Watched this as part of an essay I'm doing for a Film Construction Theory class, and holy *beep* It captured absolutely none of the emotion, action, symbolism, etc. that made the book as famous as it is.
--
"I don't want to cram pimpage."
No, not a drop, not a speck, not an atom of what made the book so wonderful. It's a movie that is pretty to look at and hear, that's about all.
shareI agree with you but the movie is one of my sentimental favourites, despite being very anaemic. Pretty and lovely, but anaemic. I guess I was happy to just see the story, the characters and the scenes on film, beautiful and beautiful sounding, but devoid of emotion.
I resolved not to criticise films unless I offer some pointers for improvement so here goes:
In retrospect, Mia is IMHO a good Daisy ( although not one whose looks alone would inspire such an obsession in Gatsby) and , if Gatsby had to be good looking ( its not said to be so in the book) , then Redford was an obvious choice. But the role called for somewhat of a loser made good, who gets everything he wanted but the girl of his youthful dreams. If that dynamic or motivation is not there, the story loses its raison d'etre (notwithstanding all the subtext about the jazz age, American Dream etc) . You have Hollywood love god Redford pining over Mia Farrow? uh-uh.
I have more to do than stand here and listen to you quote yourself.
True, Farrow and Redford did not seem to connect. Don't know why, I've liked what they've done in other parts. Maybe it was the direction or just chemistry. Redford in particular did not show the drive Gatsby needed to remake himself and to pursue Daisy.
shareRedford in particular did not show the drive Gatsby needed to remake himself and to pursue Daisy.
I had the advantage of seeing this film before ever reading the book.
As a work of film minus the book or any knowledge of it, it is a sound movie.
Two years ago I read the book and I get what you all post here. Now I get it.
Funny how perspective influences outcome and changes it.
I thought the casting of the movie was backwards. When i first heard the cats I thought it would be
Waterston as Gatsby
Chiles as Buchhann
Redford as Carraway
Farrow as Baker.
I was quite disappointed and still believe these would have been better choices. AS you said there is no mention of Gatsby being handsome; I walked away from the book thinking he wasn't. Chiles was stunning.
Redford looked like a rich WASP
In the book, Meyer Wolfsheim does day Gatsby is "handsome to look at".
shareI do recall that now that you mention it, but coming from a guy who wears cufflinks made of human molars doesn't convince me Gatsby was handsome. ;-)
share"Handsome to look at" is an interesting turn of phrase. What other handsomes could there be? A soldier in uniform is often called handsome. A woman could sometimes be called a handsome woman, meaning perhaps she has height, posture, bearing, deportment ..all that. Was Fitzgerald saying that Gatsby had looks but something else was off?
To be sure, Gatsby was attractive. If he wasn't seven years ago, he surely was at the time of the novel.
My point is this: Whatever level of looks he has, Gatsby cannot be too devastatingly handsome, charming or attractive. Daisy didn't wait for him but went for the security of Tom. My personal view is that there must be some element of a loser about him, something common or try-hard about him, for Daisy to reject him twice, even after he has attained the level of affluence that the Buchanans have, thus removing one prior impediment to her falling for him.
Redford is the All-American Golden Boy. If he had the same money as Tom, would you leave him for Tom ?
The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.
Because when Daisy first met Gatsby, he was poor. Tom was from a family of means and reputation (old money).
After Daisy and Gatsby reunite- he seems to be finally be a man who could care for her in the way she was accustomed, but at the climax of the book, Tom informs Daisy that Gatsby is a bootlegger. While Gatsby's wealth was vast at the time, it wasn't built on a solid foundation, and it stands to reason that he could lose his fortune, or even get arrested if caught. Daisy, being the spoiled shallow woman that she is, opts for the comfort of the life she already lives, rather than an unknown with Gatsby.
It's worst "book to movie," silly OP.
This isn't a good movie, but it's amazing how it's stuck with me over the decades--despite several re-viewings, each time disappointing me just as it did the first time. Some of the casting is memorable--Sam Waterston, Scott Wilson and Lois Chiles are perfect, Karen Black is vivid if broad, and Mia Farrow is striking if too affected for many viewers. (I think she was maybe too "period" for them--her bubbly artificiality is a 1920s notion of "perfect little fool" flibbertigibbet flapper glamour we can't relate to much now.) Redford was all wrong, but he was trying.
If you think this is the worst book-to-movie adaptation ever, you clearly haven't seen "Bonfire of the Vanities," the Bill Murray "Razor's Edge"...or about a million worse ones.
Let alone Demi Moore's "The Scarlet Letter." That movie is so outrageously bad--and such a total desecration of the novel--that it's like the "Showgirls" of literary costume dramas, so over-the-top awful it's kinda great.
share~~~~~This isn't a good movie, but it's amazing how it's stuck with me over the decades--despite several re-viewings, each time disappointing me just as it did the first time. Some of the casting is memorable--Sam Waterston, Scott Wilson and Lois Chiles are perfect, Karen Black is vivid if broad, and Mia Farrow is striking if too affected for many viewers. (I think she was maybe too "period" for them--her bubbly artificiality is a 1920s notion of "perfect little fool" flibbertigibbet flapper glamour we can't relate to much now.) Redford was all wrong, but he was trying.~~~~~
If you read the book and concluded that it was a satire on human fraudulence wouldn't you make the film in a style similar to that of The Day of the Locust?
Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.
It means handsome in the flesh but not so memorable, not distractingly handsome.
Tom Selleck in his heyday had that quality. Ridiculously good looking on screen at any moment but, meh! His looks didn't linger in your mind, because he looked like he was averaged together from the features of 6 other actors.
[deleted]
While I agree with your casting choices, I don't see how you got the impression Gatsby wasn't handsome. Daisy Buchanan was one of the choicest young ladies of Louisville society, yet Gatsby was a serious suitor of hers despite not being anywhere near her social class. He would have had to have been very attractive - not only devastatingly handsome but probably something of a "bad boy."
I am Threadkiller. No further replies tothis threadare necessary.
You have a good point, but as I recall (and it has been along time since I read TGG), the only comments about Gastby's looks comes from Wolfsheim who is portrayed a a gaudy man who considers wearing cufflinks made from human molars good taste.
shareEndless Love has it beat by a long shot, sadly.
"What a stupid line."
"What a sick, masochistic author."
Squeeth: Where did I say it was a "satire on human fraudulence"? It's a very different novel (and movie) from "Day of the Locust." Comparisons are inapt, and I wasn't making them. Not quite understanding your point.
shareI didn't imply that you did. Perhaps I should have written 'If one sees....'.
As I watched it recently (having seen it once in the 80s) I found the filming of the actors reminiscent of the way that TDotL was filmed - 'people' going thrugh the Hollywood motions and not being all that good at it. Having also seen the restored Metropolis I wondered if some of the scenes at Gatsby's mansion quoted it and that the director and cameraman had also been looking at Hieronymous Bosch paintings. Last Year at Marienbad also hovered in the background.
It seemed to me that the flatness or anaemia that people mention isn't an accident, that it's counterpointed by the cinematic aspects of the film (mise-en-scene, colour, sound, montage etc) decidedly not anaemic.
Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.
I'm afraid you fell into the trap of buying too much into Fitzgerald's sideways musings and projecting ("seeing" what you wanted to be rather than what was actually presented). Perhaps because you read it in high school and developed some kind of romantic attachment to it.
Realistically speaking, Fitzgerald's novel has a hasted plot development (gives up key resolution points early) and flat characterization for everyone except Gatsby. He was more interested in vocabulary embellishments and injecting pseudo-political commentary than developing characters. Daisy in particular was so undeveloped that it's pathetic.
Fitzgerald expects you to read his book with "just trust me" attitude and imagine things to fill his gaps. That might make you happy as infatuated reader but don't project that into a claim that his book actually has things that you imagined while reading it.
Line for line, Coppola did quite exceptional job by adding some dynamics, moving plot resolution down for more dramatic effect and adding some sorely missing characterization. Also, considering how little actual material for Daisy she was given, Mia Farrow for all practical purposes created a memorable surreal character out of thin water.
One can only be sorry that Coppola didn't get to direct it as well, but considering the clumsy cast for the new remake, this incarnation will remain at the throne even past the 40 year milestone which is quite a remarkable achievement.
[deleted]
cool story bro
shareI reread this book this fall in my last year as an undergrad and again this summer because Fitzgerald remains one of my favorite authors and I think he had a remarkable talent for writing. This book does a lot of work but that work isnt in plot or characterization which has already been mentioned. I think that Fitzgerald quite intentionally doesen't really allow us to see any interiority in Daisy or Tom or anyone besides Gatsby who the limited narrator has a close and less than superficial relationship with. This makes it incredibly difficult to create a compelling Tom and Daisy because so little of what makes them tick is made evident. I mean we can make assumptions based on their actions and their few comments but we dont have much access to them throughout the novel. That being said I thought that it was a fairly good if somewhat superficial movie. However i had how the slightly changed the end it was one of the most beautiful and thought provoking passages that i have ever read
shareI think you missed two other obvious choices:
Demi' Moore's atrocious version of The Scarlet Letter
The Alan Ladd version of The Great Gatsby (1949)
[deleted]
I now believe there will NEVER be a proper film version of The Great Gatsby.
Simply because it would require everyone involved in the production to tell the truth. That the American dream is only a dream for the super rich. That the only way normal people can get into that world is through criminality and even then their blood will never be blue.
This country is for the Daisys, the rest of us are in front of her speeding, out of control car.