Not Gatsby...but So What?

Rating: 7/10 (3 June 2016)

Believe it or not, F. Scott Fitzgerald was not universally adored by his contemporaries; hardly any "great" writer is. When "The Great Gatsby" was published in 1925, critics accused it of being light, unconvincing and celebrating the same decadence modern readers now see as the target of the novel's satire. It's ironic to think that the same insults lobbed at the book a little less than a century ago were used almost verbatim by modern film critics about the movie.
The film starts with our narrator Nick Carraway (Maguire) receiving treatment for alcoholism. He recalls from his past the story of Jay Gatsby (DiCaprio) a mysterious millionaire and neighbor who threw some of the most lavish parties the North Shore of Long Island has ever seen. Nick's cousin Daisy (Mulligan) lives across the bay in a loveless marriage with old-money magnate Tom Buchanan (Edgerton). Seems years ago she and Gatsby had had a brief but fruitful courtship, interrupted by the events of WWI. After meeting and getting to know Gatsby, Nick agrees to reunite the two thus unraveling a complex tapestry of corruption, infidelity, power and tragedy.
In fairness to director Baz Luhrmann, Warner Bros. and Leonardo DiCaprio, making a film based on a universally acclaimed literary classic like this was always going to be a losing proposition. If you thought Harry Potter and Stephen King fans were annoying nitpicks, imagine having a movie be ripped to shreds by supposed centuries of "good taste" who have had nearly a century to analyze the source material. Yet as stated earlier, those same bastions of good taste dismissed the same story nary a generation ago. Are we to believe the film is worthy of the same critical reevaluation?
While the film does have some resplendent moments of visual intricacy, and some metaphorical complexity, The Great Gatsby at times feels emotionally un-engaging and unconvincing. Fixating strictly on the visual, we get the same emphasis on style over substance that plagued Luhrmann's other work Moulin Rouge! (2001), only this time we get to see the art direction without seizure inducing editing. I call this an improvement, even if the outstanding Jim Broadbent is completely absent from this film.
Still, when Luhrmann's superficial approach is warranted the film really flies. The Gatsby parties as well as the fun-loving moments at the Plaza Hotel are infectious. You want to be amid the bacchanalia, dancing the night away, leering at lavish mansion set- pieces and basking in all that insanity. It's inviting, it's seductive and for all involved in the story, it proves a perversion of the American Dream.
I would also like to point out the film's bold choice in soundtrack. While many critics poo-poo the idea of an anachronistic soundtrack, I for one found it inspired and felt it enhanced the story. For the sake of historical accuracy, they could have gone with Cole Porter all the way but by injecting liberal doses of Amy Winehouse, will.i.am and Lana Del Rey, the audience is lulled into a state of comfort. Thus when the story reaches its zenith, even the most libertine of us will feel a sense of moral indignation.
The biggest complaint most every naysayer has about this film is it's "not Gatsby". I agree; it really isn't Fitzgerald's vision and since we are talking about a literary classic, that should count for something. But if the book never existed, if this movie was an original idea, would we still hold it with such disdain? Probably not; we'd probably just brush it off as an entertaining, light and decadent film whose story suffers from its visual opulence. Such backhanded praise isn't exactly an endorsement but it's also not the worst thing said about a Baz Luhrmann film.