Have you seen the new “Gatsby” film yet? I have not seen it, but I have been intrigued by all the hoopla bringing new interest in
Fitzgerald’s book. I understand that more copies of the book The Great Gatsby were sold during the
week leading up to the premier of the film than were sold during F. Scott
Fitzgerald’s lifetime. Of course, it was not until after Fitzgerald’s death
that his short novel began to be heralded as the great American novel.
I read a review by John Anderson of the new Gatsby movie. I
found his review and commentary quite substantive, but he begins and ends with
the same mistake that many make who quote F. Scott Fitzgerald without reading
him. Anderson says that “F. Scott Fitzgerald is often quoted via a line that
has always seemed to make very little sense: ‘There are no second acts in
American lives.’ ” The “quote” is from the essay, “My Lost City,” where Fitzgerald
actually says, “I once thought that there were no second acts in American
lives, but there was certainly to be a second act to New York's boom days.”
In that essay, Fitzgerald talks about how the city of New
York had changed as well as how individual lives change from one stage to the
next. He never says that there are no
second acts. He in fact describes what second acts can look like. Fitzgerald is
writing after the economic crash of 1929 lamenting a time that is gone, but
acknowledging that the city moves on.
Many filmmakers have tried to do Gatsby, starting during the days of silent movies. I remember when Francis Ford Coppola’s cinematic version came out in 1974. I had some friends who loved it, many
critics panned it. When I finally got around to watching it, I actually enjoyed
it even though it didn’t really fully capture what Fitzgerald did with the
novel. I thought the photography and costuming were excellent and the movie
captured the 1920’s so well. The characters
may not have been fully developed, but the movie still managed to convey a cautionary
tale.
According to Anderson’s review, the current Gatsby by director Baz Luhrman is
fast-paced and energetic with lots of computer generated special effects. Though it has a high production value, Anderson
describes it as soulless due to “a profound lack of emotional depth.” Similar things were said about Francis Coppola's film. What
strikes me in all of this is that the cinema can do grand and beautiful things, as in the case of both the Coppola and the Luhrman versions of Gatsby, but it
cannot match the effect of well written literature. My recommendation is, whether you see the
movie or not, go out and buy the book. Sit
with it and let Fitzgerald’s luminous prose evoke the imagery, the longing, the
emotion and the intent of a well-told tale of American life.
*
Well put, Charlie! I've been reading and listening to commentary about Gatsby, the book and the movie, and it strikes me that readers and critics always decide that an artist who supposedly critiques a culture actually admires it. I'm sure that there were aspects of Mississippi River culture that Mark Twain admired, loved, and missed, but that doesn't diminish his keen satiric skewering of racism, cruelty, and stupidity in that culture. The same is true of Fitzgerald. I saw the 1974 film and enjoyed it, and enjoyed the new film as well. Luhrman certainly has an unmistakable style, but grant him the right to do his own artistic thing, whether he's adapting Gatsby or Romeo and Juliet. Go back to Fitzgerald's book or Shakespeare's play for sure, but then recognize these films as tributes to the originals, not replacements. A painting or song inspired by The Great Gatsby would not attempt to replace the book.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Steve! I always enjoy your comments!
Delete