A Tale of Two Gatsbys: 1974 & 2013

Travel back in time to Roaring 20s Long Island and mingle with the upper crust of East and West Egg in A Tale of Two Gatsbys ... Won't you join me, old sport?

The Great Gatsby

2013

PG-13

142 minutes

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire and Carey Mulligan

Directed by Baz Luhrmann

The Great Gatsby

1974

Rated PG

144 minutes

Starring Robert Redford, Sam Waterston and Mia Farrow

Directed by Jack Clayton

A Midwestern war veteran finds himself drawn to the past and lifestyle of his millionaire neighbor (IMDb). Based on the novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald.

There are, to date, six film versions of The Great Gatsby—but for the sake of this blog posting, I'm focusing on just two. When it comes to adapting novels into film, creative decisions never fail to amaze me. One team’s interpretation can either elevate the written work or insult it: In both the 2013 and the 1974 Gatsbys, it’s thankfully the former.

Stylistically, the two films could not be more different. Some may argue that’s because modern filmmaking has the benefit of digital tricks. But, I think most of the differences between the two films lay in pacing, acting, and plot choices. Clayton’s ’74 adaptation is a slow-moving, thoughtful, and careful interpretation with very little wavering from the source material. Loyal though it may be, I think it failed to capture the novel’s fever-pitched scenes or depth of character. Redford’s was a quiet, cool Gatsby. Farrow’s was an over-the-top, hysterical Daisy Buchanan. Waterston was a passive, if convincing, Nick Carraway. Lois Chiles was an under-developed, yawning Jordan Baker. And, Bruce Dern was a nonchalant Tom Buchanan.  

If not for Redford and Waterson’s relationship in this movie, which I thought was touching and well developed, I am quite comfortable in saying the '74 version was a yawnfest and the townspeople should have run Farrow’s Daisy out of town, because she ruined the movie with her ham-handed hysterics. 

While I generally worship at Redford’s feet (he is Gatsby personified in many ways), Leonardo DiCaprio nails the role. Finally, the dark, disturbed, obsessed Gatsby emerges. He plays the role with equal parts forceful nature, manic obsession, and deluded anguish. It’s a heartbreaking performance made all the more wrenching by his sad demise. The problem with Redford's performance is his quietness. Gatsby is supposed to be filled with rumbling turmoil that's disguised by a cool exterior, which at times bursts forth to reveal his deep obsession. 

Mulligan’s Daisy Buchanan is head and shoulders above Farrow’s. But, we mustn’t forget that Luhrmann and company portray this Daisy (intentionally) as far more sympathetic, so that does have some bearing on her choices. I’ll leave it at that: Devotees of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s work will certainly have pick with this plot diversion. McGuire’s Nick Carraway, like Daisy, is changed up a tad. He’s a bit less passive than Waterston’s and takes to actively judging rather than remaining a silent witness. Again, purists will find his storyline a bit contrived with regard to the narration technique. I feel it was an unnecessary choice, but not detrimental. Elizabeth Debicki’s Jordan Baker is, alas, as underdeveloped as Chiles’—though played far better, with a snobbish, pervading coolness. Joel Edgarton’s Tom Buchanan is hands down much preferred to Dern’s lacking portrayal.

Normally, I shy away from Luhrmann’s movies (I generally find them an assault on all senses). They’re all too much for me—a dizzying swirl of excess. But, his choices and obvious devotion to the era and Fitzgerald’s work show through. You could pause this film at any frame and display it as a work of art. Absolutely magnificent—from cinematography and set direction to costuming and special effects. He knew precisely the right moments to feverishly present a scene and exactly when to slow it down—like a rollercoaster—evoking the desired reaction from the audience. Whereas the ’74 version remained a dull dive, that never quite captured the hedonistic vibe of the roaring 20s—except through set direction and costuming. The pace was too even-keeled and lulled the audience into a near catatonic state.

Ultimately, modernity wins over in my book. Despite the obvious plot divergences, the 2013 Gatsby rises well above the ’74 version in every possible way.