The Great Gatsby

Watching “The Great Gatsby” feels like having completed 3 years of college and now attending the graduation ceremony. It is an adaptation of a piece of classic text (a la “William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet”), threw in with a lot of updated pop anthems suited for the movie setting (a la “Moulin Rouge”) and added an epic love story happened in an alien social world for the protagonist (a la “Australia”). It is what you can expect from Baz Luhrmann. And it is exactly what you get.

First of all, for all the classic purists out there, there is a warning here – if you are looking for a conventional adaptation of this famous F. Scott Fitzgerald novel, avoid the cinema at all cost because this is a Baz Luhrmann production. Seriously, if you want to go to a Baz Luhrmann movie, you have to expect unconventional stuff and sometimes ideas and scenes that came out of nowhere. It is not just about sitting around in nice furniture talking about life, or in “The Great Gatsby” case, the corruption of life.

The production, shot in Sydney brought us all the way back to Fitzgerald’s 1920s New York life. Our protagonist Nick arrived in New York to be a bond salesman hoping to make a fortune in the booming market. Surrounding him are people who are all much much well off than he is and thus starts a summer of parties, obsessions and renegade love. The premise of the novel suits perfectly to Baz’s directing and production style. So it is not a surprise that he has eyes on this project. He had reconstructed Fitzgerald’s world with meticulous attention and the hard work can be seen on screen. The lavish lifestyles of upper class New Yorkers and their “good for nothing” way of life were recreated perfectly under Baz’s camera. However, somehow I did not feel connected as I used to before. The feeling of the movie for me is I was presented with a hamper full of good and some even great stuff, but I did not feel anything about the hamper or the person who gave it to me. This is the first time I felt this way with a Baz Luhrmann film.

The cast with Toby Mcguire, Leonardo di Caprio, Carey Mulligan etc delivered a great performance. However, it did take me some time to warm myself up to the characters. This is not because the story was narrated back by Toby’s Nick in the cold mid-west. I just somehow did not feel connected to the characters I used to with other Baz films. Nonetheless, as things “heated up” in the story, I did start to care about the characters. Leonarodo di Caprio did a great job as Gatsby. He was exactly how I imagined when I first read the book and I just thought: “wow, this is Gatsby”. I know there were critics about di Caprio’s age’s suitability for the role but in my opinion, he delivered a great performance as the obsessively in love and positive Gatsby who has a dodgy background. Carey Mulligan as Daisy is kind of offbeat for me. I did not feel that fatally attractive power and personality in her at all. Having said that, her performance in the revelation scene was handled perfectly. Toby’s Nick though had the most screen time came across to me as pretty flat but then I do not think that he stumbled because he was facing off with a lot of more “out there” characters. In a world full of eccentric characters, Toby managed to stand firm on his grounds and made it through with his character. Eizabeth Debicki was quite outstanding as the cynical and sharp tongued Jordon although she, unlike in the novel, did not have a storyline with Toby’s Nick anymore as the focus in the film is entirely on the triangle relationship among Gatsby, Daisy and Tom. Joel Edgerton as Tom was fit for purpose but personally I do feel Joel has been type cast for similar roles too many times in recent years that he could just wear them on with different outfits and deliver a solid performance. On top of that as usual Baz managed to rope in a lot of Who’s Who in the Australian acting industry in smaller roles, which was quite fun to watch.

“The Great Gatsby” came with a great soundtrack. Apart from updated tunes of some well known pop anthems, there were some original scores composed for the movie that are equally good and fit for purpose. The abundant use of Gershwin’s  “Rhapsody in Blue” has reconfirmed that this is the theme of New York. Catherine Martin’s wardrobe is as usual stunning and really shows off the figures of the cast.

“The Great Gatsby” is a true complete package of entertainment with an appropriate length. The question here is why am I not “moved” or “connected” to the movie at all? I thought maybe the setting? Not so because “Romeo+Juliet” is even more fictional than Gatsby. I kept on searching for the answer and finally I was thinking, would it be because Baz was trying very hard to show to the world that he still is a key player (after the “Australia” saga) in the industry that he had distanced himself from the audience? Or is it because of so he put in too much of everything and the film became “a fantastical banquet just too many strange dishes”?

I would not go hard on Baz Luhrmann on “The Great Gatsby” because it is an entertainment piece of work and it serves its purpose. But I am concerned that as a person who has been following his movies, and really appreciates what he tried to offer in the past, successfully or not, if I could not get myself connected to this production, what lies ahead? I did not have the urge to go see it again, or tell people that it is a must see movie because of A, B and C. I just felt, “Ok cool I have seen it. It is not bad, entertaining to a certain extent. That’s all…” I think the danger of this adaptation of “The Great Gatsby” lies much further down than the hidden gangster of Gatsby’s New York.

The Value of Religion

Woke up the other day to another shocking news of terrorist acts stemming from religious differences. An innocent British soldier was hacked to death in broad day light by two extremist Muslims who then ranted about their actions and justifying them through their own faith. My heart sank when I read the news and I felt very disturbed by this whole incident for several days.

When I was a kid, I attended an Anglican school and that is where I had my first contact with religion. Religion since then become a blow fly kind of thing that no matter how much you want to avoid it, it just keeps coming back to you. I am not saying that religions and faiths are bad, but I continued to be haunted by what evils this good could bring and had brought to mankind.

As a person belonging to the Christian faith, I still tried to keep an open mind about other faiths and beliefs. My teaching in the faith was about doing good to others and to care for others. At least this is how I understood when I was little. However as I grew up and started to contract the necessary virus called world news, I slowly found out that religion is no longer what I understood. I became less and less constitutional with my faith but focused more on my personal relationship with it. Nonetheless this does not mean that the world had become better. The recent event in London proved that again.

Religion as a uniting force is ironically strongly dividing too. This power, when applied maliciously could do unpredictable damages to others. Further, this power is more destructive then anything racial or geographical because they dealt with the human mind, and the human mind has no limits, no matter what your racial identity is or where you were located geographically. For instance in this cold blooded London attack, one of the attackers was from a devoted Christian family who eventually turned into an extreme Muslim. The whole mind controlling aspect of religion is something that made it so destructive itself. This was well understood by the Chinese government when they cracked down Falun Gong followers years ago.

While people can apply ration and science to disprove the value of religion in mankind, we could not deny that religions and faiths sometimes are beneficial on an individual level. This stands as long as they were not use by people for their personal agendas to achieve other things. It would be unfair for me to point finger at any faith or at any practitioner of any faith, as I do not have sufficient knowledge to make value judgements on them. I personally know a number of Muslim friends who by no means act like what the extremists do. However, when a branch of a faith became extreme, they are usually the loudest and got into the media. This slowly changes other people’s perceptions and eventually these extremists’ versions of the faith become the “faith” itself.

In David Cameron’s speech in response to the attack, I really appreciate that he clearly delineated the attackers’ extremist belief from the general Muslim community. This for me is a sign of clear head leadership for a country. However, sadly this does not help to avoid irrational local attacks on Muslims. Whether these local attacks are genuinely religiously based or just people taking the opportunity to express their other agendas I don’t know, but for sure they are not contributing anything good to the society.

So the question falls back on what good is religion to mankind? If we believe in god, heaven and hell, has actually religion brought hell to earth before we even enter our eternity? For me, the major problem is religion is a lot of time based on written materials that are opened to interpretations. While we have what we called canon interpretations to keep them on the right track, there is no way to stop certain sectors to manipulate these materials to their own accord. As long as this happens there is no way to stop this craziness to continue on earth. Education and understanding is the best way to deal with this mess, but then how could we educate people on this when what religion deals with is something extremely personal? If God is overseeing this world, what kind of price does He wants humanity to pay for this establishment we called religion? I wonder whether I would ever get an answer out of this.

A Home Called Sydney

Have been taking the recent down time writing a lot on the beach. Living in Sydney, Australia, is really a blessing. You got all the great beaches and the fairest weather you could imagine. Ran into an Irish guy at my local beach Coogee the other day 3 times in one day and thus started chatting. He started a business here and moved his whole family over after a trip down under. He loves it here and said it was one of the best decisions he ever made. His kids are enjoying Sydney greatly and settling in very well. During the conversation, he also mentioned he does not understand why a lot of Sydneysiders complain about the heat and cold during summer and winter. He said they would only appreciate it when these were all taken away from them. I couldn’t agree more.

Sydney is a blessed city geographically and weather-wise. It is far away from any earthquake zone, it does not have cyclone attacks, it is relatively distant from bush fire zones, and the list goes on. It has some of the best beaches in the world and they are available all year round. You got one of the most beautiful harbours in the world with the sails of the Opera House greeting you every time you walk pass. There are a lot of great parklands around the city if you want a weekend picnic or just to enjoy the sun during lunch breaks. There is really no place like Sydney.

However sometimes I do wonder whether we, Sydneysiders, have taken these for granted and forgot how blessed we are. A lot of times people would tell me how hot and humid Sydney is and couldn’t cope with that. To be honest, as someone who grew up in Hong Kong, hot and humid would not be a description I use for Sydney. I have been repeatedly telling people the so called humidity in Sydney is nothing when you compared to Hong Kong where you have consecutive days of thirty something degree Celsius coupling with 98% humidity. During those days you just sweat and do nothing else. When I was living there, I frequently tell my friends that I could throw myself up against the wall and stick on it. Anywhere out of air conditioning is just a giant steamer with no escape. During those days, I learnt the skill of getting out of my air conditioned apartment quickly, get into the car and turn on the air conditioning immediately, and then dash into the air conditioned office in no time. I enjoy working because of the air conditioning. That’s how humid Hong Kong is.

As for the cold, Sydney, like many places has it own winter. Winter is not too cold as compared to places like Toronto. On a good autumn or winter day, you could still sit on the beach and enjoy the warmth of the sun (as I am doing now). In many places like Toronto, it is still freezing even when the sun is in the sky. I brought a few thick jackets with me when I first moved over and all these years, I have only used them twice. So this is how cold Sydney is. Another great thing is that if you are into snowboarding and skiing, ski fields like Thredbo are just a few stone throws away.

Nature-wise, Sydney offers a lot of greenery around the city. You can see a great variety of marine lives just going to some local beaches. I love a small family beach called Clovelly because it is shielded from big waves and because of that you see vibrant marine lives around you the moment you enter the clear water. This morning as I was having my coffee on the beach, a whale swam across off shore during its migration. It was a spectacular scene. And this is what Sydney’s natural lives could offer. Also I would like to think that Sydney is one of the less polluted cities in the world. It is still dusty sometimes but where in the world is not?

Sydney is an extremely vibrant and natural city in my opinion. I am glad that I chose Sydney as my home, as I don’t need to deal with four seasons in one day (sorry Melbournians, just need to rub that in :P) and we are save from a lot of natural disasters. When I complain about Sydney, it is the people, and mostly the governing bodies (who in my opinion helped pushing up the cost of living) that I am not happy about. But Sydney as a city to live in geographically, there maybe no other better places to call home to. 

The Young Idea

“The Young Idea” is a play written by British playwright Noel Coward in 1921. The play circles around the diplomats and intrigues of two young siblings in meddling with their family affairs. It was funny, sometimes intelligent and full of subtle British humour. That’s what I usually like about British comedies. The actions are in the words themselves, there is no need to add anything extra and you could already be presented with a great show.

The Genesian Theatre Company is currently staging this play at their Kent Street premise in the city. Act 1 of the play set stage in a British country mansion while in Act 2 we were transferred over to Italy. Owen Gimblet has put sufficient work into the change of set to make the two different mansions in question quite distinctive, which was great. Nonetheless, the play is about its character, so that’s where it counts.

The play opens with Cecily, the wife of the wealthy gentleman George, and Roddy, Cecily’s illicit lover. It was a very weak opening. There was no chemistry between the two characters and a lot of times it feels like they were just reciting lines. Roddy, played by Carlin Hurdis, was particularly flat in this weak opening scene as if the accent has swallowed the character and there was nothing left apart from mechanical movements and regurgitation of speech. Cecily, played by Dearbhla Hannigan, has a weak voice that goes inwards a lot of time and that makes you really wonder whether these two characters are in love despite all the kissing you saw on the stage. The entrance of George (Matt Jones) into the scene did not help either. Matt did a great job as George but the lack of sparks between his character and Cecily did not give you a sense of tension in their relationship. We know the relationship was dying but not because the characters told us so but because the scene was spiralling into that direction. As with all productions, a strong opening is required to keep the audience engaged and the first few scenes of this production just failed to do so.

The play finally started to pick up when “the young ones” showed up. Lachlan Edmonds –Munro and Anita Donavan basically rescued the play from a crash landing in Act 1. The scheming siblings Sholto and Gerda were animated and energetic. They infused quite a lot of life back into this production. They basically lit up the stage again whenever they came on. I have seen Lachlan as Pip in another production of Great Expectation and thought that he was not a right candidate for that role. But in “The Young idea” he exhibited great comic skills and timing without overdosing the audience. David Ross as Claud brought quite a few comic moments with his subtle comedic timing, which was great, but his scenes were mostly with a bunch of characters that you do not grow to care about. In fact, despite having lots of characters doing their stuff on stage in Act 1, most of them were very forgettable. There was quite an uneven level of craft displayed and you could really spot the differences when you compare the scenes among Sholto, Gerda and George with all the other scenes. It was a pity because the play was such a great ensemble piece.

In Act 2 the long discussed Jennifer finally appeared and opened Act 2. Kerry Day did a decent job with the character but there were times that there were too much over acting on display. We know that Jennifer is a larger than life character and more “free spirited” but they were already in the lines. The script itself gave the character life in this aspect and any additional waving of hands in the airs and making of faces would just spoil it. The play mentioned several times about subtle British humour but it seems some of the cast members did not get the hint at all. Rebecca Latham was forgettable as Sybil in Act 1 (seriously I don’t even know why that character was necessary as it did not even move the plot forward) but shines as Maria in Act 2. Basically Maria is a lovable character and Rebecca got the character profile quite right in Act 2.

Personally, I think casting was the major shortcoming of this production. British comedies have good track records of having everything written on the page, especially earlier works. While modernising it with current “acting techniques” may help to breathe something new into them, a strong understanding of the text itself is required before doing so. For me, this production did not manage to do that. Nonetheless the performances of Lachlan, Anita and Matt were joyful to watch and that makes getting through Act 2 so much easier.