Back in 2013, I actually rather enjoyed Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation of “The Great Gatsby.” Granted, I hadn’t read the book yet, nor had I seen any of the other adaptations. I was blown away by the film’s dazzling 3-D effects. I played the film’s soundtrack over and over again, being a massive fan of Lana Del Rey at the time. And I found the central performance of Leonardo DiCaprio as Jay Gatsby to be spellbinding. He represented everything the character should be: handsome, charismatic, sophisticated, mysterious, and alluring. I loved Carey Mulligan’s Daisy, as she gave the character depth and created an aura of melancholy that surrounded her. I found the mise-en-scene dazzling and breath-taking. “The Great Gatsby” was clearly a film made to be seen on the biggest screen possible.
Despite my admiration for the film, a lot of critics didn’t share my enthusiasm. Phillip French for The Guardian, described the film as a “misconceived venture” in his review. In fact, he went on to elaborate his feelings towards Luhrmann’s adaptations by stating that the film “tramples on Fitzgerald’s exquisite prose, turning the oblique into the crude, the suggestively symbolic into the declaratively monumental, the abstract into the flatly real.” Harsh words indeed.
Maguire is Miscast; but Mulligan Works
Reading French’s review after rewatching the film a decade later, I feel I’m now more inclined to agree with him — especially in regards to his comments about casting. He has a lot to say about the casting of Nick Carraway, the book’s narrator. “Tobey Maguire is miscast or misdirected, playing Nick as gauche, uncomfortable, unsophisticated, childlike — less an involved observer than an intruder.” I completely agree with French’s observation that Tobey Maguire is miscast.. In the novel, Nick seems a cool, passive outsider observing the wild Long Island life. However, in Luhrmann’s adaptation, he’s far too sensitive and dull for the viewer to connect with.
In terms of casting, the decision to cast Mulligan as Daisy is interesting. Actresses such as Amanda Seyfried, Keira Knightley, Jessica Alba, Rebecca Hall, Blake Lively, Abbie Cornish, Michelle Williams, Scarlett Johansson, and even Natalie Portman, were all considered. I think Mulligan actually works well as Daisy Buchanan. The character is the embodiment of the “flapper,” and is supposed to represent the newfound freedom women obtained after the end of WW1. However, Mulligan’s Daisy is more than just a “flapper” and a trophy wife to Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton). Here, Mulligan makes Daisy appear sympathetic and vulnerable.
Another review I decided to read after rewatching the film was Matt Zoller Seitz’s review for RogerEbert.com, in which he was a little kinder towards Luhrmann, describing the film as “not a disaster.” He goes on to say that “Every frame is sincere. Its miscalculations come from a wish to avoid embalming a classic novel in “respectfulness” — a worthy goal, in theory.” Zoller Seitz believes the film’s faults come from the fact that the director is unable to “play things straight,” which I agree with.
Does Luhrmann’s Picture Hold Up a Decade Later
Luhrmann had been given a free pass to go as wild and eccentric as possible. As a result, “everything including the kitchen sink” has been thrown at the screen to see if it sticks. Of course, very little actually ended up sticking.
Personally I believe the film is way too over-the-top, especially when it comes to the excessive party scenes. However, I did find Richard Brody’s comments for The New Yorker quite interesting. He believes the film is “under the top.. Luhrmann takes none of it seriously, and makes none of it look remotely alluring, enticing, fun. His whizzing 3-D cinematography offers lots of motion but no seduction; his parties are turbulent and raucous without being promising, without holding out the allure of magical encounters.”
I found Brody’s comment that it “would be fun not to know that Baz Luhrmann’s new movie is an adaptation” to be a perfect summary of how I feel towards this adaptation. Since 2013 I have read the book on a few occasions. I believe it is far more superior to anything that could possibly be portrayed on the big screen. There are far more exploration into themes of the failure of the “American Dream,” class warfare, gender inequality, and racial prejudice, which never appear in Luhrmann’s picture.
Luhrmann the ‘Auteur’
In recent years, some critics have tried to argue that the 2013 adaptation of “The Great Gatsby” is underrated. Writing for Indiewire, David Ehrlich describes the film as an “intoxicating interplay between fantasy and reality,” but I’m not sure whether that’s intended to be a compliment or a criticism. Ehrlich does make a strong argument for Luhrmann the “auteur,” stating the film “may be a product of a system that’s determined to repeat the past, but it’s made by a man who’s more interested in the ecstasy of reinventing the present. Hollywood might be focused on the green light, but Luhrmann is projecting his dreams directly onto the mist.”
We can all respect Luhrmann’s devotion to classic Hollywood and the extravagance of the studio system. Often today, filmmakers seem to be focused on making their film accessible for those watching on streaming services. So, I do praise Luhrmann for attempting to make his film appear like a spectacle. However, it feels shallow and empty. It feels like a film lost in time, torn between the present day and the 1920s, unsure of its own identity.
“The Great Gatsby” lacks the charm and the nostalgia of musicals such as “High Society,” “An American in Paris,” and “Singin’ in the Rain.” Ehrlich claims Luhrmann is trying to reinvent the present, but it doesn’t feel like that way. It feels like a director desperately trying to recapture the excess of the studio system, but failing because aside from DiCaprio, none of the other actors are “stars” in the same way as Grace Kelly, Gene Kelly, Debbie Reynolds, Bing Crosby, or Frank Sinatra were. And, Baz Luhrmann is certainly no Vincente Minnelli.
The Fatigue of Rich Excess On-Screen
In the end, I’m left feeling less buzzed and high over the film’s spectacle, and more hungover. Despite the warm, dazzling and energetic colours splashed across the screen, I end up feeling cold and disconnected. Any positive feelings I may have held towards this film upon watching it a decade ago have evaporated and I can’t quite work out why I even enjoyed it in the first place.
The 1920s may have been known as the “Roaring ’20s” but fast forward a hundred years, and we’ve skipped that part and have already reached the Great Depression. I currently have no interest in watching rich people living a life of excess on the big screen. I can’t feel sad for the likes of Gatsby, Daisy, and Nick. Their lives seem so remote and unattainable to me and so many others in 2023. Oh well, at least “The Great Gatsby” provided us with some quality DiCaprio memes, so I guess there’s that.
1 Comment
Well written viewpoint! But I am afraid I must disagree. Almost entirely.
The things that leave the writer and reviewers with a cold, empty feeling, perhaps — the dizzying flash and grandeur in triple speed, the lack of the warmth of Singing in the Rain, Tony Maguire’s seemingly too earnest narration — it’s all in Fitzgerald. Luhrmann did what the Redford version was unable to achieve even with its flawless patina as a simply a great film in itself — Luhrmann and Co. captured Fitzgerald’s world. You are supposed to be as dazzled and cold as the teardrops on Daisy’s dress. No seventies film would have been able to capture it, try as they might, and not due to the technological advances in film. We are so in love with the Redford/Farrow film, so earnest in itself, nearly innocent, and times have changed in that respect — the language and picture are harsher. Crude and bright, reaching for the universal with which we might connect.
I too wanted to find fault with this, loving earlier versions. And have delayed seeing this lol! 11 years from release!
Some might argue that Gatsby is the only relatable character in the book, for most — New England 400 Social Register types are too removed in time and cultural prominence today for most of us to relate this specific social world.
I have heard several things about it — grumblings — that Luhrmann did not understand Gatsby as an Australian, that the father character who shaped Gatsby’s profoundly moral approach to total capitalism and romantic attachment — was omitted, and, as the reviewer observed, social issues like gender and race inequality were missing from the narrative. And that the doctor — psychiatry — was an unwelcome addition.
And, stellar performances aside, Bad Luhrmann’s style has little appeal for me. Trained to be a concert performer (musician) by a family of musicians, I find a live performance much more appealing, actors a little — annoying, and in general lol I do avoid most movies.
But I really did an lol with this one.
Perfect.
It’s perfect.
I was raised in house of a later life marriage, and parents who were as well — and lived sometimes with much older grandparents, who were 21 in 1921.
These were the values of their world, and the newly minted social media world, too.
This book was their Gotterdamerung dusk of the gods epuc reborn in the latest generation. Right down to the new fascination with the drying out sanitorium and drug dealing ‘nerve pill’ doctors.
Fitzgerald was unique in the don’t tell us, SHOW US roaring 20s. The internal dialogue of Nick is real poetry on papyrus, Redford more like a canvas, and Luhrmann finished this journey (for the time being) in a wild car ride caught on film.
Many things I dislike about the film, including music choices in Lana Del Ray and Florence and the Machine, but they are the correct choice. Jay – and , Beyonce to Fergus, all the jazz included and the interpretation, correct. The visuals, from costumes to set — perfect.
Not reproduction, but translation, and it was all nailed do perfectly I do marvel at the team involved.
Casting was flawless, and unmercifully, the characters are as cartoon as we might not wish to remember from that era’s movies and simple stereotypes of complex humans. But that is EXACTLY how movies were.
As for social issue coverage, every scene. New found freedom paired by brutality for the women, discussion of Goddard in front of the black servants, the raging antisemitism.
And Greed. Oh, how very well written and philosophical the script is. Gatsby indicates to Tom, it’s just Greed. The new morality — too complicated to explain here — but that was a stunner. And Edgerton captured the castle so to speak, lol with Tom. The neo conservatives live on in the voices of their great grandfathers. This performance — mannerisms, pauses, economy of word — Edgerton IS the 400 here, a very valuable performance of the kind of New England that we do not see, and this is likely the last it will ever be seen on film. Generations will be too far gone, finally, to recreate the language.
I may not like what I see. With everything i just lol lol described about my family, if I might also add there were historians too. What good is history if we never read it, if no one breathes life into it?
This film, like Gatsby, will be rediscovered by a later generation
And very hard to top.
Gatsby and Fitzgerald — Immortal American Geniuses (the Co.did their research. Fitzgerald recorded his world, and from his bootlegging German neighbor to Ginevra, it is all there too lol) and Great American Tragic Heroes. It goes on. The new Captains of Social Media industry, feeding on emotion the way bootleggers fed the nation bathroom gin, are unlikely to get shot in pools. The Fed will never again allow them to lose their shirts. But we live long enough to watch their climb destroy them. In the end, they lose much of what they love.
Truly, a masterpiece.