Editors’ Note: This article includes minor and major spoilers from both the book and movie “The Great Gatsby”.
For nearly a century, “The Great Gatsby” by F. Scott Fitzgerald has remained one of the most influential works of American literature. Its story of ambition, wealth and illusion continues to resonate with modern audiences as status, reinvention and the pursuit of success remain deeply rooted in American culture.
“Even though the times have changed, this idea of wanting to be better than you are has not left us as a society,” AP English Literature and Composition and Film Analysis teacher Kristin Moore said.
Because of its lasting relevance, filmmakers have repeatedly attempted to bring Fitzgerald’s novel to the big screen, each time interpreting its themes through a new artistic lens. One of the most notable adaptations is Baz Luhrmann’s 2013 film version, “The Great Gatsby”. Known for his highly stylized and theatrical direction, Luhrmann approached the storyline with a more subtle narrative voice than Fitzgerald’s. His film transforms elements of the story’s narrative structure, symbolism and visual style while still attempting to preserve the central themes about illusion, wealth and the American Dream.
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the novel “The Great Gatsby”, published in 1925, is set during the 1920s, a period often referred to as the American Jazz Age. The novel is narrated by Nick Carraway, a young man who moves to Long Island and becomes involved with the mysterious millionaire Jay Gatsby. Gatsby is famous for his extravagant parties, which attract crowds of wealthy guests every weekend. Over time, Nick discovers that Gatsby’s wealth and lifestyle are driven by his obsession with Daisy Buchanan, a woman he loved years ago.
Gatsby represents the belief that people can reinvent themselves and achieve success through determination and ambition. However, the story ultimately reveals the limits of that reinvention. After he does not receive a long-awaited call from Daisy Buchanan, Gatsby is shot by George Wilson at his pool—who is influenced by Tom Buchanan, Daisy Buchanan’s husband—believing that Gatsby murdered his wife, Myrtle. Gatsby’s pursuit of wealth and status ultimately fails to bring him the happiness he desires, and the novel ends with tragedy.
“Fitzgerald is both critiquing the idea of the pursuit of wealth and also revealing the beauty that can seduce people into wanting to be rich, into wanting to be part of the upper classes in American society,” Moore said.
As such, Fitzgerald’s work became one of the defining literary critiques of American society during the Jazz Age.
Luhrmann—as an Australian filmmaker known for visually extravagant and theatrical productions such as “Moulin Rouge” and “Romeo + Juliet”—took this opportunity to put a twist on it. Luhrmann’s films often blend historical settings with modern stylistic elements, including dramatic visuals, rapid editing and contemporary music.
“I was actually really excited when I first learned that he was directing the adaptation of this book because I had seen all of his films before, including ‘Moulin Rouge’, ‘Strictly Ballroom’, etc.,” Moore said.
When Luhrmann adapted Fitzgerald’s novel, he aimed to capture the excitement and excess of the 1920s while also making the story feel modern and energetic for a contemporary audience. His adaptation starred Leonardo DiCaprio as Jay Gatsby, Tobey Maguire as Nick Carraway and Carey Mulligan as Daisy Buchanan. The film premiered in 2013 and became widely known for its elaborate party scenes, stylized cinematography—such as use of color and camera effects to influence the messages of the scenes—and use of modern music in a historical setting. Such creative choices emphasized the spectacle and excess of Gatsby’s world, though they also created noticeable differences between the message of the novel and the message of the film.
Among many minor narrative changes made to strengthen the flow of the storyline or establish a stronger emotional connection with the audience, a couple adjustments stand out in their influence on the original message. One of the smaller changes was made in the introduction of the story; in the original novel, Nick Carraway’s narration is reflective and distant, shaped by hindsight and moral. In Luhrmann’s film, however, Nick is placed in a sanatorium, recalling the past events as a form of therapy.
This adjustment reframes the narrative as a story of personal trauma and recovery rather than solely a critique of society. While this helps modern audiences connect emotionally with Nick as a character, it also shifts attention away from the broader cultural criticism that Fitzgerald emphasizes throughout the novel. The story becomes more internalized, focusing on Nick’s experience rather than the world he is observing.
One of the more deliberate and damaging changes to the original message appears in Gatsby’s final moments. In the original novel, before his death, Gatsby surrenders to reality. His death is described as a melancholic, quiet and almost inevitable conclusion. Nick suggests that Gatsby understood that the long-awaited phone call from Daisy would never come and died at the moment of his downfall, having lost both his dream and the illusion that sustained him.
“Gatsby dies. Surrendering, hopeless, having given up his dream, having realized that it was an empty dream to begin with,” Moore said.
This ending reinforced Fitzgerald’s central message, his critique: the American Dream, built on illusion and materialism, ultimately collapses. Gatsby does not succeed, and though Fitzgerald presents Gatsby’s struggle as very poetical and innocent, his failure is essential to the novel’s meaning.
In contrast, Luhrmann’s adaptation alters this moment more significantly. Gatsby receives a phone call just before his death, and although it is unclear whether it is truly Daisy, the implication is enough. Gatsby dies in his highest moment, believing, even if only briefly, that his dream has been fulfilled.
Maybe this change was intended to heighten the emotional impact of the scene, or maybe it was meant to give the audience a sense of tragic hope. However, it ultimately undermines the original message. Instead of exposing the emptiness of Gatsby’s pursuit, the film suggests that his dream was within reach and that his failure was due more to circumstance rather than to the flawed nature of the dream itself.
“It takes the cynicism and the tragedy of Fitzgerald’s book, and it puts a little more of a hopeful spin on it,” Moore said.
Apart from the narrative changes, Luhrmann’s film also adapted some changes in terms of visual representation of symbolism. The Great Gatsby is a book heavily centered on environmental and object symbolism. For instance, the positioning of Gatsby in the pool in the moment of his death or the empty funeral that followed symbolized Gatsby’s inability to make the impact that he desired. The eyes of Dr. T. J. Eckleburg overlooking the valley of ashes represents the silent judgment of a higher power witnessing the degradation of human values. Or perhaps one of the most important symbols, the continued metaphorical narrative of Gatsby reaching for yet failing to get to the green light across the bay that separates him from Daisy—a barrier that tragically connects to his death in a pool and represents the American dream.
“Because film is a visual medium, it needed to make [the symbols] more prevalent. It needed to emphasize them more visually,” Moore said.
This visual emphasis became one of the film’s most notable features. These symbolic moments do not require interpretation in the same gradual way as in the novel; instead, they are presented directly, making their meaning more accessible, though at times less nuanced.
Another change in the film that notably undermined the original message was the depiction of Gatsby’s death and its aftermath. In the novel, Gatsby’s body drifting in the pool and the neatly empty funeral reinforce the idea that his life, despite all its spectacle, ultimately failed to create meaningful human connection. The silence surrounding his death becomes a final confirmation of the emptiness of his dream. In contrast, the film presents his death and its aftermath with far greater intensity and public attention. The presence of reporters and the heightened dramatization of the event demonstrate a visible mark that Gatsby left both in his life and in his passing, saying that he was, in some sense, seen and recognized. This shift weakens the symbolic weight of isolation that Fitzgerald carefully constructed, replacing quiet insignificance with a more outward tragedy.
Still, despite this change, Luhrmann largely succeeded in translating Fitzgerald’s symbolic language into a visual form. While the film reduces some of the ambiguity that gives the novel its depth, it also amplifies the emotional and sensory impact of its symbols, allowing modern audiences to experience them in a more immediate and striking way.
“I think they did a great job of capturing the feeling of the dust and the grit and all of that in that [funeral] scene.” Moore said.
While many of the film’s changes occur in the narration and symbolism, its approach to casting, visuals and especially music still shapes how the story is perceived by a modern audience. These elements do not necessarily alter the plot, but they influence tone, characterization and the emotional message of the film.
Although the overall casting did not introduce major changes to the storyline, it did affect how characters have been interpreted. The choice of Tobey Maguire, already widely recognized for his role as Peter Parker in the 2002 “Spider-Man” film, to portray Nick Carraway, reinforces a particular image of the character.
“Tobey Maguire plays him as very naive, very wide-eyed, taking in the spectacle of this world that he has stepped into,” Moore said.
This portrayal aligns with Nick’s role as an observer, but it also amplifies his innocence, making him appear more passive and impressionable than in the novel. In Fitzgerald’s original work, Nick is notably more cynical and critical, gradually developing a sense of moral judgment toward the people around him and the society they represent. His narration carries an underlying skepticism, even when he is fascinated by Gatsby’s world. On the other hand, the film version emphasizes his wonder over his criticism, which shifts the audience’s perspective from reflexive analysis to a more wide-eyed, emotional experience.
The film’s musical choices, however, stand out as one of its most effective and impactful elements. Instead of relying solely on period-accurate jazz, Luhrmann incorporates modern music throughout the film, blending contemporary genres with the 1920s setting in a way that enhances the viewing experience.
“Jazz was such an exciting moment for music in the 1920s. It felt so modern. It felt so fresh. It felt so alive and exciting and new,” Moore said. “For us today, jazz does not feel like that. But I think in using contemporary music, Luhrmann was able to, in a way, sort of recreate that feeling of music being fresh and vital and exciting.”
Through this approach, the film successfully captured the spirit rather than the exact sound of the Jazz Age. The use of modern music brings energy and immediacy to Gatsby’s world, allowing contemporary audiences to feel the same excitement, intensity and sense of novelty that Fitzgerald’s characters seemingly would have experienced. The music elevates key scenes, particularly Gatsby’s parties, transforming them into immersive and dynamic moments that reflect the excess and vulgarity of the era.
Together, these visual, musical and casting choices follow Luhrmann’s goal: not to replicate Fitzgerald’s work exactly but to translate its energy, emotion and themes into a form that would resonate with a new generation.
Transitioning a story into a different medium is always a challenge for a director, especially when adapting a work as stylistically and thematically rich as “The Great Gatsby”.
“The film tried to capture that as best as it could, but Fitzgerald’s writing is just so elegant and so heartbreaking and tender that the film ultimately couldn’t capture that,” Moore said.
Though the film does not ultimately replicate the novel, it rather offers a distinct interpretation of it. Fitzgerald’s work remains a subtle reflective critique of a dream built on illusion, while Luhrmann’s adaptation transforms that critique into a vivid and emotionally immediate experience.
