Book to TV Movie: Stuart: A Life Backwards

I first heard of Stuart: A Life Backwards when I saw the trailer for the movie on TV. It looked dramatic, intense and brilliant - especially thanks to the acting of Tom Hardy, from what I could tell - so I was definitely intrigued. Then I kind of forgot about it, until I came across the book at the library and knew I had to read it. It quickly became one of my favourite books of the year, and after reading it I knew I had to watch the movie asap.

 I finally got my hands on it (ahem, it's on YouTube) and I have to say my first impression from the ad was correct - it's dramatic, intense and brilliant. Tom Hardy is an AMAZING Stuart. He embodies the character in a literal, physical way; changing his posture, body language, facial expressions and even his voice. He captures Stuart's humour and heart, but doesn't shy away from his incredibly dark side. Hardy's performance is so raw, gritty and utterly heart-wrenching that it's difficult to watch at times, but you can't look away all the same. He's completely compelling.

Also brilliant is Benedict Cumberbatch as Stuart's biographer, Alexander. He's spot-on as the middle class intellectual, perfectly delivering his wry observations and air of nervous affection around his subject. It's the odd couple that Alexander and Stuart form that is placed at the centre of the movie, and amongst a helluva lot of horrible back story, it's a joy to watch. Hardy and Cumberbatch have a wonderful chemistry.

The style of the film perfectly captures and conveys the essence of the novel. Aside from the amazing performances, the timing and structure are well done, interspersing harrowing flashbacks with more heartwarming scenes at just the right intervals. The soundtrack is utilised to wonderful effect; one of my favourite scenes is when Stuart and Alexander bond over singing along (quite badly) to Babybird's 'Because You're Gorgeous' in the car (who can resist a car singalong?!). Animation is also used a few times to communicate Alexander's hilarious imaginings (like his worry that Stuart will steal everything the first time he's in his flat), and it ties in nicely with the illustrations in the novel.

Obviously things had to be left out and altered to adapt the story to fit the one-and-a-half-hour movie format, but the film is remarkably faithful to the spirit of the novel. The only thing I really missed was the scene from Stuart's stay in the country with Alexander's friends; what appears at first to be one of Stuart's fits actually turns out to be him saving the place from some robbers. It's an effective scene in the book, playing with the readers' assumptions and shining a new light on Stuart, but I can understand that it would have been cut from the movie for simplicity and time. As it is, all the key events and elements are in there, touching on all the important emotions; in the space of an hour and a half, you'll laugh, get mad, get sad, probably cry and definitely feel incredibly ill. Stuart was a remarkable man who led a difficult and short life; it's heartening that, though he didn't live to see it, his story will continue to touch many, thanks to his friend Alexander's book - and this movie.

Rating: 5/5

Related
This interview with Hardy and Cumberbatch made me smile. Watch it after seeing footage from the movie to realise just how much Hardy transformed himself for the role. Brilliant.

Review: Stuart: A Life Backwards By Alexander Masters

I don't even know how to begin reviewing Stuart: A life Backwards. Well, I guess I should start at the beginning - which, of course, is actually the end of Stuart's story. Don't worry, it's not as confusing as it sounds. The book opens with Stuart Shorter, an "ex-homeless, ex-junkie psychopath", telling the author of his biography, Alexander Masters, that it's "bollocks boring". Alexander, having worked on the manuscript in question for years, is understandably frustrated, and questions Stuart's expertise (or lack thereof) on the matter. Stuart's response? "Make it more like a murder mystery. What murdered the boy I was? See? Write it backwards."

Thankfully, Alexander took Stuart's advice and rewrote the book, and so begins a journey back through time to discover not just the cause of the death of Stuart's innocence, but of Stuart himself - he died of probable suicide before the second version of the manuscript was complete. I know, it sounds completely dreary and depressing - and it completely is at times - but more often than that it's totally entertaining and even inspiring. Which sounds a bit morbid in the same paragraph as suicide, but I guess it shows just how strange - and brilliant - this book is. A bit like Stuart himself.

In theory, Stuart shouldn't work as a hero. He's vulgar, violent and a little bit (OK, a lot) mad, spending much of the story either homeless or in prison. But he's also charming, wise and strangely moral in his own way. It's this paradoxical nature that makes him so fascinating and, ultimately, likable. In Alexander's capable hands, Stuart's character jumps from the page, his voice captured perfectly so that you feel as though he's right in front of you.

One of the reasons Alexander seems to have been able to capture Stuart so well is because he appears to have developed a strong and genuine friendship with his subject. Some might question how appropriate this is for a biographer, but it works. In fact, one of the loveliest  aspects of the book is the unlikely friendship between the middle class, sheltered writer and the irrepressible vagabond. That's not to say it's an easy relationship. Alexander is frequently uncomfortable in Stuart's company, and even more frequently irritated. But through his honest and amusing account of his reactions and thoughts, Alexander makes Stuart accessible and real. These humourous encounters also act as much-needed breaks from the flashbacks to Stuart's earlier life, which gets darker and more disturbing the further back we go.

You can probably guess what happens, although perhaps not all of it. Let's just say it's horrific and graphic and made me feel physically ill. While it makes Stuart all the more inspiring, it also reinforces the great tragedy of his tale. If he was that brilliant, in his own way, after all he'd been through - imagine the kind of man he would have been if the "boy he was" hadn't been murdered.

Excuse me while I go pick up the broken pieces of my shattered heart from the floor.

Rating: 5/5

Favourite Quotes

"If Stuart is a freak... it is because he has had the superhuman strength not to be defeated by this isolation. It is because he has had the almost unbelievable social adroitness to be able to fit in smoothly with an educated, soft-skinned person like myself and not make me frightened half to death. If Stuart's a freak, I salute freaks." 

“For a moment, I believe, there was a stillness. A shocking realization by all things - beetles, dormice, the spiders spinning their webs in the moonlight, even the hot metal of the tracks and the wind in the trees - that Death had just shrieked past like a stinking black eagle and made off with a remarkable man." 

Related

• Read about Stuart's sister Zoe's experiences and reaction to the book here (spoiler warning if you haven't read the book).
• Stuart: A Life Backwards was adapted into a movie starring Tom Hardy and Benedict Cumberbatch. It looks amazing. Hopefully I can track down a copy soon - if I do, I'll post a review!

 

Pash, Pick or Pass: The Gatsby Edition

Time to play Pash, Pick or Pass - a game where we pick from a random book trio and say who we'd pash (and dash), who we'd pick for a relationship and who we'd pass on all together.

The Contenders
When I heard the news yesterday that Baz Luhrmann's upcoming adaptation of The Great Gatsby would be released at Christmas, I got excited. Until I realised it was Christmas 2012. I can't wait that long! Of course, I'll have to... So to ease the pain of waiting, I decided to play Pash, Pick or Pass with the Gatsby boys this week. Although I'm excited for the movie, the cast aren't exactly who I pictured when I read it, so these are my ideas of the boys...

Nick Carraway

Jay Gatsby

Tom Buchanan

My Choices

Pash: Gatsby, of course. Handsome, rich, fun... but way too messed up for anything permanent.

Pick: Nick. Yeah, he's kinda boring, but he's also kind, smart and stable - the natural choice out of the three for a lifelong commitment. I can always have Gatsby on the side, right? Not that I agree with that kind of thing. But this is Fitzgerald's world, not the real world, so what the hey.

Pass: Tom. He's one hell of a man, really. Emphasis on hell. He's such a brute. He and Daisy deserve each other.

Who would you pash/pick/pass?

Related: Review of The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald

Review: The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald

Wow. That was unexpected.

I don't know how I got through life up until this point without reading or watching The Great Gatsby, or even knowing the story. Usually with the classics, even without ever personally encountering them, you generally get to know the whole plot via cultural references/magical osmosis. But somehow, that hadn't happened for me with The Great Gatsby. I knew it was set in the roaring '20s and featured lots of parties, plus a bit of love and drama. I knew it featured characters named Jay Gatsby, Nick Carraway and Daisy. But that was all. I decided last year that it was about time that changed - so I tried to read it. Twice. I didn't get further than the first chapter either time.

While it was beautifully written, I just couldn't get into it. The narrator, Nick, seemed like a boring type of fellow, and while he visited his cousin Daisy, her nasty husband Tom and their friend Jordan, and mentioned briefly his neighbour Jay Gatsby, I wondered what the point of it all was. The plot was plodding, the events and characters seemed insignificant and I didn't know who to care about, or if I did at all. I didn't exactly mean to give up on it - I just got distracted by books that excited me so much more. Then, when I picked it up again to keep reading it, I couldn't remember what had happened. It was so dull that it had completely drifted from my mind. So I had to start again. And I got distracted again. And had to start all over again.

This time, I was determined to finish it. It's only 188 pages, after all! And wow, am I glad I did. Because I freaking loved it. Sure, the first couple of chapters are slow - I was impatient for Gatsby to show up - but when he appears, it's well worth the wait. Things finally get going and everything starts to make sense; what seemed so insignificant before is actually revealed to be quite the opposite and when it all clicks into place, it's wonderful. I don't really want to say any more because I don't want to give away the plot for those who, like me, haven't encountered it before. Because it was fantastic to read a book without knowing ANYTHING that was going to happen. I totally didn't expect the story to go in the direction it did, and when it did, I was floored. I already want to reread it - somehow, I don't think I'll find it quite so dull next time!

Rating: 4/5

 

Talking points (and possible spoilers)

• The language was just lovely. There were so many sentences that jumped off the page - my faves include, "Let us learn to show our friendship for a man when he is alive and not after he is dead" and "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy - they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness". Then there was one of the closing paragraphs: "Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter - tomorrow we will run faster, stretchout our arms farther... And one morning -" What a paragraph! So sad, so beautiful.
• I loved Gatsby's devotion to Daisy and the awe that she inspired in him - especially evident when he was showing off his house. I didn't quite get the shirt scene though, when she's crying over how beautiful Gatsby's clothes are. I understand that she was probably feeling just a tad emotional, but I was confused about why the shirts specifically set her off. Was it because it showed just how far he'd come? Or was she literally crying over how beautiful they were, to show how shallow she was? That seems unlikely. Anyway, I was confused.
• There were a few racist remarks throughout that made me a bit uncomfortable, but they mostly came from Tom, who wasn't exactly a positive character. The majority of his words and actions were quite disgusting.
• I now want to hunt down every The Great Gatsby adaptation out there. The Robert Redford/Mia Farrow is a must - I can totally see Mia as Daisy - plus I also just discovered there's a TV version from 2000, starring Toby Stephens, Paul Rudd (!) and, er, Mira Sorvino. I have a sneaking suspicion it will be very bad, but I love Toby Stephens and Paul Rudd. Meanwhile, I'm a bit worried about Baz Luhrmann's upcoming adaptation - I love Baz, but he's filming this very American story in Australia, and in 3D. THREE. DEE. Ugh.

Eye candy

So, despite the many adaptations, I managed to come up with my own cast for this one. Well, almost. The exception was Carey Mulligan, who's playing Daisy in the upcoming film and was also Daisy in my head. What can I say - I adore her:

Baz has cast Tobey Maguire as Nick Carraway, and I think he'll be OK, but as soon as I started reading Nick's narration, Ryan Gosling's voice came into my head. It was a nice voice to stay with for 188 pages. And a nice face:

To go with Tobey's Nick, his mate Leonardo Dicaprio has been cast as Gatsby. But he's too bloated for my liking these days. My Gatsby looked more like Armie Hammer, who you might know as the Winklevii from The Social Network:

 

Jordan to me looked a lot like Leighton Meester. For no other reason than I think she's super-pretty:

As for who I think would be the perfect brutish, masculine Tom? Why, Tom Hardy, of course:

And only one person came to mind when the sexy, sassy, full-of-vitality Myrtle was described:

Related

This NES-style The Great Gatsby game is super-fun: greatgatsbygame.com