Movie Review: Baz Luhrmann's "The Great Gatsby", or rather "Gatsby!!!"

Hi everyone! And happy Labor Day.

I finally saw Baz Luhrmann's film of "The Great Gatsby" the other night. I've always been less a fan and more an admirer of his work. Taken as a whole, his films ("Strictly Ballroom", "Romeo & Juliet", "Moulin Rouge", and "Australia") are an impressive body of work if for no other reason than the audacity of their vision. I think Luhrmann is one of the few filmmakers today who can inspire both groans of despair and sighs of irrepressible glee in the span of a single film. His films knock you over with their frenetic pace and awe with their stunning visual palate. He takes chances in ways few of his contemporaries ever do and while the results aren't always positive, one can never say a Luhrmann production lacks vision.

"The Great Gatsby" proves no exception. It worked for me in ways that I didn't expect it to. And it failed for me in much the same way. Having said that though, I think of any film I've seen thus far in 2013, Luhrmann's "Gatsby" is -- from a purely cinematic perspective -- one of the year's best.

It all comes down to his vision. This is a film that leaps off the screen in bold gleaming colors and artificial landscapes and cityscapes that have no bearing on any sort of reality. Everything is capped with an exclamation point. If this were a musical -- which it very nearly is -- it would undoubtedly be called "Gatsby!" Let me see your Jazz hands everyone...or at least your Charleston. Gatsby's estate looks like the fairy castle at Disneyland with fountains that shoot water into the sky amid a rainbow of technicolor light. The gas station which houses the ill-fated Myrtle and Wilson exists in a weird almost post-apocalyptic wasteland of dirt and industrial ash. There's no missing the contrast between the excessive wealth of Gatsby and his East Egg crowd and the desperately poor (and just desperate) milieu inhabited by the less fortunates.

And while at first blush it is all rather over-the-top and vulgar, the vision works. Some critics have wrongly, I believe, written of the film that it celebrates and revels in the excess that the novel berates. Yes, there is excess and yes there is an almost orgiastic revelry to the proceedings, but never does the viewer (or at least this viewer) feel that he wants to be a part of it. These people are irredeemably shallow and the beauty is merely skin deep. This is "The Great Gatsby" set in a certain kind of gilded hell. And added to that is the hip hop-tinged soundtrack that I fully expected to criticize but came away thinking it was an utterly appropriate (if not inspired) accompaniment to the events on screen. Who would have thought that Beyonce, Jay-Z, and will.i.am would translate as well as they do in a 1920s setting? Perhaps only in a Luhrmann film...

My biggest criticism of the film is its acting. I will say that Tobey Maguire as Nick and Australian actor Joel Edgerton as Tom Buchanan were really very good. At heart, this is Nick's story. The reader (and the viewer) see the story of Gatsby and Daisy through Nick's eyes. Maguire (while no Sam Waterston) manages to convey both Nick's awe and repulsion with a sense of humor and a plucky kind of aplomb that is a lot of fun to watch. Edgerton's Tom is blustery (a "brute" Daisy calls him in the climactic scene at the Plaza Hotel), macho, and one senses capable of real violence. His is a presence that manages to cut through the excess all around him, which is no small task for an actor in a Luhrmann film. While not entirely sympathetic, Tom Buchanan is probably the closest to real flesh and blood of any of the characters.

Carey Mulligan as Daisy and Leonardo diCaprio as, of course, Gatsby fare less well. I think Ms. Mulligan is an amazing actress (her heartbreaking performance as Michael Fassbender's lonely and tormented younger sister in 2011's "Shame" is masterful), yet there's surprisingly very little depth to her portrayal of Daisy. She pouts and giggles and poses on cue without really ever seeming fully inhabited in the role. And diCaprio's Gatsby is neither here nor there. I realize that part of the mystery of Gatsby is that he is ultimately unknowable. DiCaprio doesn't exude mystery here. His line readings are flat and he comes across as a little kid dressed up in big kid finery. And while I've liked him in other films ("J. Edgar" is, I believe, his finest moment) he is woefully miscast as Gatsby. I'd be intrigued to see what an actor like Michael Fassbender, for example, might do with the role.  It would probably be a very different film.

So my final verdict on "The Great Gatsby" is that there is much to be admired in its visual audacity, its excessive cinematography and its pulsating soundtrack. I also admire the fact that it is quite faithful to Fitzgerald's original novel and I wasn't even bothered by the narrative device of having Nick relate the story from a mental institution. It made sense to me. If you're already a Luhrmann fan and have seen at least one or two of his earlier films (for sheer romanticism and epic sweep I highly recommend "Australia") you're probably in a better position to admire and even enjoy his version "Gatsby". But for the uninitiated or for those who expect more from a very talented cast, this is going to be a disappointment.

Bottom line: this is a Baz Luhrmann film. I happened to like it very much but I can also appreciate why others might not feel the same. But like it or hate it, you can't deny this film makes an impact. And I also doubt any other film this year will come close to matching its audacity.