My hetero-life mate, kham, and I went to see The Great Gatsby (FINALLY). We both had incredibly high hopes for the film. For starters, I LOVE-LOVE-LOVE Baz Luhrmann's movies. No one will ever be able to convince me his vision of Romeo and Juliet is wrong. He showed people why Shakespeare will always be the master wordsmith by keeping the art in the language and brilliantly updating the backdrop so teenagers (like me-I was 16 when it was released) would have a reason to appreciate a balcony scene. Not to mention the discovery of two great talents: Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes (side note: Paul Rudd played Paris-just sayin'). Plus, I am incredibly easily stimulated by color and movement. I am a visual learner and believe that often an image will speak more loudly than words. Moulin Rouge is like crack for my eyes. I never get tired of it. So my disappointment in The Great Gatsby was not premeditated because of some distaste for Luhrmann's movies. Actually, I hoped he would properly visualize what I see when I read the book. Think about it. It takes place during the Roaring 20s. The music and parties in the novel always conjure up bright colors and fast paced images every time I read it. This may be a main reason why Gatsby is one of my favorite novels.
So what went wrong? It took me a while to figure it out, but I knew something was not quite right when I wanted to leave about 30 minutes into the film. The great question I pondered was whether Luhrmann was actually SO genius in his interpretation that I was missing something clever or if he just completely missed the essence of Fitzgerald's work. In the end, I feel the movie got so caught up in the style that the message is lost The Great Gatsby exposes the shallowness of The American Dream. Yes, in this great country of ours we are supposed to be able to roll up our sleeves and work hard (or make the right connections) to achieve greatness. Unfortunately, that greatness is measured in material wealth. Even in contemporary society fame and fortune seem to be the indicators that someone has "made it" rather than finding true happiness.
In the novel, none of the characters are meant to arouse sympathy from the reader. The Buchanans are after all, "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. . . ." In this movie, they (well at least Daisy) are almost seen as victims of their circumstance when in fact they are just rotten people. Even when Daisy is being forced to make a decision, the viewer almost wants to feel sorry for her. Yet, every time I read the novel I hate her more and more simply because she chooses to embrace the emptiness of her life as long as it means she gets to have nice things. And what is with Tom crying over Myrtle's body? He's an ass! There is ONE person he gives a crap about, and that is himself.
Honestly, I wasn't excited about Toby McGuire as Nick because I am not a fan of Toby McGuire. No other real reason. I definitely don't think making Nick a headcase was pertinent to the telling of the story. Actually, Nick isn't really important enough, to me, to receive feeling. He just happenes to stumble into this story...this world and has to report back on it. The film made it seem as if he actually had been friends with Gatsby and cared about him. The feeling I always get from the novel is that Nick feels it is his duty to handle up on Gatsby because no one else would and he is living on Gatsby's grounds.
How can anyone feel for Gatsby himself? Maybe pity? This guy can't let go of his past and that's pretty pathetic. How could I cheer for a "hero" like that? And I don't believe I am supposed to. I will say this: Leonardo DiCaprio had me at his first smile as Gatsby. I had my doubts, but even Luhrmann admits that regardless of what people think about the movie, no one can argue with the exquisite performance DiCaprio makes as Jay Gatsby.
He provided my eyes with their regular dose of crack. The costumes were remarkable. The color was beyond vibrant. The scenery and music defined all that is Baz Luhrmann. I cannot fault him for that. I knew going in that it was a Baz Luhrmann film. However, when I have to audibly (very quietly though since I didn't want anyone to think I was crazy) keep telling myself "Remember this is Baz Luhrmann" because stuff doesn't make sense, then there is a problem. It was also very reminiscent of Moulin Rouge. I even expected Ewan McGregor at one point to pop out and give us a musical number.
People are welcome to disagree with me. I do have a degree in English, and I do teach this novel to my students. That might bother some if they feel my interpretation of the novel and comparison to the film are off (or if they aren't the forgiving type and tear up my grammar/conventions without taking into account this is a personal blog and being written at 11:26 at night). I simply mention these things to establish some credibility because someone somewhere will take all of this personally when it is certainly not meant to be a personal attack. In truth, I will probably own it because it IS Baz Luhrmann. He DID make a visually stunning film (remember that whole eye crack thing). Leonardo DiCaprio IS fantastic as Gatsby. So yeah, I'll own it and watch it again and again. But that doesn't change the fact that I was very disappointed and will tell my students that if they choose to see this version, they need to take great caution since it lacks the depth of the novel.
