Distanced from the Source: The 2013 The Great Gatsby

In 2013, Baz Luhrmann decided to tackle this "un-adaptable" novel and make it into film.  The 2013 TGG is strikingly different than its 1974 counterpart, but is still faithful to its source text.

Let's start by looking at the same party scene from the first film.

In contrast, we get the 2013 version of this scene.  It feels like a crazy party.  Some stylistic choices made my Luhrmann could be questioned, but is definitely feels like a party.  In the novel Nick says he was drunk at this party, and we assume almost everyone else at that party was equally drunk.  The scene is chaotic, with flashes to a saxophone player across the street, loud music, and people spilling things and dancing.  The scene gets more chaotic as time passes, as, I imagine, drunk party-goers would.

Remembering Boozer's levels of distance of adaptation, I would argue the 2013 TGG fits all three categories, but is a literal radical interpretation of the novel.  Literal in that it translates some dialogue exactly from the novel and includes small details that make the story fuller, and radical in the way it chooses to portray it in film.  Literal in feel, traditional in content, radical in style.  The 2013 TGG captured the feel of the novel, even if the music was different, or the scenes were shot weird and had words overlaying them; maybe even because of those things.

When the film came out, many people had a problem with the use of modern music.  I did, and I hadn't even seen it.  I didn't understand why someone would want to make a movie that looked like the 20s, but didn't sound like the 20s.  It felt like they were only going part of the way instead of putting in the full effort.

But once I saw the film I changed my mind completely.  Talking about it in class also helped me to see why Luhrmann and Jay-Z might have made the decisions they did with the soundtrack of the film.  Seeing the whole film (rather than just trailers) with the modern music made the novel come to life.  It put me in a place of understanding with the novel.  I understood more completely what it might have been to party it up at Gatsby's mansion, or the importance of where Gatsby gets his money, and even the intense longing Gatsby has for Daisy, and how she'll never be what he needs her to be.

Mike brought up an interesting point in class that Lesley then furthered.  I had similar feelings, but had never realized them into words, but Mike did, when he said about the soundtrack that maybe they put in the modern music to have us feel what they (the people in the 20s) would have felt.  Along these same lines, Lesley brought up rap culture, and how affluence and the ability to be extravagant and flaunt excess wealth is still very much a part of "making it" in the industry today.  Therefore, the use of rap music in the film helps to portray that same feeling onto our characters from the 20s.  Especially in this scene:

It's a contemporization for understanding and fidelity to meaning.  That idea blew my mind.

But I don't really know why it was so revolutionary to me.  When I was writing my blog post on Adaptation I thought of this discussion and couldn't wait to bring it up here.  We adapt the Bible to be modern for our understanding and fidelity to meaning.  That's why a new version comes out like every two years--so that new readers can understand it just as well as readers in the past.  What I see Luhrmann and Jay-Z doing with the soundtrack is just that.  Reading the novel gave depth to the 2013 TGG, but it wasn't necessary for my understanding, and vice versa.

Distanced from the Source: The 1974 The Great Gatsby

The 1974 version of The Great Gatsby (TGG) is definitely .   The novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald is unique in its tone and way of story telling--so much so that some have called it un-adaptable in terms of making it into a movie or other medium.

Jack Boozer talks about the three levels of distance from a source.  He says the closest to the source is the literal/close reading level.  Next is the general correspondence/traditional level.  and farthest from the source material is the distant referencing/radical level.

In our class we talk a lot about what the most important criteria is when determining how "good" or "bad" an adaptation is.  Most people would probably say fidelity is still the most important thing to look at when judging an adaptation.  But to that I would ask, "Fidelity to what?"

The 1974 TGG is largely a literal adaptation of the novel, that borders on traditional because it is not a four hour movie.  Obviously it leaves parts out for time's sake, but the language of the movie is taken straight out of the novel, making it "faithful" to its source text.   But it doesn't capture the essence of the novel.  As Lesley pointed out humorously in class, it's like the director said, "Now lift your hand out toward that light, cause that's what it says he does in the book."  They got the words right, but lacked the emotion of the novel.

One scene in particular stuck out to me in this:  the first party Nick goes to, the one at Tom and Myrtle's apartment in the city.  The novel isn't entirely clear as to what happened at the party other than drunkenness, conversation between Catherine and Nick, and " . . . wild, strident argument[s] . . ." (pg. 35).

Sure, it was a party, and it was faithful to the novel in text, like with Myrtle's speech about how her and Tom met, but it didn't feel like a party, especially not one hosted by cheating lovers, in the midst of prohibition. 

By the end of the film I was left feeling a little like I had just wasted two hours of my life because the film didn't mean anything.  It looked like the 20s.  It sounded like the 20s.  But did it feel like the 20s?  The Gatsby that was supposed to have such a troubled, lowly past said all those words, but didn't show it in his acting.  The only major dynamic character was Nick, and even then I didn't understand or see much of his change.  If I hadn't read the book I would have been confused as to why Nick likes Gatsby, or has pity for him, or why he was so affected felt the need to move back home after that summer spent in West Egg.

While it gets the words right, the 1974 TGG doesn't do justice to the story; to the tale F. Scott Fitzgerald is telling in his novel.

The Importance of Adaptation.

I'm not going to lie, the film Adaptation is strange, but it does bring an interesting perspective to what it takes to adapt one work into another; and how difficult it can be.  Adaptation. centers on Charlie Kaufman, played by Nicolas Cage, a screenwriter tasked with adapting the book The Orchid Thief into a film.  He struggles endlessly with it--trying to figure out what to leave in, how to stay faithful to the story (or lack thereof), and how to make it something people actually want to watch.  Charlie insists on remaining faithful to the text--he doesn't want to rely any "typical Hollywood conventions," but wants to present the book as it is.

Adaptation is all around us, and is probably easiest seen at the movies.  Many films were once books or short stories or poems.  So, like Charlie Kaufman, a screen writer will decide what to leave in, what to write new, and what to forget about.  I imagine the task is incredibly daunting, especially if one is working with a work that seems to have no proper narrative structure.

The other day I was talking with my pastor about which version of the Bible he uses to preach.  One week he was gone, the text was a familiar one, but the default version for the slides was different from what everyone knew and what was in the pew Bibles.  A member got in contact with my pastor after that week and was outraged that he wasn't using the "correct" version (what was in the pews).  My pastor, as he does, remarked that all versions we read will be translations, because the Bible wasn't originally written in English--or even written at all!  This blew the member's mind.  He never thought about the Bible not being in English; about the Bible being translated and adapted for us.

Some scripture in Greek being translated to English              picture from cwoznicki.com

I'm not even going to get into how many times and ways the Bible has been adapted into other media...

Adaptation is important.
It changes how we see, think about, a read a work.  How we relate to it and talk to our friends about it.  How we understand it.