If you’re my Facebook friend and have been watching my feed at all for the past little while, you know that I may have been just a little excited in anticipation for the release of Baz Luhrmann’s film adaptation of The Great Gatsby. I figured having probably annoyed most of my Facebook friends with my endless posting of quotes from the book, I could at least have the decency to offer something they might find valuable: a review. And my verdict?
The film, while not flawless and certainly not a crowd-pleaser, is still incredibly gorgeous and mesmerizing to watch . . . even in 3-D.
Let’s start with its problems: they do exist. (Spoiler Alert . . . that is of course if you were deprived in high school or college and do not know the story already.)
The Cons
My first and most notable issue with the film is its tendency to at times tell more than show. This actually happens quite a lot in the film, but most of the time (for me, anyway) it’s excusable because such is the nature of a film that is told from the perspective of one character, complete with voice-over and a newly added frame narrative (which was well-done and a nice homage to Fitzgerald). I did, however, find myself at a couple of moments wishing the characters had stopped talking and let the audience close the gaps of understanding rather than feeling the need to deliberately and exhaustively dictate the meaning of key moments. Doing so sort of robbed the audience of their own interpretative engagement, and is support for the critics’ claim that the film has no subtlety.
Second biggest problem (and it’s related to the first), is more a matter of editing than filming and directing. This film is quite long for such a short novel, and it probably didn’t have to be. It may have been the fact that I was watching the film at 10:00 at night and I’m not as young as I used to be, but by the end I was quite ready to be done. Some ideas get a little over-repeated and some scenes went on a mite too long. I think the film could have used one more round of editing to shave off another fifteen to twenty minutes.
My final issue (minor, but one of the few places where I’m agreeing with the critical detractors) is a matter of tone change. A clear and distinct shift in mood occurs about halfway through the film, as it bloody well should given the source material. That shift is perhaps the one thing in the film that needed to be flawless, and it’s not. It works, and it won’t bother those who don’t enter the film already expecting it to be awful, but it may be the one element that kept the film from gaining more critical appeal and going from good to, well, great.
Why It Works
Perusing the critical reaction at Rotten Tomatoes, all of the negative critics seem to be beating the same drum about Gatsby: it’s overblown, over-stylized, overbearing, overindulgent, lacking subtlety, glitzy, gimmicky, and irreverent to its glorious source material. The headline of the consensus at RT is that it’s a “case of style over substance.” I submit to you that all of those accusations are completely true (barring the one about irreverence: Fitzgerald would love this movie). However, I don’t think these seemingly negative descriptions hinder or derail the film and the story; rather, they create it. While I usually give great credence and validity to critical opinion—after all, these guys watch movies for a living—and as pretentious and hipster as this will make me sound, here’s my response to critics who are decrying this film as flawed for being too much:
I think you’re missing the point.
Of course it’s overblown. Of course it chooses style over substance. Of course it feels hollow and empty underneath all the fireworks and loud music. It’s Gatsby. It’s all about disillusionment. I have almost burst out laughing at critics who speak of the film lacking heart and soul; did anyone who had read the novel actually think we were going to see characters to cheer for or anything but empty and soulless people when the party was over? If the film left you feeling unsatisfied, cheated, underwhelmed, exhausted, or even angry, guess what? That’s what it’s supposed to do. I don’t know if Luhrmann purposely did this, but in a way, the film he created is very much like the character of Gatsby himself: larger-than-life, with a promise of wonder and grandeur (thank you, marketing), ostentatious, and expensive. Underneath all that, however, there are faults and flaws brimming at the surface that all the spectacle desperately works to conceal, flaws that those of a more critical disposition are quick to point out and exploit once they become apparent (the critics of the film may actually be playing right into Luhrmann’s hand). When we as an audience do experience the film, much like when characters in the story finally learn who Gatsby is, there is a sense of disappointment, of disillusionment: it wasn’t what it was hyped up to be . . . in fact, it’s quite average. And yet, despite all that let-down, at the heart of the film, like at the heart of Gatsby himself, there is something undeniably great: a passion, earnestness, hope, and dedication for it’s chosen course.
It’s that passion that makes the film work. Like Gatsby, Lurhmann isn’t afraid to go as big and as grandiose as humanly possible. And even when doing so is a mistake, it’s a sincere mistake . . . endearing, almost. The result is a film that vainly reaches for it’s own elusive green light: even if it fails, we can’t help but love it for it’s unbridled determination in the attempt.
A Few Other Matters
The casting is impeccable.
Allow me to repeat: the casting is impeccable. DiCaprio was born to play Jay Gatsby, and his performance deftly captures the controlled façade and desperate longing of the character. Carey Mulligan avoids demonizing or over-simplifying Daisy, making her both foolishly pitiful and recklessly vapid. A word on Tobey Maguire: a lot of people don’t like him as an actor, and I generally don’t. But his personality, his delivery, even his demeanor and facial characteristics are so perfectly Nick Carraway that he fits into the role without even trying. Joel Edgerton manages to take what could have been a one-dimensional, villainous portrayal of Tom and infuses some depth and complexity at just the right moments. The rest of the principal cast does well, but the film belongs to those four. It really is unfortunate that the film is being so unabashedly panned by critics, because it all but destroys any chances of awards for any of them: particularly Leo . . . this could have been his Oscar winner. (hey! It’s that disappointment thing again!)
Visually, the film is gorgeous and spectacular. If you like films with lavish sets and costumes, you must see this film. Even the 3-D works. Don’t get me wrong, if you don’t like 3-D as a general rule, you can skip it. But again, using 3-D only adds to the nature of the film as a representation of it’s titular character. 3-D is usually gimmicky and creates a lot of empty space and hollowness in place of actual beauty . . . sound familiar?
A lot of people are also decrying the anachronistic music. It honestly only bothered me once. Again, it goes back to the earnestness and passion at the heart of this film. Using modern rap and alternative music within the world of the film was a risky choice, but it’s a dedicated choice, most likely made to relate to a modern audience the mood and feel of the Roaring ’20s. (not many of us consider classic jazz to be all that risqué these days, now do we?)
Ultimately, I’m going to recommend this film. While not perfect, the film has five handfuls of beautiful moments. And I feel most can overlook it’s shortcomings with the understanding that no film can ever live up to the massive expectations placed on any attempt to adapt this overrated novel. The Great Gatsby is perhaps my favorite novel of all time, but it is overrated, thanks to the years of it being a staple of high school and college English classes, the endless declarations of it being the Great American Novel, and the novel’s juxtaposition of readability and depth that allows anyone to feel like they’ve read at least one piece of literature in their lives. Making something that huge almost instantly kills any attempts at recreation, in any medium; the ridiculous expectations set on this film are what’s killing it critically . . . it will be interesting to see how it does in the box office.
You see, the story itself is vaunted to be greater than it actually is . . . everyone thinks it’s something magnificent, great, and utterly amazing, but really . . .
Sound familiar?
— Blake
[Awkward Pause] 