‘The Great Gatsby’ Proves That Baz Luhrmann is Our Disco Michael Bay

One of the year’s worst films, Luhrmann’s trashy, overhyped, faux- Jazz Age spectacle is so shallow as to be creatively nonexistent.

The Great Gatsby

Director: Baz Luhrmann
Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton, Elizabeth Debicki, Isla Fisher
Distributor: Warner Home Video
Writer: Craig Pearce, Baz Luhrmann
Studio: Warner Bros.
US Release Date: 2012-08-27

It’s understood from the first frame of any Baz Luhrmann film that nothing is going to have much to do with the real world. That’s the whole point. You don’t go to one of the man’s films to be entranced by finely-etched characters or dry wit; you go or not based on your appetite for noisy sensory overkill. Spectacles like Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge don’t tell stories so much as they smash elements together so that everyone can “ooh” and “aah” as the sparks glitter and fly. Anachronisms are no matter, as he flings straight-no-chaser Shakespeare into the sunny alleyways of Venice Beach and late-20th century pop-mashups into fin-de-siècle Paris. His signature style is film as fireworks display, a truism brought tediously to life in his newest work of crassly commercial culture-hacking, The Great Gatsby.

Luhrmann’s take on F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Jazz Age fable is all about trying to make it seem as “modern” as possible; a story gambit that makes sense, given the current economic climate. Of course, the one percent’s current Gilded Age just kept on trucking after the Great Recession, unlike the excesses of the 1920s fantasized about so lovingly in Gatsby, which were put on ice by the Great Depression. To that end, Luhrmann comes to the story armed not with a respectable screenplay, great location scouts, and the best actors he could find but a war chest of whizbang computer graphics, some pretty faces, and executive music producer Jay-Z. It’s gonna be a show, kids!

This is a commercial intelligent move, sexing up the material so that all those teens and pre-teens who read the book in school and churned out essays about the symbolism of that Dr. T.J. Eckleburg billboard (the one with the eyeglasses) would still line up to see it. But in practice, Luhrmann’s vision is more pose than artistic angle, and one that afterward drains as painlessly out of your head as a similarly empty-headed Jerry Bruckheimer explosion-a-rama. Just imagine what Michael Bay would have done with one of Ernest Hemingway’s war stories and you have some idea of how off-key Luhrmann’s take is.

Given the right kind of artistic temperament, treating Fitzgerald’s novel with not kid gloves but a wrecking ball could have actually made for dazzling cinema. Too many filmmakers can tie themselves in knots trying to be completely faithful to the source material. But Luhrmann’s take on the novel is even more recklessly self-indulgent than that. It doesn’t help that Fitzgerald’s story is itself not the easiest to translate to the screen. That might be why the Elevator Repair Service company’s stage play Gatz was a cult hit last year; it was simply office workers taking turns reading the book word-by-word over some six hours. The story is in the telling, not the showing.

Gatsby is an outsider tale where little is at stake for the reader. Conveniently placed narrator Nick Carraway hovers around the action and watches while Jay Gatsby, symbol of the classically nouveau-riche self-made American man, throws parties he doesn’t enjoy or even attend while romancing his now-married old girlfriend Daisy Buchanan. Gatsby’s heedless manias and serial lies are bound for destruction, as is so much of the glittering world of Long Island parties and New York clubs that he drags “old sport” Nick around to. Everything is so preordained that there’s more enjoyment in appreciating Fitzgerald’s flinty lack of romanticism and finely-chiseled turns of phrase than the story itself.

With Luhrmann at the helm, though, there’s not much to appreciate except the plasticky computer-generated backdrops and glammed-up outfits. He seems to have spent so much time on the look that little effort was left over for the performers. It’s not a mistake he always made in the past; at least Romeo + Juliet had John Leguizamo’s guttersnipe snarl and Moulin Rouge Ewan McGregor’s winning love-sick romanticism. But Gatsby wastes nearly everybody who shows up.

As Carraway, Tobey Maguire gives little evidence that he was ever considered an actor, wandering around in an unvarying pop-eyed daze. Carey Mulligan’s Daisy is similarly unplugged, coasting along in that glassy style that worked much better under Nicolas Winding Refn’s direction in Drive. Trying much harder are Joel Edgerton as Daisy’s oafish husband Tom and Leonardo DiCaprio as Gatsby. Both of them uncover a rage inside their outwardly prepossessed men of stature, whose fine white suits can’t hide an inner darkness and discontent. Only Elizabeth Debicki, as Nick’s confidant, the tennis pro Jordan Baker, makes sense in her role. She’s all long angles and insouciant smirk, a magazine illustration-ready flapper girl who understands that she’s just there to have a good time and look great while wearing a long black dress and wielding a cigarette holder.

But everyone’s performances all just flailing against Luhrmann’s background noise, of which there is plenty. Scene after scene whips by as though the editor were trying to win some land-speed record, but the film never takes off. It isn’t just the lack of human connection – even Daisy and Gatsby’s illicit affair has all the spark of a rained-out campfire – but the numbing effect of all these parties and club scenes. Each of the bashes at Gatsby’s beachside mansion are staged by Luhrmann with the kind of decadent displays that Cecile B. DeMille used to shoot his pagan epics; this is to be expected. At the Manhattan clubs where the film takes every excuse to jump off to, the music is all horrendously mashed-up club songs with jazz beats scattered around. It’s all about the pose: Luhrmann’s camera is so in love with every swishing beaded dress and gleaming saxophone that everything else seems secondary. It seems there’s no moment that isn’t worth capturing in slow-motion.

But cranking everything up to 11 all the time keeps Luhrmann’s visual opulence from having any effect. Even Nick’s humble next-door cabin can’t be just that; Luhrmann has to layer on backgrounds of idealized foliage that make it look like something out of a Thomas Kincaid painting. This is kitsch at such a deep level it doesn’t even seem to be aware that it’s kitsch.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.