We watched two version of The Great Gatsby (1974 & 2013) as a class.
The films share a source text, but have little else in
common. In Jack Clayton’s 1974 rendition, we are shown the events of the novel,
like a picture book—but the result is a slow, unengaging, and ultimately boring
film. Baz Luhrmann’s film, however, is emotionally resonant, tense, and
visually sensational. They are almost opposites. Yet they were both widely panned
by reviewers, with critics citing a bad case of style over substance for both
films. Looking at the films side by side, however, it is clear which one has
more substance—and it certainly was not the one I expected.
Luhrmann’s films are, by nature, controversial. Personally,
I found nothing enjoyable about the chaotic mess that was Milan Rouge!, and have avoided Romeo
+ Juliet because of it. However, I was pleasantly surprised by Luhrmann’s
treatment of The Great Gatsby, even
if (according to Rotten Tomatoes) 51% of the critics were not. Some critics
accused the film of being “vulgar,” “obscene,” “demeaning” and “ghastly”—yet
other reviewers, such as Richard Roeper, call it “the best attempt yet to
capture the essence of the book.”
A novel like The Great
Gatsby has many interpretations, angles and lenses through which it can be
viewed. A myriad of themes can be identified. A problem with screen translations is that the
filmmakers have to choose an interpretation and a reduced number of themes to
explore. On these grounds I have to
agree with Roeper; Luhrmann’s film simply reflected
the themes of the book better than Clayton’s.
the themes of the book better than Clayton’s.
Take Gatsby and Daisy’s relationship, for instance. The 1974
version emphasized their romance, even featuring a montage of the couple
enjoying each other’s company (most notably picnicking on a bright summer’s
day). Luhrmann, in my opinion, does a much better job of capturing, as Bruce
Handy describes it, the “anti-romantic” nature of Fitzgerald’s book. Yes,
Clayton’s film portrayed a romance that is doomed, but never realizes that that
is the point—I guess it was more
important for them to get their stars some screen time together. Luhrmann,
however, shows scenes of Nick surveying the ransacked mansion, and Daisy
refusing to go to the funeral, conveying the tragedy of Gatsby’s unfulfilled
dreams in a way that was not suggested in Clayton’s film.

![]() |
Note the contrast between the gray workers and the sharp colors of Tom and Nick's clothes. |
For me, one of the most important aspects of an adaptation
is the filmmaker’s attention to the characters. Everyone has their own opinions as to what they are really
like, but the character we see on the screen comes from a mix of
interpretations, including input from the screenwriter, the actor, and the
director. Can we really expect these characters to be as we imagined? No, but
it is fair for us to want to care about them, as we did the characters in the
books. One of the most memorable moments of the 2013 film is when Gatsby loses
his temper in the apartment scene. He shows us then the man he has always tried
to suppress—and consequently, shows us that he is, indeed, a man. It should
have been the most memorable scene in the 1974 film too, but Robert Redford
never showed the audience a Gatsby that was not calm, cool and collected.
Dicaprio showed us a Gatsby that is vulnerable beneath his suave veneer, making
his Gatsby the only one we care about. This scene is representative of the
whole of each film as well; Lurhmann’s film pulsed with an emotional tension
that the 1974 film, too long and too slow, severely lacked.
My favorite aspect of Luhrmann’s Gatsby was the narrative set-up. In Luhrmann’s eyes, Nick is Fitzgerald. It seemed unnecessary to
some critics, but to me it made the difference. Perhaps it is a personal thing;
I found Gatsby’s story, and indeed the whole novel, entirely pointless before I
understood that Fitzgerald was condemning the careless attitude of society’s
elite. By exploring Nick’s motivations to write, it gave the film (and the
character) a much needed sense of purpose and relevance. With this near-plot-less
story, there is just no reason for us to care if we do not know why it is
important to the teller. My feeling at the end of Clayton’s film was “So…what
was the point of that?” But when Nick adds that crucial adjective to his title
at the end, I knew exactly what the point of Luhrmann’s film was.
I am struck by one more way in which Luhrmann’s film is the
more faithful of the two: it gives us
something to talk about. Indeed, there is so much more I wanted to mention
about the film, but this blog is too long as it is. The 1974 version fails to stir
up any kind of reaction in those who watch it, emotional or otherwise, and as
such, fails to interest us. Fitzgerald’s novel has held interest for nearly 100
years, but upon its release, meet its fair share of controversy—an “initial
failure,” as David Denby says. It is fitting, then, that a film coming anywhere
close to living up to the title should do the same.
What do you think? How do you feel about my claim that
Luhrmann’s visual style may be an equivalent to Fitzgerald’s descriptive prose?
Yes, I agree the more faithful adaptation was Luhrmanns' film. I didn't realize the 1974 version didn't have any non-Caucasian faces in it. Thinking back, I don't remember seeing any either...maybe one as a butler or something, but I don't remember for sure. Very interesting!
ReplyDeleteI also appreciate Luhrmann's decision to make Nick into Fitzgerald. I think that decision acknowledges what the film owes to its source text. Then again, I don't necessarily demand that the film "owe" its source text anything. I do like the ways that films provide connections to literature, however.... Very thorough and thoughtful post.
ReplyDeleteI also compared both films to each other and my main point was about each version of Gatsby. One who showed emotion while the other did not which hurt the movie in my opinion. I did enjoy the scene of Gatsby finally exploding on Tom; the anger on his face was pure and it showed Gatsby's true colors and as a human being, not like a robot in the 74 version. And, I also didn't notice any people of color (african americans) in the first film. So I was a little shocked with black people were shown in the 13 version, not just as the help but people of wealth as well important and entertaining.
ReplyDelete