9th May, 2013:
Critical as I may be of all the adaptions, the 4th attempt makes me wonder if the fault lies not with the film adaptations but with the book itself. No, I do not mean that as a commentary on the novel but just that it may be one which cannot be translated into the film medium successfully irrespective of how great it may be.
The three adaptations, (there was a fourth, now fifth, film but only a trailer survives) have been much like this contemporary version; succeeding in one aspect or another but failing as a whole. Now these movies were not bad films. They were all decent or more than. However, when you consider the source material, a well-executed film adaptation ought to have the same grand yet inward searching effect on your emotions as the book did. No film has managed to fulfill that duty to Fitzgerald, yet.
Fitzgerald wrote, what can arguably be called, one of the greatest timeless tragedies ever written. Countless books concern themselves with tragedies of massive proportions but, like some of Shakespeare’s works, Fitzgerald’s Gatsby is an internal tragedy of an epic scale. It is not a tragedy where countless die or worlds are destroyed but a tragedy of equal measure, all within a single man’s heart.
A number of classics have been adapted well on screen but, for some reason, The Great Gatsby has been a trick no filmmaker has been able to pull off.
The 1949 version, starring the tragic yet charming Alan Ladd, was an attempt that never achieved the majority of the book’s aspects correctly. It hit one character precisely while failing all the others, a scene faithfully while failing the rest and so on.
Then came the 1974 version which held all the promise in the world: Coppola writing the screenplay and Redford in the starring role with a notable supporting cast and crew behind the film. It was an unexpected disappointment where everything just seemed flat though Redford’s performance as Gatsby has to be applauded as the best one yet. However, Mia Farrow’s exaggerated Daisy did not help matters, never mixing appropriately with Redford’s Gatsby.
In 2000, the third Gatsby film was a TV movie where the structure was decent enough but lacked the ability to involve the audience in the characters. Starring Mira Sorvino and Paul Rudd in supporting, key roles, one was never able to get past the actors to the characters. It ended up being a TV movie, which could otherwise have surpassed larger Hollywood attempts, hindered by a case of miscasting.
As I waited for Luhrmann’s version, I thought: It is an unorthodox approach to a classic but maybe that is exactly what it needs since traditional methods have been tried thrice and failed. If, by the end of the film, the audience feels the epic tragedy that took place within the man’s heart, The Great Gatsby 2013 will have been the best adaption made… this far.
After catching a late Thursday night showing, I came out as disappointed as Gatsby himself. I had been hopeful against all the odds when people had already dismissed the film upon hearing some of the songs from the soundtrack, hopeful against criticisms that the casting was ‘off’ or that the production was having troubles. Hopeful even when the release date was pushed back, earnestly thinking it may be about making a better film than earning more revenue. Against all odds and obvious signs, I carried my hope as Gatsby did in his dream.
Once again, we were both disappointed.
Visually, the film was stunning. The one aspect it succeeding in was displaying the grandeur of Gatsby’s parties. Stunningly colourful, exceedingly energetic, loudly entertaining; a place you could get caught up in without realizing it, which is exactly what happened to some important characters there. Those scenes were what you imagine when reading the book but exemplified in a pronounced manner, the kind of scenes where you think, ‘that is what I was thinking of disjointedly when reading the book but you just made my imagination coherent and real, visually.’
Unfortunately, after that, praise is hard to find. Most of the acting was sincere even if it did not translate well on screen. DiCaprio’s Gatsby seemed more of a caricature of the character than the character itself. Since the acting was sincere, the director is to blame here. DiCaprio’s Gatsby was too funny in the beginning and not as affected in his personal moments. There is humour in the novel but it mostly winks at you instead of making a cheap scene. In the film, we saw Gatsby play exaggerated movements akin to ‘The Three Stooges,’ when he met Daisy for the first time, reaching for cheap laughs from the audience… humour which did not elaborate on the character but aimed to get the kind of laugh from viewers when they see a clumsy person steps on a rake. To be fair, Gatsby does get clumsy in the novel in that scene but the way it is written, the readers chuckle while the film goes too far and the audience loses respect for him. Mulligan’s Daisy, on the other hand, is quite refreshing after last prominent portrayal by Dunaway. Mulligan embodies the different sides and complexities of Daisy instead of being a one tone annoyance.
The soundtrack, despite being the most criticized aspect, was a captivating ode to the novel, save for a songs here and there. It gave listeners highs and lows of the novel which promised everything to its characters and gave nothing. Most of the songs captured the feeling of the novel and should not be blamed just for the fact that they are contemporary.
Using the same songs and music in the film turned out to be another matter. Once again, at Gatsby’s party they were appropriately used but after that they fell into a little bit of confusion. For example, Lana Del Ray’s song was used one time too many where we started paying a little too much attention to the song itself than the story.
The last point is what brings me back to the underlying reason why the film did not work. There were too many distractions which brought the audience out of the story. There is a place for grand visuals, which was effectively used and then there is place where grand visuals should not be so that we can focus on the feelings of the characters. Instead of leaving us alone with those poignant moments where we could think on what had just happened and get emotionally involved with the characters, the camera often zoomed in and out in a spectacular fashion where our attention was diverted to its spectacle.
Moulin Rouge remains a personal favourite of mine and I like Luhrmann’s work; the story lent so much to his style. Everything fit. It seems, however, that his wildly loveable visuals, movement and editing know no restraint. Everything cannot be visually spectacular at each moment. Now and again, the audience needs to be given time to involve themselves in the characters and their feelings without being distracted.
In the end, the excess of Luhrmann’s style becomes quite ironic when considering Fitzgerald’s commentary on the excesses of his time in the novel.
However, I remain hopeful despite the odds. I will see a fantastic film by Luhrmann again and I will see Gatsby made into a great film… one day.
- Ernest Worthing
Note on the 3D version: I watched it in 3D since it was shot that way. Surprisingly, Luhrmann used it quite well and it was one of the few things which did not detract from the film. Choosing to show what he did when composing distracted us which could easily be blamed on the 3D but in other scenes where he lets us focus a bit on the characters, the 3D did no such thing. As for the technical aspects, the lighting and motion were both fine, not too dark and not headache inducing.
Critical as I may be of all the adaptions, the 4th attempt makes me wonder if the fault lies not with the film adaptations but with the book itself. No, I do not mean that as a commentary on the novel but just that it may be one which cannot be translated into the film medium successfully irrespective of how great it may be.
The three adaptations, (there was a fourth, now fifth, film but only a trailer survives) have been much like this contemporary version; succeeding in one aspect or another but failing as a whole. Now these movies were not bad films. They were all decent or more than. However, when you consider the source material, a well-executed film adaptation ought to have the same grand yet inward searching effect on your emotions as the book did. No film has managed to fulfill that duty to Fitzgerald, yet.
Fitzgerald wrote, what can arguably be called, one of the greatest timeless tragedies ever written. Countless books concern themselves with tragedies of massive proportions but, like some of Shakespeare’s works, Fitzgerald’s Gatsby is an internal tragedy of an epic scale. It is not a tragedy where countless die or worlds are destroyed but a tragedy of equal measure, all within a single man’s heart.
A number of classics have been adapted well on screen but, for some reason, The Great Gatsby has been a trick no filmmaker has been able to pull off.
The 1949 version, starring the tragic yet charming Alan Ladd, was an attempt that never achieved the majority of the book’s aspects correctly. It hit one character precisely while failing all the others, a scene faithfully while failing the rest and so on.
Then came the 1974 version which held all the promise in the world: Coppola writing the screenplay and Redford in the starring role with a notable supporting cast and crew behind the film. It was an unexpected disappointment where everything just seemed flat though Redford’s performance as Gatsby has to be applauded as the best one yet. However, Mia Farrow’s exaggerated Daisy did not help matters, never mixing appropriately with Redford’s Gatsby.
In 2000, the third Gatsby film was a TV movie where the structure was decent enough but lacked the ability to involve the audience in the characters. Starring Mira Sorvino and Paul Rudd in supporting, key roles, one was never able to get past the actors to the characters. It ended up being a TV movie, which could otherwise have surpassed larger Hollywood attempts, hindered by a case of miscasting.
As I waited for Luhrmann’s version, I thought: It is an unorthodox approach to a classic but maybe that is exactly what it needs since traditional methods have been tried thrice and failed. If, by the end of the film, the audience feels the epic tragedy that took place within the man’s heart, The Great Gatsby 2013 will have been the best adaption made… this far.
After catching a late Thursday night showing, I came out as disappointed as Gatsby himself. I had been hopeful against all the odds when people had already dismissed the film upon hearing some of the songs from the soundtrack, hopeful against criticisms that the casting was ‘off’ or that the production was having troubles. Hopeful even when the release date was pushed back, earnestly thinking it may be about making a better film than earning more revenue. Against all odds and obvious signs, I carried my hope as Gatsby did in his dream.
Once again, we were both disappointed.
Visually, the film was stunning. The one aspect it succeeding in was displaying the grandeur of Gatsby’s parties. Stunningly colourful, exceedingly energetic, loudly entertaining; a place you could get caught up in without realizing it, which is exactly what happened to some important characters there. Those scenes were what you imagine when reading the book but exemplified in a pronounced manner, the kind of scenes where you think, ‘that is what I was thinking of disjointedly when reading the book but you just made my imagination coherent and real, visually.’
Unfortunately, after that, praise is hard to find. Most of the acting was sincere even if it did not translate well on screen. DiCaprio’s Gatsby seemed more of a caricature of the character than the character itself. Since the acting was sincere, the director is to blame here. DiCaprio’s Gatsby was too funny in the beginning and not as affected in his personal moments. There is humour in the novel but it mostly winks at you instead of making a cheap scene. In the film, we saw Gatsby play exaggerated movements akin to ‘The Three Stooges,’ when he met Daisy for the first time, reaching for cheap laughs from the audience… humour which did not elaborate on the character but aimed to get the kind of laugh from viewers when they see a clumsy person steps on a rake. To be fair, Gatsby does get clumsy in the novel in that scene but the way it is written, the readers chuckle while the film goes too far and the audience loses respect for him. Mulligan’s Daisy, on the other hand, is quite refreshing after last prominent portrayal by Dunaway. Mulligan embodies the different sides and complexities of Daisy instead of being a one tone annoyance.
The soundtrack, despite being the most criticized aspect, was a captivating ode to the novel, save for a songs here and there. It gave listeners highs and lows of the novel which promised everything to its characters and gave nothing. Most of the songs captured the feeling of the novel and should not be blamed just for the fact that they are contemporary.
Using the same songs and music in the film turned out to be another matter. Once again, at Gatsby’s party they were appropriately used but after that they fell into a little bit of confusion. For example, Lana Del Ray’s song was used one time too many where we started paying a little too much attention to the song itself than the story.
The last point is what brings me back to the underlying reason why the film did not work. There were too many distractions which brought the audience out of the story. There is a place for grand visuals, which was effectively used and then there is place where grand visuals should not be so that we can focus on the feelings of the characters. Instead of leaving us alone with those poignant moments where we could think on what had just happened and get emotionally involved with the characters, the camera often zoomed in and out in a spectacular fashion where our attention was diverted to its spectacle.
Moulin Rouge remains a personal favourite of mine and I like Luhrmann’s work; the story lent so much to his style. Everything fit. It seems, however, that his wildly loveable visuals, movement and editing know no restraint. Everything cannot be visually spectacular at each moment. Now and again, the audience needs to be given time to involve themselves in the characters and their feelings without being distracted.
In the end, the excess of Luhrmann’s style becomes quite ironic when considering Fitzgerald’s commentary on the excesses of his time in the novel.
However, I remain hopeful despite the odds. I will see a fantastic film by Luhrmann again and I will see Gatsby made into a great film… one day.
- Ernest Worthing
Note on the 3D version: I watched it in 3D since it was shot that way. Surprisingly, Luhrmann used it quite well and it was one of the few things which did not detract from the film. Choosing to show what he did when composing distracted us which could easily be blamed on the 3D but in other scenes where he lets us focus a bit on the characters, the 3D did no such thing. As for the technical aspects, the lighting and motion were both fine, not too dark and not headache inducing.
26th April, 2013:
I wrote this for an external website in July, 2012 when we were expecting the film to come out in December, 2012. The plan was to follow up with an analysis of the book compared to the new film. That plan fell apart after the release date was changed.
Having studied The Great Gatsby 30+ times, I wanted to share my personal opinion about the book and the film adaptations.
Here is the brief piece written in July, 2012 (I will follow up with the analysis after the film is released):
The Great Gatsby – 4th Time’s the Charm?
Fitzgerald wrote, what can arguably be called, one of the greatest timeless tragedies ever written. Countless books concern themselves with tragedies of massive proportions but, like some of Shakespeare works, Fitzgerald’sGatsby is an internal tragedy of an epic scale. It is not a tragedy where countless die or worlds are destroyed but a tragedy of equal measure, all within a single man’s heart.
A number of classics have been adapted well on screen but, for some reason, The Great Gatsby has been a trick no filmmaker has been able to pull off.
The 1949 version, starring the tragic yet charming Alan Ladd, was an attempt that never achieved the majority of the book’s aspects correctly. It hit one character precisely while failing all the others, a scene faithfully while failing the rest and so on.
Then came the 1974 version which held all the promise in the world. Coppola writing the screenplay and Redford in the starring role with a notable supporting cast and crew behind the film. It was an unexpected disappointment where everything just seemed flat though Redford’s performance as Gatsby has to be applauded as the best one yet. However, Mia Farrow’s exaggerated Daisy did not help matters, never mixing appropriately with Redford’sGatsby.
In 2000, the third Gatsby film was a TV movie where the structure was decent enough but lacked the ability to involve the audience in the characters. Starring Mira Sorvino and Paul Rudd in supporting, key roles, one was never able to get past the actors to the characters. It ended up being a TV movie, which could otherwise have surpassed larger Hollywood attempts, hindered by a case of miscasting.
Now these movies were not bad films. They were all decent or more than. However, when you consider the source material, a well executed film adaptation ought to have the same grand yet inward searching effect on your emotions as the book did. No film yet has managed to fulfill that duty to Fitzgerald.
The audience, knowing or unknowing, waits for a faithful adaptation.
And now, in 2012, we will have one more attempt. Applause. Oh no. Wait. It is Baz Luhrmann directing. Do you remember Romeo and Juliet? Wait. It’s in 3D? No. The music in the trailer. Is he really going to involve modern music in a century old setting? Cringe.
Most of the advocates of the book have counted this year’s Gatsby out. Most of Luhrmann’s advocates could not be more excited for December. While those who like Luhrmann’s original work but aren’t too proud of his literary adaptations wait on tenterhooks.
Only time, or December 25th, will tell. It is an unorthodox approach to a classic but maybe, that is exactly what it needs since traditional methods have been tried thrice and failed. If, by the end of the film, the audience feels the epic tragedy that took place within the man’s heart, The Great Gatsby will have been the best adaption made… this far.
-Ernest Worthing
Note: There was also a 1926 film version made (making this the 5th Gatsby production) but no known copies have survived to date, only a trailer.
I wrote this for an external website in July, 2012 when we were expecting the film to come out in December, 2012. The plan was to follow up with an analysis of the book compared to the new film. That plan fell apart after the release date was changed.
Having studied The Great Gatsby 30+ times, I wanted to share my personal opinion about the book and the film adaptations.
Here is the brief piece written in July, 2012 (I will follow up with the analysis after the film is released):
The Great Gatsby – 4th Time’s the Charm?
Fitzgerald wrote, what can arguably be called, one of the greatest timeless tragedies ever written. Countless books concern themselves with tragedies of massive proportions but, like some of Shakespeare works, Fitzgerald’sGatsby is an internal tragedy of an epic scale. It is not a tragedy where countless die or worlds are destroyed but a tragedy of equal measure, all within a single man’s heart.
A number of classics have been adapted well on screen but, for some reason, The Great Gatsby has been a trick no filmmaker has been able to pull off.
The 1949 version, starring the tragic yet charming Alan Ladd, was an attempt that never achieved the majority of the book’s aspects correctly. It hit one character precisely while failing all the others, a scene faithfully while failing the rest and so on.
Then came the 1974 version which held all the promise in the world. Coppola writing the screenplay and Redford in the starring role with a notable supporting cast and crew behind the film. It was an unexpected disappointment where everything just seemed flat though Redford’s performance as Gatsby has to be applauded as the best one yet. However, Mia Farrow’s exaggerated Daisy did not help matters, never mixing appropriately with Redford’sGatsby.
In 2000, the third Gatsby film was a TV movie where the structure was decent enough but lacked the ability to involve the audience in the characters. Starring Mira Sorvino and Paul Rudd in supporting, key roles, one was never able to get past the actors to the characters. It ended up being a TV movie, which could otherwise have surpassed larger Hollywood attempts, hindered by a case of miscasting.
Now these movies were not bad films. They were all decent or more than. However, when you consider the source material, a well executed film adaptation ought to have the same grand yet inward searching effect on your emotions as the book did. No film yet has managed to fulfill that duty to Fitzgerald.
The audience, knowing or unknowing, waits for a faithful adaptation.
And now, in 2012, we will have one more attempt. Applause. Oh no. Wait. It is Baz Luhrmann directing. Do you remember Romeo and Juliet? Wait. It’s in 3D? No. The music in the trailer. Is he really going to involve modern music in a century old setting? Cringe.
Most of the advocates of the book have counted this year’s Gatsby out. Most of Luhrmann’s advocates could not be more excited for December. While those who like Luhrmann’s original work but aren’t too proud of his literary adaptations wait on tenterhooks.
Only time, or December 25th, will tell. It is an unorthodox approach to a classic but maybe, that is exactly what it needs since traditional methods have been tried thrice and failed. If, by the end of the film, the audience feels the epic tragedy that took place within the man’s heart, The Great Gatsby will have been the best adaption made… this far.
-Ernest Worthing
Note: There was also a 1926 film version made (making this the 5th Gatsby production) but no known copies have survived to date, only a trailer.