What is the reviewer's point? Why does he feel that the soul of the text has been missed out by the director? What is the issue with the 3D in the film? How do the glasses act as a barrier between the viewer and the characters? A Film and a book can be seen as two completely different media but which still overlap in terms of their constructions of time and space; e g in terms of following a linear narrative, or by adopting the narrative device of an omnipresent observer. That is the artist's choice. What is the soul of the text in the reviewer's understanding? And the glasses acting as a barrier; ha, ha, in which case the screen is the barrier too, and so is the page on which the text is written! This is a truly ridiculous comment!
Translating one medium, in this case a book, to the screen is a difficult and thankless job every time, but Luhrmann does a fine job. The film is visually spectacular, never over the top, in terms of the production values, it shows us the golden age of America to a T, the greed and corruption and sheer venality that actually underlie it. The lives of the very rich, insulated as they are by their money is also brought out well. The film never gives in to maudlin sentimentality and Caprio in his understated, controlled performance is Gatsby, some one who tries to live the American dream, but has another dream at heart. The use of the word epic is to me completely meaningless; we are not talking about an adaptation of Homer here. The voice over is a cinematic device; it is not a commentary in this film necessarily neither is it an exposition. The closest it comes is to let us know how Carraway experiences Gatsby, along with the visuals. In contrast to Romeo and Juliet, with its staccato and fractured style, Luhrmann gives us a film reminiscent of a morality tale; a tale well told in the cinematic medium.
And oh yes, this is definitely not a Hollywood film, it is produced by a consortium which includes the Doha film institute, Cine Mosaic, and Mirabai films. Such poorly informed reviewer, and with such a patronizing tone! Any English language film for the reviewer has to be Hollywood I guess, that is the only place where they make English language films, I guess!
The book is definitely not a screen play masquerading as a book; in fact it is a very difficult to film book, as it is a ambiguous monologue in the first person and there are no really clear characters, the structure is very similar to Albert Camus, The Fall. Mira Nair in many interviews has said that the book posed difficult questions with respect to filming and that is why she had to take a different approach, in the film, one has to name and create characters straightaway. The author has credit for the screen play too. The film is very well done, barring the extraction team bit, and the resultant "thriller" climax, and the music score is not really a charming little Sufi flavored background, but instead enhances and complements the visuals. Your review seems to be very patronizing in tone.
All the three stories, barring Dibakar's are completely crappy, KJ's film seems like his wet dream on homosexuals and homosexuality, Anurag Kashyap's story is ridiculous, just for the little twist at the end, so much time is wasted, no aesthetic to the story telling either, a sheer waste of time. Zoya akhtar's story seems to be a very bad adaptation of Billy Elliott. If this is what the talent of Bollywood is about and what with gushing reviewers who do not seem to have watched films in any language barring Hindi and that too not many, one wonders at the celebration of Bollywood junk posing as Indian cinema.
What is the reviewer's point? Why does he feel that the soul of the text has been missed out by the director? What is the issue with the 3D in the film? How do the glasses act as a barrier between the viewer and the characters?
A Film and a book can be seen as two completely different media but which still overlap in terms of their constructions of time and space; e g in terms of following a linear narrative, or by adopting the narrative device of an omnipresent observer. That is the artist's choice. What is the soul of the text in the reviewer's understanding?
And the glasses acting as a barrier; ha, ha, in which case the screen is the barrier too, and so is the page on which the text is written! This is a truly ridiculous comment!
Translating one medium, in this case a book, to the screen is a difficult and thankless job every time, but Luhrmann does a fine job. The film is visually spectacular, never over the top, in terms of the production values, it shows us the golden age of America to a T, the greed and corruption and sheer venality that actually underlie it. The lives of the very rich, insulated as they are by their money is also brought out well. The film never gives in to maudlin sentimentality and Caprio in his understated, controlled performance is Gatsby, some one who tries to live the American dream, but has another dream at heart.
The use of the word epic is to me completely meaningless; we are not talking about an adaptation of Homer here.
The voice over is a cinematic device; it is not a commentary in this film necessarily neither is it an exposition. The closest it comes is to let us know how Carraway experiences Gatsby, along with the visuals.
In contrast to Romeo and Juliet, with its staccato and fractured style, Luhrmann gives us a film reminiscent of a morality tale; a tale well told in the cinematic medium.
And oh yes, this is definitely not a Hollywood film, it is produced by a consortium which includes the Doha film institute, Cine Mosaic, and Mirabai films. Such poorly informed reviewer, and with such a patronizing tone!
Any English language film for the reviewer has to be Hollywood I guess, that is the only place where they make English language films, I guess!
The book is definitely not a screen play masquerading as a book; in fact it is a very difficult to film book, as it is a ambiguous monologue in the first person and there are no really clear characters, the structure is very similar to Albert Camus, The Fall. Mira Nair in many interviews has said that the book posed difficult questions with respect to filming and that is why she had to take a different approach, in the film, one has to name and create characters straightaway. The author has credit for the screen play too. The film is very well done, barring the extraction team bit, and the resultant "thriller" climax, and the music score is not really a charming little Sufi flavored background, but instead enhances and complements the visuals. Your review seems to be very patronizing in tone.
All the three stories, barring Dibakar's are completely crappy, KJ's film seems like his wet dream on homosexuals and homosexuality, Anurag Kashyap's story is ridiculous, just for the little twist at the end, so much time is wasted, no aesthetic to the story telling either, a sheer waste of time. Zoya akhtar's story seems to be a very bad adaptation of Billy Elliott. If this is what the talent of Bollywood is about and what with gushing reviewers who do not seem to have watched films in any language barring Hindi and that too not many, one wonders at the celebration of Bollywood junk posing as Indian cinema.