I've always thought that a problem with film adaptations of Gatsby is that filmmakers want to BE Gatsby, to see themselves as glamorous and loved, to impresses every one with their great parties, so they all ignore the bits where Fitzgerald says "No, you really don't want to be Gatsby. It will end badly"
Yes, GATSBY is *Nick’s* story, as the events change him, not Gatsby. I’ve argued that Gatsby is never truly a major threat to Tom (Daisy was never going to leave him and his wealth), but *Nick* rejecting Tom and all he represents matters far more. In the book ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST, the narrator Chief Bromden is more than just a passive observer. Everything in the story builds to his actions in the ending. th-cam.com/video/QjsiqCD4Hf4/w-d-xo.html
I agree with your point. The other problem with most adaptations is that they make Daisy the heroine. She's a moron! Her indecision is what causes all the bad stuff in the novel. In film, we get Mia Farrow or Carey Mulligan playing the love interest. We're shown a Daisy (at least as far as I can tell) who definitely wants to be with Jay/Jimmy. Not in the book. The book is better.
A lot of them feel like they were filmed specifically for English literature classes, especially with the obvious symbolism and obsession with putting the big quotes on the screen.
Jesus, Steve, you really ought to have found a niche in narrating for audiobooks. I was aware of The Great Gatsby before, but now I actually want to read it thanks to your narration of that passage.
A while back I ran across the idea of The Great Gatsby being adapted by the Muppets in the same way they did A Christmas Carol and Treasure Island. I can't help but think it could work--the inherent ridiculousness of the Muppets would definitely counteract the urge to be overly-reverent of the book, at least.
That could be a lot of fun. It could be really fun Heckle and Jeckle were busts or somehow part of the decoration of Gatsby's house and occassionally got into arguements with the cast
@@EdDale44135should reverse the gender roles and make Miss Piggy Gatsby, because she's clearly the one to go after Kermit rather than the other way around
I am a reviewer and to be honest I find the tone of your negative reviews often rather vain, showing off how you can rip someone to shreds. Having said that, I also find your reviews often make lots of valid points, capturing quite a bit of nuance and insight. Thanks a thousand times for that. Too often "reviews" simply go over the plot and then give a totally parochial pov as if their personal reaction were the voice of god. Yours are nothing like that but genuine deep dives, explaining precisely what your opinions are and why you've reached that conclusion. Bravo. I feel watching/listening to your reviews open my own perceptions.
I like Luhrmann's attempt because I've always seen Gatsby as an archetype of the absurdly rich in the 1920s. The novel has always come across as an allegory for class war, and Gatsby is a complicated character because we pity him but at the same time disdain his lack of character growth.
@@obiwanpez Alan Ladd, who played Gatsby in that film version, is most famous for his staring role in the cowboy movie Shane, which ends with the wandering cowboy that Alan Ladd plays walking alone into the sunset as a young boy shouts the character's name into the wilderness.
I've heard it said that great literature doesn't make for great movies because great literature tends to be internal. Pot boilers make for great movies. Elmore Leonard, James Ellroy, Stephen King, etc. can yield more satisfying movies 'cause stuff actually happens outside of the characters' heads.
Oh no. Moulin Rouge is one of my favourite films, but that's mainly because I went into the cinema cold, without having seen a Baz Lurhman film before, and not really knowing what the story of the film was (back in the day, I saw two films a week in the cinema because tickets didn't cost a limb). The style just hit me in the face and I absolutely loved it, and Ewan McGregor was incandescent in his role. I'm not as hot on other Lurhman films, although Elvis has some amazing spots, but I think that has more to do with Austin Butler's performance than anything else. That said, I never really connected with the Lurhman Gatsby, and I did think most of the characters were insufferable, but I also thought that was the point (Babylon also had the same vibe about the 20s, although that was a much harder movie to watch). I have never read the book so I don't know if that was indeed the point, but I'll trust you when you say it wasn't. However I do think the insufferable rich people take is a valid interpretation, if not Fitzgerald's intention.
Steve's condemnation of the directing style of Baz Luhrmann is exactly why I like Baz's films Which makes this a fantastic review because regardless of me agreeing with reviewer it cuts exactly to what is or isn't in the film without giving the story away Well done Steve!
On this subject, two novels leap to my mind: Dune and The Manchurian Candidate. I get some kicks out of the 1984 movie of Dune, and I have endless respect for what Villeneuve is doing, but Dune may always be appreciated best as a book. It might work well as a miniseries -- although from what I've seen of how one miniseries treated the Guild navigators, that of course could also go very wrong. More of a revelation to me has been The Manchurian Candidate. I've loved the 1962 movie for a long time, so much that I finally bought the novel, and while the novel is good, I am startled by how the movie takes its raw materials and turns it into something remarkably fluid and moving. Some great books don't necessarily "need" a movie. But when a book can somehow inspire a movie which is very much its own vision and its own self, I can be happy.
For Dune, as adaptations, both the 1984 and recent films are really poor, even if they're enjoyable, more or less. They both have, for their time, high production values, good acting, and are fun to watch, but aren't exactly faithful to the book. The 1984 take is especially weird as well. The SciFi Channel miniseries, on the other hand, has the opposite problem, very faithful adaptation, but chronic low production values, and some rather wooden acting. The sequel mini-series, Children of Dune, which ably adapts Dune Messiah, but truncates Children of Dune, fares better in production values and much better in acting.
It's funny, I thought that the almost cartoonish tone of the 2013 version was done on purpose to highlight that distant image that we currently have of 1920 as a decade full of eccentricities and excesses and how well it ended.
Pretty sure Kermode made that point when he reviewed the Luhrmann version... That the story of Gatsby, in hindsight, kind of became this self-fulfilling prophecy/allegory of the Roaring Twenties in and of itself. Like, that's how Luhrmann interpreted it: everything in excess only to come crashing down when the party vibe sours, and we're left with a hangover the next morning. And it makes sense, even if it falls apart in some aspects, but it's easy to see how people can make that comparison. Also, and even though some people hate it, the melodrama of the 2013 version, to me anyways, drives home just how shallow and selfish these characters are in the story.
I've always loved the book, certainly not because of, but in spite of, the fascistic stuff (which Paul Verhoeven does point up, amplify, and parody absolutely brilliantly). Plus, the book features the powered armor, and I don't think I ever quite got over my disappointment at its absence from the movie. But that's just me.
Planet of the Apes, Legally Blonde, The Joy Luck Club I had a good list once. Usually, books are deemed better because they can go into hundreds of pages, and movies have to cut quite a bit for length. Then taste is subjective.
Haha, I recently talked about this with regard to _Helldivers 2_ (which very much takes its cues from Verhoeven)-the novel is incredible until you realize... Holy 🐮! Heinlein is being completely earnest! That said, I think the novel still has its place-in the curriculum of a military literature course, immediately preceding Joe Haldeman's _Forever War._
"Come back, Shane!" Some film geeks remember that line, yet most of us don't remember that after that somewhat immortal moment, it's ruined. As the final THE END shows on the screen, the kid cries out, "Good-bye, Shane!" He's not torn and wistful, he's already realized Shane can't come back.
I've never read the book or seen any of the adaptations myself, but that bit you read with Gatsby believing his dream must be so close yet not understanding it was already behind him in the past was wonderful.
I'd totally buy an audiobook version of Gatsby with Steve reading. Or any of a dozen other classics. He's got a good solid baritone timbre, perfect for audiobooks. Bravo!
When you're talking about not needing the words of Nick seeing the party, the camera sees the party... I suddenly thought, maybe there's a version that could be made... that leaves out Nick. Requires big changes... but I think it could be done.
Take nick out and it turns into a roaring 20s version of it’s a mad mad mad mad mad world. Could work if you wrote it as a black comedy. You know what, that sounds amazing, I’m sold.
@@politesse3914 I agree completely. I think that filmed versions of The Great Gatsby have all failed because they view the main element of the story as the tragic romance between Jay and Daisy, while the real tragic romance at the heart of the novel is Nick's unrequited romantic fascination with Jay. Corporate squeamishness about portraying queer yearning leads the book to be watered down into a roaring '20's party movie filled with lavish art deco visuals, and the movies all feel hallow as a result
As a fan of Gatsby for most of my life, I was SO happy to see this video come up today. I, for the most part, agree with you about the various adaptations as I have seen all of the same ones. I do hold onto my opinion that Gatsby 2013 is the best of the adaptations outside of the fact that the soundtrack feels out of place with the setting of the film. Excellent takes, Steve
May have to revisit. I recall hating the shallowness of the story and all of the characters in it. No one has any real problems, but insist on being self-interestedly insufferable anyway. However well written, and with whatever intent, I have great difficulty enjoying a story without a single character I would want to meet.
I don’t have time to be doing this today, but now I’m trying to imagine my version of the ideal Gatsby movie. Like how you mentioned you thought you remembered the Baz bits falling away after you’re first introduced to Gatsby. Slowly shedding the bombastic over-the-top everything as you start to see the slow, almost horrific melodrama creep in. Moving along with Nick going from “wow, glamorous rich people!” To realizing “oh god, this is actually horribly tragic”, with slower paced scenes, going from showiness to actual solid drama. Maybe not QUITE Baz-levels in those early bits, but something more like a light touch of that Wes Anderson almost-cartoonish-yet-deeply-unsettling style. Ditching the pure v/o “narrating as the PoV character is writing” to just showing Nick… talking to someone. Don’t just plop voiceover or text-over on top of fluff shots- use the framing to actually convey the mood. Have the prose you want to keep be there just because that’s how Nick himself IS- he just talks like a poetry major. Closing with Nick saying the iconic end lines, as though he’s still telling the story he started in the beginning, framing shots in a way that it looks like he’s still talking to another person. But the camera pans out in silence to show he’s completely alone. The audience gets left to just sit with it, quietly. By that ending scene, the shots look much less theatrical and much more “grounded”, “realistic.” Maybe let it be a bit less period piece, and a little more anachronism stew. You could even drag it up into the 80s or early 90s; any other era that feels like it’s a 5-minutes-before-disaster decadence. Maybe the thing that prompted Nick into trauma-dumping this story onto Someone is a neon green version of The Eye on a rainy night. Use more quiet shots, more whispering. Make the shouting moments actually unsettling. I dunno, I really like when the adaptations make a point of showing Nick just trying to live his life, and narcissist Gatsby barging his way in, and Nick just getting utterly traumatized by the whole fiasco-inside-a-fiasco. Maybe I just want The Great Gatsby in an almost film noir style. … I really don’t have time to be thinking about how to glue these pieces together, and now I just want to re-read Gatsby again. Thanks, Steve 😩
In my younger and more formative years, it was universally acknowledged that including the number "2000" in the title of something would instantly code it as "futuristic." I don't know if I've ever realized until now how completely incomprehensible that is to anyone born in this century.
Steve, would you say the eloquences that Fitzgerald reaches toward but can't quite reach are like a green light across a bay that represents an orgastic future that year by year recedes before us?
If there's no good film versions of a book, maybe the book is the problem. I personally loathe The Great Gatsby, I find the characters insufferable and the romance tedious, and if Luhrmann's film (which I haven't seen) couldn't make me care about them I feel that may not have been entirely his fault. I think you make a good point about the book's reputation versus the book itself, though, and I think its reputation is indeed perhaps a large of the problem here. Parenthetically, the 1926 Broadway version was recently rediscovered and the script will be published later this month. So if you can't see the 1926 film any more, you can at least read the thing it was based on.
Baz Luhrmann knocked it out of the park with his adaptation. I will die on this hill. The bling and excess was very much the point-we, like Nick, are meant to work and engage to hear the frail humanity whispering underneath the shouted artifice. Gatsby's neuroses being dialed up to eleven (the clock scene) I always read as an act-Jay trying desperately to show his "vulnerable" side to Daisy (and Nick!) even while he's really just imitating the unstable genius of a Howard Hughes or WR Hearst. The movie attempts to peel the onion while clouding the vision of his audience (and audience surrogates) as we get through each layer. Anyway, all that said, if you're looking to crowdfund _Gatsby 2000_ I'm in for 10%.
I thought it had excellent casting choices. The scene when driving in to New York was fantastic. I can imagine that driving into New York in the 1920s felt like that. The anachronisms didn't bother me.
I think I like the Baz version and for me it is the best adaptation of Gatsby, but I don’t think it’s a very good film and best adaptation is pretty faint praise
Steve, have you read Maureen Corrigan's So We Read On? It's a great study of why Gatsby endures. One of things Corrigan's book made me realize is that so many Gatsby movies focus on the hopeful romance between the characters and of the jazz age. In my opinion, films haven't explored the noir, inescapable hopelessness of the illusioned anti-hero. Going to be thinking about this for a while. Thanks for this video!
I dislike the adaptations because they ignore Nick's sexual attraction of Gatsby. It is why Daisy is such a one dimensional character. Nick sees Daisy as a competing sexual interest for Gatsby. At least Gatsby 74 has some sexual tension between Nick and Gatsby
I used to consider GATSBY unfilmable because the genius is more in the prose than the actual story. My opinion has changed recently, as I think most adaptations, including the new musical, make a couple fatal errors in translation: 1) they truly believe Daisy and Gatsby are Romeo and Juliet level starcrossed lovers and 2) they think Gatsby is the most important character. I would approach GATSBY as a story about Nick Carroway, who comes to New York to seek his fortune, is horrified by what he finds, and returns to the “simple” middle west. He has an actual arc, unlike Gatsby who is incapable of change. I’d even argue that Nick’s relationship with Jordan is more compelling than Gatsby and Daisy. Don’t give us needless flashbacks of the latter but actually adapt more of the former! The 2013 film ignores the Nick/Jordan relationship entirely. But Nick dumping Jordan is an important choice! Gatsby was never going to fit into the East Egg world but Nick could easily have done so. Without Gatsby, Nick probably would have remained friends with the Buchanans and perhaps married Jordan, who Daisy wants to set him up with from the start. Gatsby helps Nick realize that they are a “rotten crowd.”
Speaking as someone who has never read The Great Gatsby, certainly not at school (In the UK school system it does get some attention, but typically at more advanced levels which not everyone gets to. Shakespeare tends to get more attention overall, with the most common piece of American literature at lower levels being Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men), and therefore someone who hasn't developed that reverence to the novel, I do wonder what would happen if you gave Gatsby to a team of people who have that same kind of background, reading it for the first time in preparation for an adaptation. I feel you'd find yourself ridded of that reverence that you've mentioned hinders the more recent adaptations. It makes me wonder if there's any other works of fiction you could do the same thing with.
The only Baz Luhrmann film I've seen is his _Romeo + Juliet_ -- and I think that film is one of the best Shakespeare adaptations that's made it to the big screen, largely *because* of the 'sledgehammer-to-the-face' approach. I'd love to see your take on R+J someday.
Very interesting subject! 🌟 My favourite book, “A Confederacy of Dunces,” is also considered to be unfilmable. And so it remains in so-called “development hell.”
It's such an amazing book! Another favourite book of mine, "Good Omens" was long considered to be unfilmable, but Neil Gaiman made it happen because it was one of Terry Pratchett's last wishes. And it's really good! (The first series, anyway. Haven't dared to watch the 2nd, in case it's a disappointment.)
How dare you suggest that Paul Rudd was not yet a movie star in the year 2000, when he had already graced our screens with his powerhouse performance in the universally-beloved character-driven arthouse film, "Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers."
Like diplomacy, great filmmaking "is the art of the possible." They said forever they could never make a successful film adaptation of Lord of the Rings or Dune. It took passion and clear vision from filmmakers who truly cared enough to make it happen. That's why I love the medium of cinema and all its magic.
The latest Dune films certainly are successful, and judging them as films alone that success is justified, but they're really poor adaptations, leaving out some critical elements to world and character building and the mechanisms for Paul's victory. I also feel like the spirit of the book has been lost in translation. I'd argue Dune's best adaptation is the SciFi Channel miniseries, despite its low production values and stilted acting.
I hated _Moulin Rouge_ and threw my shoe at the screen when Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman began singing their love medley. (And I liked him singing in _Down With Love_ .) But I hated The Great Gatsby in high school and unto this very day. This money is respect for an opinion I disagree with. Well done.
When I was reading 'The Great Gatsby' back in High School, I've always said, If I was going to do a movie adaptation of the book, it would be done entirely and literally in Nick's POV. It would kinda be like found footage but less shaky or a third person shooter except with no guns. There would be no narration (Not counting the unseen Nick talking), and it would entirely be visual, letting the image on the sceen speak for itself.
Regarding Luhrmann, I love his Romeo and Juliet, the bombast, oversaturation, and overwroughtness of it all really fits it in my opinion (and his writer was doing him a lot of favors for that one. Strictly ballroom was ok, cannot stand Moulin Rouge, Australia, Gatsby, or Elvis though...
Yeah, his overwrought style really did work with one of the most overwrought cautionary tales about teenage infatuation of all time. It didn't hurt that it was a fairly surreal adaptation of a 16th c. play, set in the late 20th c, so there was a lot of room to mess around artistically there. I was okay with Strictly Ballroom, but as an ex-almost-pro dancer I have a bias for dance movies and I know it. He lost me at Moulin Rouge. Parts of that one were fun, but the lack of a consistent setting in time (or maybe the overuse of anachronism) messed with my head, and it overall broke one of my primary movie rules: don't cast actors who aren't also professionally trained singers as your leads in a musical! I know that it's an industry thing to cast the biggest names you can, but it still bugs me. As for the rest of that hot mess, I could rant for a month...
This is why Batman The Animated Series was so good. They took elements from the source material, but they weren't bound by it, and they would make changes that worked better in their type of media.
It is weird to me that they’ve had such a hard time making a movie of it, because The Great Gatsby is such a visual book. Maybe the key is to eliminate the character of Nick. He’s superfluous when we can see what’s happening. I would love to hear what you think of the movie Poor Things.
Agree with you about Luhrman. But when you say you can't think of another director who puts himself between the movie and the viewer, I immediately thought of Wes Anderson. Let's face it, Anderson has almost as big an issue with this as does Luhrman.
Chuckled at the Shane reference. Totally agree on Moulin Rouge. Did a marathon watch of all the Oscar nominees that year. That’s two hours I’ll never get back.
Such a good analysis on why this book has never quite worked on the big screen. I love the book as well, and have been disappointed by the various versions. I have an affection for the 2000 one, but it's not groundbreaking or anything, and it doesn't really add anything. I'm glad you singled out Bruce Dern in the '74 version, because his performance is so good that I can't picture Tom Buchanan any other way when I read the book now. Truly one of the best adaptations of a single literary character onto the screen, even if it's only in a so-so movie.
To your point that the Book Is Better Than The Movie, I would contest that The Best Book Movies are the ones that let themselves escape the limitation of Adaptation and treat the project as its own story that must be told from square one. Pace in point; How To Train Your Dragon is WILDLY different than the books they're based on. That didn't make the movie bad, the movie is damn great, but it *is a completely different beast from the books and the comparison isn't useful.* The books are full of gross out humor targeted at tween boys, the movie tells a story about coming into your own, disability, relationship building, and gave us Astrid so the cast wasn't a sausage fest from top to bottom while still getting the *feel* right. Its not about faithfulness or nailing That One Scene, its about Getting The Vibe right while telling a screen-friendly story.
You are definitely on to something. The Princess Bride is a very different movie than the book. It shares most of the plot points, but thematically they’re almost opposed. Both are pretty great, and I honestly think the differences make both versions better. I also think Field of Dreams would have been a slog had J.D Salinger not been so litigious. James Earl Jones made that movie.
@@sopranohannah The Princess Bride is my go to example of this, I *loved* the book, and I also love the movie - which is totally different from the book.
I think a problem with adapting The Great Gatsby is also a problem of adapting its style of writing. Every film adaptation except the Baz one wants to just make a straight movie out of Gatsby without really looking at how should we adapt the genre/writing style. Like many other lost generation novels this one is terse and yet overflowing with subtext. Every adaptation I’ve seen is just way too bloated with a screenplay that is longer than The Great Gatsby itself.
i never read the book...but i did see the movie with Robert Redford as Gatsby....i thought the movie was great but it's been more than 30 years since i saw it in English class
Even after reading the book, I still love Luhrmann's version. I've actually grew to appreciate his movies after rewatching them (Moulin Rouge went from a 5 to a 9).
Steve understand why movies are often not as good, and very definitely different - it is that they are very different mediums, and usually the book is much too long Look at the successful ones, either the book is a short story, or could easily have been a short story, or a really good writer who did the screenplay managed to leave out 90% of the book and still left a very good story in the movie - not always the original story ... Gatsby is filmable... it just needs a really good screenwriter
I liked the Luhrmann Gatsby all right. The performance that sticks out in my mind the most is Carey Mulligan’s Daisy, although I thought Leo did all right with the shiny side of Jay Gatsby. It made more sense to me than the 1974 Gatsby, which bewildered me, as it seemed to be about a completely different book.
A film adaptation having too much reverence for the source material is definitely an issue I sometimes have with many adaptations. They forget to be an actual film/story that can stand alone on its own merits.
Haven't seen the Luhrman version since it came out, but i do remember thinking that he did the valley of ashes and the eyes of Dr Eckleburg better than any other.
I was always under the impression that the original novel was also pretty heavy handed with the symbolism. Though, admittedly, it's been years since I read it, and I had a teacher pushing it on me.
"The Great Gatsby" is my favorite American novel. "The Count of Monte Cristo" will always be my favorite book, but "Gatsby" is a very close second. The 1974 Robert Redford movie is...OK. Baz Luhrmann's 2013 adaptation is something I enjoy, because I am a fan of Baz Luhrmann's movies and how they break reality while not breaking reality and talking to the audience. However, I honestly don't think they can ever film a movie in a way that does the book justice. It needs to be brief and evocative. You need to cast the leads well, and they need to UNDERSTAND the character. Nick, Gatsby, Daisy, and Tom are hard to do justice if you don't really get them. Tom is supposed to be a man who thinks he's intellectual, but is really simple--a true nepo baby, only not insufferable as so many are portrayed today. Nick likes him because he's affable, and humors him when he's around for his cousin. Daisy comes off as airheaded and sweet, but is really very intelligent, observant, deceptive and jealous, and that's not an easy thing to play well. Nick is a good man with good intentions; however, he's easily awestruck by the glamour all around Tom, Daisy, and Jay Gatsby. Now, I will say Redford plays Gatsby exactly how he should be played. He's at heart a decent man who has been in love with the girl he met in the past. He has held onto that image solipsistically in his mind, and all of his work since coming home from The Great War has been aimed at capturing her. He can't see that Daisy Buchanan is no longer that girl who stole his heart all those long years ago. And in the end that naivete is what gets him killed. His sacrifice saves Nick, making him cast off his blinders and see Tom and Daisy for the wretched people they really are. That's the entire point of the book. And none of the movies have ever really done well getting that point across. Everyone goes and is like Nick at the beginning - struck to awe by the excess of the Jazz Age. Very few come out of the movie changed the way Nick is at the end.
This is all very interesting! Kinda reminds me of Shirley Jackson’s Hill House, enthralling book but ever adaptation never really fully gets a lot of what the book is saying, except for maybe the Netflix series, which grasps the themes but changes the story wildly
I think the reason these movies aren't hitting is because they're not cutting through the American myths that enough stuff and enough status can get us something real worth feeling and living for. We find all the excess cool and worth working for. It's hard for us to see the inner workings of Gatsby - that he thought his parties would bring him back his Daisy. And how it finally broke Nick to see that nothing could. That Nick was struggling with money made him our everyman, and shines a mirror to our "vain imaginings".
I should probably try again to actually read the book. My first try a few years ago failed. Only seen the 2013 movie (mostly because I'm a fan of the actors for the 3 main characters). Didn't think too much of it. It's always interesting for me to get more insight into things I overlook or only know superficially, but have at least some interest in (being "into movies" in this case). So thanks for your detailed thoughts on the matter.
eh, in all honesty i don't think the great gatsby is all that great, certainly nowhere near my top 10 novels of the 20th century. I'm sure a competent director could more or less do it justice. There are plenty of other books that are much more reliant on the medium itself that i think would be a lot more difficult to translate (something like ulysses or gravitys rainbow)
A quick point: Stephen King thought The Shining was a bad adaptation, not a bad movie. And those of us who've read the book and watched the movie would generally agree. Kubrick made the story his own, which made it a good movie... but that also made it not a good adaptation.
Actually, my favorite version of Gatsby was the Great Books episode which I wish was out on DVD or streaming. Wasn't there another adaptation called G?
As a counterpoint that supports one of your points is the screen adaptation of Ready Player One. The movie is faithful to the basic theme of the book, but it tells a very different story. And for good reasons; the story of the book is well suited to its medium and likewise, the story of the movie is well suited to *its* medium. The movie is also written for a different generation than the book. The book is very much written for an audience of 80's gamer geeks. The movie is for 90s or 00s video gamer geeks. And they both work. If I hadn't already read the book I probably would have *loved* the movie and my only "criticism" of the movie is that I liked the book better. It's a good movie and a good adaptation, largely because it didn't try to recreate the book on screen.
I am a big fan of Baz Luhrmann, and I will happily say that he is a TERRIBLE choice to direct The Great Gatsby. I also get why he wouldn't be appealing to some. He's completely over the top and ridiculous. But he is very good at capturing how magical something can feel. For example, Strictly Ballroom doesn't just have great dancing. It conveys how magical and powerful and vulnerable dance makes you feel. As someone who has been dancing for years, used to teach and do exhibition performances, his film perfectly captures how dance feels. Everyone I know who does ballroom dancing says there is no film that truly gets it like Strictly Ballroom.
I believe the book almost always feels better because reading is a collaborative art between author and audience. For example everyone knows what Poe’s House of Usher looks like even though he only tells you there’s a crack in the foundation of it while throwing in a bit of Roderick’s study. He knew we would build our own house from that. So even if the film version is noticeably better than what each of us imagined, it isn’t OUR House of Usher. Also, short stories leave a lot more to flesh out while novels usually have too much to include. And we all know how possessive fans can get over canon. You have to take each version on its own terms. Best example: The Princess Bride which I loved past words and so only went to because the screenplay was by the book’s author (William Goldman). Of course I noticed some changes, but could see why even as they passed (the zoo of death worked largely because of narration). Plus it wasn’t until afterwards I realized they left out a side bit on Princess Norma which was superfluous to the plot. Funny, but unnecessary even if it would not make the film drag (which is a big if.) I expect Gatsby is short enough for someone to do it justice in film some day. My problem with it is there’s no truly likable character to root for. At least there wasn’t when I had to read it for 11th grade English. Everyone seemed like a self absorbed pile of nothing. Nor could I grasp the glamour they were supposed to have. They were either the celebrities of their day without any notable talent for being old money, a successful bootlegger and/or the low class gold digger seen through the eyes of a young, if not green country boy. Or at least, this is how I remember them coming across some 56 years ago. I’ll have to give it another try.
While I enjoyed Strictly Ballroom, everything else by Baz is a pile of crap. And at the pinnacle of Mt Crap is Moulin Rouge. I have yet to get through the entire film because it is just that AWFUL.
I've always thought that a problem with film adaptations of Gatsby is that filmmakers want to BE Gatsby, to see themselves as glamorous and loved, to impresses every one with their great parties, so they all ignore the bits where Fitzgerald says "No, you really don't want to be Gatsby. It will end badly"
I think you're 100% on the money here!
Of course they do.
They're film directors.
That's bullshit.
You sound like somebody who wishes they were a filmmaker.
Yes, GATSBY is *Nick’s* story, as the events change him, not Gatsby. I’ve argued that Gatsby is never truly a major threat to Tom (Daisy was never going to leave him and his wealth), but *Nick* rejecting Tom and all he represents matters far more. In the book ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST, the narrator Chief Bromden is more than just a passive observer. Everything in the story builds to his actions in the ending. th-cam.com/video/QjsiqCD4Hf4/w-d-xo.html
I agree with your point. The other problem with most adaptations is that they make Daisy the heroine. She's a moron! Her indecision is what causes all the bad stuff in the novel. In film, we get Mia Farrow or Carey Mulligan playing the love interest. We're shown a Daisy (at least as far as I can tell) who definitely wants to be with Jay/Jimmy. Not in the book. The book is better.
The more you bring up the sci-fi version that hasn't happened, the more I want to see it actually
Since it's public domain now, I'm imploring you Steve to write "Gatsby 2000". Hell, make it a patreon goal!
A lot of them feel like they were filmed specifically for English literature classes, especially with the obvious symbolism and obsession with putting the big quotes on the screen.
Jesus, Steve, you really ought to have found a niche in narrating for audiobooks. I was aware of The Great Gatsby before, but now I actually want to read it thanks to your narration of that passage.
A while back I ran across the idea of The Great Gatsby being adapted by the Muppets in the same way they did A Christmas Carol and Treasure Island. I can't help but think it could work--the inherent ridiculousness of the Muppets would definitely counteract the urge to be overly-reverent of the book, at least.
Oh my! Kermit as Gatsby, Piggy as Daisy, Gonzo as Nick - it works so well. Can we make this? How do we pitch it to Disney?
That could be a lot of fun. It could be really fun Heckle and Jeckle were busts or somehow part of the decoration of Gatsby's house and occassionally got into arguements with the cast
This is pure genius. I can't think of anything that _isn't_ better with Muppets!
No, y’all are forgetting that you need a human star so either Nick or Gatsby has to be played by John Mulaney or someone.
@@EdDale44135should reverse the gender roles and make Miss Piggy Gatsby, because she's clearly the one to go after Kermit rather than the other way around
I am a reviewer and to be honest I find the tone of your negative reviews often rather vain, showing off how you can rip someone to shreds.
Having said that, I also find your reviews often make lots of valid points, capturing quite a bit of nuance and insight. Thanks a thousand times for that. Too often "reviews" simply go over the plot and then give a totally parochial pov as if their personal reaction were the voice of god. Yours are nothing like that but genuine deep dives, explaining precisely what your opinions are and why you've reached that conclusion. Bravo. I feel watching/listening to your reviews open my own perceptions.
I like Luhrmann's attempt because I've always seen Gatsby as an archetype of the absurdly rich in the 1920s. The novel has always come across as an allegory for class war, and Gatsby is a complicated character because we pity him but at the same time disdain his lack of character growth.
I'm that cracking up nerd. Thanks for that shout out.
Sorry to say I don’t know the reference off-hand.
What is the movie or what is the actual name, if you only want to hint?
@@obiwanpez Alan Ladd, who played Gatsby in that film version, is most famous for his staring role in the cowboy movie Shane, which ends with the wandering cowboy that Alan Ladd plays walking alone into the sunset as a young boy shouts the character's name into the wilderness.
Steve don’t underestimate your audience. Even if a lot of us haven’t seen “Shane” we know the reference.
Yep, and it's Alan Ladd both instances.
Doesn't mean we all found it funny though... (I kid cause I love)
I'd actually love to see a sci-fi adaptation of The Great Gatsby fr fr
He had me with the red light of Mars. I had my checkbook out when he suggested updating the passage to refer to the Sea of Tranquility.
@@GSBarlev Exactly the same, the "red light of Mars" and the Sea of Tranquility bits cemented this as a perfect idea.
F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Martian Chronicles”
@@OmniGeno "A Flapper Girl of Mars"
See that green light, across the asteroid belt?
I loved how you got the lip-sync absolutely right, saying the lines at the same moment as Sam Waterston and Robert Redford!
I've heard it said that great literature doesn't make for great movies because great literature tends to be internal. Pot boilers make for great movies. Elmore Leonard, James Ellroy, Stephen King, etc. can yield more satisfying movies 'cause stuff actually happens outside of the characters' heads.
Oh no. Moulin Rouge is one of my favourite films, but that's mainly because I went into the cinema cold, without having seen a Baz Lurhman film before, and not really knowing what the story of the film was (back in the day, I saw two films a week in the cinema because tickets didn't cost a limb). The style just hit me in the face and I absolutely loved it, and Ewan McGregor was incandescent in his role. I'm not as hot on other Lurhman films, although Elvis has some amazing spots, but I think that has more to do with Austin Butler's performance than anything else.
That said, I never really connected with the Lurhman Gatsby, and I did think most of the characters were insufferable, but I also thought that was the point (Babylon also had the same vibe about the 20s, although that was a much harder movie to watch). I have never read the book so I don't know if that was indeed the point, but I'll trust you when you say it wasn't. However I do think the insufferable rich people take is a valid interpretation, if not Fitzgerald's intention.
I love Moulin Rouge. Could take or leave most of the rest of his filmography. Strictly Ballroom is pretty great, though.
@@sopranohannah I think Strictly Ballroom has real heart, something his later films have lacked a bit.
@@sopranohannahYES! Moulin Rouge & Ballroom are his absolute best ❤
Steve's condemnation of the directing style of Baz Luhrmann is exactly why I like Baz's films
Which makes this a fantastic review because regardless of me agreeing with reviewer it cuts exactly to what is or isn't in the film without giving the story away
Well done Steve!
One of my favorite essayist talking about one of my favorite books. What a treat for me this morning.
On this subject, two novels leap to my mind: Dune and The Manchurian Candidate. I get some kicks out of the 1984 movie of Dune, and I have endless respect for what Villeneuve is doing, but Dune may always be appreciated best as a book. It might work well as a miniseries -- although from what I've seen of how one miniseries treated the Guild navigators, that of course could also go very wrong. More of a revelation to me has been The Manchurian Candidate. I've loved the 1962 movie for a long time, so much that I finally bought the novel, and while the novel is good, I am startled by how the movie takes its raw materials and turns it into something remarkably fluid and moving. Some great books don't necessarily "need" a movie. But when a book can somehow inspire a movie which is very much its own vision and its own self, I can be happy.
For Dune, as adaptations, both the 1984 and recent films are really poor, even if they're enjoyable, more or less. They both have, for their time, high production values, good acting, and are fun to watch, but aren't exactly faithful to the book. The 1984 take is especially weird as well.
The SciFi Channel miniseries, on the other hand, has the opposite problem, very faithful adaptation, but chronic low production values, and some rather wooden acting. The sequel mini-series, Children of Dune, which ably adapts Dune Messiah, but truncates Children of Dune, fares better in production values and much better in acting.
It's funny, I thought that the almost cartoonish tone of the 2013 version was done on purpose to highlight that distant image that we currently have of 1920 as a decade full of eccentricities and excesses and how well it ended.
Pretty sure Kermode made that point when he reviewed the Luhrmann version... That the story of Gatsby, in hindsight, kind of became this self-fulfilling prophecy/allegory of the Roaring Twenties in and of itself. Like, that's how Luhrmann interpreted it: everything in excess only to come crashing down when the party vibe sours, and we're left with a hangover the next morning.
And it makes sense, even if it falls apart in some aspects, but it's easy to see how people can make that comparison.
Also, and even though some people hate it, the melodrama of the 2013 version, to me anyways, drives home just how shallow and selfish these characters are in the story.
I love Steve's reviews.
"The book is always better than the movie."
Two words to disprove that statement:
Starship troopers 🎤
I've always loved the book, certainly not because of, but in spite of, the fascistic stuff (which Paul Verhoeven does point up, amplify, and parody absolutely brilliantly). Plus, the book features the powered armor, and I don't think I ever quite got over my disappointment at its absence from the movie. But that's just me.
Planet of the Apes, Legally Blonde, The Joy Luck Club I had a good list once. Usually, books are deemed better because they can go into hundreds of pages, and movies have to cut quite a bit for length. Then taste is subjective.
Oh god yeah that's right, the book has so many libertarian rants in it, it's a wonder it doesn't have the same reputation as like atlas shrugged
Haha, I recently talked about this with regard to _Helldivers 2_ (which very much takes its cues from Verhoeven)-the novel is incredible until you realize... Holy 🐮! Heinlein is being completely earnest!
That said, I think the novel still has its place-in the curriculum of a military literature course, immediately preceding Joe Haldeman's _Forever War._
Starship Troopers ... when the director didn't read the book, it's not based on the book
I adore the costuming in the Redford one, those Ralph Lauren fits are so fun.
We need an unglamorous French adaptation.
"Come back, Shane!" Some film geeks remember that line, yet most of us don't remember that after that somewhat immortal moment, it's ruined. As the final THE END shows on the screen, the kid cries out, "Good-bye, Shane!" He's not torn and wistful, he's already realized Shane can't come back.
I've never read the book or seen any of the adaptations myself, but that bit you read with Gatsby believing his dream must be so close yet not understanding it was already behind him in the past was wonderful.
I'd totally buy an audiobook version of Gatsby with Steve reading. Or any of a dozen other classics. He's got a good solid baritone timbre, perfect for audiobooks.
Bravo!
41:00 fair point according to how Paul Thomas Anderson makes his "There will be blood" and "Phantom Thread"
When you're talking about not needing the words of Nick seeing the party, the camera sees the party... I suddenly thought, maybe there's a version that could be made... that leaves out Nick. Requires big changes... but I think it could be done.
But without Nick there's no homoerotic tension, and without homoerotic tension, what's the point of the book?
I love that idea.
Give us Myrtle's take on the story.
It’s Nick’s story though.
Take nick out and it turns into a roaring 20s version of it’s a mad mad mad mad mad world. Could work if you wrote it as a black comedy.
You know what, that sounds amazing, I’m sold.
@@politesse3914 I agree completely. I think that filmed versions of The Great Gatsby have all failed because they view the main element of the story as the tragic romance between Jay and Daisy, while the real tragic romance at the heart of the novel is Nick's unrequited romantic fascination with Jay. Corporate squeamishness about portraying queer yearning leads the book to be watered down into a roaring '20's party movie filled with lavish art deco visuals, and the movies all feel hallow as a result
As a fan of Gatsby for most of my life, I was SO happy to see this video come up today. I, for the most part, agree with you about the various adaptations as I have seen all of the same ones. I do hold onto my opinion that Gatsby 2013 is the best of the adaptations outside of the fact that the soundtrack feels out of place with the setting of the film. Excellent takes, Steve
May have to revisit. I recall hating the shallowness of the story and all of the characters in it. No one has any real problems, but insist on being self-interestedly insufferable anyway.
However well written, and with whatever intent, I have great difficulty enjoying a story without a single character I would want to meet.
Everyone knows the one solution to getting a good Gatsby movie: Muppets
It’s not often I see a video essay that I haven’t seen before in some form or another, this is one of those times. Thanks Steve!
I don’t have time to be doing this today, but now I’m trying to imagine my version of the ideal Gatsby movie.
Like how you mentioned you thought you remembered the Baz bits falling away after you’re first introduced to Gatsby. Slowly shedding the bombastic over-the-top everything as you start to see the slow, almost horrific melodrama creep in. Moving along with Nick going from “wow, glamorous rich people!” To realizing “oh god, this is actually horribly tragic”, with slower paced scenes, going from showiness to actual solid drama. Maybe not QUITE Baz-levels in those early bits, but something more like a light touch of that Wes Anderson almost-cartoonish-yet-deeply-unsettling style.
Ditching the pure v/o “narrating as the PoV character is writing” to just showing Nick… talking to someone. Don’t just plop voiceover or text-over on top of fluff shots- use the framing to actually convey the mood. Have the prose you want to keep be there just because that’s how Nick himself IS- he just talks like a poetry major. Closing with Nick saying the iconic end lines, as though he’s still telling the story he started in the beginning, framing shots in a way that it looks like he’s still talking to another person. But the camera pans out in silence to show he’s completely alone. The audience gets left to just sit with it, quietly. By that ending scene, the shots look much less theatrical and much more “grounded”, “realistic.”
Maybe let it be a bit less period piece, and a little more anachronism stew. You could even drag it up into the 80s or early 90s; any other era that feels like it’s a 5-minutes-before-disaster decadence. Maybe the thing that prompted Nick into trauma-dumping this story onto Someone is a neon green version of The Eye on a rainy night.
Use more quiet shots, more whispering. Make the shouting moments actually unsettling.
I dunno, I really like when the adaptations make a point of showing Nick just trying to live his life, and narcissist Gatsby barging his way in, and Nick just getting utterly traumatized by the whole fiasco-inside-a-fiasco. Maybe I just want The Great Gatsby in an almost film noir style.
… I really don’t have time to be thinking about how to glue these pieces together, and now I just want to re-read Gatsby again. Thanks, Steve 😩
We were subjected to the 1974 film in high school. Our very young teacher meant well, but it went right over everyone's heads.
In my younger and more formative years, it was universally acknowledged that including the number "2000" in the title of something would instantly code it as "futuristic."
I don't know if I've ever realized until now how completely incomprehensible that is to anyone born in this century.
Cue Late Night with Conan O’Brien and his “The Year 2000” segments.
Steve, would you say the eloquences that Fitzgerald reaches toward but can't quite reach are like a green light across a bay that represents an orgastic future that year by year recedes before us?
If there's no good film versions of a book, maybe the book is the problem. I personally loathe The Great Gatsby, I find the characters insufferable and the romance tedious, and if Luhrmann's film (which I haven't seen) couldn't make me care about them I feel that may not have been entirely his fault. I think you make a good point about the book's reputation versus the book itself, though, and I think its reputation is indeed perhaps a large of the problem here.
Parenthetically, the 1926 Broadway version was recently rediscovered and the script will be published later this month. So if you can't see the 1926 film any more, you can at least read the thing it was based on.
It's amusing how everyone praising this trash book is American. And that probably says something about American literature.
I really do appreciate how you always tie your work to the themes of your critical subjects. The holism adds real substance to your takes.
43 mins of pure steve? hell YES
Baz Luhrmann knocked it out of the park with his adaptation. I will die on this hill.
The bling and excess was very much the point-we, like Nick, are meant to work and engage to hear the frail humanity whispering underneath the shouted artifice.
Gatsby's neuroses being dialed up to eleven (the clock scene) I always read as an act-Jay trying desperately to show his "vulnerable" side to Daisy (and Nick!) even while he's really just imitating the unstable genius of a Howard Hughes or WR Hearst. The movie attempts to peel the onion while clouding the vision of his audience (and audience surrogates) as we get through each layer.
Anyway, all that said, if you're looking to crowdfund _Gatsby 2000_ I'm in for 10%.
Baz Luhrmann's films are beautiful. And I hate subtlety in films honestly. Could not disagree with Steve more on this video.
Luhrmann is far and away the closest we've gotten to a good Gatsby movie.
I also think that Luhrman's frantic hyperkinetic style captured the April of the 1920s very well.
I thought it had excellent casting choices. The scene when driving in to New York was fantastic. I can imagine that driving into New York in the 1920s felt like that. The anachronisms didn't bother me.
I think I like the Baz version and for me it is the best adaptation of Gatsby, but I don’t think it’s a very good film and best adaptation is pretty faint praise
You should review the two different Great Gatsby musicals that are currently out.
Steve, have you read Maureen Corrigan's So We Read On? It's a great study of why Gatsby endures. One of things Corrigan's book made me realize is that so many Gatsby movies focus on the hopeful romance between the characters and of the jazz age. In my opinion, films haven't explored the noir, inescapable hopelessness of the illusioned anti-hero.
Going to be thinking about this for a while. Thanks for this video!
I dislike the adaptations because they ignore Nick's sexual attraction of Gatsby. It is why Daisy is such a one dimensional character. Nick sees Daisy as a competing sexual interest for Gatsby.
At least Gatsby 74 has some sexual tension between Nick and Gatsby
Thanks!
And thank you!
Concept: A movie. The Great Great Gatsby. It's a movie about someone trying to adapt The Great Gatsby to film.
I can’t really disagree with your assessments of Baz Luhrmann (and also I haven’t seen his Gatsby), but it’s also why I love Moulin Rouge.
I used to consider GATSBY unfilmable because the genius is more in the prose than the actual story. My opinion has changed recently, as I think most adaptations, including the new musical, make a couple fatal errors in translation: 1) they truly believe Daisy and Gatsby are Romeo and Juliet level starcrossed lovers and 2) they think Gatsby is the most important character.
I would approach GATSBY as a story about Nick Carroway, who comes to New York to seek his fortune, is horrified by what he finds, and returns to the “simple” middle west. He has an actual arc, unlike Gatsby who is incapable of change.
I’d even argue that Nick’s relationship with Jordan is more compelling than Gatsby and Daisy. Don’t give us needless flashbacks of the latter but actually adapt more of the former! The 2013 film ignores the Nick/Jordan relationship entirely. But Nick dumping Jordan is an important choice! Gatsby was never going to fit into the East Egg world but Nick could easily have done so. Without Gatsby, Nick probably would have remained friends with the Buchanans and perhaps married Jordan, who Daisy wants to set him up with from the start. Gatsby helps Nick realize that they are a “rotten crowd.”
Speaking as someone who has never read The Great Gatsby, certainly not at school (In the UK school system it does get some attention, but typically at more advanced levels which not everyone gets to. Shakespeare tends to get more attention overall, with the most common piece of American literature at lower levels being Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men), and therefore someone who hasn't developed that reverence to the novel, I do wonder what would happen if you gave Gatsby to a team of people who have that same kind of background, reading it for the first time in preparation for an adaptation. I feel you'd find yourself ridded of that reverence that you've mentioned hinders the more recent adaptations. It makes me wonder if there's any other works of fiction you could do the same thing with.
The only Baz Luhrmann film I've seen is his _Romeo + Juliet_ -- and I think that film is one of the best Shakespeare adaptations that's made it to the big screen, largely *because* of the 'sledgehammer-to-the-face' approach. I'd love to see your take on R+J someday.
Very interesting subject! 🌟
My favourite book, “A Confederacy of Dunces,” is also considered to be unfilmable. And so it remains in so-called “development hell.”
It's such an amazing book!
Another favourite book of mine, "Good Omens" was long considered to be unfilmable, but Neil Gaiman made it happen because it was one of Terry Pratchett's last wishes. And it's really good! (The first series, anyway. Haven't dared to watch the 2nd, in case it's a disappointment.)
How dare you suggest that Paul Rudd was not yet a movie star in the year 2000, when he had already graced our screens with his powerhouse performance in the universally-beloved character-driven arthouse film, "Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers."
Like diplomacy, great filmmaking "is the art of the possible." They said forever they could never make a successful film adaptation of Lord of the Rings or Dune. It took passion and clear vision from filmmakers who truly cared enough to make it happen. That's why I love the medium of cinema and all its magic.
The latest Dune films certainly are successful, and judging them as films alone that success is justified, but they're really poor adaptations, leaving out some critical elements to world and character building and the mechanisms for Paul's victory. I also feel like the spirit of the book has been lost in translation.
I'd argue Dune's best adaptation is the SciFi Channel miniseries, despite its low production values and stilted acting.
I hated _Moulin Rouge_ and threw my shoe at the screen when Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman began singing their love medley. (And I liked him singing in _Down With Love_ .) But I hated The Great Gatsby in high school and unto this very day. This money is respect for an opinion I disagree with. Well done.
Gratefully received! Thank you.
this was a great video to put on while I worked on my Gatsby screenplay! good stuff
When I was reading 'The Great Gatsby' back in High School, I've always said, If I was going to do a movie adaptation of the book, it would be done entirely and literally in Nick's POV. It would kinda be like found footage but less shaky or a third person shooter except with no guns. There would be no narration (Not counting the unseen Nick talking), and it would entirely be visual, letting the image on the sceen speak for itself.
I think that Steve misheard, and that he were actually told, "The Great Gatsby (like most books) is inflammable."
Regarding Luhrmann, I love his Romeo and Juliet, the bombast, oversaturation, and overwroughtness of it all really fits it in my opinion (and his writer was doing him a lot of favors for that one. Strictly ballroom was ok, cannot stand Moulin Rouge, Australia, Gatsby, or Elvis though...
Yeah, his overwrought style really did work with one of the most overwrought cautionary tales about teenage infatuation of all time. It didn't hurt that it was a fairly surreal adaptation of a 16th c. play, set in the late 20th c, so there was a lot of room to mess around artistically there. I was okay with Strictly Ballroom, but as an ex-almost-pro dancer I have a bias for dance movies and I know it. He lost me at Moulin Rouge. Parts of that one were fun, but the lack of a consistent setting in time (or maybe the overuse of anachronism) messed with my head, and it overall broke one of my primary movie rules: don't cast actors who aren't also professionally trained singers as your leads in a musical! I know that it's an industry thing to cast the biggest names you can, but it still bugs me. As for the rest of that hot mess, I could rant for a month...
This is why Batman The Animated Series was so good. They took elements from the source material, but they weren't bound by it, and they would make changes that worked better in their type of media.
It is weird to me that they’ve had such a hard time making a movie of it, because The Great Gatsby is such a visual book.
Maybe the key is to eliminate the character of Nick. He’s superfluous when we can see what’s happening.
I would love to hear what you think of the movie Poor Things.
Agree with you about Luhrman. But when you say you can't think of another director who puts himself between the movie and the viewer, I immediately thought of Wes Anderson. Let's face it, Anderson has almost as big an issue with this as does Luhrman.
Chuckled at the Shane reference. Totally agree on Moulin Rouge. Did a marathon watch of all the Oscar nominees that year. That’s two hours I’ll never get back.
thinking of adaptation, i have a ticket to see the great gatsby on broadway, and im looking forward to seeing how theyve adapted it
Such a good analysis on why this book has never quite worked on the big screen. I love the book as well, and have been disappointed by the various versions. I have an affection for the 2000 one, but it's not groundbreaking or anything, and it doesn't really add anything. I'm glad you singled out Bruce Dern in the '74 version, because his performance is so good that I can't picture Tom Buchanan any other way when I read the book now. Truly one of the best adaptations of a single literary character onto the screen, even if it's only in a so-so movie.
To your point that the Book Is Better Than The Movie, I would contest that The Best Book Movies are the ones that let themselves escape the limitation of Adaptation and treat the project as its own story that must be told from square one. Pace in point; How To Train Your Dragon is WILDLY different than the books they're based on. That didn't make the movie bad, the movie is damn great, but it *is a completely different beast from the books and the comparison isn't useful.* The books are full of gross out humor targeted at tween boys, the movie tells a story about coming into your own, disability, relationship building, and gave us Astrid so the cast wasn't a sausage fest from top to bottom while still getting the *feel* right.
Its not about faithfulness or nailing That One Scene, its about Getting The Vibe right while telling a screen-friendly story.
You are definitely on to something. The Princess Bride is a very different movie than the book. It shares most of the plot points, but thematically they’re almost opposed. Both are pretty great, and I honestly think the differences make both versions better.
I also think Field of Dreams would have been a slog had J.D Salinger not been so litigious. James Earl Jones made that movie.
@@sopranohannah The Princess Bride is my go to example of this, I *loved* the book, and I also love the movie - which is totally different from the book.
I think a problem with adapting The Great Gatsby is also a problem of adapting its style of writing. Every film adaptation except the Baz one wants to just make a straight movie out of Gatsby without really looking at how should we adapt the genre/writing style.
Like many other lost generation novels this one is terse and yet overflowing with subtext.
Every adaptation I’ve seen is just way too bloated with a screenplay that is longer than The Great Gatsby itself.
i never read the book...but i did see the movie with Robert Redford as Gatsby....i thought the movie was great but it's been more than 30 years since i saw it in English class
Great stuff! 😎
8:15 heh, Shane
Damn. I thought that I was the one film nerd to whom Steve was referring.
Even after reading the book, I still love Luhrmann's version. I've actually grew to appreciate his movies after rewatching them (Moulin Rouge went from a 5 to a 9).
Steve understand why movies are often not as good, and very definitely different - it is that they are very different mediums, and usually the book is much too long
Look at the successful ones, either the book is a short story, or could easily have been a short story, or a really good writer who did the screenplay managed to leave out 90% of the book and still left a very good story in the movie - not always the original story ... Gatsby is filmable... it just needs a really good screenwriter
I liked the Luhrmann Gatsby all right. The performance that sticks out in my mind the most is Carey Mulligan’s Daisy, although I thought Leo did all right with the shiny side of Jay Gatsby. It made more sense to me than the 1974 Gatsby, which bewildered me, as it seemed to be about a completely different book.
Ah you missed your chance to end the video on the "Of course you can." line, and then the lights go out. Eh? Eh?
In the future please refrain from pitching better endings to my videos than the ones I come up with.
@@SteveShives I call them as I see them, Old Sport.
26:43 The Weeping Angels continued to stalk Carrie Mulligan until at least 2013 apparently.
It is of a post great war period that cannot be replicated by contemporary actors. Same goes for "Easy rider".
A film adaptation having too much reverence for the source material is definitely an issue I sometimes have with many adaptations. They forget to be an actual film/story that can stand alone on its own merits.
Haven't seen the Luhrman version since it came out, but i do remember thinking that he did the valley of ashes and the eyes of Dr Eckleburg better than any other.
I was always under the impression that the original novel was also pretty heavy handed with the symbolism. Though, admittedly, it's been years since I read it, and I had a teacher pushing it on me.
"The Great Gatsby" is my favorite American novel. "The Count of Monte Cristo" will always be my favorite book, but "Gatsby" is a very close second. The 1974 Robert Redford movie is...OK. Baz Luhrmann's 2013 adaptation is something I enjoy, because I am a fan of Baz Luhrmann's movies and how they break reality while not breaking reality and talking to the audience.
However, I honestly don't think they can ever film a movie in a way that does the book justice. It needs to be brief and evocative. You need to cast the leads well, and they need to UNDERSTAND the character. Nick, Gatsby, Daisy, and Tom are hard to do justice if you don't really get them. Tom is supposed to be a man who thinks he's intellectual, but is really simple--a true nepo baby, only not insufferable as so many are portrayed today. Nick likes him because he's affable, and humors him when he's around for his cousin. Daisy comes off as airheaded and sweet, but is really very intelligent, observant, deceptive and jealous, and that's not an easy thing to play well. Nick is a good man with good intentions; however, he's easily awestruck by the glamour all around Tom, Daisy, and Jay Gatsby. Now, I will say Redford plays Gatsby exactly how he should be played. He's at heart a decent man who has been in love with the girl he met in the past. He has held onto that image solipsistically in his mind, and all of his work since coming home from The Great War has been aimed at capturing her. He can't see that Daisy Buchanan is no longer that girl who stole his heart all those long years ago. And in the end that naivete is what gets him killed. His sacrifice saves Nick, making him cast off his blinders and see Tom and Daisy for the wretched people they really are.
That's the entire point of the book. And none of the movies have ever really done well getting that point across. Everyone goes and is like Nick at the beginning - struck to awe by the excess of the Jazz Age. Very few come out of the movie changed the way Nick is at the end.
You know you've messed up pretty badly when the best thing about your film is the performance of Leonardo DiCaprio...
Ok, I snickered a little at the Shane joke
Loved the Allan Ladd /Shane reference.
Loved the Shane reference!
This is all very interesting! Kinda reminds me of Shirley Jackson’s Hill House, enthralling book but ever adaptation never really fully gets a lot of what the book is saying, except for maybe the Netflix series, which grasps the themes but changes the story wildly
I think the reason these movies aren't hitting is because they're not cutting through the American myths that enough stuff and enough status can get us something real worth feeling and living for. We find all the excess cool and worth working for. It's hard for us to see the inner workings of Gatsby - that he thought his parties would bring him back his Daisy. And how it finally broke Nick to see that nothing could. That Nick was struggling with money made him our everyman, and shines a mirror to our "vain imaginings".
I should probably try again to actually read the book. My first try a few years ago failed.
Only seen the 2013 movie (mostly because I'm a fan of the actors for the 3 main characters).
Didn't think too much of it.
It's always interesting for me to get more insight into things I overlook or only know superficially, but have at least some interest in (being "into movies" in this case).
So thanks for your detailed thoughts on the matter.
I find it ironic that you detest the bombastic and overly stylish take of Baz Luhrman when the original text itself is so flowery and purple.
eh, in all honesty i don't think the great gatsby is all that great, certainly nowhere near my top 10 novels of the 20th century. I'm sure a competent director could more or less do it justice. There are plenty of other books that are much more reliant on the medium itself that i think would be a lot more difficult to translate (something like ulysses or gravitys rainbow)
Wait a minute... Gatsby is public domain now! Somebody, please, make Gatsby 2000!
A quick point: Stephen King thought The Shining was a bad adaptation, not a bad movie. And those of us who've read the book and watched the movie would generally agree. Kubrick made the story his own, which made it a good movie... but that also made it not a good adaptation.
It's indeed unfair to ask a movie to stand up to a book. Perhaps "Les Miserables"?
Actually, my favorite version of Gatsby was the Great Books episode which I wish was out on DVD or streaming.
Wasn't there another adaptation called G?
It's me. I am the one film nerd. It was less cracking up and more of a sensible chuckle, but i still liked the bit a great deal.
Moulin Rouge has a great first 90 seconds, the "dwarf" falls through the ceiling and then immediately the movie starts to suck.
As a counterpoint that supports one of your points is the screen adaptation of Ready Player One. The movie is faithful to the basic theme of the book, but it tells a very different story. And for good reasons; the story of the book is well suited to its medium and likewise, the story of the movie is well suited to *its* medium. The movie is also written for a different generation than the book. The book is very much written for an audience of 80's gamer geeks. The movie is for 90s or 00s video gamer geeks. And they both work. If I hadn't already read the book I probably would have *loved* the movie and my only "criticism" of the movie is that I liked the book better. It's a good movie and a good adaptation, largely because it didn't try to recreate the book on screen.
26:14 never trust an audience to understand subtext. If it is important that more than 50% of the audience understand it, it must be text
I have read this book five times and somehow missed the clock symbolism until you pointed it out… 😅
Patiently awaiting Mamet’s Gatsby.
I am a big fan of Baz Luhrmann, and I will happily say that he is a TERRIBLE choice to direct The Great Gatsby.
I also get why he wouldn't be appealing to some. He's completely over the top and ridiculous. But he is very good at capturing how magical something can feel. For example, Strictly Ballroom doesn't just have great dancing. It conveys how magical and powerful and vulnerable dance makes you feel. As someone who has been dancing for years, used to teach and do exhibition performances, his film perfectly captures how dance feels. Everyone I know who does ballroom dancing says there is no film that truly gets it like Strictly Ballroom.
I believe the book almost always feels better because reading is a collaborative art between author and audience. For example everyone knows what Poe’s House of Usher looks like even though he only tells you there’s a crack in the foundation of it while throwing in a bit of Roderick’s study. He knew we would build our own house from that. So even if the film version is noticeably better than what each of us imagined, it isn’t OUR House of Usher. Also, short stories leave a lot more to flesh out while novels usually have too much to include. And we all know how possessive fans can get over canon. You have to take each version on its own terms. Best example: The Princess Bride which I loved past words and so only went to because the screenplay was by the book’s author (William Goldman). Of course I noticed some changes, but could see why even as they passed (the zoo of death worked largely because of narration). Plus it wasn’t until afterwards I realized they left out a side bit on Princess Norma which was superfluous to the plot. Funny, but unnecessary even if it would not make the film drag (which is a big if.) I expect Gatsby is short enough for someone to do it justice in film some day. My problem with it is there’s no truly likable character to root for. At least there wasn’t when I had to read it for 11th grade English. Everyone seemed like a self absorbed pile of nothing. Nor could I grasp the glamour they were supposed to have. They were either the celebrities of their day without any notable talent for being old money, a successful bootlegger and/or the low class gold digger seen through the eyes of a young, if not green country boy. Or at least, this is how I remember them coming across some 56 years ago. I’ll have to give it another try.
The Great Gatsby takes on new meaning when read as a Star Trek prequel.
While I enjoyed Strictly Ballroom, everything else by Baz is a pile of crap. And at the pinnacle of Mt Crap is Moulin Rouge. I have yet to get through the entire film because it is just that AWFUL.
That said, Gatsby 2000 definitely needs to be made by Baz. Followed by Gatsby 3000, where giant RoboGatsby is defeated by MechBuchanan.