The Great Gatsby character review has been on a bit of a
hiatus recently. It’s nothing you
did, so don’t worry. I have been
looking very closely at how I am judging the character selections, and have tried to figure out a coherent way to explain how and why I am doing this.
Look, I am not trying to be too cynical in these reviews and
say that everyone will suck. Far
from it (except for Tobey). What I
am trying to do is review each actor and see if they fit the profile of the character they are portraying in the book. Australian or European or American
actors aside, can they live up to their predecessors and the original?
For example: Robert Redford’s version of Jay Gatsby (née Gatz)
was probably the best interpretation from the novel. Just my opinion, but the other two were good, but on a
different level of good. Maybe it
was the supporting cast, maybe it was what part of the theme was conveyed that
made Redford look good; whatever it was, it worked.
So, what tools do Leonardo DiCapro bring to make his
performance even better than Redford, thus making him an even closer
representation to the actual character, thus retelling the book in visual form in the best way possible (I will get to this comparison another
day)?
That’s the question I am trying to answer. So, with DeBicki, I can’t really answer
that question, but I can say that she has potential to make the character truly
hers because all she has at this point is potential. She has things to live up to, but she isn't pigeonholed in the role because she is a character actress. But, I can also say Tobey Maguire will be boring because he
does that in a good majority of his movies. Nick Carraway is not a boring character and he cannot exist
as a boring character meant to drive/narrate a plot, and that is TRUTH.
So, if that wasn’t confusing enough, basically I:
- describe the character portrayed in the book
- look at past roles
- look at others’ performances of the same character
- infer their role in the greater theme of the story and see if this is a good fit for them
- infer if this role will then make the movie better as a whole
- offer up suggestions based on no personal experience in feature films
Bringing all of these things together, one can make a
subjective assessment of how the character may act in the movie. Also, yes, I may be a little cynical, but oh well.
Today’s character: George Wilson
Luhrmann’s George: Jason Clarke
George Wilson is a (presumably) disheveled, ‘down on his
luck’ gas station attendant in the “Valley of Ashes” area of Long Island (i.e.
between the Eggs and the City).
George Wilson seems to be a decent worker, but is trapped in a low-working class role in a craphole overlooked by the disapproving eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg
(i.e. God). His wife cheats on him
and believes she married below her class, he huffs ash and pollution all day,
people like Tom Buchanan screw him over on potential business deals, he had to
borrow the suit he was married in, he locks his wife in rooms, and he is a little slow. So, he’s got that
going for him.
I was going to say I have never seen Clarke guy before (and a
quick look to imdb confirms that), but I have seen him, just not seen him
act. I mean, he was on some
episode of Two Guys, a Girl and a Pizza Place, so, yeah.
Suffice it to say, he’s a Australian actor who has been in a
few drama series. Luckily for him,
he doesn’t have to act much and he really needs to look the part more than
anything.
Pros: A decent drama actor in a role where there won’t be
much laughing, acted in dramas which should prepare him for a small dramatic character
role, certainly looks the part
Cons: Don’t know a lot of his strengths or weaknesses, may
try to make a name for himself in a role that does not make that possible, I hope this isn't the reason he was cast because that's annoying
What’s to say that I have not already pulled straight from
the pages of the book? George
Wilson is a dude who runs a garage/gas station and basically is a working stiff
stuck in that role from birth to ever.
Each film kind of goes about doing the whole pre-wreck scene through
Gatsby getting shot scene (SPOILER!) a little differently. Howard da Silva kind of falls into trances/stupor after Myrtle is hit and realizes who he thinks killed her, which is fairly
accurate to what happens in the book.
He seems to exhibit more of a personality, conversing with her but also
trying to get her to see things his way.
This leads to locking her in the room, which makes that believable because it's already plausible that he had enough and snapped. That’s where Scott Wilson and William
Camp go astray. They are not
really believable in their "loser" role.
They just suck too much.
It’s all “yes ma’am” and “sorry ma’am” during the beginning of the
movie, then all of a sudden Wilson has Myrtle locked up. The angle Scott Wilson takes with the intent staring match
with the billboard eyes and then saying it’s God or whatever is a nice angle (albeit obvious) but unnecessary.
We already know that’s supposed to be his God that sees everything, and
we don’t need him to come to this realization as another motive for him to want
to shot whomever he is going to shoot.
If Clarke follows da Silva’s lead of a character trying to make the best
of a bad situation then losing his mind, like "Novel George," this will be a solid role for him and
make his rationale as arbiter and score-settler of his own T.J Eckleburg-led
universe all that more convincing.
It’s more three-dimensional than a character that walks around brain
dead for half of the movie and then “goes to another place” like Randy Orton when he decides to shoot people.
Fun trivia note: Howard da Silva, who played Wilson in the
1949 adaptation, played Meyer Wolfsheim in the Robert Redford version.
No comments:
Post a Comment