Review: The Great Gatsby (2013)

Set in the hippin’ and the hoppin’ 1920s New York, with Midwesterner Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) having moved there to work in the world of bond trading. It’s here that he finds himself immersed in and intoxicated by the glitz and glamorous high society world of his cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan) and the elusive but charming millionaire Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), a man fond of throwing parties and the phrase ‘old sport’. Gatsby is in love with Daisy, who is married to racist and philandering crook named Tom Buchanan, who is carrying on an affair with Myrtle (Isla Fisher, looking like a redheaded Betty Boop), in turn married to auto shop owner George (Jason Clarke).

 

Baz Luhrmann (“Australia”, “Moulin Rouge!”, “Romeo + Juliet”) and I simply don’t see eye to eye. His vision doesn’t interest me all that much, and he has yet to make a film that I’ve liked. That trend continues in this hyperreal 2013 adaptation of the celebrated F. Scott Fitzgerald novel. I’ll say one thing, though, Baz has yet to make a movie I absolutely hate (“Strictly Ballroom” comes closest, and even that isn’t terrible, just off-putting and garishly caricatured), and is pretty consistent. I’d probably give all of his films the same score. In fact, this one might just be his best film yet…narrowly.

 

It starts out well enough, with cute 1920s-ish production/distribution logo credits. It seemed all very attractive early on, with the production design and all. But then it all kinda goes to hell because of Baz’s anachronistic and hyperreal ‘theatre’ vision that I just find myself repelling from. Baz would clearly rather be a theatre darling. Great, then bugger off to the theatre, Baz, stop making movies. He has created a film with a ghastly hyperreal visage and an even ghastlier, anachronistic hippity hop soundtrack, that there’s no credible justification for. The film has simply been overproduced, with CGI backgrounds so fake-looking that they make some of the projection shots from 60s-era Hitchcock films (think “Marnie” in particular) look like documentary footage. It looks like the actors are performing in front of a green screen, and takes you out of the story. Beautiful, sure, it’s a helluva pretty film. It’s just not remotely convincing, and all the swooping CGI shots had me thinking Tobey Maguire was gonna don the red & blue spandex and start flying around.

 

The other issue is the choice of hiring Jay-Zed (shut up, he’s the one pronouncing the letter wrong, not me!) to produce the film’s soundtrack of hippity hop straight outta 1920’s Compton. I think a musical version of this story could actually work, but Baz doesn’t make traditional musicals, because he’s a toolbag who wants Jay Gatsby to get jiggy wit’ it, apparently. It’s the 1920s, use appropriate music, dude. Baz thinks that hippity hop is the modern equivalent of jazz from the 1920s. I understand what he means, but no one watching this film can possibly say that the images and music go together, not even rhythmically. They are in complete opposition to one another on every level. The music is far more offensive than the imagery, however, because at least the production design is of the period. I felt like I was watching a 1920s themed episode of “Dancing With the Stars” (which indeed Luhrmann did turn up on to promote the film locally). In fact, I was half expecting Gatsby to ask Tom if he was down wit’ OPP (To a reply of ‘Yeah, you know me’ no doubt). Or to think of it in terms of both the sound and imagery, it’s like Jay-ZZzzzz has thrown a big 20s party, rather than an actual movie with a genuine plot and characters to care about. The approach covers every aspect of the film, so it feels like even the non-party scenes are empty spectacles. It's too much flash, which is a shame because a little of it isn’t too bad. In fact, one can’t accuse the film of being boring, it’s really quite an energetic film and occasionally infectious. It’s just too much muchness wrapped in glitter and sparkles.

 

The performances are a bit of a mixed bag, though at least the Aussie supporting cast are better with their American accents than in other films. In the lead roles, Luhrmann gets two out of three casting choices right, I think. One of those choices is someone most other critics have found to be miscast, Carey Mulligan. I think she’s incandescent and the best thing in the film. Luhrmann leading ladies have all been duds so far (Nicole Kidman in particular has been poorly served by the director on two occasions), but Mulligan is the best of the bunch by far, you just can’t take your eyes off her when she’s on screen. Tobey Maguire, meanwhile, is a good choice for bond trader/writer Nick, he’s easy for the audience to warm to and relate to in this film full of rich snobs and poseurs. As for  Leonardo DiCaprio, I think he’s unconvincing and miscast in this one. His entrance is embarrassingly camp, and he should never be encouraged to use the phrase ‘Sorry, old sport’ ever again. I assume he’s meant to be a poseur attempting a high falutin’ New England accent, but even for that, Leo botches it. Gatsby may be a poseur, but he’s meant to be a pretty convincing one. Leo comes across as too contemporary American to me, and strangely enough, it might’ve worked better if Baz had hired a Brit for the part, or at least someone who can convincingly do an upper-crust American accent. The late Philip Seymour Hoffman would’ve been good for it, say a decade ago (albeit not handsome enough, perhaps). But Leo is a put-on, playing a bit of a put-on, in a director whose style is kind of a put-on, and it’s just too much affectation. Leo fares best when the slick façade is dropped, as Gatsby’s nervous to reunite with Mulligan. Other than that, I just didn’t buy him. In a supporting role, Isla Fisher is quite fun and a helluva lot bustier than I remember her being on “Home & Away”, but Joel Edgerton just doesn’t cut it as a racist, cheating villain. He’s not quite as bad as the moustache-twirling buffoonery of Richard Roxburgh in “Moulin Rouge!”, but the role requires a much more brutish physical presence and intimidation that Edgerton lacks. Jason Clarke, as Fisher’s unpleasant husband, would’ve been much better in the Edgerton part, but I would’ve cast Edgerton’s “Warrior” co-star Tom Hardy myself. Speaking of Edgerton’s Tom (or more precisely, Gatsby himself), one has to ask if Gatsby would be seen as such a sympathetic (if aloof) character if Tom weren’t a racist prick? I think not, and it absolutely is a problem. I must give Luhrmann kudos for reducing the awful Vince Colosimo to a near-mute background cameo role, but when he does get a chance to speak, playing a simple shop keeper he sounds like a pathetically cartoonish 20s gangster cliché. My God that man can’t act to save himself. On the upside, Jack Thompson is always a delight to see on screen (playing Nick’s shrink), veteran Nick Tate has a fun cameo as a Noo Yawk cabbie, and there’s a fun role for another Australian, Max Cullen, if you can recognise him behind the beard and Mr. Magoo glasses.

 

This is exactly the film Luhrmann and co-screenwriter Craig Pearce wanted to make. I just personally didn’t enjoy it all that much, though it was a bit better (and taken more seriously) than expected. But if Luhrmann were capable of toning it down a bit, it’d be even better. Sadly, Mr. Luhrmann only has one mode of filmmaking: BROOOOAAAADWAY, BABY! I swear, he’s the Liberace or Liza Minnelli of filmmaking. You might consider that a compliment, and if so, you’ll probably like this film. I was somewhat ambivalent about it, but it’s not boring, just extremely jarring and artificial.

 

Rating: C+