(☞ﾟ∀ﾟ)☞

Image from: Hark! A Vagrant

What are the audience hoping to get out of Baz Luhrmann’s “The Great Gatsby”? Even if one’s own expectations have fallen short, it is still worthwhile to catch this film simply to discuss what makes or breaks this film adaptation of Fitzgerald’s seminal novel. I have spent my wait for this film’s release looping the film’s two official trailers for hours, then spent more hours looping the songs used in the trailers. Yet upon viewing the movie, I knew by the time the credits roll that I won’t be re-watching “The Great Gatsby” with the same zeal.

Warning: Spoilers and subjective opinions abound.

First and foremost, the redeeming aspects of the film:

1) The Soundtrack

The promise of a memorable soundtrack that comes with a Baz Luhrmann film was duly delivered. The covers particularly stand out as examples on the timelessness and resonance of modern songs. The alterations to Amy Winehouse’s “Back to Black” makes it particularly catchy and augment the already pertinent lyrics. Other recommendations from the soundtrack: “Crazy In Love”, “No Church in the Wild” and “Love is Blindness”.

2) The Sets and Costumes

Another Baz Luhrmann trademark duly delivered. Nonetheless, more time could be devoted to show what life was like during the Jazz age. We have glimpses of that with the depiction of the frantic Wall Street workers and the stark contrast between the pristine Buchanan mansion and the thoroughly filthy working conditions of the railway labourers. Nonetheless, the disillusioning implications in these scenes feels largely like afterthoughts which are easily ignored during the “partying” scenes.

3) The Acting

The cast is remarkable not only because they are appropriate for their roles, but also due to their interesting interpretations of the characters. As the protagonist, Leonardo Dicaprio excels in showing the constant nervousness in Gatsby’s life. His strength as a leading man is more difficult to evaluate because of his status as an iconic actor. Frankly speaking, concerted effort is required from the viewer to differentiate between the character and the celebrity himself.

As for the rest of the cast, Tobey Maguire is effective in the role of the foil narrator as he shows Nick Carraway to become progressively irritated at having his own concerns being largely ignored by the dramatic group he finds himself with. Carey Mulligan’s emphasis on Daisy Buchanan’s vulnerability contributes to a redeeming portrayal of the character as a genuinely conflicted woman. Joel Edgerton and Isla Fisher’s depiction of the sexual chemistry between the adulterous Tom and Myrtle makes me wish we could see more of this pairing rather than Gatsby/Daisy (another adulterous pair, but honestly boring).

Elizabeth Debicki could have been given more opportunities to develop her portrayal of Jordan Baker, who I find to be an interesting character in the novel. As a woman portrayed in a masculine light and has her own career, she is an obvious foil to the feminine and dependant Daisy just like Nick is a foil to Gatsby. I think it’s a pity that Nick and Jordan’s fling in the novel isn’t explored in the film. This relationship between a progressive man and woman could have been an interesting foil to the other relationships depicted (sorry for the foilception in this paragraph).

Now, on to the arguably ineffective aspects of the film:

1) The Framing Device

Many have speculated on how Luhrmann will overcome the challenges of adapting the novel to the screen and his ultimate solution is…for the narrator to literally write the novel on screen. For a moment, I thought that Luhrmann had forgotten that he had included the “writing as therapy” motif in one of his earlier films (“Moulin Rouge”) in a way that made more narrative sense.

The framing device doesn’t even really serve the purpose of exploring Nick’s role as an unreliable narrator due to the shift of perspectives in the film. The choice to have Nick write the story of Gatsby also in a way conflates Nick with F. Scott Fitzgerald, which is odd especially since Luhrmann has drawn explicit parallels between Gatsby and Fitzgerald in official interviews.

On the whole, the inclusion of the framing device is purposeful insofar as it informs the audience that the film’s source material is a piece of written work.

2) Shift of Perspectives

While the shift of perspectives in the film is necessary for character development, it is arguably inappropriate since Nick is explicitly shown to be controlling the way the story is told. The gap between how the viewers see the characters and how Nick sees the characters can be effective if the film intends to portray Gatsby’s greatness as ironic. However, the final shot which shows Nick appending “the great” to Gatsby’s name implies that we are meant to be convinced that Gatsby is truly great.

The most pertinent moment in which the shift of perspectives undermines Nick’s argument of Gatsby’s greatness is the moment in which the film focuses on Daisy’s perspective when she has to choose between Gatsby and Tom. When Daisy witnesses Gatsby’s outburst, the audience comes to understand the danger of Gatsby’s unpredictability. The audience is thus able to sympathize with Daisy for choosing to stay with Tom, who is at least a predictable douchebag. As a result of the audience’s increased sympathy towards Daisy, it would hence be unfair to consider the film version of this character as exemplary of the “carelessness” that Nick claims to have characterized the Jazz age.

Therefore, the film is overall an inconsistent argument about greatness due to these ineffective aspects. Nevertheless, it is adequate in presenting images to suit already iconic literary motifs, hence serving a function to enjoy Fitzgerald’s story through an alternate medium.