Is Gatsby a gaffe? (Part 1)

One of my favourite books is The Great Gatsby - it's decadent, it's set in the 20s and it focuses on a moody character who we spend the entire book trying to decode.

As I'm sure most of you are aware Baz Luhrman (director of Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge) has decided to sprinkle his magic over the book and make it into a film; and with a release date of only two days away (after being pushed back from December), I can honestly say I have been excited about it for MONTHS!


Christy Lemire criticises the film as 'all sparkle, no soul' - but is that really a bad thing? When I read the book I took from it that the reason Jay Gatsby isn't happy is because of the artificial and ostentatious nature it has adopted. Lemire writes that the presentation of Gatsby's parties is 'repetitive and ultimately numbing'. Isn't that the point?

As my soon to be owned t-shirt suggests, 'there aint no party like a Gatsby party'.

My interpretation suggests that Fitzgerald wants the reader to be disgusted by the lavish lifestyle that everybody in his city craves. The vougue-esque wardrobe of the film is the only wardrobe that would satisfy such a materialistic society as that which surrounds Gatsby and his profundity. Lemire claims that the book is symbolic of the American Dream and the film doesn't deliver. But what if it does? Fitzgerald attempts to reveal that when you finally drag that dream out from the mind's eye, you realise that in fact it was a nightmare. Like Daisy, like the expensive cars, like the luxury that swamps the pages, it is all just a hungry illusion; as Disney keeps trying to tell us, you can make yourself a beautiful world, but without your world, what is it worth?

Jay Gatsby has come from nothing and gained everything; or that's what we are led to believe. The 'deep' moments in the book inform the reader that in fact that is a load of bollocks. Like a lot of rich heroes he has lost the love of his life, and has very few genuine friends; ones that aren't in it for the champagne and to gain material for gossip. For no matter how much money Gatsby has, it's not enough to stuff the hole in his heart. So Luhrman's portrayal of a spinning world of parties, glitter and expensive dresses is meant to make us sick; so that the audience adopts an analytic view that sympathises with Gatsby, and not his garish guests.

But Lemire raises some good points; Daisy is an idealised character; that's what makes her so fascinating to her admirer. If Gatsby wants something, as previously mentioned, he gets it; but in the case of Daisy Buchannon he can't. Whether it be a straight answer or a complete revelation of her mind, Daisy holds it all back and Fitzgerald makes her a hypnotising mystery; tantalising and tempting.

As for the rest of Lemire's review, I can't comment on as I am yet to see the film. Let's hope it's as good as Rom and Jules, and not as heart-dashing as this particular reviewer claims...

You can see Christy Lemire's review here.