wall Street Greed and corruption that pervades the storyline. So many of Shakespeare’s classics have been re-done in modern settings. This would have worked as well without the somewhat dated setting of the roaring twenties. However, the Art Deco sets are impossible to ignore. They are beautifully done in this film.
3) Good conceit: (With “Conceit” defined as a “quaint or humorous fancy)”. The notion that Nick, the narrator, is an alcoholic who ends up writing the story of Gatsby. Of course we see a bit of F.Scott Fitzgerald in both characters, the idealized version in Gatsby, and the more gritty and cynical persona of Nick. Fitzgerald often spoke of the dichotomy that existed within himself, and indeed, in all writers, where you may find yourself looking at a scene from the outside, even as you are taking part in the action. This is one of the successful themes that is highlighted in this film.
4) This film tries to stay true to the story Fitzgerald wrote. Some notable exceptions: the list that Gatsby made, we discover after his death, which reveals a lot about an otherwise mysterious character; the character of his father is also part of who Gatsby was/is and is missing in this version.
5) Like all great actors, DiCaprio embraces this role with a vengeance and does try to “own” the character of Jay Gatsby. He succeeeds in doing so. But…
6) The role of women: Daisy is/was weak! Zelda Fitzgerald (Fitzgerald’s wife and presumably, a model for the Daisy character), was not weak or epemeral. The character of Daisy constantly needs “protection” from the men. In the Jazz Age, women were just coming into their own as citizens, and they were finally allowed to smoke/drink in public and to vote. This was a first attempt to portray a “modern” woman, and Daisy comes off poorly. She is shallow, vain and selfish, although she has a core of cynicism and an innate ability to fascinate men. She comes across, not as a modern woman, but more of a warning sign to all to avoid greed and excess. More of a modern day Circe, she’s doomed to lead men to their deaths.
7) The parallels with Wall Street Greed and excess of the last ’08 Crash. I have a shameless suggestion: Better to watch “A New Leaf”, which recently aired on Turner Classic, and to read my review of that film listing some of the points which make this a good morality tale-on a much lighter note!- to serve as a warning against corporate and individual greed. Not that there aren’t some nice pivots in this Gatsby version which lead us in to a great crash…greed, avarice, the love of money, these are all points made in the film. The rich are seen as snobs and elites who are racist bigots and amoral to boot.
8) I admit, I’m not one to make a stand defending the rights of the rich in this country, but the focus of the film, the core message, sometimes gets lost in the overriding wish to lump Fitzgerald with the comment: ““Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me.”: Note: This quote was from the short story, ‘The Rich Boy”, written in 1924 while awaiting publication of “The Great Gatsby.”
9) There are some nice touches of Fitzgerald’s own prose being used within the film, particularly the use of the metaphor of the green light at the end of Daisy’s dock. There are also some slow moments, but by including the green light the director emphasized the core message, which is that Gatsby, a metaphor for the American Dream, exuded hope to the bitter end.
10) As stated earlier in my previous write-up on “The Great Gatsby on Film”, prior to seeing this version, I contended that this was not the Great American Film. I still maintain this is true, however, I concede that this is the best of the bunch-the Gatsby bunch, that is.

Marvin’s Room:1996: This is a great film, under-appreciated in my opinion. It stars Diane Keaton and Meryl Streep as two sisters who are coming together after years of estrangement when Keaton discovers she has cancer. The ultimate moment of truth comes when a dying Keaton tells her frivolous and self-centered sister, Streep that her greatest reward in caring for her elderly parents was the fact that she was able to love THEM so much…it was a love based not on what she gave, but the love she received. This was a turning point in the film for Streep. DiCaprio plays the estanged son of Meryl Streep, and is very good in this role, a pivotal moment in his career where he stepped away from more juvenile parts to play more mature, leading man roles.

The Man in the Iron Mask: 1998- A remake of the classic tale by Alexandre Dumas. The plot revolves around twin royal brothers with vastly different personalities. DiCaprio plays the spoilt, narcissistic and pampered King Louis XIV and also the worthy twin who has been imprisoned in the iron mask for so many years.

Blood Diamond, 2006- Danny Archer: One of his best roles to date. He plays a cavalier and insouciant man who falls for a young woman he meets after unwittingly becoming involved in the smuggling of a prized diamond mined in Africa.…The focus of the film is on the brutality surrounding the African diamond trade. DiCaprio was up for an Academy Award for Best Actor.

The Departed: 2006- Billy Costigan Jr. Remake of a 2002 film from Hong Kong entitled Infernal Affairs. This is a nihilistic and dark version of the mean streets. It features great performances not only by DiCaprio, but by Jack Nicholson and Mark Wahlberg as well.

The Aviator-2004: One of his outstanding collaborations with Martin Scorsese, this film explores the dark side of Hughes. DiCaprio has a way of finding the dark vein and mining it with a charismatic style that was reminiscent of Howard Hughes himself… As with many brilliant actors in years past, Leonardo DiCaprio has found a wellstone of inspiring material through his collaborations with a gifted director. In this case, Scorsese has tapped a gold mine by developing a successful working relationship not only with Robert De Niro, but in recent years, with DiCaprio.

American Graffiti-Bob Falfa-1973. Ford has a small role in this film. This was an important breakthrough film for Harrison Ford , as it brought him to the attention of George Lucas: Before the hype surrounding Star Wars, there was this small part in the coming of age movie that stands the test of time well without seeming too dated. It was a nostalgic look at a bygone era, and is still effective as a nostalgic look back almost forty years later!

Bladerunner:Rick Deckard-1982-Harrison Ford was a pivotal force in creating the illusory and remarkable world contained in Bladerunner. He portrayed a man who doesn’t seem to care anymore, and his revelation through pain and redemption-the theme that guides the film-what is real/what is the definition of a human?….is explored and continues to haunt us partly because of his performance. Ford was very involved in developing the character of Deckard, particularly when we find that he didn’t want to wear the hat (a la Indiana Jones), but instead chose to fashion a short, cropped haircut that conveys the angst and almost dark and prison-like air that surrounds this set. He also insisted that Darryl Hannah stick her fingers in his nose during the pivotal fight scene, and the graphic reality brings the physical fight home to us in a way that nothing else could in this instance.

The Frisco Kid-1979.This is a gem-one of those films that got away. Gene Wilder is hilarious as a Jewish rabbi who teams up with an unlikely partner, a cowboy/robber played by Ford. They end up in an Indian encampment, where Wilder shouts, “Watch that lady!…I think that lady is a Jewish Indian!”.as Ford watches him in mild bemusement. Somehow the plot moves them into a monastery where the effusive Wilder is hard-pressed to abide by the laws of silence governing a monastery. This unlikely duo makes for a very different kind of buddy comedy. Ford proves himself to be extremely charming in this light comic role.

Witness:1985-Detective Captin John Book- One of the staples surrounding long-term leading man success in Hollywood is the actor’s ability to convince audiences he is that character. In this part, the essence of a straight-forward cop who will not swerve from the path of justice is tailor-made for the slightly grumpy Ford persona. The nature of the love story between the Amish girl and the cynical, big-city cop makes for an enduring film.

Working Girl: 1988-Jack Trainer-Ford has a chance, once again, to show us his vulnerable, funny side. He is charming with Melanie Griffith in this still funny comedy from Director Mike Nichols.

Indiana Jones and the Search for the Holy Grail: These films got better over time. They seemed to sputter at first, with nothing surrounding the character but a sweeping theme song and a “fly by the seat of our pants” attitude towards plot. But, in the end, this character endures in part, not only because of the enthusiastic direction of Spielberg,but also the persona of Ford. He becomes Indiana Jones and embraces the role in a way no-one else could touch, as so many great actors have been able to inhabit their signature characters for all time. ( Some examples that come to mind: Marlon Brando in A Streetcar Named Desire, Jimmy Stewart as Harvey, Humphrey Bogart in The African Queen, Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump). With the addition of his father, played by Sean Connery, this makes for a great twist on the buddy pictures of years past.

From the upcoming book “6 Degrees of Film” by M.L. Johnson
F. Scott Fitzgerald, as with all great writers in Hollywood, was part myth and part reality. He tried his luck several times in California, accompanied on his first trip by his equally colorful wife Zelda. Their attitude was condescending, to say the least, as Fitzgerald wrote, “I honestly believed that with no effort on my part I was a sort of magician with words.” Fitzgerald said he felt he “was doing Hollywood a favor.” Their tenure was short and ended badly, with Zelda writing of the film adaptation of The Great Gatsby, “It’s rotten and awful and terrible and we left.”
On his second trip, Fitzgerald embarrassed himself at a party held by famed producer Irving Thalberg. Thereafter, Fitzgerald sought the ever-confident Thalberg’s approval. His need “to conquer Thalberg, to make the man recognize their essential kinship, was mysterious and powerful enough to override even the most contemptuous rebuffs.” All in all, Fitzgerald made three trips to Hollywood. During the third, in 1940, he died from a heart attack. He was forty-four.
Fitzgerald had just about finished his career by advertising many of his greatest shortcomings in the short story The Crack Up. Fitzgerald writes in the story, “As long past as 1930, I had a hunch that the talkies would make even the best-selling novelist as archaic as silent pictures.” After this appeared, a rather devastating article was printed in the New York Post describing Fitzgerald as “jittery, restless” and a novelist “whose twitching face … bore the pitiful expression of a cruelly beaten child.”
Of Hollywood, Fitzgerald wrote, “I hate the place like poison. I should consider it only as an emergency measure.” And yet Fitzgerald was implored by his agent to return. He wrote a (surprisingly) measured, thoughtful response, saying, “No single man with a serious literary reputation has made good there” (Bruccoli XXXX, pg).
Gore Vidal wrote that Fitzgerald was “enough of an artist or romantic egotist to want to create movies.” In “Pink Triangle and Yellow Star,” Vidal wrote:
Fitzgerald thought the way to conquer Hollywood might have been to know the enemy and study their weaknesses. He had sat for hours watching all of MGM’s hit movies from the last fifteen years; [collecting] hundreds of file cards listing tricks of the trade, noting the strengths and weaknesses of individual stars, itemizing well-tried plot lines.
Fitzgerald’s third trip to Hollywood began with the attitude that this time he was determined not to mess it up. But by that time, Fitzgerald was a known entity: a drinker, difficult to work with. Nevertheless, he had a champion among the studio elites in Edwin Knopf, who hired him for a Gary Cooper picture, Three Comrades.
Joe Mankiewicz and Fitzgerald sparred throughout the writing process. Fitzgerald railed against the director’s ttampering with the ending and cutting his dialogue and scenes. Yet, when the two scripts are compared, it’s very hard to see what all the fuss was about; they were actually very similar. Fitzgerald’s dialogue, if anything, was a bit less wordy and pretentious than the script with Mankiewicz’s alterations. Still The Three Comrades was a hit when it opened in 1938, the only script for which Fitzgerald was actually given credit.
Mankiewicz said,
I personally have been attacked as if I had spat on the American flag because it happened once that I rewrote some dialogue by F. Scott Fitzgerald. But indeed, it needed it! The actors … absolutely could not read the lines. It was very literary dialogue, novelistic dialogue that lacked all the qualities required for screen dialogue. The latter must be “spoken.” F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote very bad spoken dialogue.
Fitzgerald’s Final Days
After The Three Comrades, Fitzgerald’s contract was not renewed. He wrote, “Baby, am I glad to get out! I’ve hated the place since Monkeybitch [Mankiewicz] rewrote 3 Comrades,” to Harold Ober in the book As Ever.
He had lasted eighteen months and was exhausted—emotionally and physically. He’d given it his best shot and come up short. He had given lavishly of his most valuable obsessions, namely his superior drinking-problem heroes, beautiful doomed girls, and dreams that were either squandered or destroyed.
He’d hardly touched alcohol—a major feat for him—but in the end, Fitzgerald had failed to deliver the goods. In February 1939, he went freelance, the writer’s code that indicated “desperate for work.” He also went on a drinking spree with a twenty-five-year-old named Budd Schulberg,* which was described as his biggest, saddest, and most destructive spree.
Desperate for money, Fitzgerald had hit rock bottom. (At the time of Fitzgerald’s death, none of his major novels were even in print.) Darryl Zanuck gave him a chance in 1940 on a play adaptation. But once again, Fitzgerald was taken off the picture, and this time, Nunnally Johnson was called in to doctor the script. In November of that year, at Schwab’s drugstore, Fitzgerald had a heart attack and died a month later.
“Poor son of a bitch,” was the statement Dorothy Parker made at his funeral. The irony was not lost on her that few in Hollywood knew she was quoting directly from The Great Gatsby!

• Nunnally Johnson wrote this gem to George S. Kaufman regarding the film, Letter to an Unknown Woman: “The picture is about a girl who falls in love with another of those God damned pianists … and nuzzles around him until, finally, what the hell, he gives her a bang. Next week he goes to Milano to play a concert and that’s the last she sees of him—for ten years. By then she has a nine year old boy that looks like the pianist and she is married to another fellow, no musician, but what does she do now but go for this piano player again. And to her horror, what do you think? He doesn’t remember her! Right in the middle of this nuzzling, it dawns on her that he doesn’t know who the hell she is and, frankly, doesn’t seem to care so long as she gets those clothes off in a hurry. So out into the snow she runs and that’s the way the thing straggles to its tragic conclusion.”
Johnson envisioned the sequel this way: “It’s called Collected Correspondence of an Unknown Woman and instead of one incident I have something like a dozen. In other words, the piano player knocks her up regularly every five years and never DOES recognize her. Every semi-decade around she comes again, with another new kid tagging on behind, and every time he throws her on the bed and marks up another score. Once or twice he says, “Your face certainly does look familiar to me” but that’s all. Of course, she does everything she can think of to get out of him some further recognition than that, but nothing doing. Even when she lines up eight children behind her, everyone the spitting image of him, all he says is, “Jesus Christ, have we got to have that mob around while we’re doing it?” Finally, and this is the fade out, he’s a real old bastard, can’t hardly play Chopsticks, much less cross-handed stuff, and around comes this old bag again, a dozen little illegitimates trailing along behind, and nuzzles up feebly, still hopeful but much too proud to tip him off who she is, and after some heavy preliminary work, he manages to ring the bell again, possibly for the last time in his life, and as he is leaving the house and putting his hat on, we go to a close shot of him and he shakes his head and quavers, “I don’t care what ANYBODY says, I’ve seen that broad somewhere before!” FADE OUT. (Johnson and Leventhal 1981).

My “beef” with Argo lies with the fact that the action seems to stall midpoint in the film. Somehow, the plot point that leads Ben Affleck into Iraq should have been expanded to find someone else to go with him. If this was a documentary, then there would be no question that the narrative leads us into a fairly narrow focus. The lead CIA character is sent to remove the hostages.
But films are meant to entertain, and the second part of this film is short on entertainment value. If the John Goodman or Alan Arkin characters were allowed to contribute more than an odd moment where they are seen talking on the telephone, it might have moved the action along at a different pace.
As it is, we are immersed in the twists and turns of maneuvering people and luggage through the Iranian airport and also driving to an fro in a mini-van, but it’s not quite enough. We aren’t allowed to buy in to the characters with any kind of emotional hook.
The action occurs and you are there. But something seems to be missing.
In Lincoln, all of the trappings of a Spielberg-esque movie apply here. There is some sentimentality attached to the images of Lincoln, but more than that, the iconic pictures we have seen in the famous Civil War photographs made by Matthew Brady are depicted here with unerring accuracy. Young Tad and his father, President Lincoln, are seen looking at a book together. The pose is strikingly familiar. Tad is shown in a mock-up of a soldiers uniform, playing with his toy troops. These are the images that bring the film to life.
Sally Field also manages to craft the impossible. We see a portrait of Mrs. Lincoln that is neither overly sentimental or alarmingly cute-sy. She is allowed to speak her case, warts, baggage and all, and we see a side of a woman in torment and pain, but with courage and humor and dignity that is often missing when she is portrayed.
The details of the movie’s focus, the passage of the 13th amendment, threaten to weigh down the plot at times. There is an attempt at comic relief in the character of James Spader and company. They are the representatives of a corrupt breed of back-door dealmakers that have never left the Washington scene.
But the movie is held together by Daniel Day Lewis. Someone remarked that what we are watching in his performance sets the standard for the new ideal of Lincoln and that seems accurate. It was said that Lincoln spoke in a high, nasal pitched voice that seemed hard to imagine in such a tall, raw-boned man.
But Mr. Lewis nails it completely. Not only does he re-create the voice, but the essence of the man himself is shown in his multi-layered character. This is the Lincoln who used humor to negotiate with his enemies, the man who was a wheeler-dealer at heart and was,in the end, a brilliant and complex individual. This is the portrait we see that undoubtedly stands the test of time.

Argo doesn’t seem to be a memorable picture. Lincoln is one for the ages.

The trick in re-making any movie about the Land of Oz is to re-create the beloved characters we know so well. And to present them seamlessly enough to the audience that they are convinced these inventions are residents of Oz. In this case, the movie does a fairly good job convincing us that this is the Land of Oz we know so well. Some of the key elements used to re-invent the wheel begins with the idea that you must start in a black and white landscape if you are going to transition to the magical color field that is Oz. And when you are in Oz, the characters must jive with the original source.
The basic story begins and ends with the fact that the Wizard is a humbug. The witches are divided into two camps, good vs. evil. And there must be some kind of comic relief. In this Oz, relief is found in the form of a small wise-cracking monkey and a slightly chipped china doll.
There is just enough magic in the original story to help mix the potion. We are not entranced with the beauty and wonder of a Judy Garland, but we are given a small peek into the wonders of a 21st Century rendering of the magical Land of Oz It is worth the effort to glimpse into this latent Land of Oz.

He was one of the last of a dying breed of film critics. Siskel & Ebert made film criticism something that everyman could do….Their show made people think about film critics in a different way.
They argued with one another, sometimes passionately disagreeing about the merits of the movies.

Ebert was not always someone you agreed with. He didn’t set himself up to be “Mr Nice Guy” or go out of his way to charm. He was himself, a regular guy who happened to know a heck of a lot about the movies.