For me, Baz Luhrmann's movie version of The Great Gatsby wasn't so great. I didn't like many of the stylistic choices he made--it felt like he took liberties with the text. After having enjoyed the Fitzgerald's book, I was quite disappointed to be so disenchanted with the movie. I could never take the movie seriously, and I couldn't really engage with it for that reason.
One thing that really bothered me stylistically was the cinematography. The entire movie seemed like a dream, and I think Luhrmann intended it that way, since it was Nick's recollection of the whole summer. However, I found this to be extremely distracting and annoying. I could never quite have all of my focus on what I was supposed to--I was always paying attention to the oddness of the lighting and overall feel. It almost made me uneasy to watch it, since I felt like there was something wrong with the movie. Whenever Nick was talking to the doctor, this dream-like feel disappeared. This made it clear to me that this was no accident, but a stylistic choice made by Luhrmann. While I understand where he was coming from, and that the whole summer probably did feel a bit like a dream for Nick, I didn't like the choice he made.
Another irksome stylistic choice was the over-the-top costumes at Gatsby's parties. I realize that people at this time were flamboyant, but the costumes took it too far. There were small hints of the traditional "flapper girl" dresses, but most of the dresses looked like Halloween costumes. To me, it seemed like a costume party from the present day that was 1920's-themed; everyone was trying too hard to seem genuine. Not only that, some of the women there looked like current-day models: skeleton-thin and with severe faces and haircuts. I just can't believe that people looked or dressed like that in the 1920's. Every party that we saw just brought the movie too much into the present day for me, and each one made it less and less believable as The Great Gatsby.
There is a ridiculously large number of symbols in the novel version of The Great Gatsby. Symbols and motifs are much easier to incorporate and pull off inconspicuously in a book than in a movie. That becomes painfully obvious in Luhrmann's movie. He tries to incorporate the big symbols: the color green, the green light, etc, but, in my mind, fails miserably. It is almost as if he tries too hard to incorporate the symbols in--they are drawn to the viewer's attention far too much, and that makes them less effective as symbols. I know Luhrmann had to incorporate them somehow, but I think he could've done so in a slightly more subtle manner.
Overall, Baz Luhrmann's version of The Great Gatsby didn't do much for me. His stylistic choices, though well-intentioned, were unsuccessful in my eyes. I couldn't quite make myself enjoy the movie in the way that Luhrmann envisioned it.
Overall, I am going to have to disagree with your stance on the film. The purpose of the movie version is to entertain and embellish the visual aspects of the novel, i.e. the party scenes and costumes. In this sense Luhrmann was extremely successful. However, I agree that many of the symbols were lost within the film version of "Gatsby." As you pointed out, all movies have this problem. Since the film packs over 200 pages into a three hour movie, certain aspects have to be cut. Instead, to cement the point of money and wealth, Luhrmann focused on arguably the main symbol of the novel, the green light. I think he did a fantastic job of incorporating that into the film.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis is exactly what I thought about the film as well. It was too exaggerated and inauthentic to be believable. I also didn't like the cinematography but I couldn't think of how to describe what was wrong about it. I think you covered it perfectly, it was the "oddness of the lighting" and the "dream-like" state Nick was in.
ReplyDeleteI agree in the sense that while reading the book, I saw it more as a realistic 1920s narrative, not a dream or fantasy as the movie depicted it as being. On the other hand, how would you feel if the movie was filmed like any other average film? If it depicted the 1920s more realistically than stylistically? I think that's what Luhrmann's objective was. When you read the book, it doesn't sound average. Fitzgerald writing style adds so much to it and gives it an almost mystic feel. The crazy parties seen in the movie were obviously more 21rst century than 20th but I think this was to show the extravagance of these parties. Its hard to relate to the 20th century now that its almost 100 years from the present. I think he was trying to get that feel of the book, less the realism.
ReplyDelete