The Great Gatsby

The novel The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzergald has been deemed an American classic within the world of literature. With this being said, anyone who attempted to make a movie out of this book has their work cut out for them. Although it may be difficult, creating a movie that does justice to Fitzgerald's classic can and has been done. In our class, we had the privilege to watch the most recent film version of The Great Gatsby directed by Luhrmann. Luhrmann did a fine job of staying true to the goal and vision of Fitzgerald, but he also made many distinct changes, making his film unique.

The first unique change that Luhrmann made with this film came in the form of narration. In Fitzgerald's book, Nick is the narrator and he is telling the story as if he is recalling his memories, then writing it down on paper. Luhrmann decided to take a slightly different approach with the narration. Instead of Nick telling the story to himself or writing it down, you realize that in the movie he is telling the story to his doctor. One discovers throughout reading The Great Gatsby, that Nick is an alcoholic. The doctor being told the story is most likely helping Nick through his alcoholism. Even though this change was small, it added an extra layer of interest and depth to the movie that the book did not contain. There are a few scenes where the doctor is actually shown; however, for most of the movie Nick is narrating and once in a while there is dialogue between him and the doctor when the doctor responds.

Another element that Luhrmann added that I did not expect from reading the book was the imagery used in the movie. Even though Fitzgerald uses a lot of imagery throughout his story, I pictured it coming to life in a different way than the movie depicted. The use of panning and and flow to the filming of the movie, gives the movie a magical feel.  Unlike the movie, I felt the book was a little more serious. Along with the magical feel in many scenes, I also felt that the characters in scenes were almost animated. The scene where I noticed this the most is when Nick arrives at Tom and Daisy's house, and Tom jumps off the horse to greet Nick. Another place where I noticed a hint of animation, was during the entrance or introduction of Gatsby. The fireworks in the background almost gave the scene an aspect of fantasy.

The final difference that I noticed between the movie and the book was the character depiction. In the book, Fitzgerald seems to emphasize how Nick is shy and reclusive. In the movie,, his character is much more outgoing and loves to party. I have a feeling that Luhrmann did this to make Nick seem more interesting. In the book you often forget about him becuase he is narrating. The only time that one remembers he is there, is when one of the other characters mentions his name. Another character that was showcased differently than the book was Myrtle. In the book, Fitzgerald describes Myrtle as slightly ugly, hefty, and without self confidence. On the other hand, in the movie her character is pretty, seductive, and confident. In the movie Myrtle was drastically different than how I pictured her in the book. This change may not seem faithful to the book, but I think Luhrmann decided to take liberty with Myrtle for many reasons. Since Myrtle is depicted as unattractive in the book, it is a little difficult to believe that Tom would have an affair with her. People wonder, "How could Tom leave someone as beautiful as Daisy?' By giving Myrtle a more seductive personality and making her more attractive, the people watching the movie may have an easier time understanding why Tom chose to have an affair.

Although the movie and the book have numerous similarities, I think the changes that Luhrmann chose to make to the movie were successful. The audience that is watching the movie may be very different than the audience that chooses to read the book, so it only makes sense to formulate a movie that appeals to a particular audience.

Map Analysis

Map Analysis

The first map that I chose was from the David Rumsey’s Map Collection called the “Maine”. The map indicates all of the mountain ranges, rivers, and bodies of water throughout the land. The map is also broken up into twelve colored sections. Each section contain multiple towns or ranges that appear to have English or European names, but a few have Indian titles. The colored sections don’t appear to be divided up between any particular towns or settlements. By looking very closely at the map, one can see that it has numbered squares drawn on it. Some squares even have letters, but the squares seem to overlap between the settlements and colored sections.

I think that this map shows the way Americans seem to conquer land, give it their own name, and claim it as their own, just because they “discovered” it. The European names given to the settlements and towns show that Europeans were probably the creators of the map. The map also depicts the little respect that many settlers had for Indians. Babb’s chapter also explains how as more settlers came to America, the maps contained fewer and fewer Indian names through the quote, “Aside from a leopard-like animal and a few trees dotting the landscape, no indigenous elements are present” (p. 54).Very few of the locations on the map contain Indian titles. The creation of the map was most likely to help European settlers in Maine know where all of the other towns were. With very few Indian names on the map, European immigrants may feel more comfortable settling and feel more at home.
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~200428~3000321