Gatsby: It's Not Great, but What Is It?

I know F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel pretty well -- there was a time I could have told you which chapter lines resided in the short work (125 pages?).

So, seeing someone like Baz Luhrmann try to put it on screen was not something I looked forward to.

And I was uncertain of the casting of Tobey Maguire, Leo DiCaprio, and Carey Mulligan.

It's a lavishly filmed movie, which isn't a surprise given Luhrmann's career.  The much-hyped music was not a big element -- all those artists puffed in various ads just don't seem to be there.  There are snippets, but you never say "oh, that's Jay-Z, let's listen"...it's more of a skimming, brief background music.

One surprise is how faithful Luhrmann remained to the book.  In fact, maybe overly so, with Maguire's Nick Carraway "writing" Fitzgerald's words in both voice over and literally on the screen.  Too much? Probably.  The floating boats at the end just don't work...where's the actual visual of the boats (yeah, I know it's a metaphor)?

DiCaprio is okay as Gatsby.  Jay Gatsby is such an enigmatic figure, it's hard to say this is what an actor should do to make him work.  DiCaprio has the awkwardness of Gatsby's speech down (who the bleep really calls people "Old Sport"? -- yes, it's like he wants to be too familiar and doesn't quite know how naturally).

Maguire is good as Carraway.  Those faces he's been making since Cider House Rules stand him well here, where the wide-eyed naif is perfect for the just-turning-thirty Nick.

Mulligan is good as Daisy, too, floating from her first scene (famed in the book as she and Jordan Baker seem to float among the curtains as they lay on sofas in the Buchanan living room), light, ephemeral, yes, callow and shallow, too.  Mulligan has that.  She never seems as deep and worthy as Gatsby makes her.

What I found troubling about the movie was the swift change in tone.  After "party city" for the first two-thirds, the whole becomes painful melodrama (another reviewer has called it Nicholas Sparks romance) that slows and loses its life.  The almost unnecessary mano-y-mano scene in the Plaza Hotel is overwrought -- it's not clear it captures Gatsby's naiveté.  He really never has a chance to keep Daisy in his castle (as it is described) & Luhrmann doesn't quite capture that.

In the end, if you don't expect too much -- god knows it's NOT the best movie of the year, and probably not best movie of the month -- and don't hope for more than a bit of fun and a bit of melodrama, you'll be okay.

But that leaves this to say: why do we keep returning to this book?  I have seen multiple news shows, most notably the insufferable Chris Matthews, pump the movie, excited about the opening of "the Great American Novel."

I love the book.  And there's not doubt that it is "great" and it is "American."  But that it's the epitome of that art form, well, maybe, but it, like it's name character, is an enigma.  Let's ponder for a moment:

Many have talked about it as "the American dream."  It's hard to not take that to mean Gatsby's dream, which is highly flawed.  Gatsby, or Gatz, has fallen for a Southern ingenue who is shallow enough to marry another man, clearly for his family name and money, a year after her breakup with her supposed beloved.  That she moves on so quickly makes her something that Gatsby, and we the reader/viewer, shouldn't put on a pedestal.  Of course, that's part of the tragedy: Gatsby's passion is misdirected in so many ways.

Are we supposed to overlook that?  Or are we to see it as Fitzgerald's satire on the whole thing? (as many times as I've read it, I've never seen how you can do this -- Fitzgerald is as in love with Gatsby and Daisy as Nick is) What are we to make of our nexus of Gatsby-Nick-Tom?  Tom is brutal and not overly intelligent, though his references to Goddard, etc, make him better read (and he went to Yale, right? though our last president may have damaged that mystique forever) than we might expect.  Surely, we are to admire Gatsby, enjoy Nick, and despise Tom.  But that leaves us admiring a gangster (you certainly have heard the name -- Gatsby -- might derive from the notion of "by gat (gangster slang for a gun)"?), who tries to steal a man's wife (i.e. Luhrmann makes them clearly adulterers), with nice clothes and corny manners.  REally?!?!  That's our choice?  That's the American Dream?

Maybe it's the enigma that makes it so fascinating:  Luhrmann and Bogdanovich (the last one to make a big-budget movie version) just can't resist trying to make that smoke-like quality into something visual and solid.

The greatness of the book is in its enigmatic nature; maybe film-makers should leave it be.

I know that doesn't leave us in a good place as we look at this film, or rethink the novel, but there you have it -- it's a quality challenge.

April "showers" bring White Sox May what?!?!

So far this season I have refrained from saying anything about my beloved White Sox.  Dbrolaw is a Cubs fan (of course), explaining (once more) why this blog is called "Not Dbrolaw."  A Cubs fan.  Talk about a sad lot in life.

But this year's Sox aren't a pretty sight, either.  Last night they were no-hit for seven innings by the NL pitcher of the month, the Mets' Matt Harvey.  It's not surprising they were no-hit by a hot pitcher: they are last in the majors in batting, walks, on base percentage, and runs scored.  Monday afternoon they only had two hits v. Kansas City going into the ninth.  By the way, last night's game was their third consecutive extra inning game. They've lost two out of three.

Let me summarize what's going on: first, John Danks, one of their core star starters, hasn't come off rehab yet.  He should be their #3 and if he returns to form of three years ago, is about as good a #3 as anyone has.

Second, Jake Peavy, their #2,  has missed a couple starts with back spasms.

Third, their #3 in Danks's place, Gavin Floyd, underwent Tommy John surgery yesterday.  Done for the season, the year, etc, and, if lucky, will be back full strength in 2015.

Fourth, the "Big Donkey," Adam Dunn is hitting around .150.  Yes, he hits home runs, but the middle of your order cant' hit .150 and you generate runs.

Fifth, their best bat outside the trio of Dunn-Konerko-Rios, Dayan Viciedo, has been out hurt, too.

Sixth, Konerko and Rios aren't hitting either.

I could go on.  There's not much point.

They are 6.5 back on May 8.  And five games under .500.  Right now .500 looks like a pipe dream.  And my annual beat on them winning more games than the Pirates looks to be in jeopardy.

But it's only May 8, right?  We can hope a bunch of those people on the list get healthy, physically or statistically, and the Sox roll.

Right?

Stark Third Part: Iron Man Review

Yes, I saw Iron Man 3 this weekend.

You know you aren't at an art film when the previews are Superman, Star Trek: Why's It Called This?, Thor 2: or Why Bother? & The Lone Ranger (you're on your own with that clever subtitle).

Robert Downey's third attempt at the Marvel character isn't bad -- in fact, there are some clever bits.  But, really, you ever think there's a chance the lame villain played pretty well by Guy Pearce (he needs a better agent) is going to win, or that pretty Pepper -- the most beautiful woman in the world, Gwenyth Paltrow -- is going to die?  Nope.  Not happening.  Never think it will.  Maybe Don Cheadle's character is expendable (isn't he?), and maybe the US President is (not to give too much plot away), but not Pepper.

The franchise is tired.  Tony Stark's got malaise (you know, it's tough being too rich, married to the most beautiful woman in the world...I'd have malaise, too. And I have even forgot his near super powers).  We don't care.

There's lots of good fight scenes.

There's some nifty technology, not much of it we understand, or seem to be supposed to.

In the end, it's another 130 minutes of action.  It's not boring, but it's not great film-making.

Downey, Paltrow and Pearce deserve better.

This is NOT heroic stuff.

Post-Derby:Ouch to My Golden Soul!

The weather was sloppy, the track was sloppy, and, frankly, my picking was sloppy today.

It wasn't quite a goose-egg, but I didn't cash a ticket of any kind on the Derby.  Damned that Golden Soul!

Yes, I had an exacta with 16 over 3 or 5, but...

Yes, I had a superfecta with 16 over a series of numbers, but none of them was 4.

What I find interesting about the post-coverage is how little is being said about Golden Soul.

So, let me tell you this little bit: my analysis put Golden Soul 16th.

GS was the last horse into the race, with 7 points (right?) after a host of pretenders with 20 points dropped out -- early in the week when all these trainers and owners were wondering, one site indicating Golden Soul's team had committed to coming if eligible.  Right on!

Before we talk about the Preakness, look at those payoffs today: Exacta $981; 50cent Trifecta $1731; $1 Superfecta $28,542!  Yeah, serious change.  If you had the 4 to place, a mere $38.60!

But who had Golden Soul?

A sign of the picks was no one hit the Super Hi 5 -- the top 5 in order.  $303k carries over to somewhere...

As to the Preakness, Orb looked great today, outrunning the field from the third turn home and winning by a good margin (2+ lengths).  A bunch of horses seemed to skip the Derby (seeing all the mud and all the horses bounce off each other at the start and in various spots, you could hardly blame them), but none looks a challenge in two weeks, if he has gas left.  Surely the next four in the Derby, if healthy, should follow him to Baltimore.

And, yes, it was my worst day at the track, EVER, in terms of monetary losses AND total tickets not cashed -- five times I had the front end of a daily double, but...and one P3 I had first two, and...

Spilt milk.

Back to the drawing board.  How to make money around Orb in two weeks.

Derby Day Bets (Revised)

[Revised with more input, Sat. morning]

Today is the big day.  The morning weather report, unlike the last few days, says only "light showers," which means the track should still be fast for the race.  I looked at "sloppy" and most of the field has never run in sloppy conditions: only five have run in sloppy conditions.  Itsmyluckyday won at 5F & Vyjack won at 7F.  On good tracks, Revolutionary, Giant Finish, Falling Sky & Charming Kitten have wins. 

As they say, all bets are off here if the track is not "fast."

So, here's what I think we should do (I'm going to keep it simple and keep it as inexpensive as I can):

Go for your W's on Revolutionary (3) & Goldencents (8)
Put PS $ on Mylute (6), Normandy Invasion (5) & Palace Malice (10)

Add any of second three to 3,8 on exacta box.

For your trifecta, do this: 3,8,X/3,8,6,5,10/3,8,6,5,10.

Superfecta:  the play is to go 6 deep, with 3,8,6,5,10 & 16.  That's $240 investment.

Lighter (less $$)?  Try 3,8,16/3,8,6,5,10/3,8,6,5,10,16/3,8,6,5,10,16.  That's $144.

Smaller still?  3,8/3,5,8,10/3,5,8,10/3,5,8,10.   That's $12.

Onto our other choices:

P6 @ Churchill:  8-1,6-3-8-8,9-3,8.  In Woodford (10th) long shot special is #5 Swift Warrior.

Derby + 2 P3: 3,8-8(+3)-1(+8).  Money play: 4 (Frontside 30:1) in the 8th.

P6 @ Belmont: 3-2,7-1,3-5,8-6,7-1,6.  Money plays: 6 (Abilio 15:1) in 7th; 10 (Ghostly Vision 12:1) in 8th.

That should spend down your nut. Good luck with the exotics -- there's serious money to be had here.

The "I-Ain't-Nate-Silver-But-Going-to-Act-Like-It-Anyway" Analysis of the Derby

First, I have to admit I have probably not taken the advice found in Zen & the Art of Finding a Kentucky Derby Winner as much to heart as I should have.  So, this is probably "overcooked."

Second, the PPs are in for the Derby.  And the post positions.  And the odds.  There's a lot of info out there.  It's time to sift through it.

Nate Silver-like (if you have to ask who he is, you should not read on), I have constructed an algorithm to tell me who is really likely to come out of the 20-horse pack Saturday and win the Derby.  This isn't about betting (sometimes one bets against the best horse to make money -- though that's unlikely on Saturday in the Derby), it's about winners.

Using a combination of Beyer scores (this will assume belief that they mean something), post position, & betting odds, I have come up with a number.

And that number makes Goldencents the number one horse on the board.

It puts Revolutionary 2, Will Take Charge 3, and Normandy Invasion 4.  Squeeze another horse into your trifecta or superfecta and we're talking (surprisingly) Mylute.

I could tweak the algorithm.

But, given the use of Beyer scores, it's not surprising these horses rise to the top.

Goldencents ran a 105 at the Santa Anita, his last race.  Verrazano has a 105 this year, too, but three races ago, and the win in the Wood was "only" a 95.  Will Take Charge's last race was "only" a 95, but he's trending the other way.

That's my early numerical analysis.  I'll have betting blogs tomorrow afternoon.

But here's my first take at Churchill's P6 Saturday: 6-6-3-8,9-3,8-8.   8-8-8 to finish?  Crazy.

More tomorrow, after I see the Belmont PPs.

Derby Week: Post Draw

They've drawn for Saturday's Kentucky Derby post positions & JG wants input.

Here it is.

I found this article, dated Monday, from John Mucciolo @ NBCSports, that went over the potential Derby field.

Why am I referencing it?

Because Mooch (c'mon, EVERYONE calls John Mucciolo "Mooch," right?) broke the field into "Top Contenders," "Borderline Contenders," and "Longshot Contenders."

In short, almost all his Top Contenders drew good post positions.

Research shows it's been 25 years since a horse in the 1 or 2 hole won the race.  Last year I'll Have Another won from 19; in '08 Big Brown won from 20 (Big Brown could have won from Brownsburg, IN).  Since Winning Colors won from the 1 post in '88, it's gone this way: 10-8-9-5-10-6-8-16-15-5-3-16-15-5-5-13-10-8-7-20-8-4-16-19.

Notice -- no 1s or 2s, one 3, one 4, and FOUR 5's! FOUR 8's! and THREE 16's!  The latter is a surprise as people might think it's too wide.

Of course, you can't account for the quality of the horse (hey, every year the Fear the Kitten may have drawn the inside posts), but I don't think we need Nate Silver to tell us 5-10 are the hot spots.

5 is Normandy Invasion, who Mooch has in his Borderline category.
6 is Mylute -- Borderline.
7 is Giant Finish -- Longshot.
8 is Goldencents -- Top.
9 is Overanalyze -- Top.
10 is Palace Malice -- Borderline.

Here are his other 4 "Tops": Verrazano (prob fav) 14; Revolutionary in 3; Orb in 16 (borderline bad news); Itsmyluckyday in 12; Java's War is 19 (bad news).  I wasn't on Java's War anyway.

Normandy Invasion, which I liked (yes, JG), gets help by this, as does Mylute (ick) and Palace Malice (who I think may deserve a flutter as a longshot -- $5 win could get your money back Saturday for the race).

More analysis later.  I'm sure all experts will be talking about how it the race will run -- the pace, the closers, etc -- over the next two days.  For JG, read this.  Or just bet "Overanalyze" (pun intended) and get it over with. :)

More tomorrow, after PPs, etc.