Forums

For curiosity's sake, I picked up the most recent movie and gave it a run-through after hearing from everybody I talked to that it had done the book a great injustice. So I entered the movie with expectations of having Fitzgerald's text absolutely butchered, and I was pleasantly surprised that the movie turned out as a much more truthful translation than I had been led to assume.

While I understand where the critiques from the movie come from, to an extent, I really believe this was a faithful adaptation to the book on some levels, but not all of them. When a movie studio goes about making a Great Gatsby movie, they set out to make a movie about extravagance, money, desire, unfulfilled longing. They did all of these things. What they did not capture was the subtle, ever so important intricacies of the novel: the racist undertones, the characterization of Wolfsheim, Nick's attraction to Jordan, the subtle hints at Nick's homosexuality. I think it would be difficult and rather clumsy to try and include all of these things without making a movie of tremendous length, and so instead, they picked a few of the obvious ideas and poured their effort into those.

The Great Gatsby movie was about modern, overly extravagant living. To capture this as much as they could, they tried to make the look and the sound reminiscent of 1920s jazz era, but mix it with as much of a modern party vibe as they could. The effect I got from this, not just in the music but in the visuals as well, was a sense of over saturation to the point of nausea. It felt numbing, almost dizzying to watch those grandiose party scenes, and in that I feel they've nailed the book perfectly. You're supposed to enjoy yourself during those scenes, but there is so much going on all at once, it's hard to take in.

And perhaps there is an irony about the extravagance of the party scenes as well. We discussed in class that Fitzgerald himself may have had this intention. There is such an indulgence in the glamour of the book/movie that it draws away attention from the important issues going on in the background (as you pointed out with the music, for example). It is a spectacle that draws people in, but it is a hollow entertainment that is only a distraction from what really matters, from what you really want from life, or what Gatsby really wants.

I think it is unreasonable for a movie to include absolutely everything the book has to offer, and for a novel like The Great Gatsby, the movies are only a supplement to the novel and not a replacement. Those who watch the movie and do not read the book know they have probably missed something important, and that they cannot replace reading the book with their experience of the movie. I do appreciate the movies attempt to capture as much of Fitzgerald's original imagery in the movie, with direct descriptions of things ripped straight from the book like Gatsby's smile, the ash highway, Nick's birthday, and of course, the light at the end of the dock. But these are superficial, like the movie, and do not go deeper than the surface level of beauty in the novel. The scene where the African American wealthy drive beside Gatsby and Nick is included, but merely nods at that depth that the novel has to give.

You do have a point though. Throughout the movie, the biggest thing that irked me was the idea that, since we could see Gatsby, we could not do a reading of the movie with Gatsby as a black character, as we could with the novel. Just this fact makes the movie seem much less malleable than the book, and thus inferior in my eyes. Even if one could critically analyze the movie as one does with the book, this detail is a significant difference that can't be overlooked, because it forever limits the way the movie can be read, making it a less interesting work to study, as it merely mimics the book's content, not adding to the deep discussion the book has already produced. I would like to see a version of this movie that isn't as whitewashed, and actually presents Gatsby as black and passing as wealthy in higher society. It would be a much more interesting version of the movie.

I have seen Baz Luhrmann's recent adaptation of the novel, and I am from the camp that agrees that it did a decent job adapting the text to the screen. However, I am also quite critical of the choice of music used in the film's soundtrack. It was something my cousin warned me about and I was aware of prior, but while the music holds up on its own, it is quite jarring in its implementation in the film. I agree that it was a questionable choice to have such a modern soundtrack partnered with a film that had a great opportunity to portray the setting it takes place. While visually, the film was quite impressive and delivered in some sensational scenes, I felt taken out with musical genres that did not reflect the 1920's, but rather had genres that came after that time period. I felt it almost cheapens the experience, as if the music was put in to associate modern audiences with an older time by appealing to modern tastes, yet takes away from the legitimate presentation (even though, of course, this is supposed to be a simulacrum) of the 1920's. It was a strange creative decision, and I would have expected at least modernized recordings of music from the time as opposed to modern music slapped onto the product. It becomes less a representation of 1920's America and more of a retrospective piece with modern facets applied to it.

I think it may be worth considering that Jay-Z, an African-American artist, was quite involved in the production of music for the film. While there may be a question of the lack representation of African-American artists, it may also be interesting to note that there is an artist who had a hand in calling the shots. I also question whether we can adequately assess representation in the soundtrack when the soundtrack is more identifiable with modern music than the 1920's. I'm quite confused as to what the goal of this soundtrack was.