Random Movie Thoughts

So I know this review is about theater and not movies, but this is relevant to movies, too. That review is talking about the new Broadway adaptation of The Great Gatsby. And you know how every film adaptation of this novel fails? Apparently this stage version also fails. For largely the same reasons, which the reviewer there articulates.

Is it actually too hard to put on screen/stage what Fitzgerald is saying in the novel? If every adapter is getting distracted by the wealth and flashy parties, etc, or taking a cold, bitter book and making it some emotional love story, is this something related to the change in medium itself? 

Like, are visual artists drawn to the visual arresting parts of the story and unwilling or unable to depict the moral ambivalence? (Almost as if the artists are becoming Nick.) It seems strange and unlikely to me that all these people writing/directing these adaptations are missing the point of the novel. At least some of them have to understand what Fitzgerald is actually saying, right? So. is capturing that commentary on American culture something that is just not possible on screen? Like, the fact that you're making this big movie (or musical) does that inherently drive up the flashy, glitzy part and thereby undercut the point? (Or, as that Vulture reviewer alludes to, is this somehow unintentionally actually making Fitzgerald's point for him?? By showing that people are *still* distracted by the flashy fake image?)

I don't know. Thought I'd ask about this here. Because it is so odd to me that so many adaptations of this novel have been tried and they all seem to fall victim to the same problems. 

I think there are people who are drawn to the Great Gatsby who do just engage with it on a surface level, and don't really understand it, and those people might be more capable of getting the movie made because it's easier to sell something to producers on style rather than substance. I think of something like Watchmen, where people had been trying to get it made for decades, and the one who finally did was Zack Snyder, who clearly never understood on anything but a surface level.

Nah, I've seen the 1974 Redford film. I find that one is also frivolous. It does more lean into how Gatsby is a tasteless fraud. But I think that is maybe the only area where it gets close to saying what Fitzgerald is meaning. It's a surface reading of "these rich people are mean!"

Truffaut was always true to rights in that observation. Even the most bleak and/or grotesque war films like Come and See and any WW1 film become misery porn. It's a thought I had frequently watching Civil War, a film I considered mediocre upon walking out and dislike more every time I think about it.

Having watched a load of Charlie Chaplin films lately, here’s some things we should bring back:

- belching/hiccupping and thumping your chest after eating
- hopping on one leg as you skid around a corner
- striking a match on a fat man’s arse

I definitely read it that way the first few times I saw it mentioned. I think it took me actually reading a description of the film to realize it wasn't that. 

Had no idea until earlier this month that Furiosa is out this week. Some reviews are saying that (paraphrased) it's a shame that she's almost a side character in her own movie. Which makes sense, since Max was definitely a side character in Fury Road, and even in earlier movies was more someone the story happened to than any sort of active participant.

Yeah, I've always liked the read of: "Max Rockatansky is a Forrest Gump-esque mythic figure who had a role in major events throughout wasteland history through sheer blind luck, and it's okay if it doesn't all make sense together, because he's a tall tale. He's a campfire story."

I’ll probably write more on it in the Last Movie Watched Thread when I have the chance but I didn’t think this at all.

Tubi, surprisingly, is a continuous source of both good movies and glorious schlock. Another streamer that doesn't seem to shy away from cheesy drive-in fare and old horror and si fi B movies is Amazon.

So, uh, in the Reagan movie out later this summer, Creed's Scott Stapp plays Frank Sinatra: www.imdb.com/title/tt1723808/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_cl_sm

Look, the cheap, soft lit, green screen backgrounds with Dennis Quaid's Reagan impression, and the slowed down cover of Everybody Wants to Rule the World in the trailer feels so much like parody that it's hard to take this seriously. And this is clearly a serious biopic, right? It must be. They have full sweeping on location shots of Reagan on horseback. But if it is, why is Jon Voight's fake beard so bad?

Kevin Sorbo couldn't even make that list.

Also, why does Dennis Quaid need two different stunt doubles for this movie?