Oh Gawd No, No, No

Carey Mulligan On ‘The Great Gatsby’: Actress Reveals Intense Fitzgerald Research


When you’re adapting to the big screen what many consider to be the Great American Novel — and doing it in 3D, no less — there is going to be heightened scrutiny about every choice you make. From plot to dialogue to aesthetics, a demanding public will insist on the utmost of authenticity.

Good to know, then, that Carey Mulligan and company are making sure they’re well-prepared for the task.

Mulligan plays Daisy Buchanan in the upcoming Baz Luhrmann-directed epic adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby,” which will feature Leonardo DiCaprio as the titular, mysterious millionaire; Tobey Maguire as narrator/protagonist Nick Carraway; Joel Edgerton as Tom Buchanan; Isla Fisher as Myrtle Wilson; and newcomer Elizabeth Debicki as Jordan Baker.

* * *

Mulligan will next be seen in the critically acclaimed B-style actioner “Drive,” with Ryan Gosling, Christina Hendricks and Albert Brooks.


Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

20 comments on “Oh Gawd No, No, No

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. fuster wrote:

    No? What could be better than to enlist the incredible acting skills of Leonardo DeCaprio as GatsbY?

    Nuclear destruction of all major population centers worldwide comes to mind. And I say that as kind of a DiCaprio fan.

  2. @ fuster:
    Never sat through all of GONY – watched pieces I didn’t find compelling enough, though were memorable for scenic detail. What he did worked well enough for me in BODY OF LIES, BLOOD DIAMOND, THE DEPARTED, INCEPTION, and TITANIC. Never saw several other of his big films. Am not saying he’s my absofave, that I want to have his baby, that I’d go see a movie just cuz he’s in it.

    I’d rather see Gatsby played by the Great Dane from MARMADUKE.

  3. Gangs shoiulda been a contender.

    Scorsese raises the question of whether there was a Catholic (r)evolution in the country.

  4. Baz Luhrmann, that partially explains some of the deranged casting, he cast Leo and Danes, in his ‘hip hop’ Romeo and Juliet,’ with mixed results, he was behind Moulin Rouge, so he’s ok with period pieces, but I can’t see this ending well.

  5. I’d say on balance that Luhrmann’s pretty horrible. The kitsch-hop approach was a little more justifiable for R+J cuz it’s about young love. MR was, I thought, nauseating. AUSTRALIA kind of worked in a self-consciously old-fashioned and unpretentious way. Don’t know why Michael Bay or Jon Favreau isn’t trying THE GREAT GATSBY instead. Then Zach Snyder could try LONG DAY’S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT.

    On the other hand, I confess I might be kind of interested if James Cameron tried MOBY DICK.

  6. CK MacLeod wrote:

    I’d rather see Gatsby played by the Great Dane from MARMADUKE.

    Hilarious idea.
    CK MacLeod wrote:

    MR was, I thought, nauseating

    Any movie that starts with “Nature Boy” can’t be “nauseating.”

  7. CK MacLeod wrote:

    On the other hand, I confess I might be kind of interested if James Cameron tried MOBY DICK.

    Agree. But going past Cameron, it would be really cool with some light-box literary visuals. “Call me Ishmael”–scribed across the first scene and such.

  8. Scott Miller wrote:

    Any movie that starts with “Nature Boy” can’t be “nauseating.”

    Sure it can. Nausea tends to be cumulative, and the whole approach of MR was to take something that might stand alright on its own (a passage from a silly love song) and cram it together with something similar (another passage), then add more, and more – and not all of it great – though there were also peak moments, gloop stacked on crud stacked on bleh, that were also nausea-inducing in themselves.

  9. @ Scott Miller:
    Yes, but what I wouldn’t trust is Cameron’s willingness to let the literary dominate the cinematic at any point. Very high odds he’d junk most of the dialogue in favor of something that sounded kind of old…

    “Do the Heavens yet hate thee that thou canst not go mad? In no paradise myself I am impatient at all misery of others that is not mad.”

    would probably turn into

    “I’ve got my own problems.”

  10. Merchant Ivory doesn’t really seem in the biz anymore, is there any other director that does period pieces anymore, considering GONY and
    the Aviator, I would say Scorsese, since it does have a mob subtext.

  11. @ CK MacLeod:
    That’s what I was thinking in respect to Cameron. It would probably be an insurmountable problem. I agree with Miggs about Scorsese. He’s done well with period stuff. If you could make them co-direct, that might work. I’d love to see the movie about the making of a movie with those two control freaks having to collaborate. It would be like Herzog and Kinski. Did you ever see the movie about My Best Friend? I’ll post this YouTube of Herzog saying the Indians during the Fitzcarraldo shoot wanted to kill Kinski. I remembered in a more funny light, with Herzog first saying that the Indians didn’t even have a word for homicide because they never killed each other. But in Kinski’s case they would make an exception:

  12. It’s just seems it can go horribly wrong like that Python sketch of Sam Peckinpah doing a bloody period piece

  13. To make room for sci-fi inclusion as “period piece,” you could define it as any film that requires contemporary objects and images that are historically or futuristically anachronistic to be omitted from shots. But I think the common interpretation would just be the way Miggs is using it, which has to do with historical periods. You know what he means.

  14. Well, yes, that’s the common interpretation. The sci-fi thing was just a throw-in, though it does illustrated a related point. The larger point was that, unless you have a very narrow definition of “period piece” (and I’m not sure what the definition would be), “period” is one of the things the movies love to do.

  15. Well Gatsby was about a particular date and time, the early 20’s boom I wasn’t terribly impressed with the Redford version, although there are some parallels with other eras, Nelson Demilles’ Gold Coast, was originally an attempt to update it, to the 1980s.

  16. It occurs to me, that Jon Hamm, TV’s Don Draper, could pull off a Gatsby character, that same murky history, a brief war record,

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins