|
Post by chalkdevil š on Apr 22, 2024 15:17:34 GMT -5
I started re-watching Poor Things and it occurred to me that if Wes Anderson dropped acid and decided to make a porno, it might look a lot like this. Sounds like someone found a fun new AI prompt to generate some cheap content people can argue about for days on social media.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Howard Voice on Apr 24, 2024 21:44:07 GMT -5
Any fans of the Thursday Murder Club book series want to gossip about the casting reveals so far?
Elizabeth - Helen Mirren Ron - Pierce Brosnan Ibrahim - Ben Kingsley Joyce - TBD
My family's thinking is that Elizabeth was never gonna be anyone else, he might as well have written the part for Helen Mirren. My mom is anti-Pierce Brosnan because she remembers the young debonair version, but I think he's a fun choice and could flex his comedic chops. It's when we get to Ibrahim that I start to worry they have Studio Brain and think they need to cast big megastars in every role. There really aren't any other British actors age 65-80 from anywhere else in the Muslim world? Like...any?
It also worries me because Osman has teased that Joyce will be a similarly giant star. (My family is guessing Emma Thompson.) But...they don't need a megastar! Brenda Blethyn is right there! Penelope Wilton is right there! Even Phyllida Law occasionally still takes work! The UK is overrun with sweet old lady actors!
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Apr 26, 2024 16:25:57 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by Floyd D Barber on Apr 26, 2024 18:03:17 GMT -5
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. Fitzgerald: Deep, thoughtful commentary on American culture. Audience: Oooo, Shiny!
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Apr 26, 2024 22:36:09 GMT -5
Fitzgerald: Deep, thoughtful commentary on American culture. Audience: Oooo, Shiny!Right!
So, do you think all the people writing and directing these adaptations really don't get what Fitzgerald is saying? Because I've read that novel several times and I don't think he is overly subtle in the point he is making. It truly seems to me that at least *some* of these people trying to adapt the novel must understand the cultural commentary he is making.
Or am I just wrong there?
I'm just curious about whether the process of adapting that particular work to a visual medium inherently will produce failures, because these visual artists are literally in the business to produce flashy fake images. That's their literal job. Does this render them unable to deal honestly with this particular story? Or make it so that it just isn't possible to separate the flashy artificiality of film/stage from the flashy artificiality of the story?
I don't know. It still seems to me like it should be possible to put on screen an honest depiction of what Fitzgerald is saying. But given that so many people have tried and failed - for the same reasons - really makes me wonder if I'm wrong. Is The Great Gatsby simply an unfilmable novel?
I did really like that Vulture reviewer's idea that these failed adaptations ultimately are just proving Fitzergerald's cultural commentary is still accurate.
|
|
|
Post by Floyd D Barber on Apr 27, 2024 9:03:35 GMT -5
Fitzgerald: Deep, thoughtful commentary on American culture. Audience: Oooo, Shiny!Right! So, do you think all the people writing and directing these adaptations really don't get what Fitzgerald is saying? Because I've read that novel several times and I don't think he is overly subtle in the point he is making. It truly seems to me that at least *some* of these people trying to adapt the novel must understand the cultural commentary he is making. Or am I just wrong there? I'm just curious about whether the process of adapting that particular work to a visual medium inherently will produce failures, because these visual artists are literally in the business to produce flashy fake images. That's their literal job. Does this render them unable to deal honestly with this particular story? Or make it so that it just isn't possible to separate the flashy artificiality of film/stage from the flashy artificiality of the story? I don't know. It still seems to me like it should be possible to put on screen an honest depiction of what Fitzgerald is saying. But given that so many people have tried and failed - for the same reasons - really makes me wonder if I'm wrong. Is The Great Gatsby simply an unfilmable novel? I did really like that Vulture reviewer's idea that these failed adaptations ultimately are just proving Fitzergerald's cultural commentary is still accurate.
Honestly I don't know. I was just being a smartass. Although maybe I provide evidence of the inherent obliviousness of the general viewing public by my own shallowness?
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Apr 27, 2024 12:44:05 GMT -5
Fitzgerald: Deep, thoughtful commentary on American culture. Audience: Oooo, Shiny!Right!
So, do you think all the people writing and directing these adaptations really don't get what Fitzgerald is saying? Because I've read that novel several times and I don't think he is overly subtle in the point he is making. It truly seems to me that at least *some* of these people trying to adapt the novel must understand the cultural commentary he is making.
Or am I just wrong there?
I'm just curious about whether the process of adapting that particular work to a visual medium inherently will produce failures, because these visual artists are literally in the business to produce flashy fake images. That's their literal job. Does this render them unable to deal honestly with this particular story? Or make it so that it just isn't possible to separate the flashy artificiality of film/stage from the flashy artificiality of the story?
I don't know. It still seems to me like it should be possible to put on screen an honest depiction of what Fitzgerald is saying. But given that so many people have tried and failed - for the same reasons - really makes me wonder if I'm wrong. Is The Great Gatsby simply an unfilmable novel?
I did really like that Vulture reviewer's idea that these failed adaptations ultimately are just proving Fitzergerald's cultural commentary is still accurate.
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.
|
|
|
Post by Jean Luc de Lemur on Apr 27, 2024 18:04:11 GMT -5
My hypothesis is that it has less to do with the novel itselfāthere are lots of very good-looking-but-very-sad films out thereābut with the revenue expectations from a Gatsby film (or in this case stage musical). Itās a popular book, so thereās an expectation of high return, so thereās a tendency to sand off edges. Since itās known for its opulent settings thereās an expectation a Gatsby film will look expensive too, so more pressure for a wide audience.
Iām pretty sure you could do a great-looking Great Gatsby on a budget, though, esp. since itās now in the public domain. I havenāt seen the Redford Gatsby but since it came out during the New Hollywood era my impression isnāt that it was plagued by these issuesāfrom what Iāve heard itās a faithful adaptation, but its problem is that itās boringly acted and directed. So at least once someone avoided the above pitfalls to fall headfirst into the other adaptation risk.
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Apr 27, 2024 18:30:33 GMT -5
My hypothesis is that it has less to do with the novel itselfāthere are lots of very good-looking-but-very-sad films out thereābut with the revenue expectations from a Gatsby film (or in this case stage musical). Itās a popular book, so thereās an expectation of high return, so thereās a tendency to sand off edges. Since itās known for its opulent settings thereās an expectation a Gatsby film will look expensive too, so more pressure for a wide audience. Iām pretty sure you could do a great-looking Great Gatsby on a budget, though, esp. since itās now in the public domain. I havenāt seen the Redford Gatsby but since it came out during the New Hollywood era my impression isnāt that it was plagued by these issuesāfrom what Iāve heard itās a faithful adaptation, but its problem is that itās boringly acted and directed. So at least once someone avoided the above pitfalls to fall headfirst into the other adaptation risk. 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!"
|
|
|
Post by Albert Fish Taco on Apr 29, 2024 10:37:43 GMT -5
Fitzgerald: Deep, thoughtful commentary on American culture. Audience: Oooo, Shiny!Right!
So, do you think all the people writing and directing these adaptations really don't get what Fitzgerald is saying? Because I've read that novel several times and I don't think he is overly subtle in the point he is making. It truly seems to me that at least *some* of these people trying to adapt the novel must understand the cultural commentary he is making.
Or am I just wrong there?
I'm just curious about whether the process of adapting that particular work to a visual medium inherently will produce failures, because these visual artists are literally in the business to produce flashy fake images. That's their literal job. Does this render them unable to deal honestly with this particular story? Or make it so that it just isn't possible to separate the flashy artificiality of film/stage from the flashy artificiality of the story?
I don't know. It still seems to me like it should be possible to put on screen an honest depiction of what Fitzgerald is saying. But given that so many people have tried and failed - for the same reasons - really makes me wonder if I'm wrong. Is The Great Gatsby simply an unfilmable novel?
I did really like that Vulture reviewer's idea that these failed adaptations ultimately are just proving Fitzergerald's cultural commentary is still accurate.
It sounds like it might be a corollary to what Francois Truffaut said about it being impossible to make an effective anti-war movie, because visually you can't avoid it looking at least somewhat cool even if the entire point is clearly about war is hellish and destroys everyone.
|
|
|
Post by pantsgoblin on Apr 29, 2024 11:49:40 GMT -5
Right!
So, do you think all the people writing and directing these adaptations really don't get what Fitzgerald is saying? Because I've read that novel several times and I don't think he is overly subtle in the point he is making. It truly seems to me that at least *some* of these people trying to adapt the novel must understand the cultural commentary he is making.
Or am I just wrong there?
I'm just curious about whether the process of adapting that particular work to a visual medium inherently will produce failures, because these visual artists are literally in the business to produce flashy fake images. That's their literal job. Does this render them unable to deal honestly with this particular story? Or make it so that it just isn't possible to separate the flashy artificiality of film/stage from the flashy artificiality of the story?
I don't know. It still seems to me like it should be possible to put on screen an honest depiction of what Fitzgerald is saying. But given that so many people have tried and failed - for the same reasons - really makes me wonder if I'm wrong. Is The Great Gatsby simply an unfilmable novel?
I did really like that Vulture reviewer's idea that these failed adaptations ultimately are just proving Fitzergerald's cultural commentary is still accurate.
It sounds like it might be a corollary to what Francois Truffaut said about it being impossible to make an effective anti-war movie, because visually you can't avoid it looking at least somewhat cool even if the entire point is clearly about war is hellish and destroys everyone. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Apr 30, 2024 22:48:42 GMT -5
Gotta say, when I watched the Harry Potter movies, I'd never have pegged Daniel Radcliffe as the one to grow up and be the best actor of the three. But here we are.
Congratulations on your Tony nomination, Daniel Radcliffe!
|
|