Want to Know What James Franco Thinks of “The Great Gatsby?”

Posted on May 17, 2013 at 8:00 am

I’m interested in James Franco’s take on “The Great Gatsby” because of what this polymath who attended two grad schools at once has to say about the challenges of adapting great writing to the screen and the differing goals and audience expectations of a book now viewed as a classic and a movie.

The critics who’ve ravaged the film for not being loyal to the book are hypocrites. These people make their living doing readings and critiques of texts in order to generate theories of varying levels of competency, or simply to make a living. Luhrmann’s film is his reading and adaptation of a text—his critique, if you will. Would anyone object to a production of Hamlet in outer space? Not as much as they object to the Gatsby adaptation, apparentlyMaybe that’s because Gatsby is so much about a time and a place, while Shakespeare, in my mind, is more about universal ideas, ideals, and feelings. Luhrmann needed to breathe life into the ephemera and aura of the 20s and that’s just what he succeeded at.

A film, of course, relies on an immediate tension in a fundamentally different way than a book. And barring the most cinematic of texts, films developed from literary sources must run along a tighter thread. Once Gatsby’s mission of wooing Daisy back is accomplished, some of the wind is taken out of the story. We don’t really care about their relationship as much as we care about Gatsby’s overblown efforts to rise in social and economic status to get her back. And this is a universal and rarely accomplished goal that is still relevant today, made even more so by the director’s use of modern window dressing. Gatsby’s desire is revealed to be that of a 16-year-old boy: not only does he want to win Daisy, he wants to control her affections. It reminds me of my high school relationships, where I tortured girlfriends for getting fingered by other boys when they were freshmen. Just move on, dude. We are obsessed by his obsession but aren’t significantly moved by his accomplishment of the goal.

Related Tags:

 

Actors Critics

Roger Ebert’s New Website

Posted on April 9, 2013 at 8:32 am

Roger was very excited about his new website and invited me to be a contributor, along with my friends Odie Henderson, Jim Emerson, Michal Oleszczyk, Thomas W Shales, Omer M. Mozaffar, and Ignatiy Vishnevetsky.  We are going forward and will try to do him proud.  Stay tuned for updates.

Related Tags:

 

Critics Internet, Gaming, Podcasts, and Apps

Tribute: Roger Ebert

Posted on April 4, 2013 at 5:29 pm

Today, just one day after announcing he was taking a “leave of presence” to deal with a recurrence of cancer, Roger Ebert died at age 70.   His influence, like his greatness, is incalculable.

Ebert was a great critic, a great writer, and a great man.  No one will ever come close, in part because the world has changed so dramatically and no one critic will ever have his depth, range, and influence again, but more because no one can ever have Roger’s unique combination of passion, erudition, pugnacity, and, increasingly evident in recent years, a truly extraordinary depth of humanity and generosity of spirit.

There is no greater evidence of that than his response to his illness.  As it became more and more difficult for him to interact with the world physically, he became a pioneer in social media.  Decades before he was the first to bring a national film criticism show to television and his testy debates with Gene Siskel elevated the way we all talked about the movies we saw.  And so it was not surprising that he was one of the first major journalists to establish a presence on Twitter, Facebook, and a blog.  They opened him up to a new category of fans.  More important, they opened him up to the robust conversations of online media.  Unable to speak, he wrote.  And he listened.  He engaged with his audience as fully and generously as he had always engaged with films.  His interactions with talented writers around the world led to the creation of his Far Flung Critic team and later, his Demanders, who wrote about non-theatrical releases.  He gave his thumbs up — and his audience — to a new generation of critics.

Roger was a champion of the best in film.  Watch “Citizen Kane” with his shot-by-shot commentary and analysis and you will never look at that classic or indeed any other movie the same way again.  No one was fiercer when a movie was bad, and my favorites of his books include the trilogy devoted to truly awful movies, with titles like Your Movie Sucks and I Hated Hated Hated Hated This Movie.  But he was a devoted champion of what was best in film.  His great love was the annual film festival he created in his home town of Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, which will have its 15th anniversary next week.  Unlike other film festivals, this was not about unreleased new films.  Now called Ebertfest, it was originally called the Overlooked Film Festival.  It was Roger’s chance to give the neglected treasures a second look.  More important, unlike other festivals where participants race between screenings and agonize over the long lines and one-upsmanship of “What did I miss?” Roger’s festival was so civilized that there was just one film at a time.  We all watched everything together.  And then we all ate together and talked about what we had seen. 

Roger was a brilliant writer.  I loved his description of the “saturated ecstasy” of Gene Kelly’s dance in “Singin’ in the Rain.”  Over the past few years, as he was no longer able to eat food, his sense memories became even more alive.  His more intimate connection to his readers inspired him to open up with thoughts about current events and richly detailed memories of his past.  His autobiography became a best-seller.  He wrote about what he had learned: “‘Kindness’ covers all of my political beliefs. No need to spell them out. I believe that if, at the end, according to our abilities, we have done something to make others a little happier, and something to make ourselves a little happier, that is about the best we can do. To make others less happy is a crime. To make ourselves unhappy is where all crime starts. We must try to contribute joy to the world. That is true no matter what our problems, our health, our circumstances. We must try. I didn’t always know this and am happy I lived long enough to find it out.”

It is impossible to write about Roger without including the love of his life, Chaz.  The great transformation of his last two decades came from the opening of his heart as he fell deeply in love and understood the joy of being loved in return.  In an interview, he said he understood that was the purpose of his life.  In that, he will always inspire me.  I loved, loved, loved, loved, that man.

 

 

Related Tags:

 

Critics Tribute

A Free Issue of Roger Ebert’s Newsletter

Posted on February 1, 2013 at 3:18 pm

I have been a proud and happy subscriber to Roger Ebert’s wonderful newsletter, always filled with intriguing trailers and commentary and much more.  Check out this free issue of the Ebert Club Newsletter and sign up for the teeny price of $10 a year here.  Well worth it!

Related Tags:

 

Critics Trailers, Previews, and Clips Understanding Media and Pop Culture
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2024, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik