The Great Gatsby is a novel that has been made in to a few different movies. Each time, it seems as though the adaptation falls short a bit. Why is that? Is the book simply one that is impossible to translate into film? Sadly, I believe the answer to that question is yes.
When it comes to the most recent version starring Leo as Gatsby, it seems they decided to take a more literally approach at most of the things mentioned in the book. The way we are shown the stories being told with flashbacks is something the Redford version didn't have. Certain scenes are almost completely ripped from the pages of the book, dialogue and all. One specific scene that comes to mind that does this is the first time Gatsby meets Daisy on screen. How nervous Gatsby is portrayed, and the actions with the clock, including what the characters say to one another, are a direct adaptation. Another scene is when he is driving too fast, about to be pulled over by the cop. Of course, the cop doesn't pull him over after he sees his card. Scenes like this are faithful to the source material, unfortunately it seems as though sometimes they are too faithful, and certain things don't translate on screen.
Some scenes were comically over the top, including some dialogue and way the characters spoke. When Myrtle is hit by the car, she is shown flying through the air. The way the scene is shot, how high she is shown doesn't make sense. Also, she looks terribly digitally put into the scene. A moment where I laughed at the accents or dialogue was right before Nick meets Gatsby for the first time. He is told "don't you know rich girls don't marry poor boys", and the way the line is delivered is so cheesy. Other times things are just silly when they are clearly not intended to be, like when the words Nick is writing come up on the screen and fade away.
The visuals, something director Baz Luhrmann is famous for, of the film really do help bring you into the story and expand it. You also see the extravagant parties and lifestyle being lived by the characters in a more extraordinary manner. However, as mentioned before, some things are so clearly CGI that it removes you from the moment. The same can be said for a lot of the music choices. The soundtrack isn't bad, but at first viewing it is a bit jarring hearing the Jay-Z song Izzo, which was released in 2001, being listened to by a group of people in the 1920's.
The main problem lies within how personal the book is. When reading it, you feel a bit more connected to the characters and their story. However, when it is changed to a film format this seems to be lost. This version did a good job of connecting a bit more with the added story of Nick writing the book, but it didn't do enough. In the end, we are given something that isn't bad, but can't do the source material near enough justice.
Ya I agree when you made the point about if screen writers make things to faithful to the book as in "ripping the pages" out. Even though some scenes that are in the book are meant to be left up to our imagination, it is neat to compare what we imagine from reading the book to seeing it in a film. Also when you mentioned in your last paragraph that we lose our personal connection to the characters when watching the film, it depends on how one goes about reading a book.
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in your discussion of how reading the book is more personal than viewing the film. Why does that appear to be lost when you watch the movie? Is it because you now share your experience with a larger audience (i.e. more people watching one movie at a time)? Do we lose connection with a character once a movie star becomes visually associated with that character? Do we not have as much control as viewers? Those are some questions I would raise. I'm interested in what we mean by "personal connection" when it comes to viewing films and reading books.
ReplyDelete