It occurred to me a number of times that I've read books, seen plays and movies, heard songs? (for some reason it happens less with songs) that had something, yet didn't come off the way I expected. Maybe they were flawed genius, maybe it is the flaw in my vision, the mote in my eye. Maybe it was just something I anticipated, but didn't get....and here's the best idea.....this will lead to further inspiration. For me to push further. I edited this because the first draft seemed almost like criticism, which wasn't what I envisioned. This is basically a creative exercise for me.
Here's the art I want to see:
- from David Lynch's Inland Empire. There's a storyline/ casting change I would make-- in a play I envision with similar ideas to those in this movie ( because it plays with the difference between reality and art, and when one bleeds into the other). Lynch admits, in the documentary that was made alongside the making of this fictional movie, he was letting it "grow organically" and almost without supervision. It seems it grew into a platypus instead of a sleek creature.Here's one of the better parts of the movie--
In my idea, there would be more time on the actors' affair that developed out of their onscreen romance. In Inland Empire, Laura Dern becomes some broken denizen of the night on Hollywood Boulevard's street of broken dreams. I understand the symbolism, but I would spend less time on that. More time would be spent accentuating the emotional bond between the romantic leads' relationship and how it came from their development of an onscreen romance. I want multiple scenes of them working out their lines: ideally you would get this double-vision 1) Development of the characters they are playing, 2) Development of the "actors'" character--play within a play.
Maybe some of it would be a dream, or an additional art spinoff--would that be too complicated? Starting to sound like Matrix or Inception, but I like that idea. Tough stuff--a real challenge, I know.
The male lead would be different, less of the cocky, smarmy charismatic charmer, more brooding and needy: James Dean-like or Montgomery Cliff type. Maybe this could be a little easier if they are working on scenes from classic plays or movies, to save context for the audience. And maybe a weird twist is the classic scenes could be of bad love, love gone bad, wrong love, so it wouldn't be the obvious-- "we kissed and fell in love" moment.
Would Twelfth Night, be too obvious? Yes.
How about Blanche and Stanley: A Streetcar Named Desire. All that bad, heavy seduction and flirtation. New Orleans Voodoo. Flowers for the Dead. Flores para los muertos. For Blanche. Remember he's going to rape her and send her to the loony bin in the end. Worth playing around with:
The White is the original lines of this tense scene in Streetcar.
The red is the additions for the actors discussing the scene. WA is Woman Actor, MA is Male Actor.
(In Stanley and Stella's bedroom, Blanche in the bathroom)
Stella: You come out with me while Blanche is getting dressed. WA: Stella's feeling frustrated and all--(demonstrates arms akimbo).
MA: Sure, and Stanley--slouching against the chiffonniere, hooded eyes (Demonstrates) After he just dug through Blanche's suitcase. Threw it all back in a big mess. Not angry, just-- brutal. Controlling.
Stanley: Since when do you give me orders? MA: With a chin thrust at Stella. He's possessing his lair--her sister's invaded it--she's in the wrong. He starts pacing as he-he gets out his lighter and cigarette which they mention later in the scene. Message is--he ain't going nowhere. Setting up shop. But really he wants???
WA: Blanche excites him. Interests him partially because the sister is so different from his wife--less obedient. A challenge. That's why he really doesn't want to leave?? Stanley's used to taking what he wants, even if his wife is going to be just a thin wall away.
MA: Are you sure? He's testing Blanche. Wants to know how far she will go--pretty far, it seems, when she later sends Stella out for a Coke to get rid of her. He seems to have no compunction about using himself as bait. He is not afraid of her supposed sexual power over men. But, I don't think he's indifferent. In fact, I think he is aware of his own power over women. Stella, for example, without all the usual flowery flirtation.
WA: Oh, wow. I think you're right. It's like that line in Taming of the Shrew--when two fires meet...who's gonna win?
MA: We know. Stella: Are you going to stay here and insult her? WA: Confrontational.
Stanley: You're damn tootin' I'm gonna stay here. WA:Stella backs off, should spin and leave in a mutter. She's not entirely sure what is going on, but is used to thinking positively about Blanche, about men's attraction to her sister. Blanche is the big sister that took care of her.
(Stella goes to the porch. Blanche comes out in a red satin robe.)
Blanche: Hello, Stanley! Here I am ,all freshly bathed and scented, and feeling like a brand new human being!
WA: What's she doing? Oblivious to the tension between Stella and Stanley. Or using it. She just has developed a long habit of flirtatiousness--it usually cows men. But not Stanley. She's beginning to realize he sees through her romantic pink shade, and she is both wary and challenged. How should I show this? Spotty eye contact. Side glances. She dislikes the hard truth that Stanley relishes. He is a challenge to seduce on any level. But she really doesn't know any other way to deal with men: she is feeling loss of control of this situation. She is going to lose this game.
MA: (In Stanley mode): Huh. Damn straight.
Stanley lights cigarette: That's good. MA: He is only looking out of the corner of eye, as he had returned to slouch against the dresser. He's watching what she's doing for two reasons: he doesn't trust her / she stimulates him ( I agree) ..the "good" carries an amount of sensuality. His mouth is slightly open.
Blanche draws curtains betw' them. Excuse me while I slip on my pretty new dress.WA: Coy. And prim.
Stanley: You go right ahead, Blanche. MA: Sarcasm, at the coyness...hiding interest. But..watching.
Blanche: I understand there is to be a little card party to which we ladies are cordially not invited!
WA: Her voice is pedantic, as if that will work on Stanley.
Stanley: Yeah? MA: Should he shrug--like who cares? Or be combative..argumentative?
WA: Shrug.
(Blanche dressing): Where's Stella? WA: Slight nervous edge in her voice--afraid, or wants her to be gone, or --both? Does she really think she can steal her sister's husband? Does she really want that? No, she really just wants to charm him, because she usually can do that with men. But also? Maybe she's curious?
Stanley: Out on the porch. MA: His voice is thick, full of double meaning.
WA: What meanings? Sexual? Or ...control freaky?
MA: Both, I think.
Blanche: I'm going to ask you a favor in a moment. WA: She seems to recognize her sweet voice is sounding phony. Her romantic fog is dissipating--her smile nervous.
Stanley: What could that be, I wonder? WA: Is he implying sexual favors?
MA: Not necessarily, just recognizing her manipulation.
Blanche: Some buttons in back! You may enter! (he enters with a smoldering look). How do I look?
Stanley: You look all right. MA: His voice should sound tight, strained, overly controlled.
Blanche: Many thanks! Now the buttons. WA: Blanche recognizes the effect, feels back in power.
Stanley: I can't do nothin' with them. WA: Does he actually try and fail?
MA: No, he's just flat out refusing. It's a way of telling her---I'm onto your game.
WA: But she told him what she wanted and he came through the curtains--why?
MA: Maybe he did want to see her close up. But not give her the satisfaction of being that intimate. Voyeurism. Yet there is a long uncomfortable moment between them when he doesn't move. This is putting him back in the driver's seat--a moment of intimidation, perhaps.
Blanche: You men with your big clumsy fingers. May I have a drag on your cig?
WA: 2nd attempt at control and flirtation..
MA: but it is less effective. He refuses his own, tosses her the pack instead and moves away from her and the curtained partition.
Stanley: Have one for yourself. MA: Sharing the same cigarette is too romantic for him. He definitely does NOT want romance from Blanche and does everything to kill her notions of this.
Blanche: Why, Thanks! It looks like my trunk has exploded. WA: Is there such a thing as Sarcastic Charm?
MA: Sure. Try it out on me. (She repeats the line with sarcastic charm).
Stanley: Me an' Stella were helping you unpack. WA: He maybe should sound a little uncharacteristically cute.
MA: Yeah. I see what you mean. Like--(he repeats the line).
Blanche: Well, you certainly did a fast and thorough job of it. WA: I say--overly enthusiastic?
Stanley: It looks like you raided some stylish shops in Paris.MA: Deeper sarcasm.
WA: Definitely.
Blanche: Ha-ha! Yes, clothes are my passion! WA: Back to the unconscious flirting..she's said this line to someone else before.
Stanley: What does it cost for a string of fur pieces like that? MA: The initial impact of the situation's sexual tension is wearing off of him. Now he's down to brass tacks.
Blanche: Why, they were a tribute from an admirer of mine! WA: Blatant attempt to point out the effect of her charm on others--trying to recapture the romantic fog.
Stanley: He must've had a lot of --admiration!MA: I'm not really sure what to do with this line. I can see it two ways--totally sarcastic--implying some nefarious dirty relationship in Blanche's past...or sort of schoolboy innocent..either really charmed or pretending to be? It couldn't have been too harsh or Blanche, who seems sensitive to every nuance in his voice, wouldn't gush on in the next part...
WA: I see what you mean.
Blanche: Oh, in my youth I excited some admiration! But look at me now...would you think it possible that I was once considered to be attractive? WA: Back to the old, flirtatious Blanche--another regular line of hers.
Stanley: Your looks are okay. WA: So, here's a thought..what's Stanley's game here? Why compliment her at this point, if all he wants is to get to the bottom of the money situation at Belle Reve? And he and Blanche both know, from Stanley, this is a compliment--even if it is intentionally understated.
Blanche: I was fishing for a compliment, Stanley.WA: Wrong move, Blanche.
MA: Or was it? She got him to talk about himself.
Stanley: I don't go in for that stuff. WA: To further our previous thought.. I don't need that fluffy stuff to keep a woman interested. There's an underlying sexual primitiveness, unrestraint? that has more weight than effeminate flirtation.
Blanche: What--- stuff? MA: Blanche plays this wrong, keeping up the coy, southern belle routine even though she knows it doesn't work on Stan. She's run out of ideas. Except.. listening.
Stanley: Compliments to women about their looks. I never knew a woman that didn't know if she were good-looking or not without being told, and some give themselves credit for more than they've got. I once went out with a doll who said to me," I'm the glamorous type, I'm the glamorous type!" I said, "So what?" MA: He's talking about his life before Stella. A crack in the armor? He is more obliquely telling her--yeah, others find me attractive too--I can play it that way, too.
Blanche: And what did she say then? WA: Blanche the good listener.
Stanley: She didn't say nothing. That shut her up like a clam. WA: Take a hint, Blanche?
Blanche: Did it end the romance? WA: In Blanche's past world it should have. But we're not in Blanche's world, which has been dead for decades.
Stanley: It ended the conversation--that was all. Some men are took in by this Hollywood glamour stuff and some men are not. MA: Meaning, "I still got what I wanted."
Blanche: I'm sure you belong to the 2nd category. WA: Intended as a compliment to him.
Stanley: That's Right. MA: Proud.
Blanche: I can't see any witch of a woman casting a spell on you. WA: Read: don't include me in that category, Stanley, you big strong man.
Stanley: That's---right. MA: This time skeptical.
Blanche: You're simple, straightforward, and honest, a little bit on the primitive side, I should think. To interest you a woman would have to---WA: She's reading him right by the letter, but not in spirit--Southern flirtation is too ingrained in her soul.
Stanley: Lay...her cards on the table. MA: He's challenging her to do so.
Blanche:Well, I never cared for wishy-washy people. That was why, when you walked in here last night, I said to myself--"My sister has married a man!"--Of course that was all I could tell about you. WA: Blanche fail. She is trapped in her own ways..she is only trying to appear that she's laying her cards out without really doing so.
Stanley: Now, let's cut the re-bop!
MA: Imagine she really had laid her cards out? What would they have said? What kind of bargain could the two of them made? WA: Good Question? Without violating her southern sense of a proper woman? It would have to come from a man who does not act like Stanley. That's the tragedy. Romance dies. The Romance is ended.
I don't know. I just tried to reread this through eyes more sympatico to Stanley. How judgmental is he really? If Blanche had been more real with him, admitted more carnally to her attraction to him, (which I think is a large part of the truth of Blanche--she only thinks she has to flirt like a belle, because that is what is allowed--not the other. Maybe Stanley would have trusted her more, met her on the same turf, if she was more open in her feelings rather than hiding behind a Chinese fan. Stanley is honest in his own strange way--which is what makes him dislike Blanche's romantic layers.
So, Part II: 2nd time through this same scene. The male and female lead agree to do it all without any dialogue, just blocking--to feel through the emotional content. How will it go? More Lynch-like this time. What does Stanley want? What does Blanche want? That's easier, I think. She wants to believe in Romance, that it can still be found--Stanley? Hmm. Truth. Stanley wants truth. And is not satisfied.
Stanley paws through Blanche's suitcase, picking up handfuls of jewelry, looks squinting at Stella, then throws it all back in a messy heap. Then he settles in, slouches against the dresser, looking up through his eyebrows. Stella stands between him and the bathroom door, expelling a blast of air through her nostrils and with her hands on her hips. He jerks his chin in a dismissive way; she stomps one foot, turns, and leaves for the porch. He gets out his lighter and a cigarette, begins pacing a few steps in the small room.
Blanche peeks out from a crack in the open bathroom door, then breezes from the bathroom, swinging lightly the sash of her red robe, that swishes as she walks. He looks at her steadily while he lights his cigarette, goes back to the dresser to slouch and look from the corner of his eye. Sultry in his smoking, lips parted, eyes half closed.
Blanche makes an apologetic, hand gesture as she moves, hesitantly, toward the curtained partition, with a prim, polite nod, turning her head sideways, briefly, towards Stanley. Stanley watches intently, smokes intently. The smoke is expelled toward the curtain.
Blanche dresses nervously, quickly.
Stanley shrugs.
Blanches' fluttery, nervous hands move the curtain. She appears with her back exposed, towards Stanley. Talks to him over her shoulder. He moves to inside the curtained area, and looks her up and down. She smiles coquettishly, knowingly.
He lifts his hands, with the lit cigarette, in a gesture of refusal, turns his head, but doesn't move. She quickly and dexterously does the buttons herself, making little clicking noises. When she finishes she watches him take the cigarette from his mouth, and reaches out for it.
He transfers the cigarette to his farther hand, and digs out the pack from his pocket, shakes one out the top, and offers it to her. She smiles radiantly, takes one, Stan lights it, and she turns to see her trunk. She looks quickly at Stanley, whose face is impassive. Then he makes a childish grimace and scratches his eyebrow with the cigarette hand. He moves back to the dresser and sneers. She steps towards him and lightly touches his arm, smiling and tossing her head.
He picks up her fur piece, holds it towards her--she takes it,strokes it lovingly, opens her eyes, wide, then holds it out to look at it from a distance. Stanley is watching her every move, like a predator. He looks slightly uncomfortable,his forehead wrinkled, eyes glazed briefly. Then he smirks and raises his hand dismissively. Stares above her head as he speaks, statuesque.
Blanche takes a small step forward, full attention on his face. One ear cocked toward him slightly. At the end of his speech he drills into her eyes with his. She looks away flirtatiously. He almost imperc eptively shakes his head. One side of his mouth goes up. She glances up at "Cards" to find him staring at her intently again. She returns the gaze briefly, but is the first to break it. Dramatic hand gestures replace the gaze. He explodes and roughly extinguishes his cigarette.
I want to keep distilling this down, smaller and more visceral--till I get to the essence of their relationship and differences.
Maybe this is it---Stanley: backing off, watching, but positioning himself for an aggressive attack.
Triangulating.
Blanche: Approaching, wanting to be loved, appreciated. Sex is not the goal, a means to an end.
A raw nerve trying to find comfort in a harsh environment.
I just realized, by rereading this, that I lost my train of thought, my focus on purpose, just like AT sez. Because, what would be really killer is, in my double matrix of a scene, if while the "play" scene ends with Stanley and Blanche not connecting, Male and Female actor turn out to be driven to a white hot intensely romantic understanding of how into the moment they were, how art was bringing them to love. That was my mission.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
- from Everything Is Illuminated(movie). Love the beginning, the discordance of cultures, the crazy humor Eugene Hutz and the writer brings to the Odessan characters. It's a more nuanced variation on Steve Martin's "wild-and-crazy-guys" or Borat. Much improved and more sympathetic--people caught in odd, horrifying vortexes of life and history, leading to ridiculous eccentricities, like the grandfather's. I'd put more of that in the 2nd half--where the history got heavy, the WWII holocaust and anti-Semitism.. I want to lighten up with more of the humor from the first half, rather than using a feel-good, it's the war that's evil, not the people, sentimentality. They are all buddies at the end: the war is over.Yeah, right, send that message to the human race--don't think it opened the telegram.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSUOYY4oukc
I just finished the novel, and of course, it's message was quite different from the movie's. So many important things were left out, especially concerning the narrating characters, Alex and Safran. They do not end on such an upbeat, we-are-the-world note. I suspected this. The grandfather--the ending for him is not even addressed in the movie, nor is Alex the translator's final decision. I am unsure of the novel's message about the nature of love, point of life--quite varied and messy. But everyone would like to save the others, it seems, even when they cannot. I still like Alex's (and his mirror grandfather)
perspective the best. The Jew? Eh. I don't wish to issue spoilers to anyone who might read. One thing is similar book-to-movie: Both begin better than they end.
(Insert Here How I Would Do It) I don't know how I would do it now. More like the book, less like the hollywood movie, for sure.
I so like Alex, in the same fashion that I like Holden Caulfield. I was rather deflated when his voice (I'm assuming the writer thought, he is intelligent, he will be affected by the "hero's" input) begins to change and conform to American standards and idioms...takes away from the humor. But I understand why the writer felt this was effective verisimilitude. Still, the book loses its humor as it continues---I'm trying to decide if this is necessary.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- New Topic: On the Road, the new one, by the Brazilian director, Walter Salles. I think he did The Motorcycle Diaries, and possibly The Rum Diaries--Johnny Depp as Hunter S. Thompson, once again--nothing wrong with that--he's good at playing him. That was the movie I most enjoyed. Dude has a thing with diaries, bio-pics. Perhaps needs a writer?:))))
Anyway, I just saw the On The Road movie. I will admit, a daunting story to film. But, something of the overall spirit of Kerouac was what was missing, I think. The director got too caught up in the most prurient, sensationalist moments of the story, ignoring its philosophical vantage point as avant garde for the beats, hippies, bohemians. The Dharma Bum thing. He obsessed over the Benzedrine cleverly obtained from Vick's atomizers, (Several long scenes on this...necessary for point?) the sex moments that never had a spiritual dimension, the overspill of bisexuality and voyeurism. There was a hint of Kerouac being the Prince Hal voyeur, but that could have been clarified--instead he opted for him being a reluctant, shy participant rather than a torn soul.
That's how I imagine Kerouac, trapped between euphoric Nirvana and conscience pleasing Catholicism--well, we in St. Petersburg know where he ended up--living in his mother's house, without a woman (or man), without a pot of his own to piss in, hanging out drunk at the Flamingo Bar on 9th ST in NE St. Pete --secretly, against mother's wishes, visiting the boys at the Beaux Artes in Pinellas Park (before it burned). But ultimately "a boy's best friend is his mother"---says taxidermist, Norman Bates. I most certainly would have done it differently, from cast to scene choice. The road looked beautiful, and in places it rang true to the late 40's. But that wasn't all that was needed to capture this story correctly. I feel like one of my rich "closet bohemian" students filmed this--no names, ahem--just conformists that secretly break out in a hippie rash on the weekends. And regret it a week later when they get caught. And expelled. But, by some miracle, are allowed to graduate.
That's how I imagine Kerouac, trapped between euphoric Nirvana and conscience pleasing Catholicism--well, we in St. Petersburg know where he ended up--living in his mother's house, without a woman (or man), without a pot of his own to piss in, hanging out drunk at the Flamingo Bar on 9th ST in NE St. Pete --secretly, against mother's wishes, visiting the boys at the Beaux Artes in Pinellas Park (before it burned). But ultimately "a boy's best friend is his mother"---says taxidermist, Norman Bates. I most certainly would have done it differently, from cast to scene choice. The road looked beautiful, and in places it rang true to the late 40's. But that wasn't all that was needed to capture this story correctly. I feel like one of my rich "closet bohemian" students filmed this--no names, ahem--just conformists that secretly break out in a hippie rash on the weekends. And regret it a week later when they get caught. And expelled. But, by some miracle, are allowed to graduate.
So what is the Kerouac spirit? Well--somewhat hard to define, given he ran home to live (and die) with his mother here in retirement heaven after his fiasco with Neal Cassidy. A good Catholic boy. Yet, I think there was some sincerity in his "on the road" mission. How to make that real in the movie? Start with contrast. What was the normalcy of 1947, where the movie begins? Why was this oppressive to a guy like Jack? Somehow, he doesn't come off that sympathetic in the movie--too much effort to make these people cool rather than sympathetic. The Hipster market was in the corner of someone's eye, I'm afraid, instead of the story. It all felt too frenetic, too much mania, not enough..pause, to understand why one needed the road. Too much admiration of Dean Moriarty, not enough challenge to what was wrong, broken, salvageable, about America. My two favorite scenes? The truck scenes: one with the guy who just had his toe amputated who drily and hilariously says, "I wouldn't recommend it" , then the cut to the guys in back taking piss breaks. More of that, real life stuff. Less double hand jobs. Or at least put them in better perspective. Sid and Nancy become angels, something like that. Yeah, really.
*****$$$$$$$*********$$$$$$$$$*********$$$$$$$$***********$$$$$$$$$$$************
The toulouse bohemian grotesquery--
*****$$$$$$$*********$$$$$$$$$*********$$$$$$$$***********$$$$$$$$$$$************
- Moulin Rouge- Director: Baz Luhrmann, also known for Strictly Ballroom, Romeo + Juliet, and , I believe, the new Gatsby remake, which I have a healthy skepticism of as I should have had for The Raven. Style over substance as well, as these new young directors are wont to do? They almost make it. MR has a lot to recommend it--like R+J it is spectacular eye candy.
- But a step further--eye and ear candy. Saturated color, playful musical choices--oh, yes, he was intuitively wise on how to give the ol' nod, wink to update the stale film musical. Begin with dialogue that tweaks the viewers subconscious---"It's a little bit funny.." Wait. Isn't that? Wait, what is that from again? Was that on purpose? 3 minutes later when Ewan McGregor, with his moon-rimmed blue eyes burst into Elton John's "Your Song" the audience laughs at their own indecisiveness and remembrance...that was a lovely song, was it not?
The toulouse bohemian grotesquery--
juxtaposed on the beautified Satine and her liquid-eyed love. But--I want character to pierce my heart.
It did not.
- So, update on Baz Luhrmann--with the new The Great Gatsby, with Leonardo di Caprio(Gatsby), Carey Mulligan(Daisy), Tobey Maguire (Nick Carroway), A girl named Elizabeth Debicki(Jordan Baker), and a guy named Joel Edgerton(Tom Buchanan). I am officially calling a trend--this director can do a gorgeous, eye-candy movie, with an impeccable eye to period, great film school tricks and technically perfect, cinematography , and, once again miss the story's soul. This one was better, but I am making it a pointed fact that this director is great at technique, but low on ability to direct actors or get the emotions of the characters imprinted on film. Maybe he should stick to the cinematography and let others deal with the people. I am going to blame Baz for Leo's performance, who is usually so good (although honestly, he's never been one of my favorites--I get the Nicholson comparisons, though)
- Both leads, I felt, were sub-par in what should have been extremely juicy complex parts. I'm guessing Leo's best moments got left on the cutting room floor in favor of shots making him look square-jawed, handsome and Kennedy-esque--something I felt he was playing up, which , really, was a very good instinct. It just didn't get show-cased properly in this film. Show-cased? Hmmm . Telling language in relation to this film: It WAS a showcase, and shouldn't have been. When is someone going to do a good Jay Gatsby? I never totally liked Redford's version, either--too bland, non-emotive, and WASPY. Gatsby's a fake Wasp, not a real one. Like the Kennedies.
- Leo's accent, or, non-accent, like someone faking something that faded between Boston Brahman , Oxonian, and Luhville (Louisville--I know my Kin-tucky) Southern charm...just didn't work. I do appreciate the concept, however. Gatsby invented himself, to be sure, so his accent might be a manufacturing...No, I really, REALLY like that idea. Leo should have worked at it harder. Every SINGLE time he said "Old Sport" I cringed. I dunno, I think I need to hear a Bostonian of that generation say it correctly--it's so outdated I'm not surprised Leo had a hard time tracking it down. But if he was supposed to be exposed to the real thing, the way Gatsby, the ambitious flimflam artist was, he should have been able to carry off his stock line with more panache--maybe Leo didn't do his method homework well enough. (Or Was Badly Directed). The thing is, Jay is supposed to be a lost soul of flimflammery and romance--ultimately, a psychotic believer, but one who has taken in every big important person on Wall Street and Manhattan---mainly, I think, because he believes his own BS...that's the only way Gatsby works--there has to be a manic strain, I think, of optimism. Like I said, who, is finally, gonna play this part right?
- Carey Mulligan: ok, I get why. She looks so 20's girl, looks great in all those beautiful get-ups. Not just beautiful. Beatific. Angelic. And it's not her looks...it's the package. I liked the way that was presented--like, if you're rich enough and blessed with good taste, you, too, can devastate men constantly. Like a beautiful little fool. But the Daisy depth, the intelligence, the neurosis , is not there. She also needs to have that manic, idealistic strain. And, one thing the movie did wrong plot-wise. I'm convinced Gatsby and Daisy never consummated their relationship--not in the past, not in the time frame of the movie/story when she's married to Tom. Because that's what Gatsby would've wanted--gives him him odd sheen of depth to both counterbalance and justify his playing with the devil---Meyer Wolfshein---really, he's just another man who's sold his soul to the devil for his obsessive ideals--Daisy's love. Her pure, chaste, unadulterated love. Because, that is what he is convinced of. He may even be afraid of real sex. He's had a houseful of the most beautiful women of New York: models, famous actresses, showgirls, yet he holds out for Daisy.
- Which may actually explain Daisy's choice and her refusal to totally denounce Tom in the end---state that she never loved him. To me it works on the condition that she's made love to Tom, but not Gatsby...he's an unknown quality in that arena. And it only makes sense that that scene where Tom talks rather intimately about the Daisy he KNOWS, the things that they've been through together, that only they know--well to me those words are fraught with sexual tension. Daisy is not a virgin:she has a child: yet, she gives off a weird virginal, girlish quality that Gatsby seems to be attracted to.
- You sometimes get the feeling Daisy knows more than he does. But, not from Carey Mulligan. She does not produce this depth, or perhaps, she wasn't allowed to run that way. Too bad.
All the 2ndary players were better than the leads, which was rather disconcerting: The guy who played Tom was wonderfully loathsome, Jordan Baker was full of ennui and beauty--absolutely fabulous, as I pictured her in her vacuous self--and much better than the 70's Jordan--so stylish.
- The ultimate thing that undoes this movie is its corporate, capitalist tie-ins. Which ultimately always ruin the best laid plans of mice and men. You know there's gonna be a Brooks Brothers "Jay Gatsby" collection, the "hip-hop" jazz, Beyonce- does- Amy- Winehouse soundtrack will be all over Internet, on the Grammies, the fact that Jordan and Daisy's dresses could go to a 2013 American prom was absolutely no accident---was it even a coincidence that we had a Gatsby themed prom, sponsored by our own sparkly Jersey girl ..?? Was this consciously in the minds of the money machine involved in this story? We even had a high production valued, ready-made promo we played at assembly that skirted the taste of school decency and administrative responsibility---well, there are those Admins who responsibly drink Absinthe...very interesting. Pelevin would find it.....very interesting.
Nov 19, 9:25 p.m.:
Trying to decide if House of Leaves belongs here. There's something about this book that makes me feel restless. That same lack of character ---intensity--- is not quite right. Navidson is intense, but do I feel him? Johnny Truant is intense. I sort of feel the same thing I do for these guys that I feel for Jack Kerouac's characters--they are in turn interesting,sensual, sometimes in a lurid way, but the moral conflicts don't seem so intense as I would like. Guess it's why I love all those Victorian era novels so much, all those strong, moral characters fighting their urges…and Dostoyevski, but he's from a different place..a less prissy sense of morality..more about compassion than cultural ethics.
Dec 10, 2014: So my students told me there's a new Romeo and Juliet movie. 2013--director Carlos Carlei. So, I found it on Netflix Instant--it is terrible. The worst of all the one's I've seen. Both 1968 (Zeffirelli's ) and Baz Luhrmann's were better. This one is just plain bland--the costumes were accurate? I suppose, but they look as if they got dug out of some old small liberal arts college's theatre department, (they looked dusty, even) but didn't use the color coding that Zeffirelli did. I think they used Verona, like Zeffirelli did (Baz weirdly, I suppose creatively? used Miami, or was it some unnamed California Beach Town?).
The absolute worse thing about this movie, though, was the cast, the casting choices, and then the acting. Just. flat. All the young actors were chosen for looks, I think, except Juliet. (Does our director have an eye for men?) Plus they were all exactly the same type--the more dark blonde sort of Italian boy, with cute longish curls, beautiful eyes and sparrow cheekbones. Half hour into the movie I was still having trouble distinguishing Romeo from Benvolio from Mercurio from the king of the cats, Tybalt. Clothes and body type didn't help. It also didn't help that quite a few looked like the kid who played Zeffirelli's Romeo. My only explanations are 2: a) director had the brilliantly stupid idea to use the concept that they were cousins and therefore would look alike b) he's gay and likes a certain type. Paul Giamatti (he's Italian, right?) was the only name I recognized. At least Juliet looked 13, for the first time.
It didn't help these flat actors that, although they retained British accents, the lines they were speaking WERE NOT SHAKESPEARE. Someone had the stupid idea to modernize and streamline the dialogue. Now, I can feel sympathy for doing this with other Shakespeare plays, to help people ignorant of Elizabethan English, especially the histories, or the ones with convoluted plots--but this is Motherfuckin' Romeo and Juliet! Everyone reads it in 9th grade, anyone can follow the plot even on the off chance they don't know it-- it's probably the one play ordinary people can recite lines from--and they aren't all that hard!! "Romeo, Romeo wherefore art thou Romeo? Deny thy father..." "Oh she doth teach the torches to burn bright!" How friggin' hard is that to understand--especially with even the most lame actor sporting a lovesick face and cross-cuts between the new lovers?? Oh, god, and how can you have a Mercutio who is more handsome than funny? At least Baz had the foresight to make him flamboyant.
Ok, so all this is leading to me fantasizing my own, perfect R&J.
Dec 10, 2014: So my students told me there's a new Romeo and Juliet movie. 2013--director Carlos Carlei. So, I found it on Netflix Instant--it is terrible. The worst of all the one's I've seen. Both 1968 (Zeffirelli's ) and Baz Luhrmann's were better. This one is just plain bland--the costumes were accurate? I suppose, but they look as if they got dug out of some old small liberal arts college's theatre department, (they looked dusty, even) but didn't use the color coding that Zeffirelli did. I think they used Verona, like Zeffirelli did (Baz weirdly, I suppose creatively? used Miami, or was it some unnamed California Beach Town?).
The absolute worse thing about this movie, though, was the cast, the casting choices, and then the acting. Just. flat. All the young actors were chosen for looks, I think, except Juliet. (Does our director have an eye for men?) Plus they were all exactly the same type--the more dark blonde sort of Italian boy, with cute longish curls, beautiful eyes and sparrow cheekbones. Half hour into the movie I was still having trouble distinguishing Romeo from Benvolio from Mercurio from the king of the cats, Tybalt. Clothes and body type didn't help. It also didn't help that quite a few looked like the kid who played Zeffirelli's Romeo. My only explanations are 2: a) director had the brilliantly stupid idea to use the concept that they were cousins and therefore would look alike b) he's gay and likes a certain type. Paul Giamatti (he's Italian, right?) was the only name I recognized. At least Juliet looked 13, for the first time.
It didn't help these flat actors that, although they retained British accents, the lines they were speaking WERE NOT SHAKESPEARE. Someone had the stupid idea to modernize and streamline the dialogue. Now, I can feel sympathy for doing this with other Shakespeare plays, to help people ignorant of Elizabethan English, especially the histories, or the ones with convoluted plots--but this is Motherfuckin' Romeo and Juliet! Everyone reads it in 9th grade, anyone can follow the plot even on the off chance they don't know it-- it's probably the one play ordinary people can recite lines from--and they aren't all that hard!! "Romeo, Romeo wherefore art thou Romeo? Deny thy father..." "Oh she doth teach the torches to burn bright!" How friggin' hard is that to understand--especially with even the most lame actor sporting a lovesick face and cross-cuts between the new lovers?? Oh, god, and how can you have a Mercutio who is more handsome than funny? At least Baz had the foresight to make him flamboyant.
Ok, so all this is leading to me fantasizing my own, perfect R&J.
- I keep the West Side Story or Zeffirelli ideas for color coding costumes , Capulets (red) Montagues (blue). It's a tradition and it makes sense.
- Casting is premier. All my boys complained that two of the Juliets were not pretty (they were okay with Olivia Hussey!) But she's probably 50 now. So I guess I need to figure a beautiful, passionate girl who looks 13...and is a great actress, because J is the hardest part, I think, to carry off in this play. Is Jennifer Lawrence young looking enough? ooh.....Emma Watson. Ok now Romeo--no not Daniel...that Game of Thrones kid..Thomas Brodie-Sangster. The one from Love Actually. He has the tosca look in his eyes that Romeo needs. (Jeez what a shot in the dark that is--_) The more they look like kids, the greater the tragedy. Mercutio is ??? oh, god I hate to say this ..Russell Brand.
- The rest don't matter.
- There is definitely room for music in R&J--at the party, for example. During Queen Mab. Hallucinatory music at the death/ catacomb's scenes, funeral marches at the "funeral".
- I might not use every line of the play, but the original dialogue stands. Including Queen Mab..just needs someone who can make it understandable. Lay on the sex innuendo.
No comments:
Post a Comment