The Great Gatsby (2001)

Boy loses girl, boy wins her back, boy loses her again and is killed in his pool. F. Scott Fitzgerald's classic Jazz Age tragedy once again makes a somewhat rocky transition from page to screen in this A&E production starring Academy Award winner Mira Sorvino as the feckless Daisy. This version has Paul Rudd (the stepbrother who got the girl in Clueless) doing the honors as narrator Nick, who reintroduces his married cousin to his lavish-party-throwing neighbor Gatsby. Toby Stephens captures the heartbreaking single-mindedness of Gatsby, although not once does the phrase "old sport" seem to fall naturally from his lips. Director Robert Markowitz uses flashbacks of Daisy and Gatsby's prewar courtship in an attempt to explain their reckless relationship, but they do little more than slow the pace of an already leisurely 93 minutes. The costumes and sets are opulent, however, and Montreal substitutes nicely for Long Island. --Kimberly Heinrichs Amazon.com

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

Misses the Point

I had the pleasure recently of re-reading the book and then watching both film versions. This version is definitely not the one to watch if you want any sense of the greatness of F. Scott Fitzgerald's masterpiece. The other 1970's version was not perfect by any means. That film, led by Robert Redford, Sam Waterston, Bruce Dern, and Mia Farrow version essentially captured the subtext of F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel of the vapid lifestyle of the rich of the 1920's. Thanks to a superior script by Francis Ford Coppola and great acting by the entire cast, the meanning of Fitzgerald's novel become very clear without overstating the obvious. The 1970's film is a perfect companion to any discussion of the novel. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of this version. The only positive comment I can make is that it is mercifully almost 1 hour shorter than the original. The actors are miscast, the set design pedestrian, and the story re-written to produce a better than average movie of the week at best. The entire point of the novel is missed here. Too much time is spend concentrating an Mira Sorvino as a miscast too young Daisy and the other major roles are dull and not believable. What can you say about a film (SPOILER HERE) that has Gatbsy killed at the very beginning of the film instead of the end. What can you say about a film that has to add an explanation to the viewer that they are watching a film about the rich in 1920's New York. What can you say of a film that is too afraid to muss the makeup of it's too young cast and misses a major plot device in Fitzgerald's depiction of 1920's Great Neck, er, I mean East Egg - that it was a HOT summer before air conditioning and everyone was hot, tired and sweaty. Watch this for comparative purposes only. As a TV movie it is OK, as a depiction of 'The Great Gatsby', this film missed the whole point. March 8, 2008

Toby Stephens is HOT!

I have grown old, and I have loved Robert Redford in the role of Gatsby for years, but Toby Stephens (who is the actress Maggie Smith's son, by the way) is a close second in my opinion. Mira Sorvino may not have been the best choice for the part, but Paul Rudd puts forth an admirable performance. If you like Stephens in this role, check him out in Masterpiece Theater's Jane Eyre as Mr. Rochester. In both Jane Eyre and in this one, a person cannot remove their eyes from him. He dominates the screen. January 10, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...