Baz Lurhmann’s Gatsby – It’s not History, It’s Art

Didion: American teenagers still get marched through F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby (1925) early in their high school careers, told that this is a “classic.” I haven’t read it since then, so it was a revelation to find how much I remembered its contemplative mood. Gatsby is still as inscrutable, and Daisy as shadowy as I remember. It’s a beautiful, evasive book punctuated with moments of the most spectacular clarity of prose and insight — all the better for being so slim and accessible to high school kids.

Ask Jordan Baker to come up. I need to talk to her privately

Ask Jordan Baker to come up. I need to talk to her privately

Told through the eyes of Nick Carraway, a well-to-do Midwesterner whose job selling bonds has landed him a house out on the shores of Long Island Sound, the story fixates on Carraway’s fantastically wealthy neighbor, Jay Gatsby. Rumors fly about him: he might be an Oxford man, or a murderer, or perhaps just a liar. As if to cultivate those tales, Gatsby throws lavish parties and uses oddly unpopular expressions like “old sport.” But as we learn early on, part of this is a show for the benefit of Nick’s cousin Daisy Buchanan, who lives with her lout of a husband across a small bay from Nick and Gatsby, and who had a short romance with Gatsby years ago when he was a poor serviceman stationed in her hometown of St. Louis. Famously — memorably — Gatsby stands at the edge of his property in the evenings, gazing out across the water to the green light at the end of the Buchanans’ pier, longing for her and hoping that his new wealth and status might be enough to win her back.

Jack Clayton’s 1974 film with Robert Redford, Mia Farrow, and Sam Waterston emphasized the gauzy, sun-lit aspects of the tale, and the grandeur of Gatsby’s house, but critics generally felt the film was better at conveying the surface appearance of the tale than the book’s melancholy soul.. The New York Times’ Vincent Canby famously complained that “the sets and costumes and most of the performances are exceptionally good, but the movie itself is as lifeless as a body that’s been too long at the bottom of a swimming pool.” It may have got the 1920s/ Jazz Age look right, but it failed to capture the classic Americanness of this story.

The song Isn't It Romantic? by Rodgers & hart didn't come along until 1932

The song Isn’t It Romantic? by Rodgers & Hart didn’t come along until 1932, so it is not in the film

All the more reason for a new interpretation. With Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan, and Tobey Maguire in the three core roles, does Baz Luhrmann’s much-anticipated film achieve what Clayton’s could not?

You must tell Tom that you never loved him...

You must tell Tom that you never loved him…

JMM: Great question, Didion. Upon publication in 1925, the book sales were tepid: about 20,000 copies sold in the 1st year following publication. In contrast, the book has sold about 405,000 copies in the first three months of this year. And that number would not include the copy I bought late in April, after not being able to acquire one from my nearest public library.

But before we launch into a discussion of the film, I’d like to point out that the budget/cost of this film was in the West Egg-ish neighborhood of $127,000,000. One would have to be quite creative to spend that much money on a movie. And just think of the clothing and accessories tie-ins with Prada, Tiffany & Co, and Brooks Brothers. I don’t think I’ll be trotting off to Brooks Brothers to pick up a straw boater at $198 a pop. How about you? Will you be going in for the 1920’s look?

Didion: As long as I can score a new tiara, I’ll be all set. You know how us professors get paid so lavishly that a visit to Tiffany is, like, yawn.

So I’m curious, JMM — tell me your thoughts about the relationship between book and film. Obviously, literary adaptations are always tricky; directors want to make films that anyone can see, from big fans of the book to those who’ve never read it. Do you think Luhrmann succeeds?

All that glitters may not be gold, but it will be Gatsby

All that glitters may not be gold, but it will be Gatsby

JMM: Yes, he succeeds. As you said above, the book and its titular character Gatsby are inscrutable which to me means that it is subject to many interpretations — almost as many as the number of bits of confetti and streamers that fell during the Gatsby soirees.

I think the transfer of the literary to the screen was well done. Especially if you consider that the charm of the book is less the story, and more the excellence of the writing.

Didion: I agree with you in part. I felt Luhrmann succeeded with the overall look and the vividness of the characters — no one is going to say, as Canby did about the previous version, that this is lifeless — but I disliked the hyperactive melodrama of the film. It missed, to me, the book’s soul: its narrator’s desire for something real behind all that glitz.

JMM: Yeah, in the film, the Carraway character was either in awe, or watching with stunned amazement – or busy twirling a glass in his hand – but isn’t that what makes the book so difficult to film – the charms of Nick are all his internal discoveries rather than something he actually does?

Nick to Gatsby: [you're better] than the whole damned bunch together

Nick to Gatsby: [you’re better] than the whole damned bunch together

Didion: That’s exactly right. Nick wants to believe that Gatsby really is “worth the whole damn bunch altogether,” as he shouts to Gatsby across the lawn. But the film doesn’t quite show us that Gatsby is anything more than an imperfect invention. Luhrmann couldn’t quite commit: are we supposed to attach to Gatsby? or are we supposed to see through him, and thus become aware of Nick’s naivete?

JMM: That is a tough question. Was it that Nick was naive, or that Gatsby was a master of showmanship – or both? The story (film and book) opens with Gatsby being a mythic person and no one knew his reality. Including Nick who befriended him. Didn’t Lurhmann (and Fitzgerald) go out of their way to make Gatsby mysterious as well as the subject of gossip? If so , can we call Carraway naive?

Heading into town for lunch -

Heading into town for lunch –

Didion: I suppose this is what makes the book so endlessly appealing to high school English classrooms! It allows kids to scrutinize the difference between surface appearance and the person within.

One of the things I loved about the book was Nick’s voice throughout: his eagerness to believe that Gatsby and Daisy really felt a true love for one another. Nick is the only character who wants to reveal his true self, and to believe that Gatsby is truly good on the inside, even when the whole crowd lies, hides things, and/or reveals their untrustworthiness. So I’m disappointed by the over-the-top emotional melodrama that Luhrmann laid on top of everything. Luhrmann’s style worked so well for me in capturing the excesses of the 1920’s,

Lurhmann lathers on the CGI

Lurhmann lathers on the CGI

but just fell down utterly when making me care about the characters — Tobey Maguire’s Nick included.

JMM: Well I will certainly agree about Gatsby being good. His problem was that he was a dreamer who couldn’t let go of the past. Daisy – not so good. Tom Buchanan not good at all. But Maguire’s Carraway is more of a Greek chorus, a chronicler, a reality mirror to Jay Gatsby’s unreality. Was it Maguire’s dull characterization of Carraway, or was it the script, or simply the way that Lurhmann directed? I can’t say for sure.

What I can say for sure is that I was quite involved with the melodramatic last 2/3 of the film – much more so than during the razzle-dazzle first ⅓.

Didion: Really?!? Well, this might be our most substantial disagreement! I loved the film’s big middle — its second act — but the final act had me rolling my eyes.

You clearly didn’t like Maguire as Nick. I’m more on the fence. What better actor alive could capture that innocence, and the pleasure of entering into the excesses of the super-rich of the 1920s? I was less interested in the way that Luhrmann created a frame for the film — Nick, months later, installed in an asylum for nervous exhaustion and alcoholism, trying to capture the causes of his illness for a psychologist. Maguire was neither very good in those scenes, nor did the director use them in a way to compel the audience’s connection to the character.

I will say that Luhrmann’s casting was great. Every single character looked the part — I mean, damn, Carey Mulligan! Elizabeth Debicki as the golfer/socialite Jordan Baker! and even that shiny, tanned, and slightly creepy face of DiCaprio’s as Gatsby — it all looked exactly right.

Is the beautiful dreamer or is he shiny, tanned, and slightly creepy?

Is he the beautiful dreamer or is he shiny, tanned, and slightly creepy?

JMM: Loved the casting myself. Except that I didn’t buy that Tom Buchanan and Carraway were classmates. Meaning Edgerton and Maguire looked about 10 years different. Maybe it is less about Maguire’s performance that gave me cause for concern. I’ll refer back to the statement I made earlier about Carraway’s charms being internal.

The framing device worked for me because it gave them a way of getting the words on the screen. Whether the sanatorium aspect was good or bad isn’t a major point for me.

But back to the casting. Many have said that Leo was a bit too old for the role. Maybe. But his tan and his weathered look come from his lifestyle and stress. I liked the way Leo brought out Gatsby’s loss of confidence when he first meets (re-unites) with Daisy in the Carraway cottage.

And her fluttered look perfectly matched his.

I'm certainly glad to meet you ...

I’m certainly glad to meet you …

Didion: Argh! I hated that scene! It didn’t work for me AT ALL.

It was all so overdone … like a kabuki version of anxiety. And all the extended lead up to the actual meeting between Gatsby and Daisy — it went on forever — took away from what the scene should have done, which is to cement in Nick’s mind that these two share perfect, long-lost love.

JMM: Well I’ll agree to disagree. But that came from the book didn’t it? Gatsby leaving, going outside and standing in the rain until he was drenched. Beyond that, that scene had the one laugh-out-loud moment in the whole film. When Gatsby asks, Is everything okay, You have all you need for the tea? And Nick replies – Well maybe more flowers…

I also wonder about the ‘cementing’. Is it is Nick’s mind or ours?

Didion: Certainly in Nick’s mind, but isn’t that anchored to our minds as viewers? Don’t we need to believe, even for a moment, that Gatsby and Daisy aren’t just glossy pretty people, but truly in love — even if the film later throws some of that open to question?

That’s why I found the scene so needlessly goofy. I wanted it to show another side of Gatsby; to show that he wasn’t all self-assurance and polish. But this scene went for cheap laughs rather than more depth to his character. It made me think that Luhrmann is, above all, just a ham-handed director who can’t manage a single minute of emotional subtlety.

JMM: About Lurhmann – I won’t disagree with ham-handed. I won’t disagree with lacking in subtlety – but I must give him props for showmanship, hype, and marketing – care to venture down that road for a bit?

Didion: I’m completely down with you there. Which brings up another topic: the soundtrack, and especially the confluence of musical genres in the film (dotted with hip hop by Jay-Z, who also served as executive producer for the soundtrack).

The scenes of crazy parties are just awesome. No subtlety needed. And although I was a little taken aback when the Jay-Z’s song “100$ Bill” blasted underneath those scenes — because I love 1920s music and hoped to hear more of it — I ultimately loved the whole thing. The music also includes new interpretations of 1920s songs as well as covers of Amy Winehouse, Beyonce, and others, altogether creating the most lush soundtrack I’ve heard in years. Loved it. And I was so glad to see those great party scenes on the big screen.

In the Morning,  In the Evening,  Ain't We Got Fun?

In the Morning,
In the Evening,
Ain’t We Got Fun?

JMM: Yes the music worked for me too. I think the press has made far too much of the inclusion of hip hop, but coming out of the theater I only remembered two pieces of music – Lana Del Rey’s Young and Beautiful which was Daisy’s theme, and the famed Gershwin opus, Rhapsody in Blue.

The party music was great – and would have been pleasurable no matter what.

Didion: Can I ask you about Carey Mulligan’s portrayal of Daisy for a moment, and in general the film’s view of women? I thought she was wonderful, of course — but we never learn much more about her. She functions more as a figment of Gatsby’s imagination than as a real, three-dimensional person. Let’s not forget how utterly absent her daughter is from the story. One of the things that affected me was Daisy’s comment that she hopes her daughter grows up to be “a beautiful little fool,” because a fool is “the best thing a girl can be in this world.”

JMM: Great thinking Didion. I’m with you completely. It is a scary part of the story. It is one thing for Daisy to be like that, and she was, and another thing for her to wish that for her little girl. Realistically, I think all the female characters came off badly in the book – even Jordan. But as we can see from both the book and the film, there are no likeable characters. Daisy was all surface, she not only hadn’t any depth, but I think we were supposed to see that immediately.

When we first meet Daisy and Jordan, Fitzgerald describes them like having the weight and substance of balloons. They flutter and quiver and so forth. Fitzgerald made it a point to make them lacking substance.

“They were both in white, and their dresses were rippling and fluttering as if they had just been blown back in after a short flight around the house.”

Didion: Oh, JMM, I love that catch — I’d forgotten that beautiful description in the book. Fitzgerald had little interest in giving them much weight. In fact, that line of Daisy’s about her daughter being a fool is the only glimpse we have of her dissatisfaction with her lot; otherwise she appears committed to being a fool, mostly at least.

 Let's get out, whispered Jordan, This is much too polite for me.

Let’s get out, whispered Jordan, This is much too polite for me.

Jordan is a bit more interesting; the book suggests that she might not be such an honest sportswoman. And in the film Elizabeth Debicki’s huge eyes and tall dancer’s frame make her tower over Tobey Maguire in a way that was always mysterious and evocative. But this isn’t really a film about female characters except as love objects for the men in the story.

JMM:  True. Let’s move to another smaller venue – the underground club behind the barbershop door where they went for lunch. Did you like Amitabh Bachchan as Wolfsheim, or did you feel this was a role incorrectly cast?

Wolfsheim: Gatsby's an Oxford man

Wolfsheim: Gatsby’s an Oxford man

Didion: Loved the speakeasy scene, and Bachchan was perfectly cast as Wolfsheim — but (and this is a big but) Lurhmann cut out most of what made Wolfsheim such a crucial character.

Now, there are good reasons to cut it out: the book is unapologetically anti-Semitic, and racist in ways that only get a slight gloss in the film. On reflection, I’m not sorry that Luhrmann decided to cut down the book’s nasty white supremacy and the cartoonish portrayal of Wolfsheim as Gatsby’s main man.

"Big B' - with the unnervingly sparkling eyes

“Big B’ – with the unnervingly sparkling eyes

So Bachchan doesn’t get much of a chance here, but his whole appearance — his unnervingly sparkling eyes — was ideal for the part. How about you?

JMM: I’ve seen many films with Bachchan and I knew what I was going to get from him. I think Lurhmann cast him as Wolfsheim because it would help market the film internationally – and also because who else might have been considered – Mandy Patinkin?

As for the racist and anti-Semitic remarks – I thought there were plenty of them included in the film to make the point, so even if Lurhmann cut back volume wise – he didn’t soft-pedal those topics in any way.

Another point – didn’t they include enough mysterious phone calls to have us consider that Gatsby was indeed involved in shady doings.

If Detroit is their idea of a small town, then this won't work

If Detroit is their idea of a small town, then this won’t work

And then once they’ve done this – who do we meet at the parties – but NY celebs, senators, congressmen, and even the police commissioner was at the speakeasy – so I don’t think Wolfsheim needed any more depth on-screen for us to see.

Didion: So this brings me to my last question: about the film’s use of 3D. Even though I’d sworn to myself that I’d skip seeing the 3D versions of film (after Tintin, which was meh), I nevertheless forked out the extra few bucks this time. And… big disappointment.

Now, I get it that Luhrmann’s filming ethos is summed up with, “why not?” But I think the 3-D not only failed to add anything, particularly during the lush party scenes, but it detracted for me from the attractiveness of the set and costumes overall. I’d strongly recommend that people see it in 2D.

JMM: The 3D was added in not because of ‘why not’ but because of the revenue stream. This was strictly a marketing decision and a gimmick. As you said if anything it was unnecessary at best, and a distraction at worst. The difference between the 2D ticket and the 3D at my theater was $5. So I think that was behind it.

As was the music. As was Bachchan.

I’ve a question: Do you have a favorite quote from the book/film?

Didion: I’ve been thinking about that. And honestly, I must admit that it’s not the beautiful famous final line of the novel, which Lurhmann uses here (to his credit): “So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.” A gorgeous line, but so self-conscious.

I had a whole pile of lines I loved in the book — they appear only occasionally in the midst of Fitzgerald’s generally sparse prose. But I think my favorite might be,

“In his blue gardens men and girls came and went like moths among the whisperings and the champagne and the stars.”

JMM: That is a line filled with beautiful imagery. The one I liked best came on the next to last page.

“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”

Of course that is why we love the book. About the book and the film version – a thematic question – Lurhmann’s showed this at least three times. – workers with pick-axes working on the mounds of ashes. Is this indicative of a heaven (the palaces and mansions and the party-life) and indicative of a hellish existence – real life with work and sweat. I mean is this at the core of the story, or is it the more surfacey – the old money versus the new money that is one of the base themes? Any thoughts on that?

Didion: Loved the way he created the old optician’s billboard, of a god/death watching over this hellish middle place of sweat and hard work. But the scenes of workmen toiling just seemed, again, like a cartoonish Broadway set.

Later Tom would chafe at being introduced to someone at a Gatsby party as Tom Buchanan, the polo player

Later Tom would chafe at being introduced to someone at a Gatsby party as Tom Buchanan, the polo player

Your broader question still troubles me. Does the film do enough to satisfy me in capturing the snobbery of old-money types like Tom Buchanan? And the striving desire of new-money types like Gatsby for a glamorous object like old-money Daisy, whose voice “sounds like money”? No, but then our culture is much less concerned about old money than theirs was. I was also a little disappointed that the film didn’t make much of the divide between East Coast society and the Midwesterners (Nick, Daisy, Gatsby) who have arrived there — that is, arrived from a more innocent place.

JMM: Maybe because in the 20’s there was so little new money, and the old money wasn’t that old. Tom was a Midwestern guy too.

Nick [about Tom] - I was tempted to laugh whenever he opened his mouth. The transition from libertine to prig was so complete.

Nick [about Tom] –
I was tempted to laugh whenever he opened his mouth. The transition from libertine to prig was so complete.

I also recall that Daisy’s mother, at the party, told Daisy about all the ‘very eligible’ soldiers attending – rather than the number of good looking men. So even though that party wasn’t an East Coast affair – it still had its own version of snobbery.

I believe that Lurhmann could not do too much with the old money vs new money because there weren’t any characters (except Tom and Daisy) to represent it with any kind if depth.

Didion: One of my Facebook friends said recently, with a bit of self-deprecation, that she loves anything Luhrmann does because it’s so pretty and shiny. “It’s art, not history!” she proclaimed to haters like me.

If I were to sum up my feelings about the film, I’d say that Luhrmann’s gift for creating shiny, pretty things is prodigious but ultimately I want more emotional depth. I’m glad I saw it on the big screen for those amazing party sequences, but I will never see it again.

JMM: Strong words, Didion! I want to ask for a one word description of how you felt when leaving the theater.

Didion:  Honestly, I felt a bit alienated by the film. Part of this is appropriate — that is, we’re supposed to be appalled by Tom and Daisy’s carelessness toward everyone around them. But neither did I feel especially upset by Gatsby’s end; I just hadn’t learned to care about him the way I ought to have. Although I appreciated Lurhmann’s eagerness to show us Fitzgerald’s fine prose — appearing as actual words on the screen — that final line about “boats against the current” remains opaque enough to me that I’m still not sure I know how to feel about it. So yeah, “alienated.”

How about you?

Was he the world's most hopeful man as Nick said, or was he simply delusional?

Was he the world’s most hopeful man as Nick said, or was he simply delusional?

JMM: For me, I think a phrase rather than one word – and it goes back to Gatsby’s delusional behavior. Despite his lack of a reality – I still loved him – hated the Buchanans. Gatsby was a mystery – the Buchanan’s weren’t. So it is far easier for me to admire Gatsby than them. But having said that, I won’t call him heroic or anything like that. And yes, his ending isn’t anything that creates despair in me either.. When I left the theater, I was ‘positive’ about the film.

Didion: Can I ask whether you like Luhrmann’s Moulin Rouge (2001)? Because I’m wondering whether this film will appeal more broadly than to the longtime Luhrmann fans who love his “shiny, pretty” things.

JMM: Thought you’d never ask. As for Moulin Rouge, I could only get 30 minutes into it before shutting down my DVD player. Gatsby wasn’t like that for me because I had just read the book. Moulin Rouge had no history for me – other than my travels to Paris. But I never finished it. I’m not a fan of Luhrmann’s but I do appreciate his skills. Or maybe I’ll say that Luhrmann can certainly spend money and make a fabulous looking recreation of another era.

I have Luhrmann’s Australia DVD still unwatched. Guess I’ll be getting to that one soon.

But you know – The Great Gatsby is still an American iconic novel – so I do expect another film version down the road. Make that down the long road.

Didion: That made me laugh, because I watched maybe 20 minutes of Moulin Rouge before quitting, too! All that overwrought singing and Ewan MacGregor and Nicole Kidman, looking at one another like speed freaks … not for me. I will say that this film is just not nearly that spastic.

It’s been a million years since I saw his Romeo + Juliet, which I liked at the time. I will never, ever, ever watch Australia, however.

JMM: And I’ll probably never watch Romeo & Juliet.

Didion: JMM, this has been a pleasure as ever. Even more so because I got to comb over some of the best prose in the book, and engage in the back-and-forth with such a worthy collaborator. Even though I’m more negative about the film than you are, I’m still glad I saw Luhrmann’s version of the Jazz Age onscreen. And I’m looking forward to planning another conversation with you sometime this summer!

JMM: Thank you Didion: It is always fun to work with you. I can safely guarantee that it won’t be a Luhrmann film. Until the next time…Thanks!!!!

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Baz Lurhmann’s Gatsby – It’s not History, It’s Art

  1. It seems like no amount of money is enought to capture The Great Gatsby on film. Or maybe no one except Scott Fitzgerald can tell this story — and even he would have been unable to turn this novel into a great screenplay. I suspect that the novel is so beautifully written, that all attempts to translate it’s poetry into images are doomed to produce only shiny baubles.

    The depth of feeling is what’s missing on the celluloid. Fitzgerald’s extraordinary ability to split his point of view, to simultaneously admire and reject himself and the great American dream. What’s the image of a writer realizing it’s not what he hoped? The dream you never reach? A picture, even a motion picture, is just not worth a thousand of Fitzgerald’s words.

    • Yup.

      Many have said that the book will not ever be made into a great film. And they’re most likely correct.

      Yet despite the excesses tossed in by Luhrmann, and despite the shortcomings of this or that actor/actress, or the style choices that this film production has made – you still have to admire this effort.

      I think that if one has read the book – then you know how difficult it would have to be to transfer, as reader FD so aptly points out, that depth of feeling.

      In that regard, yes – the film will never live up to the book. Or equal the book.

      But there are those who have not read the book. For them, this film does deliver a great film experience – which despite offering up those shiny baubles, can still be rewarding.

  2. Good review Mike. Luhrmann’s style works for the party-atmosphere and fun-loving feel of the parties, but for everything else: it could have been toned-down just a bit.

    • Of course toning it down – might weaken the monstrousness of Tom Buchanan, the lightness of Daisy, and the initial optimism of Carraway – to say nothing of how we feel about Gatsby and his doomed quest.

      This might be the same as saying – Tarantino should have cut back on the number of times the N word was used in Django.

      The success or failure of the film for the viewers are matters of individual standards and expectations – whereas the success or failure of the film for the principals might be measured in box office receipts.

      Clearly, the critical responses have been mixed, and just as clearly – a lot of folks did go see the film and more will follow.

  3. This is awesome JMM and Didion!! What a great read, it’s fascinating to hear what you like/dislike about the film and I find myself nodding and shaking my head throughout, ahah.

    I agree w/ Didion that this film lacks the ‘food for the soul’ as it gets so overwhelmed by all that visual feast. But at the same time, I actually came away quite positive right after the theater, and I agree w/ Mike that I empathize more with Gatsby than with the Buchanans (I quite hated Daisy). I actually think the ‘bromance’ between Nick and Jay is more compelling than the romance for some reason, which I don’t think was what Baz intended. As someone who hasn’t read the book though, it’s interesting to hear this “…the charm of the book is less the story, and more the excellence of the writing.” So is it safe to say that even the book also has more style over substance??

    • Thank you Ruth, your comments are always appreciated.

      How about this – Nick was dragged off to Manhattan with Tom early on for a wild party with Myrtle and friends. He didn’t want to go, then he didn’t wan’t to stay – but he stayed .

      But I think he was quite repelled by Tom’s activities especially since Tom was married to Daisy who was Nick’s cousin. So Nick had a resentment /dislike for Tom.

      But Gatsby represented a different kind of man. A hopeful man, a generous man, and one who was, in Nick’s mind, and at least initially, was unfairly gossiped about. So yes, I think one can consider that a bromance was in the air.

      I just didn’t find it compelling.

      As for the book being more style than substance (depth of story) – I’m with you there.

  4. Very thorough, well-written review! Fantastic job.

    Although I loved English class growing up, certain “classic” novels never really grew on me, one of those being Catcher in the Rye. I know, gasp, I’m a terrible person. I don’t know if it’s the writing style, characters, or the time period the stories are set in, but I much prefer Dickens or Bronte. As for Gatsby, I had mixed feelings about it. From what I recall, I remember being interested enough that I did make an effort to read it, but at the same time I don’t think I had found it to be a page-turner. I’ve read it a total of four times—twice for two different English classes (one at the high school level, one in college), once to make sure I wasn’t missing something (since so many of my friends consider this one of the best books ever written and/or their favorite book), and once more just to make sure of how I felt about it. Call it a strange method to my reading, but I’ll usually try a book that’s considered “popular” several times just to see if I can formulate my own opinion about it as fairly as possible, if that makes any sense. Anyway, seeing as I only remember a few select things from the story, I don’t think this was one of my favorite novels.

    On that note, I didn’t really feel compelled to watch this on the big screen, but I have been interested in reading all the different reviews about it; not to convince me whether to see it or not, but more because I appreciate how passionate this story makes people, regardless of how I personally feel about it. Those kinds of feelings always fascinate me.

    The main thing I look for in these entries is the answer to three questions: Did the film capture the essence of the story and translate well into film? Was the 3D even worth it? How did people react to the “current” music thrown in?

    So far from what I’ve read (from who I follow, anyway), the film didn’t do so well in going beyond the surface-level matter of the story. That doesn’t surprise me. While I wasn’t a fan of the novel, I can appreciate the depth that is there and do think that kind of onion-layering is difficult to turn into film. As for the 3D, it also doesn’t surprise me that it didn’t deliver. Few films really manage it, though I also think it has a lot to do with the projector and size of the screen. The museum of natural history has a fantastic one, and though the films they show are mostly nature docs, the visuals are most impressive. As for the hip-hop, I wonder if that’s also a gimmick. Sure it might fit, but we’re in this current time period, so I feel like they threw that in there more to draw in people since that music obviously wouldn’t have been available in that time period. Those supporting artistic progression have an argument, but so do those who were looking for something more authentic.

    Anyway, I do admit being curious about how I’d think about this film myself, but that curiosity is at best mild. I’ll probably hold off on watching this until I’ve pretty much seen everything else I’ve wanted to see, which might not be for a while. Also, I’d have to be in a melancholy mood. Of course, there’s also a chance I might not watch it, as aside from Maguire and DiCaprio, I’m not really big fan of any of the rest of the cast, and with Maguire and DiCaprio, I’m more of a casual fan at best.

    • Thanks Rae –

      I can concur with your three main questions – and answers
      1) The film does follow the novel and for that reason it will be a shallower experience than reading the book. But since the deepest elements in the book are Nick Carraway’s views, perspectives, and opinions of what he saw in Gatsby, Daisy, Jordan and Tom – it had to be that way.
      2) I did go back a second time for the 3D version and realistically – with or without the 3D it is a beautiful film. So when/if you see the film on the big screen – you can save the extra cost and see it in 2D
      3) Much has been written about the music. I think it is much ado about nothing. I stated I thought it was marketing ploy to attract younger viewers. I did love the Lana Del Rey song Young & Beautiful, and frankly that was the only song that impacted me.

      I think the film will remain in wide distribution for a while – so unless you have a strong wish to see it on a particularly rainy day or night – there’s no rush. But I would suggest not waiting for the DVD. Unless you have a huge 70 inch TV.

      mike

      BTW – I have seen Star Trek Into Darkness and my review is progressing.

Comments are closed.