The Great Gatsby (2013)

[Jan Spears]

I didn't see a topic about Baz Luhrmann's 2013 version of Scott Fitzgerald's 1925 masterpiece, The Great Gatsby so . . .

I saw the Luhrmann version in 2013 and found the movie enjoyable enough, especially its visual recreation of Roaring Twenties New York. Surprisingly, I had never read the Fitzgerald book so I had no reference point for evaluating the movie's fidelity to the source material. SInce then, over several successive summers, I've read and reread The Great Gatsby and become entranced by it. If ever there was a perfect book, The Great Gatsby is that book, Nothing can be added to it to make it better and nothing can be taken away from it to make it better. It is perfect unto itself.

In any event, I bought a cheap DVD copy of the Luhrmann film this summer to see how it compares to the novel. I must say that I found the movie much less enjoyable than I did before I had an actual reference point for it. The biggest disappointments were the changes/additions to Fitzgerald's characters, dialogue and plot. Especially disappointing were the changes to the established character of Nick Carraway as it exists in the book. The movie depicts Nick as this wide-eyed naif from the Midwest and then as a "morbidly alcoholic" wreck. Neither of those characterizations are consistent with Fitzgerald's depiction of Nick, who begins the book being somewhat worldly and ends it disappointed but not broken, Tobey Maguire's performance doesn't help matters as his acting sometimes seems more appropriate for a screwball comedy than the actual movie he's appearing in.

I also don't like how the movie changes the book in regard to the blame for Myrtle's death. In the book, the driver who killed Myrtle is never found. In the movie, Gatsby is believed to be the hit-and-run driver. It's an important change because the movie version gives the people who attended Gatsby's parties a valid reason for not attending his funeral. The book version is more powerful because the no-shows make Nick realize how shallow and vapid the culture surrounding him really is.

On a more positive note, the movie is a visual marvel. Two of the most beautiful scenes in the movie are Nick and Jordan meeting at night on a a rooftop restaurant overlooking New York and then Nick arriving back to his modest home and seeing Gatsby's house all lit up, I also admire how the movie incorporates numerous treatment's of the theme, Lana del Rey's "Young and Beautiful," throughout the movie; the jazz foxtrot version being the best version.

Edited September 2, 2018 by Jan Spears

[Dejana]

18 hours ago, Jan Spears said:

I didn't see a topic about Baz Luhrmann's 2013 version of Scott Fitzgerald's 1925 masterpiece, The Great Gatsby so . . .

I saw the Luhrmann version in 2013 and found the movie enjoyable enough, especially its visual recreation of Roaring Twenties New York. Surprisingly, I had never read the Fitzgerald book so I had no reference point for evaluating the movie's fidelity to the source material. SInce then, over several successive summers, I've read and reread The Great Gatsby and become entranced by it. If ever there was a perfect book, The Great Gatsby is that book, Nothing can be added to it to make it better and nothing can be taken away from it to make it better. It is perfect unto itself.

In any event, I bought a cheap DVD copy of the Luhrmann film this summer to see how it compares to the novel. I must say that I found the movie much less enjoyable than I did before I had an actual reference point for it. The biggest disappointments were the changes/additions to Fitzgerald's characters, dialogue and plot. Especially disappointing were the changes to the established character of Nick Carraway as it exists in the book. The movie depicts Nick as this wide-eyed naif from the Midwest and then as a "morbidly alcoholic" wreck. Neither of those characterizations are consistent with Fitzgerald's depiction of Nick, who begins the book being somewhat worldly and ends it disappointed but not broken, Tobey Maguire's performance doesn't help matters as his acting sometimes seems more appropriate for a screwball comedy than the actual movie he's appearing in.

I also don't like how the movie changes the book in regard to the blame for Myrtle's death. In the book, the driver who killed Myrtle is never found. In the movie, Gatsby is believed to be the hit-and-run driver. It's an important change because the movie version gives the people who attended Gatsby's parties a valid reason for not attending his funeral. The book version is more powerful because the no-shows make Nick realize how shallow and vapid the culture surrounding him really is.

On a more positive note, the movie is a visual marvel. Two of the most beautiful scenes in the movie are Nick and Jordan meeting at night on a a rooftop restaurant overlooking New York and then Nick arriving back to his modest home and seeing Gatsby's house all lit up, I also admire how the movie incorporates numerous treatment's of the theme, Lana del Rey's "Young and Beautiful," throughout the movie; the jazz foxtrot version being the best version.

 

I don't mind adaptations being different from the source material, so long as the writing is mindful of the impact on those changes on the rest of the story. I remember thinking that exact thing the first time I watched this version, as Nick was so shocked/disappointed that no one wants anything to do with Gatsby anymore. Well, yes, he'd always kept himself at a distance to begin with, and as far as anyone knows, he killed his mistress in a hit and run once he lost interest: who wants to pay their respects to a person like that? Which completely undercuts the point Fitzgerald was trying to make. I always thought Tobey as Nick was a miscast, but that being Leo's longtime BFF gave him the inside track on the role.

I do like Leo's take on Gatsby, love the party scenes and still listen to the soundtrack and orchestral score every so often.

Edited September 2, 2018 by Dejana

[Jan Spears]

On ‎9‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 1:40 PM, Dejana said:

I always thought Tobey as Nick was a miscast,

I agree although he does have certain moments I like. For instance, when he tells Gatsby, "You can't repeat the past," which is one of Fitzgerald's greatest lines. And later, when he says to Gatsby that he's better than all the others put together. Maguire is quietly effective in these scenes.

[Jan Spears]

I watched the deleted scenes on the DVD bonus disc. The deleted scenes involve Nick and Jordan's relationship, the arrival of Gatsby's father after his son's death and Nick's final encounter with Tom.

In my opinion, the deletion of the Nick/Jordan scenes was the biggest loss. In his DVD commentary, Baz Luhrmann says that he removed the scenes because he didn't want to lose focus on the Nick/Gatsby "romance". This "romance" came as news to me because, in the book, Nick is mildly disapproving of Gatsby until the very end. In addition, Nick states in the book that he often went weeks without seeing Gatsby during that fateful summer because he and Jordan were spending so much time together in New York and Long Island. So, cutting out Jordan makes Nick look like he's spent the whole summer caught up in Gatsby's troubles, (The cut scenes also include Nick and Jordan's telephone break-up, which is why Jordan disappears from the movie after the scene of Nick and Jordan together at the Buchanan mansion post-hit and run.)

[VCRTracking]

Article from a few years ago:
How WWII Saved The Great Gatsby From Obscurity

It's funny how the book was neither a critical or financial success at the time of it's publishing, but because it evoked the times so vividly it later became popular for people wanting to escape to it. The current generation is always fascinated by the era that came just before it.

Edited September 16, 2018 by VCRTracking

[NutMeg]

22 hours ago, Jan Spears said:

I watched the deleted scenes on the DVD bonus disc. The deleted scenes involve Nick and Jordan's relationship, the arrival of Gatsby's father after his son's death and Nick's final encounter with Tom.

In my opinion, the deletion of the Nick/Jordan scenes was the biggest loss. In his DVD commentary, Baz Luhrmann says that he removed the scenes because he didn't want to lose focus on the Nick/Gatsby "romance". This "romance" came as news to me because, in the book, Nick is mildly disapproving of Gatsby until the very end. In addition, Nick states in the book that he often went weeks without seeing Gatsby during that fateful summer because he and Jordan were spending so much time together in New York and Long Island. So, cutting out Jordan makes Nick look like he's spent the whole summer caught up in Gatsby's troubles, (The cut scenes also include Nick and Jordan's telephone break-up, which is why Jordan disappears from the movie after the scene of Nick and Jordan together at the Buchanan mansion post-hit and run.)

Yes, where did Jordan go? My son and friends who read the book after watching the movie were not happy, Jordan was a big character to them.

But yes, indeed, why portray Nick as unable to be awed by more than Gatsby?

And while we know the whole thing is from Nick's perspective, does that mean his sole focus of interest had to be Gatsby? Maybe I need to reread the book. In my memory, there were so many more interactions, and they made it even more interesting - but I admit that I read it a long time ago

[Jan Spears]

23 hours ago, NutMeg said:

Yes, where did Jordan go? My son and friends who read the book after watching the movie were not happy, Jordan was a big character to them.

Especially since Tobey Maguire and Elizabeth Debicki have good chemistry together. Watching their scenes together in New York, I found myself wishing that Baz Luhrmann had made a screwball comedy with the two of them set in the 20s instead of the movie he made.

23 hours ago, NutMeg said:

And while we know the whole thing is from Nick's perspective, does that mean his sole focus of interest had to be Gatsby? Maybe I need to reread the book. In my memory, there were so many more interactions, and they made it even more interesting - but I admit that I read it a long time ago

Your memory isn't flawed. In the book, Nick very specifically states that he and Jordan were often together that summer and that he didn't always see Gatsby. There's even a passage toward the end of the book where Nick mentions how she would call him at work at a pre-arranged time because her own movements during the day made it impossible for him to find her. Fitzgerald could have written an additional chapter focusing solely on Nick and Jordan's adventures together, But, rather that deviate from the novel's tremendous forward progression, he would make certain comments about Nick and Jordan and then leave the rest to the reader's imagination.

[Jan Spears]

Happy Birthday to Scott Fitzgerald -- born this day in 1896!

[rmontro]

I liked this version much better than the Robert Redford one, which was kind of boring.

[Dejana]

On 9/16/2018 at 2:15 AM, VCRTracking said:

Article from a few years ago:
How WWII Saved The Great Gatsby From Obscurity

It's funny how the book was neither a critical or financial success at the time of it's publishing, but because it evoked the times so vividly it later became popular for people wanting to escape to it. The current generation is always fascinated by the era that came just before it.

I had always heard Gatsby was a flop at first and was only appreciated decades later. The trailer for the first movie adaptation totally lies about that, and also shows that movie trailers giving away too much of the story has a long tradition! (Sadly, no other footage of the 1926 film is known to still exist).

*

This version was very heavy on visual effects:

[miliosr]

To finish off my annual summer reread of The Great Gatsby, I rewatched the Baz Luhrmann movie version again.

I still stand by my objections from my earlier review: changing the character of Nick Carraway so drastically and having Gatsby be publicly identified as Myrtle's killer are both big, big mistakes. The latter, in particular, is non-sensical (and makes me question whether Lurhmann even understood the book) because it undercuts the devastating point Scott Fitzgerald was making about how amoral the people who attended Gatsby's parties were. In the book, Gatsby isn't pinned with the blame for Myrtle's death and so the failure of almost everyone to turn up for his funeral is a condemnation of that entire New York/West Egg society. In the movie, having Gatsby identified as Myrtle's killer gives all of the people who attended Gatsby's parties good reason to stay away from his funeral and thereby negates Fitzgerald's whole point.

Another thing that irritated me this go-round are two separate scenes involving Daisy: one with her almost calling Gatsby on the day he is killed, and another with her looking wistful as the butler tells Nick (who has called Daisy after Gatsby's death) that the Buchanans have already left. There are no such scenes in the book and their inclusion in the movie softens Daisy so that she appears more sympathetic than she actually is. The book version of Daisy at the end is better because it reveals that Daisy is every bit as amoral as Tom -- if not more so. It also highlights how Gatsby's idealization of Daisy was a fantasy all along.

Edited September 7, 2020 by miliosr

[Mabinogia]

6 minutes ago, miliosr said:

the movie softens Daisy so that she appears wistful (about Gatsby) and perhaps completely under Tom's control. But the book version of Daisy at the end is better because it reveals that Daisy is every bit as amoral as Tom -- if not more so. It also highlights how Gatsby's idealization of Daisy was a fantasy all along

While I think the movie is beautiful to look at, I do hate that the movie tried to make Daisy more a sad little victim of circumstance rather than a rather calculated gold digger who very purposefully chose money over "love". I liked the book much more in it's theme of idealization. 

I didn't like the story line in the movie but I did love it visually. 

[Spartan Girl]

12 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

While I think the movie is beautiful to look at, I do hate that the movie tried to make Daisy more a sad little victim of circumstance rather than a rather calculated gold digger who very purposefully chose money over "love". I liked the book much more in it's theme of idealization. 

I didn't like the story line in the movie but I did love it visually. 

I didn't get the victim vibe from this version of Daisy at all. She was every bit as fickle and cowardly as she was in the book, and however bad she might have felt, she still willingly let Gatsby take the fall and ran off with Tom. And it was clear that she wasn't seriously considering leaving Tom for Gatsby, she wanted to just keep "having fun" with him. JMO.