Blog

  • The Great Gatsby: The Jazz Age, brought to life

    Baz Luhrmann crafts a cinematic love letter to the “Roaring Twenties”, at the same time cleverly bridging the gap between that era and our own, in his latest film The Great Gatsby. A film tasked with bringing to celluloid (or, rather, digital projection) F. Scott Fitzgerald’s magnum opus will undoubtedly be faced with many challenges. How is it possible to capture the very essence of an epoch in the same way that Fitzgerald managed to, almost effortlessly, chronicle it in his Great American Novel?

    Lurhamnn’s film is perhaps an answer to that question.

    Opening with a beautiful invitation to the 1920s, the film’s photography suggest that of a dream. Lurhmann’s unconventional direction (evidenced in Romeo + Juliet) presents a take on the Gatsby tragedy that is at once both a stunning display of insight into the story, and a presentation that, by its very difference, incites one to journey with the director into exploring the mind of F. Scott Fitzgerald.

    The film is beautifully crafted, there’s no doubt. Each and every piece of it was carefully considered; everything, from the opening titles, to the set design, to the camerawork, even the actors matched to their respective characters, was pondered to great extent. That was evidenced in the film’s execution. Interspersing text with dreamy visuals, cameras weaving between the buildings of New York and the void between Gatsby and Daisy’s homes – “the Green Light at the end of the dock” – those were all very clever touches. Which brings me to the actual aspect of the “green light” concept.

    Studying this novel in my final year at high school, the metaphor of the “green light” was stressed to a great extent. It is, after all, an important concept in considering Gatsby’s unrelenting hope, his unyielding vision to attain his grand dream. However, I felt the whole concept a bit too stressed, too implied in Nick’s narration. What was excellent, though, was how Luhrmann played with this concept: opening the film with it, thus implying its importance from the get-go, using it in the most important scene in an interesting way – tracking the camera away from it as Gatsby’s vision slowly recedes – and fast-cutting to it in various scenes. Showing, not telling, is the key here.

    I thought the idea to portray the narrator, Nick Carraway, as a psychologically damaged individual recounting the events of that fateful summer an interesting decision. It allowed Lurhmann to transcend many of the beautifully crafted words from the novel into film, without losing its essence or forcing anything through implications and cumbersome dialogue. Nick, played by Toby Maguire, becomes the eyes through which we perceive the tragic tale of the great Jay Gatsby. Maguire’s portrayal of this complex character was executed brilliantly – I thought he conveyed the distinct traits of the written character. However, the constant voice-over narration did seem a bit overwhelming at times; it felt like the director was choosing to “tell, not show” us the events unfolding, or allow us to read the character’s emotions through the individual actors. All in all, though, Nick’s step from the book to film was superb, and those familar with the novel will be hard-pressed to not make some connection between Nick and Fitzgerald – especially in that final shot (I don’t want to give any spoilers here… go watch it to understand this!)

    Let’s talk about the music. The decision to use big-name rappers like Jay-Z, Kanye West, pop stars (sadcore singer Lana del Rey, rock extraordinare Jack White, even will.i.am and Fergie) was indeed controversial. “How could you possibly link these artists to the 1920s?!” it was decried from the high halls of Fitzgerald aficionados. Well, Mr Baz Lurhmann managed it – and managed it quite well. The way I interpreted this choice of soundtrack was linking it to the jazz music of Gatsby’s time. Jazz was to that era what our music – Hip-Hop, pop, electro-dance, alternative rock – is to us: a platform to chronicle the zeitgeist. By using contemporary music in a period film, Lurhmann inadvertently forged a bridge between these two times, essentially making Gatsby’s story relevant to us, indicating it to be a tale that could have happened just as much then as it could now. And also: it would draw in a younger crowd who would otherwise dismiss the opportunity to witness this film. Essentially: he makes this oft-complex story accessible to a generation perhaps struggling to get to grips with The Great Gatsby.

    The fast-paced camera work, at times soaring and then fast-cutting, might be a bit disconcerting. But here, I interpreted this as a conscious decision by Lurhmann: a means of implying the restlessness of the time, the juxtaposition of Nick’s home in the staid Mid-West with the boom of Wall Street and dynamism of a fledgling New York. Using those fast-cut shots and dissolving transition effects in the early scene at the Buchanan residence allowed us to glimpse snippets of dialog lifted straight from the novel, whilst absorbing the aura of trouble about to brew.

    Leonardo DiCaprio must be commended on his performance. I don’t think there’s anyone else who could play Jay Gatsby as well as I witnessed here. He brilliantly plays the quintessential charming, mysterious figure that inspires such speculation and masks an incredible ambition. This could very well by DiCaprio’s performance of his life. His Gatsby is carefully executed, tenuously wrung-out until that final explosion of anger and fear in the swelter of the Plaza room at the film’s main confrontation.

    Carey Mulligan’s Daisy was just as I’d imagined her from the book: beautiful yet superficial, a woman who represents Gatsby’s “unattainable dream”, and, by extension, the great American Dream – the chance of dreaming big, of having enormous hope; the romantic notion of believing in the dream and fighting for it, in this case, to the very bitter end. Joel Edgerton as Tom Buchanan was superb: he manifested the “foul dust [that] floated in the wake of [Gatsby’s] dreams.” His confrontation with Gatsby was perhaps my favourite scene between Tom and Gatsby, well played by both actors. I was also pleasantly surprised by Amitabh Bachchan’s Meyer Wolfsheim. Whilst only in a small segment, and clearly a ploy on the studios to attract the lucrative Asia-Pacific market, the Bollywood legend seemed very well suited to the shadowy role of this mafia boss.

    This adaptation of Gatsby is perhaps the most honest one yet. Yes, it’s a film that, aesthetically, is made very different to what many cinemagoers would expect. This is, after all, the daring Baz Luhrmann directing. However, I felt that the essence of the book was intricately carried over to the film. Many of the book’s major lines were not, as so often happens, truncated, or weirdly changed for some arcane cinematic purpose. Understandably  not everything will make it over to the film, but the choices Luhrmann made were good ones. The book’s ability to chronicle the zeitgeist of the Jazz Age was indeed mirrored in this film’s retelling of that, with the added touch of making it relevant to our time. It’s not something that can be achieved easily, and Luhrmann should be commended for that.

    Reviews are quite mixed on aggregator sites like Rotten Tomatoes, and understandably so. The book’s been around for over 80 years now, so there’s bound to be many people with highly opinionated ideas of how this story should be told on the big screen – if it should even be told at all. You could listen to them, and decide not to watch this film. Or, you could take the chance and experience something magical, and interpret for yourself what this film means for the legacy of Fitzgerald, and of this remarkable book. And maybe even just have a good old time enjoying a well-made, entertaining cinematic experience too.

    I’ve been waiting to watch this film for nearly two years now – ever since it was announced that Baz Luhrmann would be adapting this novel. I’d become familiar with Luhrmann’s style from Romeo + Juliet. His unique direction allows him to bring to life stories that are oft-plagued by the dense study of their eras. With Romeo + Juliet, he modernised the classic love story as a feud between two rival business families, adding guns and cars to the mix. And here, with Gatsby, the music, the visuals, the glamour, the lavishness and the decadent colours and sets transform the black-and-white words into a stunning portrayal of the classic Great American Novel. However, with the audacity to be different, to take existing, well-respected literature and just let yourself go, you’re undoubtedly setting yourself up for (very harsh) criticism. In that vain, I think this film won’t go down too well with some people. However, what can be gleaned from this is the willingness to accept another’s interpretation of this work. Literature by its very nature is open-ended, and up to the consumer of that literature to extract meaning. This film is just one man’s understanding of a very well written tale. And I thought he accomplished it with aplomb.


  • Why Science Fiction Matters

    Science fiction is a strange beast. After so many years of churning out brilliant writers who have pushed literary boundaries, it’s still somehow relegated to the fringes of mainstream media. In other words: it’s still seen as the “geeky thing”, the medium which those interested in the high-tech, science, engineering, anything technical affix themselves to. Yes, recent pop currents have popularised the “nerd culture” (hipsters, I’m looking at you) but when it comes to the real SF stuff – the Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov, Douglas Adams arenas – those pseudo-interested parties shy away and we return once again to the fringes of society where these greats still dwell.

    Why do I think Science Fiction is so important? It’s fictional science, after all – it’s all in the name; surely this can’t be elevated to the arena of those more “hard-hitting” genres such as historic fiction, biography, political drama, even thrillers?

    Well, why can’t it?

    Inherent in the name of this genre is the word science. What is science? It’s a tool for understanding. For predicting. For modelling theories and making sense and getting a grip on the vastness of our cosmos. The fiction part is where the fun happens – where the author’s imagination can let loose and the great fusion between whimsical fantasy and hard science converge to create a solid framework for seeing not just fantastical futuristic worlds, but ourselves, our present societies.

    Science Fiction provides a structure for us to understand the way we live today through the lens of a future world; whether that world is a hundred years away, or merely set in the next year – it’s inconsequential. The fictional representation of advanced scientific application to problem solving and dramatisation on one level inspires the great pursuit of science, and on a deeper level allows contemplation. And contemplation is a rare thing in today’s interconnected, rapid world.

    Added to this is the fundamental fact that SF is one of our best testing beds for new ideas, and thus becomes a great window into what the future world might look like. Because, after all, SF is what gets most people interested in the fields of science, engineering, the design of future worlds… those trail-blazers, innovators that are the true inventors of humanity’s future. If their minds came into contact with the words of Clarke or Asimov or Bradbury, then undoubtedly, somewhere, at some time, their work will be influenced by these and other titans of Science Fiction.

    I leave you with the words of Sir Arthur C. Clarke: “One of the biggest roles of science fiction is to prepare people to accept the future without pain and to encourage a flexibility of mind. Politicians should read science fiction, not westerns and detective stories.”


  • The case for an iPhone 6

    What sounds better when you’re buying a new car: a “2013 model” or a “2012 S” model? Nomenclature is a powerful thing, and it can extend its control to determining how people buy products. At least, that’s what a former Apple consultant believes, according to an AppleInsider post.

    Apple is noted for its simplicity, its clean design philosophy, and, most importantly, the clarity of its product naming. You don’t hear of the “Apple iMac G5600-913” (or something ridiculous like that). It’s simply “iMac”.

    When it comes to their flagship product, however, the Cupertino giant has had an interesting take. Yes, the names of the various iPhones are still elegant, and they do denote the revision cycle: single number for a “major release” (e.g. iPhone 4, iPhone 5), and an added “S” (no one knows what it exactly means) for “revisions” – such as the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4S.

    However, as with all things tech, the pace of development and competition moves rapidly. Apple’s biggest rival, Samsung, has already announced its next major device: the Galaxy S4. It’s packed with features, and poses a serious threat to iPhone. Now, psychologically, if Apple were to announce an iPhone “5S” this July at WWDC, most would draw the conclusion that the company is finally slowing down on the innovation train. Already, iOS is accused of its dated aesthetic. It hasn’t changed much since 2008; most visuals remain the same. The next iPhone itself isn’t expected to bring a dramatic new design, like its predecessor the iPhone 4 did. But if they were to name it an “iPhone 6”… that would be a major thing. It would denote a major leap up from last year’s 5, and, like the car analogy earlier, it would just “sound” like a newer, more enticing product. Something that would do wonders for Apple’s reputation.

    The consultant, Ken Segall, argues that Apple’s naming pattern for the iPhone is sending out a negative message about the product and the company itself. It’s psychologically important for us, living in a consumerist culture, to get the latest and greatest. That’s just a fact. We can’t escape it.

    But let’s not get ahead of ourselves here. Realistically speaking, and from a plethora of rumours, part leaks and analyst reports, along with obvious precedent, there’s no expectation for Apple to do anything drastic to the next iPhone. That’s expected to happen next year (2014), with the “iPhone 6” – which would follow this year’s expected “iPhone 5S.” What is expected, is a major revision of iOS. Apple’s design guru, Sir Jonathan Ive, is now heading the software design team, and rumours are that he’s already slashing the existing skeuomorphic tendencies and working towards a cleaner, minimal aesthetic.

    Whilst its great to speculate and hope for an iPhone called the “iPhone 6” to land this year, we must remeber that Apple’s naming culture hasn’t really hurt iPhone sales:

    Despite Segall’s protestations, Apple’s naming conventions don’t appear to be slowing sales of the company’s hit smartphone. Apple CEO Tim Cook has previously noted that each revision of the iPhone, regardless of name, has gone on to sell more than all of its predecessors combined (from the AppleInsider post)

    Whether the next iPhone will be the iPhone 6, or the iPhone 5S, one thing’s certain: before the year’s end, the software that powers the smartphone that shook the world, iOS, will certainly look and feel different. And bottom line: that experience, above all, is what counts on an Apple mobile device.


  • The iWatch: What’s it all about?

    Continuous Band – iWatch U.S. Patent by Apple

    Apple has a history of trailblazing: the successes of the iMac, iPod, iPhone and iPad speak for themselves. But the criticism drawn against the Cupertino giant recently has centred around a perceived “lack of innovation” in the company. Recent offerings have been a bit dry; yes, we’ve had the iPad mini and Retina MacBook Pros, remarkable products in their own right. But since the introduction of the iPad, there hasn’t really been a new Apple product that has shaken the world.

    Perhaps it’s a little too early to expect something radical. Innovation takes time. And maybe the exponential increase in the pace of technology has made us expect too much from Apple, too soon. But despite that, rumours have been trickling in over the past few months of a device that could just be the “next big thing” from 1 Infinite Loop. No, it has nothing to do with an Apple television set. In fact, it’s a product we take for granted: time pieces. (more…)