The Great Gatsby Book Vs Movie

Too Simple

The Great Gatsby, a timeless literary classic, has failed time and time again to achieve success in Hollywood. Over the years countless famous directors have tried, and subsequently failed, to incorporate the complex emotions, colorful characters, and vivid plot of the novel into a short 90 minute feature. Baz Luhrmann recently took on the task in his 2013 rendition of The Great Gatsby, in which he tries to capture the essence of the novel. However, Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby over-simplifies the novel, by removing the character complexities from Nick, Daisy, and Myrtle, which ultimately cripples the movie and prevents the movie from accurately representing the novel.

First, the film does not complicate Nick Carraway’s character

by adding the famous, and highly controversial, elevator scene. The scene, which is characterized by its ellipses, forces the reader to question Nick’s sexuality and narrative voice. First, the scene potentially implies that Nick is gay. Nick, who remains vague throughout this scene, says that he “standing beside [Mr. McKee’s] bed,” with the bed already implying something sexual, and Mr. McKee is “clad in his underwear,” reinforcing the idea (38). This scene forces the reader to question Nick as a narrator. Nick, due to his vagueness in describing this scene, sets the precedent that he will only narrate what he wishes to narrate, and leave out any embarrassing or unnecessary details. In the novel, the reader constantly questions Nick as a narrator, and this element makes him more human. Nick, in the novel, is not the all knowing narrator, but rather has secrets and embarrassing moments. In the movie, Nick’s simplified narrator, however, does not have this intimate relationship with the viewer which removes any “guesswork” for the viewer and forces them to completely follow Nick’s perspective. Luhrmann's choice to remove this scene clearly shows the movie’s simplicity. The movie, instead of accurately and vividly representing the novel, chooses to simplify the movie in order to sell it and reach mass audiences.
In addition, the movie fails to depict Daisy’s complexity and superficiality, and instead depicts her as genuine and sincere.

In the novel, Daisy is superficial and careless. Daisy, while lounging at the Buchanan mansion with Nick, Jordan, and Gatsby, chooses to briefly see and hug her daughter, Pammy, instead of spending any genuine time with her. As Nick correctly mentions, Daisy “wanted to show [Pammy] off,” but did not actually care for her (117). Daisy’s willingness to not actually care for her own daughter, but instead treat her as a plaything and symbol of wealth clearly displays Daisy’s superficiality. Daisy’s shallow attitude is not restricted, however, to her relationship with Pammy. Daisy relationship with Gatsby, in the novel, is financially based. In the novel, Gatsby uses financial imagery to describe falling in love with Daisy. Gatsby stresses Daisy “vanishing into her rich, full life,” and her status “above the hot struggles of the poor,” evidencing that Daisy considered herself “better” than others because she is rich. Daisy in the movie, however, appears gentle and kind, once again because of Luehrman's cuts. Luehrman chooses to cut the Daisy and Pammy scene, and by doing so, easily allows Daisy to be likeable. In addition, when Daisy views Gatsby’s fine silk shirts she cries because she missed Gatsby. Nick, in his voiceover for the scene says “Five lost years struggled on Daisy’s lips,” suggesting that Daisy cries because she is heartbroken. In the movie,

Daisy is the poor, heartbroken damsel, who is designed to “pluck the heartstrings” of the audience, and make them sympathize with Daisy. In the novel, Daisy can, and often is, viewed both as a superficial and nice person. The movie, by cutting the Daisy and Pammy scene, and by considering Daisy crying over the shirts a romantic gesture, simplifies Daisy down to a helpless romantic, which is only a part of Daisy’s character in the novel and removes any alternate interpretations of her character.
Last, Luehrmann simplifies Myrtle’s character by removing her two-faced personality. In the novel, Myrtle is “trapped in her social class.” Myrtle represents the middle class because she lives in the “valley of ashes,” a place where “ashes take the forms of houses” and “ash gray men” live (23). Myrtle, in the novel, however, does not wish to remain in the middle class, and desperately tries to “climb the social ladder.” During the party in Manhattan, Myrtle, when told to “get some more ice and mineral water,” quickly passes the job off to a servant (32). Myrtle’s unwillingness to fetch ice and water proves that she considers herself “above” such remedial task. In contrast, the movie does not depict Myrtle in this way; instead, the movie considers Myrtle a normal person, who is comfortable in her class. In the movie’s party scene, Myrtle does not reply to Tom’s request to get ice, and instead immediately fetches ice and water. This discrepancy, while appearing minor, drastically changes Myrtle’s character; Myrtle transforms from Tom’s mistress who desperately wants to “climb the social ladder” to just Tom’s mistress.
Baz Luhrmann has failed to capture the essence of the novel, as evidenced by his simplification of Nick Carraway, Daisy Buchanan, and Myrtle Wilson. Luhrmann removed the complicating factors in each of these characters: the debatable sexuality and reliability as a narrator of Nick, the superficiality of Daisy, and the duplicity of Myrtle. However, by removing these complexities, the movie has lost some of the essence of the novel. The Great Gatsby remains a phenomenal book because of its complexities and the nearly infinite interpretations that derive from them. Luhrmann, however, chooses to remove these intricacies, and fails to represent the novel well because of it.