Gatsby director Luhrmann: Criticism is like your child being smashed on the head with a lump of wood
The Great Gatsby director Baz Luhrmann has compared negative reviews of his films as being like hitting a child over the head with a lump of wood.
In an interview with Mumbrella’s sister title Encore, the film-maker suggested that critics will long be forgotten while the film is likely to have a more lasting life.
The film opens in Australia today.
Luhrmann said: “When Fitzgerald wrote the book, a guy whose name we can’t remember, the premium critic of the time, called Fitzgerald a clown and said the book was thin and that his characters were marionettes. I can’t remember the name of the critic but The Great Gatsby, that book sold more copies last week than in Fitzgerald’s entire lifetime,” he said.
Baz does good sets. Fitzgerald wrote a good book. Baz has no kids at risk anx is heading into Eddie Maguire territory is his analogy.
Baz smashes his audience over the head with his astounding lack of subtlety.
that’s funny, because watching a Baz Luhrmann film is like being smashed on the head with a lump of wood. Overblown doesn’t even begin to describe his style.
I think one critic got it right when they said, “The real star of any Baz Luhrmann film is Baz Luhrmann”. He’s not my idea of a director, but he’s one hell of a salesman.
Speaking of clowns . . .
Fitzgerald wrote a cautionary tale about excess, and Luhrmann interpreted it as an invitation to the ball.
But come to think of it, isn’t there always a ball somewhere in Baz’ films?
The audience is the only critic that really matters – $200m at the box office already and much more to come – enough said. Surely we should be celebrating one of our most successful film makers ever? Do we make films for a few smarmy critics or for an audience to watch, enjoy and tell their friends? Good on you Baz!
Its simple. Baz’s prime audience is girls and young women and he has proved more often than not that he understands this audience very well. If he has to ruin a classic to appeal to them he will. It is part of the whatever it takes school of showmanship, skilful kitsch and I suspect Australians culturally don’t really warm to this world of self promotion. But this is the man who persuaded Rupert Murdoch to give him over 100 million to make the execrable Australia, now that’s chutzpah!
… Come to think of it, wasn’t Moulin Rouge also bookended by the anguished narrator mustering the will to tell his story?
I guess if Baz feels free rip off Woody Allen (fireworks+Gershwin), he should feel free to rip off Baz …
Peter Bradshaw has redeemed himself for his complete misreading of ‘Life of Pi’ with his ‘cruel but fair’ appraisal of TGG.
Most succinct review:
‘The Great Gatsby’ looks like a two hour Heineken commercial.
https://twitter.com/GSElevator/status/328345068278800384
This guy obviously doesn’t have children. How could anyone make such a comparison. The delicate, endlessly-loved shell of your child being damaged would break any parent. And this clown compares it to a movie review. Get over yourself pal.
“$200m at the box office already and much more to come”
The true genius involved with TGG resides in the Warner Bros marketing department: trick as many suckers into seeing the film before word of mouth can spread. Then, when your BO drops 50% in the first week, and a further 50% in the second, your money’s in the bank and Baz can trumpet his “success” to his heart’s content.
We’ll never know how much WB spent on marketing this turkey, but as TGG was “too big to fail”, you can be sure it was many times the total budget of any other “Australian” film made recently.
Haven’t seen TGG but feel reasonably assured that it will not be my cup of tea. However. Baz has done what very few Australian filmmakers ever do (bearing in mind comments re marketing above) and that is make a film that audiences actually want to see. And for this he deserves congratulations.
I do wish, however, that the $40 million (or whatever the sum was! It’s a secret) that was invested by Australian tax-payers in TGG had been spent in the full funding of half a dozen Australian films – based in Australian stories and made for Australian audiences. And I hope that the success of TGG does not inspire government funding bodies to invest $40 million in the next non-Australian extravaganza (regardless of who makes it) when there are much better ways of spending such money on Australian films.
But James, without Australian taxpayer subsidies, how will a small, struggling outfit like Warner Bros survive ?!?
Seriously though, you could fund about THIRTY ‘Samson and Delilahs’ for what the Australian government gave Baz …
Yes indeed, ‘Count’.
I wonder if we will ever find out (a) How much money was given to poor struggling Warner Bros and (b) How much of this makes its way back into Australian coffers.
Will Baz and whatever American studio he goes with next time get another $40 million (or whatever the sum was!) from the Australian taxpayers for his next movie?
I wonder also if the six months of good pay for those who worked on TGG has assisted Australian film as much a steady flow of work on a mixture of films budgeted between Samson and Delilah and, say, $6 million?
Well we know how much money will be returned from tax payers 40 million. Nothing. That’s how it works. Next film Baz makes he’ll threaten to take it to Romania unless the studio he works for is given another 40 million gift. Our politicians have let us down and believed the hype.
Our babies get bashed in the head every day. With research, indecision, timelines and budgets. You had 4 years and $105 million to make your movie. Quit complaining.
The problem is the main character, Carraway, is the least interesting. He doesn’t drive the story, all he does is reacts and has no intriguing backstory or flaw to speak of.
@Craig H; I think he means ‘child’ in the sense that the film is ‘his baby’; his creation that he gave birth to. I can’t think of any creative who doesn’t have a big sensitive streak to do with the work they put out there – especially when they’ve spent hours on it and believe it in it – only to have it ripped apart by ‘the client’ or whoever, who thinks they know better.