The Good Gatsby

When it comes to trying to find a film director who can harness a sense of mad abandon in one of the most hedonistic periods of American history, you’d be hard pressed to think of someone better suited for the job than Baz Luhrmann, surely? After all, he’s got form. Moulin Rouge and Strictly Ballroom were so unique,  creatively stimulating, and off-the-wall bonkers that the idea of someone else being chosen to create a sense of devil-may-care party antics seems almost absurd. Added to this, he can do tragedy too. Luhrmann’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’ is, in my opinion, the best Shakespeare adaptation ever made. I’m not just saying that because I’m an English teacher either, although I’m professionally grateful to Luhrmann for giving a young generation a new way into a classic. That being said, I’m equally professionally annoyed at him for giving me (admittedly not personally) an awful lot of essays that discuss Shakespeare’s use of language in ‘the petrol station scene’. Still, it trumps any other Shakespeare adaptation I’ve ever seen.

So, instead of Shakespeare’s classic, which (thanks to the fact it’s a play) gives an awful lot of narrative scope to a director to one of America’s most beloved novels, which doesn’t. How does he do? It’s not an easy question to answer.

Like all Luhrmann’s films, the real star is Baz Luhrmann. There’s nothing wrong with a director being the real star, (see Reservoir Dogs, Duel, Jaws, The Godfather, etc) but when you’re up against stylised repetition, the shine is lost somewhat (see Django Unchained, Face/Off, Transformers etc) and it begins to impede one’s enjoyment of the story. And in Gatsby, the story and the characters who make it breathe, are everything. So it’s not a good idea to take the focus from them.

That being said, there are chances for Luhrmann to shine, and at least he doesn’t disappoint for the most part. The film looks beautiful. Even if you see it in 3D, which adds nothing but a sense of detatchment from characters you’re supposed to get close to, there’s no denying the HD uber-gloss that dominates the entire pallet of the film. It’s basically everything turned up to 12 (from Baz Luhrmann? Who would have guessed) with the colours primary and vivid, the sounds bold and swirling, the costumes absolutely gorgeous, and the thematic imagery about as subtle as a brick to the face. Considering this is a tale of woe, there is certainly no sense of impending doom for the first third of the film. There isn’t time or room for any, because they’re too busy cutting a nifty rug at 1920s parties, and here is where the first of the problems kick in. Now, we know that Luhrmann knows how to film a party, because we’ve seen it before. And therein lies the rub. We’ve seen it before. Deja Vu is one thing, but there’s a certain sense of having deja-vued every single moment of every single party before, which becomes problematic a lot quicker than I was expecting. In an era where the clichéd soirees involved an almost gluttonous degree of bacchanalian debauchery, surface sheen with no moral scaffolding, the film seems to be determined to follow suit. And like those parties, ultimately there’s no satisfaction come closing time.

With so much surface glitz and glamour, it’s a wonder that there’s any character depth at all, and this is where we have the actors to thank for occasionally solid, mostly quietly spectacular performances. Although all the main cast underplay their roles, in so far as you never feel like you’re watching the kind of genre-defining performance that John Leguizamo and Harold Perrineau gave in ‘Romeo and Juliet’, it’s a nice balance to the feel and look of the film to have some class and depth added by the human element. Leonardo DiCaprio, although not given the kind of emotional journey he had in his last outing with the director is excellent as always, and is ably supported by everyone with whom he finds himself sharing West Egg. There isn’t a single let-down in terms of performance here, even Isla Fisher (not known for her dramatic chops) does a fine job as Myrtle. It’s these performances that keep the film on something of an even keel and avoid it becoming less style-over-substance and just pure style.

So, what’s not to like? Well, like so many cinematic adaptations of novels, if you’re a hardcore fan of the novel the chances are you’re going to hate this. That’s not to say it isn’t good, but when was the last time you saw an adaptation of a book you loved and liked it? One of the great touches in Gatsby lies in Fitzgerald’s prose, describing some aspects of life in West Egg as well as anyone has ever described anything, and of course that’s lost in the film, despite Luhrmann’s best efforts to use the original text where he can. The 3D is a waste of time, which adds more to your ticket price while adding nothing to your experience, and there are several moments where the sheer force of the film feels somewhat oppressive. It is literally such a sensory blitzkrieg that it occasionally feels like it’s taken you to a speakeasy, forced your throat open and poured itself down you. That might be thematically relevant, given the subject matter, but it doesn’t help you really experience the more emotionally fraught moments of the film, which are what give it such a timeless quality. Some people have complained about Carey Mulligan’s accent, although I thought she was great, and there will be those who feel the film is simply too polished to look at, and there’s certainly an argument that at time you feel like you’re watching a cartoon. Finally, there is a sense that at times you’re watching a rehash of some old films, namely Moulin Rouge, Romeo and Juliet, The Aviator, and Citizen Kane, with an occasional scene from Bugsy Malone thrown in.

So, does the good outweigh the bad? Well, yes it does, but the problems with it are numerous enough that whether you love Luhrmann’s other work (I do) or the beauty of the original story (I do) you will find enough wrong here to stop you feeling as though you have truly been immersed in The great American cautionary tale.

Is it The Great Gatsby? No, but it’s certainly a decent effort, and for you English teachers out there, at least the scenes at the petrol station actually take place in a petrol station this time.