The 2013 film version of The Great Gatsby offers everyone a great story, even for those that have not read the novel. The film compares to the novel, but also offers some additional emphasis and provides some meaning in different ways.
All of the stylistic aspects and motifs in the novel are clearly depicted in the film. Worthy of praise, but easily ignored by those who have not read the book. This happens in all literature to film adaptations, but Fitzgerald's heavy use of symbolism isn't depicted clearly in Luhrmann's use of cinema symbolism. It seems to get lost in translation.
The biggest change in the film is the way that Nick tells the story. He is telling it from the future and the novel doesn't clue up to that version. He is in a mental institution with serve depression and heavy drinking problems and is telling the story, or writing the story, to his therapist. This is a major change, but clears up any confusion that a movie goer may have in terms of who is narrating and who he is. Luhrmann successfully bridges the gap between the avid readers and the casual movie viewers, and everyone in between.
The readers are pleased to see his faithfulness to a story filled with symbolism. The green light, the eyes, and the flowers are depicted clearly; however, the aspects that are found only in the narrative text are left out on occasion.
This movie is great and all film adaptations receive criticism due to budgets and time, leaving special parts of the book out of the movie. The plot line is simple and as are the characters, all of these things are transferred effectively. The contrast between some lacking motifs in the movie and the excessive motifs in the book leave a gray area and vast differences.
Hey Maddie, I agreed with mostly everything you said in your post! Luhrmann did a good job staying true to the books symbolism, but missed some points here and there. Overall smooth transition from book to movie.
ReplyDeleteMaddie, I can totally see your point of view. There is a lot lost in translation for those who haven't read the book. That's kind of the nature of a novel turned into a movie, though. I suppose one could explain it somehow, but it would interfere with the storytelling. It would be really anticlimactic to have a voiceover or some text at the bottom of the screen that says something like "this green lamp falling over means that the love between Gatsby and Daisy has died" or something in that vein. Nice writing, and thank you for sharing!
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you, Maddie. I think it would be difficult for even the most skilled filmmaker to translate all of Fitzgerald's symbols to the screen, but Luhrmann surely put forth a valiant effort. I, however, thought some of the symbols he did use, such as the green light, were done almost too heavily--they seemed forced, and moviegoers who hadn't read the book beforehand would be very confused. I, too, was intrigued by the way Luhrmann depicted Nick as telling the story from a Sanitarium. I don't think that's the way Fitzgerald intended for the story to be told, but somehow it worked. Overall, I do think could be an enjoyable movie for people whether they've read the book dozens of times or never opened the cover, and that is definitely worth something. It's not an easy thing to do to please both ends of the spectrum.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the symbolism could easily be lost if you have not read the book, no matter how obvious the symbols appeared to be. I also agree that the narration was done quite well. I hadn't gotten the impression that Nick would have been seeking therapy when reading the book, but it fits nicely with the story.
ReplyDeleteI agree that something was lost between narrator and reader. Although I do believe that when Lurhmann used one of Fitzgerald's motif's he portrayed them well. The eyes of "God" was a very effective and strong part of the movie. Especially when Tom was going crazy.
ReplyDelete