The Great Gatsby: 2013

   I love F Scott Fitzgerald. I love his diction and eloquent ability to string together a time and place. The Great Gatsby, arguably his most famous novel is certainly a true testament to the literary footprint he imposes on American Literature to this day. It’s a good book, so naturally a considerable amount of time and effort would need to go into the film adaptation. …And so, in 2013 Baz Lurmahnn would take the place of so many directors before him and attempt to tell the story of a man named Jay Gatsby.

   I do not like Baz Lurmahnn or his movies. In my opinion they are far too loud, fast, and obnoxious for me to get any enjoyment out of watching. And, sadly, I can’t say anything too differently in terms of The Great Gatsby, his latest film. The frustrating part about it being this adaptation specifically is that both Lurmahnn and Fitzgerald have definitive styles to their writing, and when they are chosen to “work together” so to speak, the final product is…not entirely thought through. Sometimes it felt like certain scenes were directed by different people. Every so often an entire scene from the film would be pulled from the book verbatim, and that can be confusing when the very next scene is written like a Baz Lurmahnn film.

   Lurmahnn’s adaptation also suffers from the constant explanation of symbols in the story. Fitzgerald doesn’t need to completely explain his writing because he gives just enough insight into the possible explanation of symbols. At one point in the book a man is explaining to Nick Caraway, the main character, that all the books in Gatsby’s house were real books. Fitzgerald doesn’t fully explain it, but leaves the symbol of the scene open for understanding. However, Lurmahnn does not take as much time to stew in the proverbial pot of character or plot development. Ironically so, being that the film clocks in at two and a half hours.

   The Great Gatsby, when being compared to Fitzgerald’s work, falls short of engaging. The writing is all over the place, the style gives no time to admire the fleshed out and rather accurate backdrops of the locations, and when the end credits have finally appeared on the centerfold you are left wondering if Lurmahnn thinks you are too smart or too stupid to understand the film. And at the bottom line, that is the main problem. Even though the audience is waited on hand and foot by Lurmahnn, he is unable to present the main theme of Fitzgerald’s writing; that a man can reinvent himself. 

6.5/10

Her: 2013

Release date: December 18, 2013 (USA)

Director: Spike Jonze

Running time: 126 minutes

MPAA rating: R

Music composed by: Arcade Fire

Cast: Scarlett Johansson, Joaquin Phoenix

Spike Jonze is a...different kind of director. In my opinion he's part of the good kind of different kind of director. And that's a good thing. But he is also in my opinion a very strange person. And that could be a good thing. It was for this reason that I didn't really know what to expect going into "Her". Wait...no, that's not..."going into the theaters to see "Her"...no, that doesn't sound right either...going into the theaters to watch her...no." I watched "Her: A Spike Jonze Love Story, okay? That's what I'm trying to say. Jeez. Okay, let's do this.
  

A guy named Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) falls in love with an operating system named Samantha (Scarllet Johannson). Many strange and awkward Hi-Jinx ensue.

   So this movie's set in the very near future where there's a lot of hiked up pants and button down shirts and self aware, self evolving operating systems...I don't see any problem with that. No! No really! It's good! It's good to have a program that can replicate and broaden their perspectives of the world, becoming smarter and smarter. A program who can learn and react to anything...in seconds! A program that can emote and understand the human mind better than humans themselves! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

   But fine! It's Spike Jonze, and he's this really weird guy. I guess from this particular perspective there could be no logical reason for an OS to rise against the human race. I mean no one explains how it works from a technical standpoint (for the most part). So, is Samantha (the OS) a plot device? An unexplained idea used in order to further the story? Well, I don't think so. I mean, Samantha plays a huge part in the story. She is the love interest after all. Although I can see how people might assume that since she, from a technological standpoint, is not developed very much might seem like one. But, I don't think that that's a bad thing so to speak. The only thing I can say in order to justify the vagueness of this evolutionary technological advancement is that Jonze didn't want the audience to have a reason not to side with Samantha's "robot" traits more than her "human" traits. If you explain the science behind her being able to do the things she can do, you lose some credibility for the believable "not-so-far-away" future you have constructed as a setting because using some scientific techno-babble for explanation is not so...professional. Just because it would work in Star Trek does not mean it will work for "Her". This is dating advice I have followed for a very long time. 

   You also alienate the audience from condoning with the socially confusing act of hooking up with a computer. If you were to explain in more detail how Samantha "ticks" you are less likely to be able to wrap the idea of this being a love story around your head...y'know...if you weren't already. But regardless, "Her" is actually very good. It wastes no time in using Joaquin Phoenix's character as a...well...character study of human beings in general. Jonze uses Scarllet Johannson's character as a new perspective on things we find to be normal or acceptable in society. Both actors give excellent performances not just as themselves, but as a unit. And for a film like this, that sort of thing is very important. The illusion of compatibility, challenge, and conflict in a relationship are all executed very well. Like most relationship films (or "Love Stories") the narrative flies between moments in Theodore's and Samantha's life. Although not as heavy handed as say, "Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind" or personal as "Annie Hall" which both work fine to each movie's credit, it certainly is unique enough to stand out among the other, lesser, tearjerker's of the ages.

   The writing is very good as well, playing with Amy Adams' strengths more than any other film I have seen her in. Truly she is in her prime. I really don't have anything negative to say about "Her" other than there being a few missed opportunities (one of which being the lack of incredibly loud controversies on man/robot relations). And maybe I'm not getting the big picture, and "Her" was never really about the future of societal culture, or what defines a human being, or "the human condition" or whatever you want to call it. I liked "Her". She's funny, unique, smart, in a philosophical sort of way, very strange, but very beautiful. So, if you're into that sort of thing you should check "Her" out!

    ...Jesus, you know I couldn't let an opportunity like that pass, right? Of course I have to write something. It's who I am. I interject a lot of my mannerisms into my writing. That way it's like I'm talking to you, as opposed to me writing to someone I don't know. So, you'll have to forgive me. But if you've read up to here, at least you took the time. Thanks.

7.3/10