The debate about what constitutes The Great American Novel is never-ending, yet F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby” always finds its way into this conversation. It might be tempting to simply reduce the author’s work to an enduring portrayal of the Roaring Twenties, but Fitzgerald’s book also cuts through the illusions while sustaining the enthralling mystery surrounding its titular figure. Once the mist dissipates, and both Jay Gatsby and his (only) friend Nick Carraway are laid bare for who they are, what remains is a profound sense of emptiness. Don’t get me wrong: “The Great Gatsby” is a story about the inherent hollowness of spectacle, obscene wealth, and relationships of convenience that have the illusion of depth. However, once we confront the rare flashes of moving sincerity in a tale so luridly tragic, the empty lure of the green light at the heart of the novel takes on a terribly haunting sheen.
Surely, such a complex, beloved book has birthed at least one screen adaptation that comes close to capturing its elusive essence … right? Well, there are no easy answers, as some cinematic renditions of “The Great Gatsby” are indeed worthwhile, despite their intrinsic flaws. The most recent (and popular) rendition is Baz Luhrmann’s 2013 version starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire, which has been criticized for losing itself in the loud hedonism it is meant to critique, leaving little space for subtlety. I would argue that Luhrmann carves out ample space for tense, interior moments, especially while exploring the crumbling mythos encircling Gatsby when he’s on the verge of losing everything. That said, the film doesn’t come close to doing justice to its source material’s complexities, although it never pretends to be something it is not.
If we are to consider Rotten Tomatoes as the metric for determining the best Gatsby adaptation, then 1926’s “The Great Gatsby” is the winner with its 52% score. Yep, that’s the highest aggregate so far, and every other direct film adaptation of the novel — as opposed to loosely-inspired ones — has a “rotten” score on the platform.
How the 1926 Gatsby adaptation is different from the rest
Before we talk about the 1926 version, let us touch upon another well-remembered “Great Gatsby” adaptation that was released in 1974, with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow taking on the respective roles of Gatsby and Daisy Buchanan. Director Jack Clayton remained faithful to Fitzgerald’s novel (too faithful to the point of drabness), bringing memorable excerpts to life with committed performances and vivid set dressing. But despite those sincere efforts, which included a competent screenplay by Francis Ford Coppola, the film fails to capture the hypnotic pull of the themes that still spellbind us, resulting in an adaptation that never dares to find its own footing.
Circling back to the 1926 silent drama by Herbert Brenon (“Peter Pan,” “Neptune’s Daughter”), we should certainly acknowledge just how much it diverges from the original novel. Despite being a direct (and seemingly the first) movie adaptation of the novel, it changes key aspects about the central characters, including Daisy’s (Lois Wilson) motivations for rejecting Gatsby (Warner Baxter) and the underlying circumstances surrounding the fatal car accident toward the end. The basic beats of the tale are retained though, with a young Nick Carraway (Neil Hamilton) gradually seeing Gatsby for what he truly is while also coming to recognize the callous cruelty and hypocrisy of the Buchanans. In a rather odd departure from the novel, however, the film ends with an idyllic shot of the Buchanans and their newborn, with no lingering hints of the tragedy they directly contributed to (or the man at the center of it).
The reason why Brenon’s film is rarely featured in conversations about Gatsby is because it is now considered lost media, with only the trailer and a few short clips from the film being available for viewing. It’s also worth noting that Fitzgerald abhorred this adaptation, describing it as “rotten and awful and terrible,” although he didn’t elaborate why. In case your search for a serviceable “Great Gatsby” movie adaptation remains unsatisfactory, you can always give Robert Markowitz’s 2000 version a fair chance. It might not be much, but the film stars Paul Rudd in an impressive turn as Carraway, which is, perhaps, its only redeemable quality.
