The Great Gatsby

At the moment, I'm reading another of F Scott Fitzgerald's books - in fact his first, This Side of Paradise. (It's rather dragging I'm afraid - well written, just not too engaging - but that's another story entirely) Undoubtedly the most famous of the things he wrote was The Great Gatsby - a novel which has just come out as a Hollywood blockbuster movie starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Carey Mulligan, directed by showman extraordinaire Baz Luhrmann.

A few months ago I read the book itself. It had been on my reading list for a while, given its popularity - but I went into it knowing very little, especially about the plot. So I didn't quite know what to expect - it wasn't as if I'd read any other of Fitzgerald's work, or was familiar with his distinctive, effortlessly poetic writing style. (I haven't seen any other film adaptations either!) But I did enjoy it.

I was caught up in the characters, the plot, the words, the atmosphere. In my mind, though the prose was pleasant (and the cynic in me thought it was almost written to be analysed for countless GCSE literature courses), the atmosphere seemed pretty harsh and brutal. This was a shady world of corruption and capitalism and, in the end, murder and death. Strangely enough I hadn't got the full impact of it - it's a book trying to define its time, but read ninety years later, you take the motor cars and the alcoholic parties for granted. When in actual fact this was the era of Prohibition (hey - I'm not American, perhaps that's why some of it was lost on me). But I could see why it was successful, even if I didn't quite get everything on my first (and only, thus far) reading.

But then you read that it wasn't initially successful at all. When it was first published in 1926, though the author had realised he was creating a novel's novel, a fine piece of literature which would, in part, define and also transcend its decade... it received mixed reviews. It didn't sell very well. People, apparently, didn't quite get it. So bear that in mind when reading the book - or indeed, seeing the new film that's just been released (you know, that one that's been getting mixed reviews...).

So what about the film?

The first thing that strikes you is the visuals - it's a blockbuster in every sense of the word, and it looks absolutely lavish. The parties are wild, and brilliantly staged. There's great sweeping shots from one bay to the next, and cars whizzing by over huge landscapes - created, of course, by the latest computer effects. In fact, for me watching it in 2D, there's a bit too much of it, and at times it's almost too well done. Almost all the exteriors of the film are done in greenscreen, which gives it an odd look to my somewhat trained eyes, almost like a comic-book. Given that it isn't, and the subject matter isn't sci-fi or fantasy, it's jarring. Whether or not it looks better in 3D (even if you have to wear the glasses and focus a lot), I don't know.

Where the film shined the most for me, apart from it being gorgeous to look at, was the actors. The quieter moments, where the characters are sitting in a room and talking. And they are good characters, and very good actors - after all, one of the reasons the book is adapted is because of the plot and the characters. Even though at first it doesn't really feel like they're centre stage, amongst all the visual trappings. And the music too - it's a great soundtrack, the dazzling jewel in the film being Lana Del Rey's sumptuous Young and Beautiful, and there's also Florence + the Machine's amazing, directly-inspired Only the Love. Sure, it's odd seeing people in the 1920s dancing along to modern club music, to rap, and a jazzy rendition of Beyonce's Crazy in Love. But, it's of its time, and it works. Coupled with the CGI, the 3D, and the glitz and glamour, this film will date very very fast - ironic, given the source material. But hey - Hollywood does this sorts of blockbusters every year, so why not, in Gatsby's spirit, give people a huge showstopper to remember?

It's definitely a tough book to film. Being somebody else's adaptation of the novel, it's always going to be somebody else's view of what they think the novel is saying. It's one of those books where you often have to read into the poetry or things that are happening just out of the main picture - subtlety, in other words. That's kind of hard to capture - the film uses voiceover, but then that ruins the scenes where the characters are properly interacting.
Watching it on screen, with the film following the plot of the novel faithfully (overly so, perhaps), some scenes I thought were spoilt by showing it in detail, and would be better left to our imaginations - I didn't imagine Gatsby's love affair was quite so passionate when I read it, for instance. And then, some scenes I thought worked really well, where the film deliberately showed us its themes, and what the story was all about. And then spelt it out in voiceover. And underlined with a red pen, twice.

The book, I believe, has reached high acclaim, right up there as one of the best American novels. Similarly, the film absolutely adores the book. Take the last chapter, the last paragraph: reading it fresh, I thought it was an enigmatic, poetic, if downbeat end to the whole story, but I didn't realise that it was especially famous. The ending of the movie tries to capture the essence of those words on the page... well, it tries too hard. I'd have been happy with just a voiceover to be honest. When the film starts to quote parts of the book, literally writing the words up on the screen, you realise this is a very unusual adaptation. Whether it's a good thing or not is up to the viewer.

The War of the Worlds - The New Generation: review

Back in 1978, a musical was released, a strange, electronic, cutting edge musical of one of the first science fiction novels - War of the Worlds. Odd choice - but thanks to a resurgance in apocalyptic fiction, victoriana, electronic music, recent film adaptations, new reissues and stage productions, or simply because it's bloody brilliant... it's still very much going strong. But what's this? A remake?


It's a bit of an odd listen, especially for someone who's listened to the original a lot. It's not a remix - it's far more sympathetic than that, and hardly deviates from the original tracklisting, album length, songs or story. Because the original album has been remastered over the years, and slavishly recreated and rehearsed for the stage show - in order to sound exactly like what fans expect - you won't be surprised to know there's hardly any major changes in this new recording. Instead, there's dozens of new bells and whistles to back up the main tune, modern dancey eye-catching (ear-catching?) effects, echoes and whooshes. And, naturally, a new cast.

 

Two processes are going through my mind, simultaneously, when I listen to it. The first, is recalling the seemingly perfect, gospel text of the original edition. The second, is a sort of distancing effect, because the extra drumbeats and new synths modernise it and give the whole thing quite a different sound. I also thought it sounded more like a soundtrack to an adventure than before - as if we're just not seeing the visuals that no doubt flash up on large screens on stage; certainly they are conjured by your brain as you listen to it. Whether this was down to the performances, the depth of adding the new instruments, or simply me getting really into it, I'm not sure.

I've no problems with the new musical effects - there's some quite cool gimmicks (I loved the modern underwater bit), extra flourishes that might have been missed out on first recording, so let's look at the cast. Liam Neeson has a terrific voice for the Narrator figure, which helps carry the whole thing along as marvellously as Richard Burton did, and in a similar tone.
Of the singers, Gary Barlow does a good stab at a Justin Haywood impression - but, should he? The version of Forever Autumn is still very good, but is it a bit too faithful? And, dare I say it, is there a whiff of Autotune about his vocals? With Joss Stone, I have the opposite reaction - she's too different. Her voice is good, but it's oversung - there's the annoying habit of adding in far more notes than should be required, giving it a ridiculously overdone feeling to one of the better songs on the original album.
Alex Clare and Maverick Sabre (great name, up there with Lex Shrapnel) don't quite shrug off the original performances, but are well chosen certainly. I was impressed, though, with Ricky Wilson's Artilleryman - not just in singing capability (even if the vocals are a bit overlayered), but in acting. A very natural tone, and makes Brave New World one of the highlights of this.

So, overall - it's different, and certainly interesting, but notably faithful to the original. The cast are, on the whole, great, the new instruments sympathetic, and I'm sure this nuanced version will sell bucketloads for the shiny new up-to-date stage show. And they haven't messed about with Dead London too much, so that made me happy.

It certainly proves this musical has a lot of life left in it. I think this second album will date as the first - something that oozes quality, but is definitely of its time. Whether a third album comes out in years to come, remixed to oblivion, or ground to a pulp under folky cover versions, who knows?

The Machine, Florence and I

Not too many contemporary artists have grabbed my attention, as of late. I've long since been out of touch with current chart music, and most of my listening seems to be cramming the forty years of music that was around before I was born.

But I have found a soft spot for Florence + the Machine. They're one of those bands who I had heard a track somewhere (probably on an advert - they're used all the time, on the BBC especially), perhaps before they had hit the big time. And then, lately, I discovered their other work...

The songs are very catchy - honestly, the only reason I got the likes of Cosmic Love out of my head was because Drumming Song replaced it. And whilst they don't all claim to be outright musical classics, the sort-of arty rocky style with nice vocals fits in with some of my other likes.

Lungs - the first album - rather feels like a collection of singles created at various stages of the band's development. The style ranges from almost acoustic, to the more typical big numbers with lots of choirs and string and drums. (ooh, get me for being technical!) As I said earlier, many of these are catchy - and those that aren't are memorable for their introspective, offbeat tone.

At the time Ceremonials was released, I was only just getting into Lungs. I listened to a couple - and apart  from the leading (and best) track No Light, No Light, they didn't really catch with me as much as the previous album. A few months down the line, though, I went back and listened to the whole album.

You can kinda see why I didn't immediately warm to it. The tone is more consistent, more grown-up - and thereby less fun, and less flashy. It's definitely an album rather than having five or six wildly divergent singles (although plenty of singles have been released - so maybe that's just me). And on first listen, they probably all sound very similar indeed.

All music is subjective, and every song, after the second or third listen, becomes a form of nostalgia and memory. Once you've listened to a track twenty times, it's hard to gauge whether you liked it in the first place. But perhaps the most important thing is that you're not bored with it - that's great! And you won't get bored with Ceremonials - it's very deep.

Most of the songs seem to either be about failed relationships, or just enjoying yourself (shot through a particularly strange prism, of course) - or an oft-quoted time when Florence Welch was underwater (see What the Water Gave Me, Blinding, Swimming, Drumming Song...). Nonetheless, there's plenty of diversity here. As to my favourites, No Light, No Light always makes something inside me do somersaults with its dynamics and drumming; and the likes of Seven Devils, Rabbit Heart, My Boy Builds Coffins and Howl are pretty odd and dark lyrically, but great to listen to. Plenty of songs stick in the mind. And particularly good are Heavy in your Arms and Strangeness and Charm from the Between Two Lungs bonus tracks - although there's some rather out of place 'remixes' on there, which seem at odds with the genre being explored in the original songs.

I haven't seen them live - but oh, I'd like to, actually. With the next album being a year or so off, whatever happens with it, whatever the style they choose to take, you can be sure it'll be personal.

That said, Kiss with a Fist leaves me cold. As a song, it's simple, fast, and a bit catchy, an early piece. But the subject material - domestic violence, basically - isn't so suitable.

(As an afterthought... another one of those bands that 'hit the big time' after I've heard a track or two would be Mumford & Sons... but I've never quite got into them. And they definitely have a repeated style! Maybe I'm lacking in love for folk music)