I’ve been a fan of author, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and his classic novel, The Great Gatsby, for at least half my life. I’ve read it, as well as many books on the author and his wife. I’ve seen Robert Redford’s The Great Gatsby several times. So it was with some excitement that I went to see director Baz Luhrmann’s 3D version of The Great Gatsby. The buzz of the film beforehand only heightened my desire to see the film.
The opening scenes were puzzling. Baz Luhrmann, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Craig Pearce, added what seemed to me implausible scenes at both the beginning and the end of the film, involving the narrator of
Scrivener’s 1925 book jacket of The Great Gatsby
The Great Gatsby and a psychiatrist (who doesn’t exist in the novel). Creative license, you say? Sure, but why was it even necessary? It’s as if Scott Fitzgerald’s story wasn’t enough. It’s as if the director didn’t trust the story for today’s young generation. Grant it, I’m two generations beyond, but story is story is story. And if something works, why mess with it?
Once we got to the shot of Daisy’s house with its green light, on the other side of the water from Gatsby’s mansion, I thought, okay, now we’re getting into Fitzgerald’s story. That scene alone promised me a film that wouldn’t disappoint. And yet it did, despite the beautiful art direction and dream casting.
The story centers on Jay Gatsby, a self-made rich guy (by dubious means), who still pines for Daisy, the girl he fell in love with when he was young and poor. She’s also the girl he left behind when he went to war. When he returns from battle and discovers she’s married to wealthy Tom Buchanan, he buys a house across the water from her and plots to woo her away from her husband. We hear much of the story through the narrator, Daisy’s cousin, Nick Carrington, (played by Toby McGuire) who’s moved in next door to Gatsby for the summer.
Warner Bros. Film Poster on http://www.imdb.com
Still, there were a number of scenes where Leonardo DiCaprio (Jay Gatsby), Carrie Mulligan (Daisy Buchanan) and Joel Edgerton (Tom Buchanan) managed to soar above the distraction of 3D cinematography, dizzy camera work of motoring cars, and other special effects to give us some substance. It was only towards the end of the film, around the climax, that the director allowed the camera to focus more on the players than on visual tricks. At that point, it was as if I was watching a different movie, one that had been spliced to an earlier music video-like version of the classic story.
I think today’s young people are smarter than what the producers and director give them credit for. The problem of relying on special effects to wow the audience rather than trusting the original literary content to hold an audience’s attention reminded me of a recent American Idol program.
On this year’s American Idol, the four final contestants had to sing songs from the Great American Songbook, like Stormy Weather and My Funny Valentine. Their coach was Harry Connick Jr. He noticed they hadn’t taken the time to understand the lyrics nor appreciate the melody that made the songs so great. By trusting the lyrics and the melody to be enough, they didn’t need to add runs or other vocal tricks. Their need to belt it out as if that would convince the audience they could really sing was missing the point. My husband, once an American Idol fan, gave up early in the season because of all this unnecessary belting. Like Baz Luhrmann messing with a classic, the contestants messed with a great song and came up short.
I’m not alone in my perceptions about The Great Gatsby 3D. For similar sentiments, see Philip French’s review in The Guardian.
As I was wowed by the acting and the art direction, I’m hoping to see The Great Gatsby in 2D, maybe then I’ll be pleasantly surprised. On the other hand, there are still those weird scenes with the psychiatrist.
I find myself apathetic. I try to muster interest in the film and simply can’t. Too much fluff. Might be pretty fluff, but the best movies focus on the characters, not the special effects.
It’s like the new version of Star Trek. The original focused on the characters and their relationships. Even if the show was hoaky the characters made it work. The new and improved Star Trek focuses on grand special effects. The characters are boring.
Forgot to mention the costumes were wonderful as well. But I agree, too much fluff. All that window dressing took away from a great story.
Movies have to take their shot. Think of “To Have and Have Not”. The film is a classic on its own terms, but not as a rendering of the book.
Fair enough, John. I get that, but I can’t help but be disappointed that the story got twisted. Having worked in mental health, the scenes with the shrink don’t make sense given the narrator’s behaviour and dialogue in the film. As I mentioned there’s a lot to commend in this movie, despite all the distracting elements of 3D and other special effects. It’s obvious that Baz Luhrmann is a directing genius, but even his work was overshadowed by all the manufactured imagery.
It was great catching up with you in person, Diana — and reading your take on this film that we were chatting about. I must admit a bias to wanting movies to stay close to the book version, so I think I’d feel as you do about The Great Gatsby. Perhaps it’s a side-effect of our “classic” age group!
Good to see you, too. You may be right about the influence of our classic age, however our grandson, who is 17 and astute about films, also disliked the 3D camera work, etc. He also read the book and was the one to point out the problems with the doctor scenes.
In all honesty, Gatsby was never my favourite Fitzgerald novel, and I have yet to see the film; however, I have seen many of the trailers that they have been offering on television. My first thought was that the overall feel is unbearably stagey. It’s like one of those big set piece musicals that were so popular in the thirties dragged into the noughties without thought for time, place and context. Fitzgerald’s work has a broken emotional core which tugs at the heartstrings, what little I have seen of the film so far appears too glossy, almost shallow. This is not a story that needs, or indeed lends itself to 3D. All things considered I prefer my Fitzgerald more restrained, a little quieter and more thoughtful. Big and glossy does not do it for me.
Interesting. My 17 yr. old grandson, a filmmaker, and well versed in the media felt the same way when he first heard The Great Gatsby was going to be presented in 3D. He’d read the book, and wondered why the powers that be made that decision.
I’m glad you saw it and reported back, Diana. I taught the book for years in my American Literature classes, and I had heard rumors about all the “tampering” with the story, even adding the psychiatrist. I decided to stick with my visions of the story and remember the movie version with Redford.
Ah, I would’ve loved to have been in your class, Marylin.
Yeah, 3D is getting a bit out of hand. The biggest problem I see is that some producers are pressuring filmakers to use it since they have invested so much in the infrastructure behind it…. film makers, though as artists, should not be dictated to in terms of how they create.
You’re raising a good point, Luke. I hadn’t thought of that, but it makes total sense. I can see 3D perhaps in movies like Star Trek, but in a classic, where the story is key, and it’s essentially a drama. I don’t get it at all.
I finally got to see this travesty recently. I had heard the mixed reviews and it was honestly only out of morbid curiosity that I decided to see what they did with one of my favorite novels. It was a bloated nightmare from the unnecessary addition of the mental institution (which seemed more a wink at Fitzgerald’s personal struggles than anything) to the dizzying camera work to the ridiculous music. The true irony lies in the fact the director had a fantastic cast to work with (perhaps with the exception of Mulligan. She was not the vibrant “voice full of money” girl of the book for me. By the way, where was that line? It was one of the best in the whole book.). They could’ve knocked it out of the park without all the foolish trappings. The story of Gatsby is classic enough, its themes resonate strongly enough, and its events are powerful enough all on their own. This version smacks of a self-indulgent artist forcing his style where it isn’t needed. I realize I am unfashionably late to the party, but I appreciate finding somewhere in the stratosphere to cry my outrage, even if I do find myself being nearly as melodramatic as the movie was.: )
M.J., I appreciate your point of view. The Great Gatsby is such a classic, that it doesn’t need, as you say, “dizzying camera work” to tell the story. While I, too, admire the talent involved, I don’t think the filmmakers trusted their audience enough to keep it simple.
I’m a little late for the party also in my comment. However … I’m glad to note that the comments reflect my own response. I read the novel about forty years ago and don’t remember much about it. And while I’ve not seen the Alan Ladd or Robert Redford versions, they would have to be more faithful to the spirit of the book than present take. The Luhrmann interpretation is technically impressive in a phantasmagoric way, I suppose – I loved the costumes BTW – but it strikes me as more Las Vegas 2013 than New York high society in the Twenties.
And I totally second your comment: “I think today’s young people are smarter than what the producers and director give them credit for. The problem of relying on special effects … ”
And while there are a few exceptions, I tend to go with the old truism, the book’s better.
I welcome your opinion, as they say, better late than never. I didn’t realize that Alan Ladd had been in an earlier version. Now, I’m curious. I wonder where I can see it. Love your word “phantasmagoric”. Also loved the costumes and the locations, both fabulous.