Much Ado About Nothing

While watching the two film versions of Much Ado About Nothing, I was particularly interested in the differences in the character of Don Jon. In Joss Whedon’s adaptation, he is portrayed as the villainous character who occupies the play. In this adaptation, the viewer isn’t being directed to feel any sympathy for the man who, out of sheer spite/boredom, decides to rip Hero and Claudio’s worlds apart. Not to mention that Sean Maher kind of looks the villain role.

In the Shakespeare Retold version of the film, Don Jon’s role is much different. Don begs our sympathy at first. His wife has left him, he recently got demoted and he simply cannot seem to win the girl of his dreams. This role, however, quickly changes. The stalker vibes grow on the viewer as they learn about his character. Hero’s asking him to stop sending flowers really starts the ball rolling. This role is solidified as weird as soon as he shows up to the costume party dressed as an absolutely creepy looking, crying clown (have I mentioned that I hate clowns? I didn’t realize how much until I watched this movie).

After I got over the initial strangeness of his appearance, I wondered why, of all things, he was dressed as a clown. Clowns are meant to be a form of entertainment. We are supposed to laugh at them. Other members of the party seem to be dressed according to their roles. Claude and Benedick are knights and Hero is Marilyn Monroe (someone who went through similar struggles as the trapped Hero shown at the end of the movie). Don’s place as someone to be pitied, someone who isn’t taken seriously by anyone in the workplace mirrors the place of a clown as entertainment. Not to mention, the creepy killer clowns that inhabit many scary movies are reminiscent of the villain Don grows into over the course of the movie.

Emma- 1996(Gwyneth Paltrow)

When I realized that we were going to be reading both Gatsby and Emma for class I was so excited. Jane Austen’s novels and other works have taken up the most of the reading I’ve been able to accomplish outside of assigned readings for the majority of my college career, so reading an Austen novel in class was definitely appealing. (Not to mention if I had made it through my entire career as an English major without being assigned something by Jane Austen, I was going to be utterly distraught come May)

The adaptation of Emma that we saw in class is one that I have always had mixed feelings about.  I prefer the longer, more literal adaptation that I found in the 2009 mini-series, but I also know that the 1996 adaptation is more accessible and light hearted in many ways. While watching these versions of Emma, my roommate, who had never read the book, thoroughly enjoyed the 1996 version and feigned death by boredom throughout the mini-series. The length of the adaptations obviously had a lot to do with her reaction, but she also stated that the 1996 version was funnier and more understandable.

While watching the film, I noticed that this version takes a few liberties with the story to create modern humor that a wider audience can appreciate and understand. Some of these liberties include Miss Bate’s shouting random words at her mother, Emma’s conversation with Harriet in the carriage (where she is constantly interrupted by being polite to those she is passing), the goodbyes to Miss Taylor/ Mrs. Weston, and the “don’t kill my dogs” archery scene.

            

These instances are events that you can probably find in many modern movies, making the movie relatable these other works.  I also noticed that these devices don’t rely heavily on language to get their humor across. Like with watching musicals, the language used combined with the accents in Jane Austen adaptations seem to be something you have to learn to listen to, making the jokes/jabs Austen includes less accessible to those who aren’t accustomed to listening to that style of speech. At least, that’s what I gathered from attempting to watch any Jane Austen adaptation (excepting the 1996 that we watched in class) with someone who isn’t familiar with this style of movie.  
 

The Great Gatsby (2013)

While watching the 2013 Great Gatsby I was, once again, struck by the larger than life scenes that are so reminiscent of the book and setting of the story. The roaring twenties were a time of unprecedented prosperity and material excess in America, as shown in the story. Everything of that time came in excess and, for the upper classes depicted, was filled with extravagance. Reading The Great Gatsby is a task of wading through rich descriptions and somewhat dramatic language. There is a feel to the novel that reflects the time Fitzgerald is writing about.

In the film, there are many scenes that are simply larger than life. You might call them staged or over dramatic. For example, when Nick first meets Gatsby there is a huge amount of build up to the final “movie star reveal,” as we called it in class. We are given hints that the man Nick is talking to is Gatsby to the point that we know who he’s making a fool of himself in front of. We get a glimpse of Gatsby’s ring, we hear the classic, “Old Sport,” and we know DiCaprio’s voice. Finally, he introduces himself, smiles, and fireworks go up behind him as a voiceover quotes the novel in describing Gatsby’s smile.

            Just before this scene is a montage of the party as Nick experiences it. The viewer is shown the carelessness and exuberance of the party. The scene comes to a conclusion as the camera drops down on Nick and Jordan as they dance on the platform in the middle of the pool, surrounded by other dancers and partygoers. The party is shown from different levels and different angles as if it were an elaborate stage. This adds to the show that the parties were described as in the novel while also emphasizing the fact that the roaring twenties were a time of excess and “larger than life” living.

1974 The Great Gatsby

In the transition from novel to film, many characters are shown in a new light. We may find ourselves loving a character we hadn’t cared for or disliking a character we loved. For me, the 1974 version of The Great Gatsby cast a light on the shady side of Gatsby and reminded me of the lawlessness of the man that goes along with the hopeful dreamer I always tend to picture.

In the 1974 version of The Great Gatsby viewers are met with a traditional translation of the novel to screen. The filmmakers generally stuck to the novel as far as plot, but rearranged some parts, changed and added others. For example, Daisy tells Nick that she hopes her daughter will be foolish at a party later in the movie rather than during the first party Nick attends at the Buchannan’s home. There is an entirely added portion where Nick is brought to Gatsby’s office in what we called a Godfather-esque fashion.

            The character of Gatsby is probably the most affected by these changes, at least in my mind. The filmmakers seemed to choose to focus more on the illegal dealings that brought Gatsby to the wealth he possesses during the film. During the added portion of the scene where Nick is introduced to Gatsby, we are given a much more suspenseful scene than expected. This suspense sets Gatsby up as a kind of Godfather character, definitely not the hopeful Gatsby I always gathered from the book.

            In a later scene, Nick meets Gatsby’s business associate, Wolfsheim. The movie follows the novel pretty closely here. The inclusion of the story of the man who was shot and the molar cufflinks aid in creating a lawless character for Wolfsheim and casting a question of how good Gatsby can be if he is associated with the man. This scene, though included in the book, is retained in it’s entirety in the film while other scenes, such as flashbacks to Gatsby and Daisy’s first meeting are edited and changed.

            The scenes a filmmaker choses to bring to screen really determine what the character give the character a personality and emphasize different parts of their personality. Overall, I wasn’t a huge fan of the 1974 version of this movie, but the different view of Gatsby was a very interesting thing for me to look at.