The Great Gatsby (2001)

intriguing failure

This is a fascinating example of how a movie adaptation can be almost excessively faithful to a book -- transcribing dialogue line for line, including voice-over narration -- and still get the details and nuances almost entirely wrong. The diversity of the novel's social world has been completely flattened out: everybody talks the same, regardless of whether they're from Kentucky, Minneapolis, Chicago, or Queens. Daisy's voice is flat and whiny, with no enticing lilt and sparkle. The costumes are frumpy, especially Daisy's -- Mira Sorvino has been beautiful and sexy in other roles, but in this one she looks like a gawky teenager wearing shapeless cotton dresses and giant unflattering hats. (In the flashbacks, she looks like Rachel on Friends!) The relative ages are all messed up... Tom (30) is supposed to be significantly older than Daisy (23), and Tom's mistress Myrtle is supposed to be significantly older than he is (in her mid-30s).

One thing that bothered me is that the film softened Tom's character significantly. Admittedly, Martin Donovan is a great actor who probably couldn't help making his character sympathetic and nuanced. But the whole plot turns on Tom being an "alpha male," physically domineering and harsh - competitive and contemptuous with men, and instinctively controlling with women. Donovan gets the contempt, but he's too slim and articulate, and he lacks "hulking brute" sex appeal, and he's much too affectionate/respectful with women. I couldn't believe he APOLOGIZED to Myrtle after bloodying her nose -- in the book he deliberately BREAKS her nose (with one blow of his hand) as a punishment for talking back, and then ignores her wails of pain and everyone else freaking out. It's a grim scene and should show his callousness and controlling nature. Instead the movie makes it a twisted love scene, with him striking out, then apologizing, saying he didn't mean it and kissing her. Absurd.

The movie also makes a misguided attempt to turn Daisy - shallow, "careless," reckless, life-wrecking Daisy - into a sympathetic heroine. It sets up a parallel between Gatsby's 5-year longing and Daisy's... makes it look like she has been missing him and pining for him all through her marriage. But in the book, unhappiness has made her "sophisticated" and cynical, not wistful and mopey. The movie tries to give her a heart and a soul, which turns the whole story into a goopy "star-crossed lovers" Lifetime romance instead of the much darker and more ironic fable in the book. December 4, 2008

Winning features are the Fitzgerald bio and his narrative text in movie

Pros and cons of the 2000 (UK, 2001 US) A&E version of The Great Gatsby have been extensively discussed. Suffice it to say, I value it because, unlike the 1974 movie, the 2000 one has Nick extensively voicing Fitzgerald's (1896-1940) beautiful prose.
However, the real winner on the 2000 Gatsby DVD is the extra, namely, the A&E biography: F. Scott Fitzgerald: The Great American Dreamer (1997). Narrated by Edward Herrmann, it is in 4:3 aspect and has a TT0:44:35. This A&E bio was previously available separately for $25 list but is now out of print. August 31, 2008

Decent, but could have been better

Although I was eager to see the updated version of Fitzgerald's novel, by the end of the film I only felt lukewarm about its delivery. It seems that this version has its faults just like the older version did, but I would probably rate the older one a little better than this one.

Textually, many of the important parts of the book are there in this version. Unlike the 1974 version, this one does a great job of having Nick be the narrator--which seems to follow the book more. However, I was left a little unsatisfied with some of the delivery from Toby Stevens, who plays Gatsby. He has his lines down, but his mannerisms seem to be off at times. There is that awkward scene where he is so overcome with awe at the presence of Daisy that he seems to just stutter "I can't...I can't.." and kind of grimace as if between laughing and crying. I also thought that Gatsby's relationship with Daisy was lacking in depth in this one.

Another beef I had with the film is the last segment, which seems to drag on forever. It's struck me as odd because this film seems slow, going at a plodding pace--the acting, the scenes, everything-- but it is only a little over ninety minutes. Because I like the book, I still liked the film, and have watched it more than one, but to the average movie fan, I think once would be enough.

I mean, it is an updated version of the novel in many respects, but the scenery, dialogue, and characterization were pretty decent.

However, if you want a closer version to the novel, I suggest the Redford version, if you can put up with Mia Farrow being Daisy, old sport!
April 26, 2008

the best version was with alan ladd.nothing since has come near

each time a new version arrives i think back to alan ladd who was perfect
as the great gatsby what on earth has happened to that film March 30, 2008

In the Footsteps of the Great Gatsby

I am a great fan of Toby Stephens, who consistently turns in splendid performances (even making the dour Mr. Rochester terribly appealing), but I believe that in the role of Jay Gatsby, Toby Stephens has been miscast. It is not merely that he cannot fit into Robert Redford's shoes, but he cannot fit into the shoes of Gatsby as F. Scott Fitzgerald has conceived him--larger than life; a man of mystery, who is anonymous in a crowd of what Shakespeare would have called "gilded butterflies" and what Fitzgerald himself seems to portray as moths blustering too close to a guttering candle flame. The dreamlike quality of the novel (which, as I recall was evident in the David Merrick/Jack Clayton/Francis Ford Coppola version), is almost totally missing from this latest production.

Where Fitzgerald suggests, the director of this film states outright. in the novel, for example, Nick's memories of his first encounter with Daisy and Jordan--on a seemingly floating couch--are suffused with light drifting through insubstantial billows of white curtains. In the movie, however, Nick simply walks into the living room of an elegant house in which a couple of beautiful girls are lolling on a white couch. In the novel, Nick's first memory of Gatsby is of a lonely stranger, standing at the edge of the water, gazing across the sound at the distant winking green light on Daisy's pier. In the movie, however, the concept has been reversed, in a closeup of a wistful Daisy standing next to the green light on her own pier looking across the sound in the direction of Gatsby's mansion. The reversal of perspective completely misses Fitzgerald's point that Daisy is Gatsby's dream, not the other way around.

These are not the only differences. In the novel, for instance, through Nick's eyes, we witness a deterioration of the mansion, as Gatsby's created world of false elegance gradually disintegrates. As autumn approaches, the proper servants have been replaced by sinister subordinates with underworld connections. In the movie, however, there is no hint of the ugliness beneath the luxurious façade that Fitzgerald seems to suggest with the change of servants.

The disconnect between the novel and the movie is particularly noticeable in the party sequence: in Fitzgerald's narrative, Gatsby's extravagant fete has an impressionistic quality as partygoers and snatches of conversation flit in and out of Nick's consciousness; in the movie, however, the raucous flappers and their outrageous antics are thrust not only in Nick's face but also that of the viewer. Moreover, because of the literal orientation of the director, Gatsby's extravagant festivities have about the same impact as Tom and Myrtle's tawdry party. Furthermore, Fitzgerald's subtle use of Gatsby's name and his delayed introduction of the title character, which whets the reader's interest, is mishandled in the movie with clumsy flashbacks of various characters repeating the name, "Gatsby" . . . "Gatsby" . . . "Gatsby!"

While one might laud the use by the filmmakers of Fitzgerald's prose in a voiceover, the writers have taken inexcusable liberties with it. For instance, Fitzgerald's "Owl eyes," an inebriated guest who marvels at the fact that Gatsby has real books in his library, in the film utters words to the effect of "Oh yes, I look just like Dr. T.J. Eckleberg on the sign in the Valley of Ashes; everybody says so!" Although Fitzgerald may have used "Owl Eyes" as part of his recurrent imagery of viewing (including the disembodied billboard eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleberg), he never expresses the idea explicitly. Fitzgerald leaves it to the reader to make the analogy between Eckleberg's eyes staring down at the Valley of Ashes and "Owl Eyes" scrutinizing Gatsby's coffin--"Owl Eyes" being the only other mourner besides Nick and Gatsby's long-forgotten father at the funeral.

But back to Toby Stephens. He has charm to die for (Consider his portrayal of Kim Philby in "Cambridge Spies;" or Duke Orsino in "Twelfth Night."); but somehow, and I believe that the fault can be laid at the door of the director, in this role he lacks that air of elusiveness that makes everyone in the novel speculate about Gatsby's origins; Stephens is certainly likable in the role, but he somehow seems too 'small'--not in height but in stature--for Gatsby, a man who has invented himself so expertly that he keeps everyone guessing as to whether he has been a German spy; an Oxford scholar; a war hero, or a con man. In Stephens' otherwise excellent portrayal, unfortunately, no guesswork is necessary. March 21, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...