Gatsby vs Gatsby, by Marius Sidau

Many people are familiar with the 1925 masterpiece--The Great Gatsby--written by the giant of American Literature, F. Scott Fitzgerald. The novel revolves around the destiny of a handful of characters, living in the fictional town of West Egg on glamorous Long Island during the summer of 1922. Fitzgerald’s work is powerful--uniquely disturbing and relevant for our times. In his novel, the whole spectrum of the human condition is dissected under the surgical blade of a writer who experienced both the paramount and the abyss of what it means to be human.

People who may not even be familiar with Fitzgerald’s novel have watched the 2013 Great Gatsby cast, freshly baked under Hollywood’s spotlights. The latest version--an Australian-American 3 D production--has as its main protagonist Jay Gatsby, played by Leonardo Di Caprio. While watching this film when examining the (generally positive) reviews associated with the cast, I asked myself why have viewers (literally) bought into the film? What exactly is it that makes it so appealing? 

I shall attempt here an explanation to the above question. In addition, I will clarify why I was not convinced by the 2013 "Gatsby craze," and have chosen to still "hang on" to R. Redford’s 1974 film instead. 

First, let's talk money--a language that (almost) everyone seems to understand these days. The Dollar is a bridge across time that unites the Roaring Twenties with the post-modern capitalist American society. Today's state of affairs is very much the inheritance of a preexisting social landscape. As in the past, so it is at present: money talks. Perhaps the film's audience was convinced that the movie was very good because of the fact that the budget for the film was $105 million.  When “translated” into Hollywood’s (golden) language, these figures mean casting a film which benefited from all the advantages of the latest modern technology. The worldwide box office numbers are even more impressive: $351,040,419, in profit. Not bad for an initial investment of $105 million!

Second-the visual effects of the 2013 film are magnificent and seem “real.” Just put the “3Ds”on, and it's almost like you are in the movie: boiling in the steam of the Roaring Twenties, choking in the Valley’s pestilent coal smoke, tasting the best of wines, smelling Cuban cigars and the fresh yellow paint on Tom Buchanan's car… dazzled by the West Egg's opulence, and the madness of the 20s. Inebriated by Daisy’s sweet, yet deadly perfume. Blinded by Dr. T.J. Eckleburg’s cold, hypnotically blue, all seeing eyes. Mesmerized. Maybe... yet, in my case, after being roller coasted through the 2013 film, unconvinced.

At a deeper examination however, something seems to be missing when comparing the 2013 film and DiCaprio’s performance, with Robert Redford’s 1974 movie. Leonardo Di Caprio is the “Titanic Guy”--Jack Dawson! However I take exception to some folks’ claim that he is (or even may be!) Jay Gatsby. I propose that similarly to writers, actors are (often posthumously) remembered because of the one role they played best during their lives. That one role is the pinnacle of their career. Thus we remember Judy Garland as “Dorothy” in the Wizard of Oz.  You get the idea. It is so with the Great Gatsby. Jay Gatsby is for me one and the same with Robert Redford. 

I think that in the 1974 film, Redford played Gatsby so magnificently, that somehow the two became one being. Call it if you wish a “hypostatic union,” between Redford (the actor), and Fitzgerald’s hero--Jay Gatsby. I feel that Redford brings The Great One alive. Flesh, blood and soul. Furthermore, one may think that Jay Gatsby (and thus Di Caprio's performance) is not singularly questionable in the 2013 production. Daisy Buchanan (Carrey Mulligan)’s seems to me equally unconvincing. Whereas in the 1974 film one can almost literally see dollar signs in Daisy’s eyes, the 2013 cast portrays her as some sort of a helpless, beautiful, silly, somehow naïve, but yet humanized rich girl. This is not how Fitzgerald created her: rapacious, crude, aggressive, sly.  In brief--dehumanized under the influence of money. The “cut throat” type of individual that sadly has become the norm rather than the exception under the realities of this soulless post postmodernist neo liberal Capitalistic society. The 2013 Gatsby is a pathetic white washed character.  Daisy--fundamental to the film’s narrative--is sugarcoated, tamed. The other characters are (for the most part) of poor performance, inauthentic, unconvincing.

When compared with Robert Redford's cast, the 2013 film pales. Similar to the 1920s the money are (often) there in the pockets of the post-modern American upper class individuals. Hollywood actors, if anything, are filthy rich.  Money most certainly (and way too often!) dictates the rules of the game. It isn't very different in Hollywood’s world- a piggy bank for the film industry and for a (privileged) few.   

Yet, it is ultimately real talent and authenticity that made the Great Gatsby great.

I propose that it's Redford's authenticity that is missing in the 2013 cast. 

I am not a film critic by training; my critique is simply amateurish. I invite you therefore, to decide for yourself. I cannot but wonder how F. Scott Fitzgerald would choose.

2013, Di Caprio

http://thegreatgatsby.warnerbros.com/

or

1974, Redford

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B86ixiypBeE