Fitzgerald Rolling

First of all, a little plug for my mother, who always made me read the books before I saw the movie. Doing that taught me a truth at a young age that is so simple that it has become cliche: "the book is better than the movie." But most often, that little sentence is thrown out there and then forgotten like yesterday's news. Or it is said half-heartedly, with the sayer reserving a secret deep inside of him/her that goes something like: "Even if it is considered unintelligent to think so, I have more fun watching the movies."

Why is this? Why do some openly admit that the books are always better than the movie, but refuse to admit that they liked the movies more? Well get ready, because I know why. It's because the mediums are different. Now, that doesn't seem to be some earth-shattering revelation, it is an easily observable fact. But the implications of that fact are often overlooked. The implications of this difference manifest themselves in the schizophrenic attitude of our day about the mediums themselves. Aside from the obvious differences between books and movies, the difference that has the most drastic impact is the amount of time it takes for books to develop. You have to read. It takes time. Books are long. And movies are short. And yes, I realize that I've already lost half of my audience because they didn't make it past the first paragraph.

But there is purpose in the time books take to develop. You get to experience true character development. When the reader is forced to live and laugh and love with the characters, the readers get to experience the lives of the characters in an intimate way. You can't close your eyes to the dirty parts of a character's thoughts or motivations. When you read, you get to use the limitless power of your imagination. There are no actors to pay, or props to set up, no stages to dress. It happens on-the-fly, exactly the way you want it. And after you've spent hours and hours reading and Jay Gatsby finally dies, you feel just as empty as Nick as he watches Gatsby's balloon of extravagance deflate (you see what I did there? Best transition ever.) And that is a feeling that will always be lost in translation from the book to the silver screen, no matter how great the acting is, or how "real" the 3D makes it, simply because you haven't paid the emotional cost of reading for hours.

Movies are all about spectacle. In this aspect, they do in fact trump books. There is simply no amount of description on a page that will equal hearing and seeing a gigantic explosion on a 500-foot screen in a movie theater equipped with the latest cinematic Dolby surround sound. There is something grand about seeing hundreds of thousands of orcs screaming battle-cries on the fields of Pelennor. Not all movie adaptions are bad. I mean, I waited in line to see every midnight showing of the LOTR movies. Some directors try to stay true to what the author was trying to accomplish. They try to convey a message rather than fit in all the events. They try to stay as true to the material and act as a clean window through which the work can shine for itself.

This is not what Baz Luhrmann does. He is more of a stained-glass window. Everything he touches becomes "BAZ LUHRMANN'S [fill in the blank.]"  And it has me going, "what about F. Scott?" But again, my gripe isn't necessarily with the fact that they are adapting the book, I like some book adaptions.  What I don't like is that Baz doesn't trust his source material enough to speak on its own, so he gets JAY Z to executive produce. In doing so he is forcing the movie to be relevant to us. "Hey kids, look at this! Isn't it great?" And instead of the movie being about the fruitlessness of pursuing wealth and leisure, it becomes about the glamour of pursuing wealth and leisure. The movie itself starts to become a promo for the soundtrack, and the book is completely forgotten. Tell me I'm wrong, I dare you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztO3sZMQzW8
 
Back when I was still debating on whether or not to even see the movie, I watched and interview where Luhrmann stated that he even cut the funeral scene out of the theatrical release of the movie. This is essentially when I decided not to see the movie. Because the funeral scene is arguably the most important part of the book. It's what finally compels Nick to move away from New York and the extravagant but empty lifestyle there. I guess it all makes sense though. This is the perfect movie to sum up our day and age in which we are so willing to exchange fun and spectacle for real connection and a better experience, simply because it takes more effort. Yes the movie may be fun, but the book was better.

Baz doesn't get my money, and please Fitzgerald, don't roll over too hard.

[Keep Following. And I am sad, because Leonardo DiCaprio makes a stunning Gatsby and probably gives an A+ performance. Just like in my upcoming post.]