So, what did the other bloggers think?

There are a number of bloggers who share my interest in film adaptations, and we all – not surprisingly – have very different opinions on the films that cut the mustard and the films that fall flat.

Reviewing books and films is a very subjective process. There is no right and wrong when translating a story from one medium to another – so assessments of success largely come down to the personal opinions of each reviewer.

No film has so divided the film vs. book crowd as much as The Great Gatsby.

Fitzgerald and Luhrmann unite and divide in equal measure. Each has their share of passionate fans and harsh critics.

Here is just a quick run-down of some of the varying opinions of us blog-based adaptation critics:

@kizzylark from ‘Half Sweet, Half Salty - Movie Reviews for Movie Lovers’ said:

“Baz Luhrmann is a wonderful director of some genius, who has a certain style, it may not be to everyone's taste, but it is perfect, perfect for The Great Gatsby… Much has been made of the fact that the film is too over the top. Well, yes it is, in the parts that it's supposed to be.”

@kateinkew from ‘Books are my favourite and best’ said:

“Perfection down to the very last sequin… I’m not even going to attempt a book versus film comparison because it’s all bloody brilliant. I love the book. I love Baz Luhmann’s interpretation.”

@curiousnessa from curiousnessa said:

“Reading 'The Great Gatsby' just made me feel like I was drowning. Everything in the book felt like it was supposed to be a symbol for something else… honestly I felt that the movie was a lot better than the book – at least, it was in terms of conveying a clear message.”

@DrHasslein from Cinematic Randomness said:

“I've always felt Luhrmann's work to be all style and no substance and I went into The Great Gatsby expecting pretty much the same… It's not a great film but one well worth seeing. But I must say as much as I did enjoy the film, it left me feeling very sad and with a reminder of the grim reality that people can be really horrible.”

@LifeVsFilm of Life vs Film said:

“I was thoroughly disappointed with the film, mostly because I’d read F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel last year in preparation for the film, and really rather enjoyed it.”

@filmvsbook wrote in Novelicious:

“As adaptations go, this may well be one of the most faithful book to film conversions ever made, with some of it incredibly literal. If lines are already in your head from the novel, you are likely to recognise many of them in the film.”

@BrukDiana on Examiner.com said:

“The film is staunchly faithful to the book in both plot and dialogue, and it manages to flesh out the themes of class difference more so than the book, even though there's a little character development that's lost along the way.”

Something significant, elemental, and profound: How ‘The Great Gatsby’ compares from book to film

Although I have not yet read any reviews of Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby, I have heard some of the talk. I have heard lamentations that the film is “too long” and “too slow”.

Were we seeing the same movie?

The Great Gatsby is anything but slow. It is a fast, frenetic, sensory overload of a film. Through 3D glasses your gaze will constantly ping-pong across the screen as you try to take in the full extent of the pace, the rhythm, and the dazzling eye-popping colour.

THIS is what Baz Luhrmann is all about. In Moulin Rouge he set the stage. In The Great Gatsby, he takes F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel and catapults it into his extraordinary world of flamboyance and flair.

Luhrmann’s world is well suited to this story. When reading the book, the words seem to flow together in a flurry, as if Nick Carraway is desperate to etch down all the details of his recent history so that he can put it all to bed and get on with his life.

The book darts from one event or thought to another, as Nick explains only the people and places that are most pivotal to the plot. In this way, Fitzgerald himself lay the foundations for a film that could whizz and whirr from one day to the next – like Gatsby himself, hurtling through the Long Island streets in his yellow automobile.

As the film opens, our narrator is speaking from a sanitarium. In these scenes, he stumbles, disheveled and forlorn, around a darkened room and begins to recount the events that led to his loss of innocence.

There are many parallels with these scenes and the opening and closing of Moulin Rouge. Like Christian on the streets of Paris, Nick Carraway starts off fresh-faced and bright-eyed in New York, and eventually descends into a deep depression and comes to loath the city.

By adding these Moulin Rouge-style bookends, Luhrmann has set a much more somber scene than I was expecting. In reading the novel, my impression was that Gatsby’s story was told in a casual, matter-of-fact way. Nick’s words implied that he was vaguely sad but still slightly curious of Gatsby – so I didn’t expect Tobey Maguire’s Carraway to be so angry, bitter and disillusioned.

Perhaps this disconnect between the book and the film is only due to my interpretation? Perhaps Luhrmann noticed something that I didn’t? Could I have missed the subtle hints that indicated to Luhrmann that Gatsby had a more profound emotional impact on Nick?

In adapting this classic American novel to the big screen, Luhrmann took all of the things that Fitzgerald could only hint at and made them overt. Fitzgerald was constrained by the conservative nature of his times, and of the printed medium. Luhrmann had no such constraints.

In depicting Tom’s relationship with Myrtle, for example, Fitzgerald could only hint at what they were getting up to in the hotel room. Luhrmann, on the other hand, had Isla Fisher (as Myrtle) standing on furniture and garishly flashing her underwear and kicking her heels in the air. Nick was also shown sitting in discomfort as he was subjected to the grunts and moans coming from the bedroom.

In the novel, Tom Buchanan is described as having an aggressive appearance with a “gruff, husky” speaking voice. He is proud and domineering and has a habit of physically compelling Nick from one room to another, as though “moving a checker to another square.” Joel Edgerton plays this part well and is very convincing as the arrogant, obstinate character.

The casting of Jay Gatsby was always going to be over-analysed. The novel revolves around the mysteriousness of this central character and Nick’s occasional descriptions of Gatsby’s appearance, speech and demeanor are for a long time the only clues to who he really is.

Gatsby is described as having a rare, reassuring smile and hair that “looked as though it were trimmed every day.” He is a few years over thirty, elegant, and considered to the point of appearing artificial, with an “elaborate formality of speech [that] just missed being absurd.”

The rationale of giving Gatsby a famous face was always going to be questioned. The audience requires a level of intrigue, which may have been diminished by allocating a face as familiar as Leonardo Dicaprio’s. But one cannot question Luhrmann’s choice when you see the Hollywood stalwart in action – not when he plays charm, anger and heartbreak of Gatsby to such perfection.

I have heard it said that a major deviation from the book is in the way that Tobey Maguire’s Nick appears to idolise Gatsby. Much stock is placed in one line of the novel: “I disapproved of him from beginning to end.”

It is true that, in the book, Nick is from the outset wary and cynical of Gatsby. He claims to have heard every false note in his speech and is frequently irritated by what he sees as Gatsby’s charade. While in the beginning Nick was in awe of Gatsby, he was eventually perceived as being more average and “without any particular wonder.”

In the film, Nick does seem to have a more persistently romantic, idealistic view of Gatsby. He describes Gatsby as the “single most hopeful man I ever met” and the “one man exempt from disgust.” But I don’t see how the relationship between Nick and Gatsby has deviated too far away from the line set by Fitzgerald.

Although Nick may have “disapproved” of some of his actions, he always maintained a level of underlying affection – or at least respect for all that Gatsby had aspired to and accomplished. Nick wavered from admiring Gatsby to pitying him, but he never truly disliked him. Again, I think that the only disconnect here comes down to a personal interpretation of the text.

Daisy Buchanan’s character is given a mixed appraisal in the novel. At times, Nick is enchanted by Daisy’s beauty and grace. In detail, he describes the charm of her “low, trilling voice” and the “stirring warmth” that flows from her.

But Daisy is a contradiction. She is sweet and careless in equal measure. She is both selfish and ashamed, excited and unfulfilled, deprived and cherished. She is at times held up on a pedestal, and at others dragged through the dirt.

In casting for this role, Luhrmann would have been looking for an actress who could convincingly embody all of these qualities. She needed to be beautiful enough to make an indelible impression of all the men that she encountered, while at the same time appearing as innocent as her character in the novel, whose “attention leaps from one thought to another” and is completely out of touch with the ordinary world.

Carey Mulligan was an ingenious choice and is an absolute vision as Daisy.

For me, the appeal of Fitzgerald’s story is its underlying love story. Gatsby has a love for Daisy that surpasses every other motivation and feeling. Deep down, every girl dreams of being loved that way – but the tragedy comes when we understand that a love with such intensity could never be sustained.

Gatsby had built Daisy up into a lofty dream that she could never live up to. This truth is both sad and beautiful. When I watched Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby, I experienced that flutter that only comes with an epic romance. Thank you Baz!

Of course, Luhrmann did give the “green light” to some other very distinct and deliberate changes:

• The Nick of the book is much more resilient. He doesn’t seem to require the professional help that Toby Maguire’s Nick finds in the film.
• In the book, Nick seems to be writing of his own accord, and the fact that he is doing so seems to be no great feat. In the film, he is convinced to write as a form of therapy, and it quickly becomes an obsession that returns Nick to his true profession.
• In the book, Nick is not told that Jordan is a “very famous golfer,” as he is told in the film. He recognises her face from some past controversy and only confirms her identity later on.
• The Dan Coady rescue scene is different. In the book, Jay did not row out and commandeer a stricken vessel that was already perilously close to the rocks. He was casually walking along the beach when he decided to warn of the dangers of the coming wind to an already anchored ship.
• Daisy’s debut at Gatsby’s party was also less dramatic in the book. There was no fistfight, only a phone call that diverted Gatsby’s attention for a portion of the evening. In the book, Daisy tried to convince herself that she was enjoying the party, but it was clear that she was from a different world – in the film, the difference between old money and new was unavoidable.
• In the book, the “I know your wife” statement occurred one afternoon at Gatsby’s house, when Tom appeared unexpectedly as part of a small riding party. Gatsby becomes intrigued by Tom, and wants to join the party, but is snubbed and left behind when the riders depart. No such snub occurs during the film.
• Daisy introduces her daughter to Gatsby in the book, whereas in the film the young girl is only seen briefly when Daisy and Tom are packing to leave their mansion.
• In the book, Gatsby never lost his temper at Tom. There was just a glimmer of the rage in his face. That was all – but it was enough for Daisy.
• Tom was so confident that Gatsby had lost Daisy in the book that he smugly insisted that they drive back to Long Island together. In the film, Daisy runs away from the hotel room in distress and Gatsby runs after her.
• In the film, Tom offered Gatsby’s name to Wilson at his garage. In the book, Wilson had to walk for hours before eventually finding Tom and learning Gatsby’s name.
• In the book, Myrtle’s sister Catherine helps to correct the rumors about Gatsby before they can rage out of control. In the film, Luhrmann allows the rumors to rage and rage and rage.
• In the book, when Nick telephoned Gatsby that final afternoon, the line was busy. In the film, the phone was answered and Nick could overhear what was happening in the background.
• In the book, Gatsby floated on an inflatable mattress in the pool. In the film, he dove in and swam the length of the pool before stepping up the ladder and looking one last time out toward the green light. In this way, Luhrmann created a Gatsby that appeared to have everlasting hope.
• Gatsby’s father makes an appearance at the end of the book, and speaks of a son that was always concerned with his family’s wellbeing. In the film, Gatsby never felt connected to his family. When he walked away he never looked back.

The verdict:



How does the film rate? 5/5



How does the film rate as an adaptation? 5/5



Total score: 10/10



Book or Big Screen? Book (No matter how good the film adaptation is, a classic is a classic.)


P.S. I forgot to add this to the post originally, but couldn't leave it off for long. In the reviewing process I endeavored to count all the mentions of "old sport" and compare from book to film. For anyone who is interested, the infamous Gatsby-ism is mentioned 45 times in the book and 47 in the film!

Among the whisperings and the champagne and the stars… I have been waiting a long time for this

It’s safe to say that I have been patiently waiting for Baz Luhrmann’s film adaptation of The Great Gatsby.

In this blog, I have published a number of posts over the last few years to document the filming process. As far back as October 2011, I started posting paparazzi photos from the set in Sydney, and speculating about how Leonardo DiCaprio would fare as Jay Gatsby.

In November 2011, I mused about how Luhrmann might struggle with the delicate balance between showing off his leading man and conveying the air of mystery that is supposed to shroud this Gatsby character.

In February 2012, I posted about the Sydney reshoots that delayed the production of the film and provided yet more opportunities for the paparazzi to give us a glimpse at the costumes and set designs.

All the while, I eagerly waited for the December 2012 release date, only to be disappointed when the film was pushed back until May 2013. Whenever I sat in the cinema and the Gatsby trailer was screened, I would muffle a shriek of excitement and feel a shiver up my spine. Soon, so soon!

My patience has really been tested over the last few weeks, as the rest of the world filed into cinemas and Australia was forced to wait. I have retweeted dozens of reviews on Twitter, but I have not read a single one.

I will read them all, but not before I write my own.

In this blog, I painstakingly compare the page to the screen. In the film adaptation process, which elements of the original did the Director leave out? Which plot points and characters have been folded in together? Has the original work been respected or even improved upon?

After a few years of writing such comparisons, I have realised that it is a very personal process. Everyone reads books differently and conjures different interpretations of each word. Sometimes film adaptations compliment people's imaginations, and sometimes they don’t. There is no right or wrong, just opinion and conjecture.

When I publish my review of The Great Gatsby (hopefully later today), it will be my interpretation alone. This review has been a long time coming, so it will not be coloured by the thoughts of another.

The highest and the lowest of all the worlds: How ‘The Host’ compares from book to film

The Host is precisely what you would expect from Stephenie Meyer, bestselling author of Twilight. Like Twilight, The Host has a supernatural premise, which is overshadowed by a dominant, romantic theme. Like Twilight, it is written from the perspective of a young female lead, in an accessible, young-adult style.

Like Twilight, there is one, central, unwavering love story. Two young lovers are for a time kept apart because of their core biological make-up. By continuing their love, they risk placing the other in danger.

In Twilight, the seemingly insurmountable obstacle is that Edward is a vampire, and Bella is a human. Vampires should consider humans as a food source, and humans should be chilled to the core when in a vampire’s presence. And yet, they fall in love.

In The Host, Earth has been taken over by a parasitic alien species. Wanderer, one of these aliens, or ‘souls’, comes to love the human partner of her host, Melanie. Jared is still human, and although Wanderer should have no empathy for the human race, she comes to value the life of this human life above any of her own species.

But Edward tries to stay away from Bella in Twilight, and Jared despises Wanderer even though he is still in love with Melanie (who may still be alive inside of her). Cue the love triangle. In Twilight, Bella has Jacob the werewolf. In The Host, ‘Wanda’ has Ian, the compassionate human who falls in love with her ‘soul’.

Stephenie Meyer knows how to write a good, mushy romance. The Host is brimming with fantasies from the mind of Melanie, and the dreams of Wanda, and the desires of Ian, and the tormented pain of Jared. The romantics out there will be satiated with lines like:

“After all the planets and all the hosts you’ve left behind, you’ve finally found the place and body you’d die for.”

“I wondered if death was strong enough to dissolve something so vital and sharp. Perhaps this love would live on with her, in some fairytale place with pearly gates.”

The book can be a bit repetitive. In showing, in detail, how Wanda fares with the humans in the caves, many of the chapters focus on Wanda’s nervous trips down dark corridors, and days spent working tirelessly to make bread or harvest the fields. There is also intricate detail on how the humans manage to live in exile: How they wash and take care of other, essential ablutions, and how their sleeping arrangements are made. Although it might sound a bit monotonous, this level of detail does succeed in pulling you deeply into the story.

One area that could have benefited from a good editor is the use of the same phrases to explain Wanda’s facial expressions and physical reactions. Whenever Jared touches her, it feels like fire. When she thinks about the Seeker, she feels nauseous. When Ian touches her, she crinkles her nose. Through the narration we understand these descriptions to be necessary, as Wanda is learning how her new body works. But I think the reader gets the point quite a while before Meyer believes she has made it.

In all, I enjoyed The Host. It is a very suspenseful read that seems to move with pace despite the repetitiveness of life in the caves, and Meyer succeeds in making you feel for the characters. It is the kind of book that you will rush through, only to regret your haste when it’s all over.

The film doesn’t endear you in the same way. The way that the filmmakers have adapted the pseudo science fiction-love story is very Bold and the Beautiful meets Body Snatchers. It’s all a little bit corny, and very Twilight.

My sister is a good barometer for the cheese factor in films. The way she audibly sighed throughout this movie was similar to her involuntary reactions to Anna Karenina.

Saorise Ronan’s breathy voice is reminiscent of her ghostly character in The Lovely Bones, where very sentence is made to sound ethereal. As the film wore on, I became impatient for the resolution. Whether Wanda took over and Melanie died, or Wanda gave in and Melanie returned, I didn’t care, so long as Wanda could show more than a vacant, confused expression, and we didn’t have to hear Melanie’s passive-aggressive voice-over any more.

In the book, Melanie’s influence allows Wanda to experience real some emotion – if it weren’t for her eyes, you could mistake Wanda for being human. But this wasn’t conveyed in the film, as the emphasis was on presenting Wanda as clearly ‘alien’ and ‘other’.

In the book, Melanie’s sarcastic, frustrated inner voice is often very humorous, and is a welcome contrast to Wanda’s sickly sweet view of the world. But in the film, Melanie’s narration from inside Wanda’s mind often comes across as laughingly lame one-liners.

At the heart of The Host – the book, as well as the film – are questions about our humanity. The souls take over earth because they perceive humans to be vicious, cruel, and careless with their planet. But, to the humans, the souls are not saving the Earth – they are taking over the world by force and destroying an entire species.

The message is that, even though there is a dark side to humanity, it is the dark that makes the light so much more beautiful. Love is more powerful amongst human beings, because they understand what it means to hate.

“This place was truly the highest and the lowest of all the worlds – the most beautiful senses, the most exquisite emotions… the most malevolent desires, the darkest deeds.”

Despite its comparatively simplistic approach, the film version does do justice to this overarching theme of the novel. The conflict between the values of the human race and the souls is well presented, and the audience is left to question whether ‘humanity’ is all it’s cracked up to be.

Getting down to the nitty-gritty now, there were some significant changes made, in transitioning this book to the big screen:

• The film didn’t delve into as much detail about the other planets that the souls have populated, and the nature of Wanda’s past lives. It is still quite clear that Wanda is special, and her experiences unique, but in the film she is not the ‘celebrity’ that she is in the book.
• By omitting details of Wanda’s past lives, the film also refrained from detailing the nature of the seaweed planet, and the fire planet and the claw beasts, dolphins and spiders. Which I think was a good move. These other planets are supposed to be beyond human comprehension – so to give them a visual representation on the screen would have impacted on this surrealist element of the story.
• Another early omission is Wanda’s teaching job at the university. In the book she is given the title of ‘Honorary Professor,’ and her contribution to society is teaching other souls about the other planets. In the film, she has no such occupation. She also has no need for a Comforter like she does in the book.
• In the book, Wanda’s Comforter acts as a counselor who tries to ease her transition into life on Earth. There is not place for the comforter in the film, as Wanda’s struggles are not as strongly felt, and she does not harbour any inner shame over not being able to rid her body of Melanie.
• Wanda loses some of her intensity in the film. In the book she struggles for months to fight back against Melanie and is disappointed and shamed by her inability to do so. She is also fiercely proud of her past lives. In the film, Wanda is much more reserved and modest, and she doesn’t put up the same level of fight against Melanie.
• While Wanda loses some of her intensity in the film, the Seeker becomes a much more powerful nemesis. In the book, the Seeker is a short, dark-haired, pixie-like soul, who begins as a source of annoyance and frustration to Wanda, which eventually develops into hatred. In the film, Diane Kruger’s statuesque Seeker is a force to be reckoned with. She is harsh and murderous, and although she might not trigger the same revulsion in Wanda, she does incite more fear.
• Wanda’s getaway is much more dramatic in the film – the Seekers are lurking outside of her door as Melanie propels her from the balcony and into the pool below. She then attacks a soul, commandeers a vehicle and escapes into the night before Melanie takes control over her body once again, crashing the car in the middle of the desert. In the book, Wanda’s is traveling to see her Healer when Melanie quietly convinces her to seek out Jared and Jamie.
• Missing from the film are the other examples of the resistant human minds taking back control of their bodies. In the book, an example is the fabled Kevin whose body had to be ‘retired’ because his resistant host made it unsuitable for habitation by such a kindly soul.
• In the film, Melanie’s Dad shot himself to avoid capture. In the book, he was captured by the souls and he led the Seekers to find Melanie and Jamie.
• In the book, Melanie throws herself down an elevator shaft to avoid capture. In the film, the elevator shaft is replaced with a glass window.
• In the book, Wanda was locked away in her small, cavern-like prison for more than a week before she was tentatively ingratiated into human society in the caves. In the film the transition is quicker, and her sleeping quarters are much more humane. Wanda also has a few more run-ins with fists in the book, whereas in the film the physical assaults that she experiences are minimal.
• The film has no Walter – Wanda’s human friend who dies of cancer and is buried in the desert – and no tribunal for Kyle who tries to murder her.
• Wanda’s grief at the murdered souls lasts three days in the book, and she is almost comatose as she huddles in the darkest recesses of the caves and mourned the loss of her ‘family’. She only rouses when she is told about Jamie’s sickness. In the film, the mourning period is comparatively briefer, and less dramatic.
• The way that Jamie hurts his leg is different in the film. In the book, he comes back with the injury after a raid. In the film, it happens while working in the fields inside the cave. The innocent Jamie of the film would never have been taken on a raid. He is more child-like than the Jamie of the book who is well into his teen years.
• When Wanda and Jared go out in search for alien medicine for Jamie, the means of establishing Wanda’s cover story is different. In the book, Jared rips at Wanda’s face with a rock to obscure her scar and Wanda almost hacks her own arms off with a knife. In the film, the injuries are less brutal, their actions more restrained – Jared has no hand in it, he only watches as Wanda cuts a slice on her cheek and arms with a knife.
• The incident with the truck accident was created for the big screen. After a high-speed pursuit, two humans deliberately crash their truck to avoid being captured by Seekers. The parallel in the book is a much less dramatic highway scene, where police officers pull over Wanda and Jared’s car, but Wanda is able to talk herself out of the situation and the supply truck passes by unnoticed.
• Also missing from the film are the long raids that Wanda, Jared, Ian and Kyle go on, once they realise how useful Wanda can be. They travel from town to town constructing new identities, sleeping at hotels, and collecting masses of supplies. In the film, this is reduced to one casual trip to the grocery store.
• Also missing is the family that Wanda observes at the park – the two souls with the human child, who prompt Wanda’s musing about the potential future of earth with souls and humans living together in harmony.
• In the book, Wanda swears not to tell her secret – of how souls can be safely removed from human bodies – to any human. But eventually, and after much heartache, she comes to realise that it is the only way to save both species. In the film, Wanda doesn’t anticipate the humans’ want of this information, but eventually offers it willingly and with less sense of personal suffering and sacrifice.
• The coaxing of the souls out of the human body is also different. In the book, Wanda teaches Doc how to reach his fingers inside the human neck and follow the spine of the soul, before massaging and cajoling it free. In the film, the trick is kindness. All that is necessary is to cut the skin and wait as the soul floats its way out of the body.
• In the film, once the soul is removed from the Seeker’s body, the human left behind is obnoxious and “difficult”. In the film, she is reduced to a sobbing wreck that is only grateful to be free.
• In the film there is no Jodi, and no Sunny, and Kyle does not come around and accept that souls can be treated like human beings. There are also no middle-aged healers, abducted to help pass on healing tricks to Doc.
• In the book, there is a tribunal where the humans argue about whether Wanda should be allowed to leave Melanie’s body, and where she is presented the option of having another host body. In the film, there is no tribunal. The decisions are made without in-depth discussion.

The verdict:



How does the film rate? 2.5/5



How does the film rate as an adaptation? 3/5



Total score: 5.5/10



Book or Big Screen? Book


Coming soon: A comparison of ‘The Shipping News’ from book to film.