The Great Gatsby: Over the Top

(This post was originally going to pit 1974 against 2013, but it went another way. However, this post in conjunction with my last highlight some of the major points to that end.)

While I do appreciate Fitzgerald's style and descriptive ability, I think the novel is overrated. It's quite possible that this is due to my lack of literary acumen or lack of taste or both. I imagine my opinion is also affected to some degree by the distance between me and that time in history. It seems to me that this novel may be most fully appreciated by the folks who knew a time before the roaring twenties before the Great War, and then witnessed the societal transformation from that of 19th century Victorianism to the 'anything goes' materialistic world of excess that was the 1920s. The effects of a burgeoning industrial age coupled with the first world war in history must have seemed like pure insanity to many, and Fitzgerald put some of that angst into words.
But aside from Fitzgerald's subtle commentary on the moral and social decay of the time and his unquestionable ability as a prose writer (neither of which is easily, translated to the big screen) there is not much left for a film adaptation--evidenced by the 1974 version. (To clarify, I refer here to a literal translation. I can't imagine the point of adapting the novel as anything else). As has been mentioned in class, the plot is rather sparse.




So what's the solution? Send it 'over the top'. I think pop operatic is one of the terms we've encountered in describing the film. Fill it full of glamour and glitz and the latest in cinematographic technology to distract from the paucity of the plot.







Of course there is one more element required for this novel's successful adaptation; make that two: good acting and Leonardo DiCaprio. The entire cast did a great job in portraying their characters, but DiCaprio was phenomenal at capturing every aspect of Gatsby.

                                       



 Which pink suit looks as though he may have killed a man?

All the glamour and glitz and saturnalia (had to look that one up) in the world wouldn't have mattered without actiiiiiing (A Jon Lovitz reference---here's the skit if your interested--  http://vimeo.com/15476780 -- but I digress.) That said, the acting alone would not have been enough to carry the weight of the plot's lightness. This adaptation needed the pomp and the casting and the acting. It was a good combination.

It's kind of funny. I found myself agreeing with some of David Denby's points in The New Yorker article we read with regard to Luhrmann: "merely a frantic jumble...filled with indiscriminate swirling motion...(Art Deco turned to digitized glitz) thrown at us with whooshing camera sweeps...Luhrmann's vulgarity is designed to win over the young audience..." But I still thought the movie was pretty good. Though it's not in my top ten, I enjoyed Luhrmann's " stunning absence of taste".

So, overall, I think Luhrmann's adaptation is a success; however, I did not care for some of the musical choices. I thought the score was fantastic, and some of the contemporary music, when it fit a particular scene or emotion, was okay; although, a modern arrangement of music from the era would  have been preferable. But what really tore me out of my watching groove was the gangsta type stuff. I don't know, nor do I care to know, the names of songs or artists in that genre by hearing them, I just know it sort of ruined parts of the film for me. Fortunately, there wasn't too much of it. The conversation we had in class about possible reasons for choosing such music was interesting. I think it was suggested that it might have been JZ's or ultimately  Luhrmann's intention to illustrate or make a statement as to how much has changed and that African Americans can be ultra-successful like JZ, or something in that vein. I think that is probably true. I would imagine that was close if not the exact intent. But the notion that some of those choices may have been representational got me thinking. It seems to me that the gangsta choices were ironically more befitting of Fitzgerald's original commentary--a collapse of moral and social standards and conduct. (I will explain in a moment) I'm sure this was not Luhrmann's intent unless it was an incredibly covert submission that took place right under JZ's nose, perhaps too full of the egomaniacal aroma of his own self importance. Naaah, that couldn't have been it.

Anyway, let me explain why I believe some of the music choices reinforce fitzgerald's sentiments, and would have been a brilliant way to incorporate them had they been intentional.

I think JZ may be very talented. I don't know that, but I'm pretty sure Beyonce is very talented. Together, they're probably worth a cool billion. They have it made, and don't need to do anything sleazy to make money. Yet they both choose to be incredibly sleazy. And they must both know that their biggest audience is children. Legions of young people idolize these two; JZ with his lyrics that inspire hate, misogyny, violence, and illiteracy; Beyonce's pornographic music videos glorifying random sex in the back seat of a car. It's sad. I absolutely think that these two and 50 Wayne and Lil sense and all the rest who feed the children that kind of garbage represent the social and moral decay that Fitzgerald was concerned with. Only it's exponentially worse. Kids want to be these people, and don't necessarily make the distinction between what these clowns think of as art and the real world. To be clear, I could not care less what an adult chooses to listen to; although, I can't imagine why Christians would choose this garbage, but it's still their prerogative and their business. It is the children that should be of concern to all of us. Think of what we are raising up; the mentality and morality of our future leaders. It's scary, and, I think, a big problem. If I had no faith at all, I believe I would still find this behavior abhorrent and dangerous. Some moral code some moral fabric is necessary for any society to survive.

I'm running long, so let me just briefly mention three minor things that stood out to me. There were two scenes, besides all the party scenes, in which I thought Luhrmann's grandiose approach complemented or maybe even transcended Fitzgerald's description: the scene where Nick is first reacquainted with Daisy and we see all of those full length billowing curtains that must have been 15 to 20 feet long; and the scene where Gatsby showers Daisy with his shirts. I thought both of those to be nice touches. The final thing I wanted to mention was Nick as a Psychiatric patient. At first, I thought the effect was negligible, but after thinking about it, I decided that that was also a positive. I wonder to whom Luhrmann would have Ishmael or Pip telling their stories.