Gaudy production values can't save Luhrmann's latest due to Fitzgerald's weak source material

Rating: 5/10 (23 June 2013)

Most of the critical reviews of Baz Luhrmann's new take on F. Scott Fitzgerald's classic, 'The Great Gatsby', focus on its over the top production values. Here are a few samples of the type of criticism I am referring to: "a near-constant bombardment of visual over stimulation," "mostly a cacophony of style, excess and noise that makes you want to turn it all down a notch," "anachronistic convergence of hip-hop and swing," "all look and no feel," "hyper-active cacophony rather than enthralling entertainment," "baroque, overblown, megalomaniacal spectacles," (with Luhrmann) "less a filmmaker than a music-video director with endless resources and a stunning absence of taste."
Aside from the hip-hop and unnecessary use of 3-D, Luhrmann's penchant for overindulgence didn't really bother me. In fact, one of the titles Fitzgerald came up with before settling on 'Gatsby', was "Trimalchio in West Egg"—referencing the obnoxious, ancient Roman 'noveau riche' businessman in Petronius' 'Satyricon', known for his wild orgy-like feasts. I'm not sure at all whether Fitzgerald would have actually objected to all those over-the-top, gaudy spectacles, Luhrmann proffers up here in his take on the 1920s 'jazz age'.
Getting back to the critical reviews, only Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times actually has the temerity to suggest that Fitzgerald's source material is no masterpiece: "Though it is gorgeously written and often cited as one of the great American novels, Fitzgerald's "Gatsby" is in fact very much a slender reed, a tragedy in a minor key." I would go further and argue that Fitzgerald's main character is not fleshed out at all and woefully unconvincing. Hence, no matter how Luhrmann 'jazzes' up 'Gatsby' (whether successful or not), Fitzgerald's source material will leave any film director handicapped from the get-go, in attempting to successfully adapt the novel from page to screen.
The Gatsby slow-moving introduction appears intentional, as the mystery behind the elusive tycoon, is built up. Again, the gaudy production values (the costumes, the old cars, the set designs) are enough to keep one settled, until the story really begins to pick up. One notes that Nick Carraway, an ordinary 'Joe', plays the part of the protagonist's only true ally. Carraway, the film's narrator, appears to be a stand in for Fitzgerald himself.
Perhaps the best scene in the film is when Gatsby is introduced to Carraway, his social inferior, and then takes him on a tour of 'his world' the next day, setting out in his Yellow Duesenberg (let's not be too upset that this is a 1929 Duesenberg, and the scene takes place in 1922!). Gatsby of course has an ulterior motive: he hopes that Carraway, will help him reunite with his long-lost love, Daisy Buchanan, who happens to be Carraway's cousin!
The problem with all this is Gatsby's character. Can you really believe any of it? It's obvious that Fitzgerald, through Carraway, creates an idealized picture of a ruthless gangster, who just happens to go goo-goo eyes over a woman he fell for, five years earlier, before his 'trial by fire', as a confirmed bootlegger . You would think a gangster like Gatsby would have modeled himself on a realistic character like Tony Soprano, who never had any compunctions about going from one woman to another, disposing of them at his whim, in rapid succession. But no, Gatsby is such a noble, mushy guy, that he pines for Daisy (a complete airhead who we learn nothing about) and will even take the heat, when Daisy is on the hook for vehicular manslaughter (at film's end).
Another convenient strategy is for Fitzgerald (again through Carraway's perspective), to ignore Gatsby's dark side by failing to show us any of Gatsby's malevolent behaviors in the bootlegger's world, which allowed him to accumulate all his money, and rise to the top. What's more, Tom Buchannan, the antagonist we must compare to the 'noble' Gatsby, is a flat-out cartoon racist who is constantly mouthing pronouncements about how the white race continually faces annihilation by 'darker peoples.'
Fitzgerald wants us to feel bad about Gatsby when Carraway informs us that no one who attended his extravagant parties, shows up for his funeral. Why in fact should we feel sorry for Gatsby? If in fact, he resembled a fleshed out, real person, then I could have easily felt some sympathy. But the truth of the matter is that Gatsby exists only in F. Scott Fitzgerald's imagination. There is no attempt to create a real-life person here and isn't that what 'art' should be about?
For those who say 'Gatsby' is purely a fable, I say a good fable should reflect 'reality'. Despite being a master of descriptive phraseology, Fitzgerald's characters are the stuff of cheap melodrama: a 'softy' sociopath with a heart of gold. Don't feel sorry for Gatsby as Nick Carraway does at film's end—and don't put him on pedestal. Break out some of your old Soprano DVDs—if you want a true portrait, of a REAL gangster!