Back in 2013, I actually rather enjoyed Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation of “The Great Gatsby.” Granted, I hadn’t read the book yet, nor had I seen any of the other adaptations. I was blown away by the film’s dazzling 3-D effects. I played the film’s soundtrack over and over again, being a massive fan of Lana Del Rey at the time. And I found the central performance of Leonardo DiCaprio as Jay Gatsby to be spellbinding. He represented everything the character should be: handsome, charismatic, sophisticated, mysterious, and alluring. I loved Carey Mulligan’s Daisy, as she gave the character depth and created an aura of melancholy that surrounded her. I found the mise-en-scene dazzling and breath-taking. “The Great Gatsby” was clearly a film made to be seen on the biggest screen possible.
Despite my admiration for the film, a lot of critics didn’t share my enthusiasm. Phillip French for The Guardian, described the film as a “misconceived venture” in his review. In fact, he went on to elaborate his feelings towards Luhrmann’s adaptations by stating that the film “tramples on Fitzgerald’s exquisite prose, turning the oblique into the crude, the suggestively symbolic into the declaratively monumental, the abstract into the flatly real.” Harsh words indeed.
Maguire is Miscast; but Mulligan Works
Reading French’s review after rewatching the film a decade later, I feel I’m now more inclined to agree with him — especially in regards to his comments about casting. He has a lot to say about the casting of Nick Carraway, the book’s narrator. “Tobey Maguire is miscast or misdirected, playing Nick as gauche, uncomfortable, unsophisticated, childlike — less an involved observer than an intruder.” I completely agree with French’s observation that Tobey Maguire is miscast.. In the novel, Nick seems a cool, passive outsider observing the wild Long Island life. However, in Luhrmann’s adaptation, he’s far too sensitive and dull for the viewer to connect with.
In terms of casting, the decision to cast Mulligan as Daisy is interesting. Actresses such as Amanda Seyfried, Keira Knightley, Jessica Alba, Rebecca Hall, Blake Lively, Abbie Cornish, Michelle Williams, Scarlett Johansson, and even Natalie Portman, were all considered. I think Mulligan actually works well as Daisy Buchanan. The character is the embodiment of the “flapper,” and is supposed to represent the newfound freedom women obtained after the end of WW1. However, Mulligan’s Daisy is more than just a “flapper” and a trophy wife to Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton). Here, Mulligan makes Daisy appear sympathetic and vulnerable.
Jay Gatsby and the ‘Roaring ’20s.’ (Photo: © 2012 – Warner Bros. Pictures).
Another review I decided to read after rewatching the film was Matt Zoller Seitz’s review for RogerEbert.com, in which he was a little kinder towards Luhrmann, describing the film as “not a disaster.” He goes on to say that “Every frame is sincere. Its miscalculations come from a wish to avoid embalming a classic novel in “respectfulness” — a worthy goal, in theory.” Zoller Seitz believes the film’s faults come from the fact that the director is unable to “play things straight,” which I agree with.
Does Luhrmann’s Picture Hold Up a Decade Later
Luhrmann had been given a free pass to go as wild and eccentric as possible. As a result, “everything including the kitchen sink” has been thrown at the screen to see if it sticks. Of course, very little actually ended up sticking.
Personally I believe the film is way too over-the-top, especially when it comes to the excessive party scenes. However, I did find Richard Brody’s comments for The New Yorker quite interesting. He believes the film is “under the top.. Luhrmann takes none of it seriously, and makes none of it look remotely alluring, enticing, fun. His whizzing 3-D cinematography offers lots of motion but no seduction; his parties are turbulent and raucous without being promising, without holding out the allure of magical encounters.”
I found Brody’s comment that it “would be fun not to know that Baz Luhrmann’s new movie is an adaptation” to be a perfect summary of how I feel towards this adaptation. Since 2013 I have read the book on a few occasions. I believe it is far more superior to anything that could possibly be portrayed on the big screen. There are far more exploration into themes of the failure of the “American Dream,” class warfare, gender inequality, and racial prejudice, which never appear in Luhrmann’s picture.
Luhrmann the ‘Auteur’
Joel Edgerton in “The Great Gatsby.” (Photo: © 2013 Bazmark Film III Pty Limited).
In recent years, some critics have tried to argue that the 2013 adaptation of “The Great Gatsby” is underrated. Writing for Indiewire, David Ehrlich describes the film as an “intoxicating interplay between fantasy and reality,” but I’m not sure whether that’s intended to be a compliment or a criticism. Ehrlich does make a strong argument for Luhrmann the “auteur,” stating the film “may be a product of a system that’s determined to repeat the past, but it’s made by a man who’s more interested in the ecstasy of reinventing the present. Hollywood might be focused on the green light, but Luhrmann is projecting his dreams directly onto the mist.”
We can all respect Luhrmann’s devotion to classic Hollywood and the extravagance of the studio system. Often today, filmmakers seem to be focused on making their film accessible for those watching on streaming services. So, I do praise Luhrmann for attempting to make his film appear like a spectacle. However, it feels shallow and empty. It feels like a film lost in time, torn between the present day and the 1920s, unsure of its own identity.
“The Great Gatsby” lacks the charm and the nostalgia of musicals such as “High Society,” “An American in Paris,” and “Singin’ in the Rain.” Ehrlich claims Luhrmann is trying to reinvent the present, but it doesn’t feel like that way. It feels like a director desperately trying to recapture the excess of the studio system, but failing because aside from DiCaprio, none of the other actors are “stars” in the same way as Grace Kelly, Gene Kelly, Debbie Reynolds, Bing Crosby, or Frank Sinatra were. And, Baz Luhrmann is certainly no Vincente Minnelli.
The Fatigue of Rich Excess On-Screen
A meme-worthy Leonardo DiCaprio in “The Great Gatsby.” (Photo: © 2012 – Warner Bros. Pictures).
In the end, I’m left feeling less buzzed and high over the film’s spectacle, and more hungover. Despite the warm, dazzling and energetic colours splashed across the screen, I end up feeling cold and disconnected. Any positive feelings I may have held towards this film upon watching it a decade ago have evaporated and I can’t quite work out why I even enjoyed it in the first place.
The 1920s may have been known as the “Roaring ’20s” but fast forward a hundred years, and we’ve skipped that part and have already reached the Great Depression. I currently have no interest in watching rich people living a life of excess on the big screen. I can’t feel sad for the likes of Gatsby, Daisy, and Nick. Their lives seem so remote and unattainable to me and so many others in 2023. Oh well, at least “The Great Gatsby” provided us with some quality DiCaprio memes, so I guess there’s that.
