Anachronism is tricky–The Great Gatsby

 

 

I know anachronism is a fact of life  in dieselpunk and steampunk. But outside that context? I struggle with it. Even within those genres, sometimes it can be jarring.

I’m thinking about this at the moment because I saw The Great Gatsby a few days ago. Overall it was a great movie, but it definitely didn’t feel as “historical” as it could have. And that’s fine–obviously the feel of the movie was intentional and not the result of sloppiness, as is the case in hack novels. Of course any time I mention this, more than a few people have told me that I’m being silly–that particular director does it often. It’s a thing. Didn’t you see such and such?

That’s all correct. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument . . .

In steampunk, anachronism is an integral part of the story’s architecture. The whole reason it works is because authors have figured out how to make what really was, to us, a dry and dull period interesting again. Don’t believe me? Try reading Victorian literature. It’s good, just like literature from any age, but don’t try to tell me it’s paced the way we like it or makes a whole lot of sense to us culturally.

In the case of this movie though, it’s superfluous, and they made no attempt whatsoever to hide this fact and make it work. They forgot the Crisco. They didn’t warm the forceps. It kicks you out of the story and into MTV land. And I don’t quite see what the point of it was.

I’m talking about the soundtrack and pop culture references.

I guess it allows a generation that doesn’t read books, let alone old ones, to appreciate a classic story. But would it have hurt its popularity to have done a more artful treatment of the book? I don’t think so. It already was slaughtered by Iron Man 3. Maybe it’ll do better in 20 years when some jackass decides to make yet another version, but some bizarre contemporary one with .  . . flying cars and fucked-up slang. And instead of booze being such a big deal, it’ll be bath salts.

Given that, I guess we’re lucky that they didn’t shit all over it by making a contemporary version.

Besides all that though, this did make a pretty fun diesel movie. It looked right and the acting worked extremely well. As mean as it sounds, an actor like Tobey Maguire is perfect to portray what is essentially a cipher for the benefit of the reader . . . or convenience of the writer. And the good thing is that even with the ridiculous, jarring anachronisms, the point of the book survived.

So anachronisms–how do they really work now? I think, unless they’re mistakes or just bad writing, they have to be a deliberate, cynical postmodern manoeuvre. If you’re going to do it, make sure it’s a full-on postmodern wink-wink-nudge-nudge sledgehammer to bring down that fourth wall. It’s like jazz–a bad note can sound good if you do it with enough authority and the right amount of repetition. I think it’s easier for a critical person like me to get over such an obviously dumb artistic decision than it would be if they’d tried to make their nods to today’s audience more subtle.

The other way to deal with them is to just avoid reality altogether and write dieselpunk. Even better if you write secondary world dieselpunk. I can’t even explain how fun it was to write Blightcross and how much fun (in theory, if I ever get time to write) the already-outlined sequel will be.

 

On an unrelated movie note, I also just saw I Love You, Man. Yes, I hadn’t seen it. Anyway, it’s a little sobering and pretty funny to watch yet another Paul Rudd character who is basically a slightly wussier version of myself. Derp.

You can bet your ass that when I got home I picked up my guitar and played Limelight.