The Film Fatales
travel back in time to Roaring 20s Long Island and mingle with the
upper crust of East and West Egg in A Tale of Two Gatsbys... Won't you
join us, old sport?
The
Great Gatsby. 2013. PG-13. 142 minutes. Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey
Maguire and Carey Mulligan. Directed by Baz Luhrmann.
The
Great Gatsby. 1974. Rated PG. 144 minutes. Starring Robert Redford, Sam
Waterston and Mia Farrow. Directed by Jack Clayton.
A Midwestern
war veteran finds himself drawn to the past and lifestyle of his millionaire
neighbor (imdb). Based on the novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald.
Nicole: There are,
to date, six film versions of The Great Gatsby—but we’re focusing on just two
(because this is a blog, not a friggin’ dissertation). When it comes to
adapting novels into film, creative decisions never fail to amaze me. One
team’s interpretation can either elevate the written work or insult it: In both
the 2013 and the 1974 Gatsbys, it’s thankfully the former.
elizabeth: I have to
say that this was a genius idea on my part for us to compare these two versions
of The Great Gatsby. Oh, it was your idea. Never mind. I discovered the internet. With Al Gore by my
side, fanning me.
Nicole: Hmm, I
suppose you're also responsible for sliced bread... Stylistically, the two
films could not be more different. Some may argue that’s because modern
filmmaking has the benefit of digital tricks. But I think most of the
differences between the two films lay in pacing, acting, and plot choices.
Clayton’s ’74 adaptation is a slow-moving, thoughtful and careful
interpretation with very little wavering from the source material. Loyal though
it may be, I think it failed to capture the novel’s fever-pitched scenes or
depth of character. Redford’s was a quiet, cool Gatsby. Farrow’s was an
over-the-top, hysterical Daisy Buchanan. Waterston was a passive, if
convincing, Nick Carraway. Lois Chiles was an under-developed, yawning Jordan
Baker. And, Bruce Dern was a nonchalant Tom Buchanan.
elizabeth: I agree that
technology has taken us to places that would never exist years ago. But does
that make for a better film? Does it shortchange our imagination when they put
it all out there? I liked the slower pace of the 1974 version because I felt
Redford’s Gatsby was a man of quiet intelligence and mystery and he looked hot
in that one-piece bathing suit. Not every man could pull that off. But can someone explain his over the top love
for Mia Farrow’s Daisy Buchanan?
Okay,
if not for Redford and Waterson’s relationship in this movie, which I thought
was touching and well developed, I am quite comfortable in saying this version
sucked and the townspeople should run Farrow’s Daisy out of town. I think
Farrow ruined the movie with her hysterics. I think the wrong character got shot.
Nicole: Tell
us how you really feel, cassidy. Look, I worship at Redford’s feet: He is
Gatsby personified in many ways, but DiCaprio nails it. Finally, the dark,
disturbed, obsessed Gatsby emerges. He plays the role with equal parts forceful
nature, manic obsession and deluded anguish. It’s a heartbreaking performance
made all the more wrenching by his sad demise. And I think DiCaprio filled out
his one-piece suit quite nicely. I swear, scout's honor (try and prove I wasn't
one), that I've never found DiCaprio the least bit attractive...until this film.
elizabeth: Got to disagree with you big time. I felt
Luhrmann photographed DiCaprio beautifully at the beginning and I was really
looking forward to seeing this version unfold. But as Gatsby’s life got a
little messier, DiCaprio’s Gatsby looked like he was a tad constipated and that
distracted me from the storyline. I wanted to see those eyes dance across the
screen again and I will acknowledge that he gave a good performance, but facial
expressions are so important. Go with more than one.
Now
as far as Redford goes – he can just sit there and no nothing. I would be quite
content.
Nicole: Constipated?
Hmm, I think your letting your Redford-lust blur your film-reviewing vision.
The problem with Redford's performance is his quietness. Gatsby is supposed to
be filled with rumbling turmoil that's disguised by a cool exterior, which at
times bursts forth to reveal his deep obsession. Mulligan’s
Daisy Buchanan is head and shoulders above Farrow’s. But, we mustn’t forget
that Luhrmann and company portray this Daisy (intentionally) as far more
sympathetic, so that does have some bearing on her choices. I’ll leave it at
that: Devotees of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s work will certainly have pick with this
plot diversion.
elizabeth: I agree.
Alert the media. But I will take Mulligan’s portrayal of Daisy over Farrow’s
any day. Have I mentioned that I hated Mia’s performance?
Nicole: You've
mentioned it, yes, but it bears repeating. She.was.awful. McGuire’s
Nick Carraway, like Daisy, is changed up a tad. He’s a bit less passive than
Waterston’s and takes to actively judging rather than remaining a silent
witness. Again, purists will find his storyline a bit contrived with regard to
the narration technique. I feel it was an unnecessary choice, but not
detrimental.
elizabeth: All this
agreeing is making me constipated.
Nicole: Some
extra fiber in your diet might do the trick. Elizabeth
Debicki’s Jordan Baker is, alas, as underdeveloped as Chiles’—though played far
better, with a snobbish, pervading coolness. Joel Edgarton’s Tom Buchanan is
hands down much preferred to Dern’s lacking portrayal.
elizabeth: You just go
on and on, don’t you?
Nicole: Ignoring
you. Normally,
I shy away from Luhrmann’s movies (I generally find them an assault on all
senses). They’re all too much for me—a dizzying swirl of excess. But his
choices and obvious devotion to the era and Fitzgerald’s work show through. You
could pause this film at any frame and display it as a work of art. Absolutely
magnificent—from cinematography and set direction to costuming and special
effects. He knew precisely the right moments to feverishly present a scene and
exactly when to slow it down—like a rollercoaster—evoking the desired reaction
from the audience. Whereas the ’74 version remained a dull dive, that never
quite captured the hedonistic vibe of the roaring 20s—except through set direction
and costuming. The pace was too even-keeled and lulled the audience into a near
catatonic state.
elizabeth: The Art Deco
era was well represented in this film and you could tell that Luhrmann was
having a love affair with the 1920s, but I wonder if F. Scott Fitzgerald would
have told Luhrmann to tone it down.
Nicole: Ultimately,
modernity wins over in my book. Despite the obvious plot divergences, the 2013
Gatsby rises well above the ’74 version in every possible way.
elizabeth: I am
sticking with the 1974 version. It has Robert Redford in it. Before he went out
in the sun without and sun protection.
Nicole: You know
what I just realized? This our first Film Fatales split-decision. Frankly, I'm
relieved. Agreeing as much as we have been has been giving me the creeps.
