Dude. When you mentioned the quote "her voice is full of money" I got so excited, because I was also pissed that didn't make the movie!! I thought I was the only one! Anyways, this is a truly thoughtful piece of movie/literary criticism. I really enjoyed this!
To be honest, I really wish the film adaptions would look more into Nick's loneliness and why the "I'm 30." in hit hard. Back in those times, it was expected for couples to marry and have kids young. And with Nick being a WWI vet, he must've already felt so lost and out of place like any other vet (just look at "All Quiet On The Western Front"). Mixed that was him having troubled romances from that girl back at West, the secretary with her over-protective brother and Jordan, then you see Nick's struggle in solitude. That's probably why he clung on to Daisy, and why he didn't socked Tom when introducing him to his mistress or why he didn't knock any sense into Gatsby after Myrtle's death. Especially the latter as Nick saw a brother in Gatsby due to being in The War. Nick's loneliness made him desperate. For goodness's sake, there was even a chapter of Nick wanting to follow some girl home at one point.
Yes! I remember Nick's narration of his thoughts when he would find his way to Midtown Manhattan and his description of the silhouettes of people in the taxis and then their laughter. I think he expected the world to be fair and it just wasn't so he became judgmental. I always wanted Nick to say, "You do realize your wife was driving" when he ran into Tom in NYC after Gatsby's murder but he chose not to, knowing that it wouldn't make any difference anyway. People like Tom and Daisy used people like the Wilsons, Gatsby, and even Nick.
@@Thomas116-m2n Does make me wonder what would've happened had Tom found out the truth. Would he kill Daisy, file for divorce (and take Pammy), or would he and Daisy "Eh, our lovers are dead. We're even, honey."?
I think when Gatsby saw Daisy's daughter, Pamela, he was reminded of Tom.....that Tom exists and the child exists and that Daisy and Tom would always be tied due to that child, even if Daisy left Tom for Gatsby.
Or because in his mind Daisy was still the young débutante he knew from 5 years prior. He even imagined that once she leaves Tom, they will go back to her parents' house and they will marry there. As if the past few years never happened. The existence of Daisy's child, which he never even fully believed in until that moment, is a stark reminder that time did pass.
It's a bad adaptation, and yet still one of the best adaptations of this story on film... I don't know if this is more of a commentary on the book itself or on society as a whole. But it's something.
@@shelbyherring92 this comment is very interesting. This is my second time reading it, I finally understood it……… and (despite never seeing the movie) this is a very interesting take. I dont know if I agree, but the truth in this is undeniably
I was a junior in high school when this movie was released. I think for me, at 16/17, I saw both the book and the movie as romantic, mainly because of the time period. 11 years later, I can see the story of The Great Gatsby is not a romance, its an anti romance- despite all of the adultry and daisy- and gatsby's affair and the romantic gestures present, its basically all anti romance.
Imagine if every year they came out with a new artist's interpretation of the Mona Lisa. I think the only valid complaint against re-creating art is that the audience should be interested in the original more so than the adaptation. Sadly, most people today care more about the newer version and never care to explore the originals.
Hey, Gatsby is now in the public domain so anyone can adapt it. And I might as well mention two cases where the film version far exceeds the source material: The Zone of Interest is an OK book but 2023’s film outdoes it on every front. And, ahem, Adaptation (2002) highlights how being unfaithful to the text can actually improve it.
I'd say yes and no. I think the movie did a great job with depicting the excess of Gatsby's parties and the inclusion of symbolism along with the dream-like tone. The movie lacks a melancholic tone but replaced it with nostalgia (this latter theme appears in the book) I'd also say that the novel has a dark fairytale style see the Gothic elements. That story is Beauty and the beast. Just like Wuthering Heights, The Great Gatsby provides a rewriting of this fairytale and many iconic works of literature such as Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Rebecca, Pride and Prejudice, and The Phantom of the Opera did so. Therefore, this adaptation was good but out of all the other adaptations it's probably the best one. This movie's a basic introduction to the book. Interesting video though.
I find it funny that Baz Luhrman removed certain things from the novel in order not to make Daisy look bad. Daisy is not supposed to be sympathetic. She has her vulnerable moments, but by the end of story she shows her true colours. Daisy was based on a real-life woman whom Fitzgerald used to be in love with, but as he himself wrote, rich girls don't marry poor boys. After the book came out she met Fitzgerald again and asked him if she was the inspiration for any of the characters. To which he supposedly said "Couldn't you tell which bitch you were?". Daisy is only sympathetic when presented through Jay's pink tinted glasses or by Jordan Baker.
I wonder what you thought about the Redford version? Is there a video? The Redford version was the one I saw after we had to read the book in school. The only problem I will have when I eventually see this version is the fact that putting Jay-Z music into a film about the Roaring 20s might give me a headache--no matter how visionary. This is not like using Elton John for Moulin Rouge. This is literally putting Jay-Z in a time when we should be listening to jazz. Disclosure: I'm still upset about his desecration of "It's a hard knock life" as I am the world's weirdest theater kid. That would be like inviting Eminem (whom I like, by the way) to do the soundtrack for Of Mice & Men. Not saying it's not possible I'm just saying it would be weird. I do like the vivid images I've seen so far of the Jazz Age but, they seem a little bit more like what the 21st century thinks the Jazz Age was rather than a critique of the Jazz Age culture.
I feel like the Redford version does a better job depicting the actual literal sequence of events of the book. But it lacks a lot of flair and personality, both stylistically and in performances. Because of this, I actually prefer the Dicaprio version just purely because of entertainment value - even though I find a lot of its decision blasphemous. Both films are quite bloated, but the Dicaprio one is bloated in an "overly ambitious auteur" way, while the Redford one is bloated in a boring costume drama way. They're still the best we got though, because the 1949 one and the straight-to-TV 2000 one are worse.
The Great Gatspy Should have been a GREAT TV show! And make it stay true to the source material! By Copying and Pasting everything from the Source Material and do it justice with care and passion and patience!!!
I am so confused how Gatsby is evil??? Gatsby is the only likable character in the whole book? Everyone else is evil, except for mb the mechanic. The whole book is about elitism and Gatspy’s inability to change the past and where he come from,
This is my perspective (which is what I love about literature, it's up for interpretation), but I believe that it shows that not everything is black and white, Gatsby is not purely innocent, but also not entirely horrible. His relectance to move on from Daisy, which I felt most of his attraction was due to her wealth, showed somewhat of a moral lesson? To me it showed that you should not change for someone or something else other than who you want yourself to be. So I don't see Gatbsy as evil, more so flawed. Again, just my interpretation from someone who hasn't read the book in months, but I would love to hear yours as well, the more the merrier!
@@Theabrishmalik I pretty much agree with what you said yes. Not evils was a very strong word, no one is blameless, Gatsby was overly obsessed. But I feel like the fact both men who die are the one most “moral.” again for lack of a better word. (But I don’t t remember Gatsby wanting Daisy for her money, he got money for her to impress her I thought?)
@@aarbear83fierce if he wanted her for money is still up to interpretation, but what I (and my English class) thought of was the line “her voice is full of money” as more so he never loved Daisy, he loved what she represented (money and the American dream)
Still hoping there will be an adaptation with the infamous McKee/Elevator scene. The movie hinted at McKee being queer, but I doubt we’d be ready for that interpretation of Nick.
This seems to have that typical hollywood problem of selling the coolness of a character too much for the audience to truly give up on a villian. Tyler Durden, Bateman, etc. Yes I am calling Gatsby a villian here, that's my interpretation.
Love the book and the Movie. 🍿 Even if it doesn’t meet the criteria you established at the beginning of the video. Fitzgerald and Lurman are genuinely genuine
It's a wink from diddy. Think about it. DIDDY PARTIES. Gatzby=diddy. Gatsby parties. Leo Dicaprio real life friend of diddy. Jay z does music. Wild sex parties, cover ups, fashion, elegance, history of violence, rock star persona, gangster car rides. This film is diddy. If you view it backwards. It's hiding in plain sight. Daisy and husband could represent Jay z and Beyonce. Dude gets framed and question by cops. Like incidents from diddy life. THE GREAT DIDDY.
I just read the book for the first time a month ago after seeing every adaptation that's been made and I can safely say the story is told so much better on screen by different artists, Baz being by far the best. The book was just kind of bland and outdated to think the book is better than this movie.
I think this video is useless You are saying from the perspective of a book reader I don’t like reading books that much so who cares if the movie is different from the book
Dude. When you mentioned the quote "her voice is full of money" I got so excited, because I was also pissed that didn't make the movie!! I thought I was the only one! Anyways, this is a truly thoughtful piece of movie/literary criticism. I really enjoyed this!
To be honest, I really wish the film adaptions would look more into Nick's loneliness and why the "I'm 30." in hit hard. Back in those times, it was expected for couples to marry and have kids young. And with Nick being a WWI vet, he must've already felt so lost and out of place like any other vet (just look at "All Quiet On The Western Front"). Mixed that was him having troubled romances from that girl back at West, the secretary with her over-protective brother and Jordan, then you see Nick's struggle in solitude. That's probably why he clung on to Daisy, and why he didn't socked Tom when introducing him to his mistress or why he didn't knock any sense into Gatsby after Myrtle's death. Especially the latter as Nick saw a brother in Gatsby due to being in The War. Nick's loneliness made him desperate. For goodness's sake, there was even a chapter of Nick wanting to follow some girl home at one point.
Yes! I remember Nick's narration of his thoughts when he would find his way to Midtown Manhattan and his description of the silhouettes of people in the taxis and then their laughter. I think he expected the world to be fair and it just wasn't so he became judgmental. I always wanted Nick to say, "You do realize your wife was driving" when he ran into Tom in NYC after Gatsby's murder but he chose not to, knowing that it wouldn't make any difference anyway. People like Tom and Daisy used people like the Wilsons, Gatsby, and even Nick.
@@Thomas116-m2n Does make me wonder what would've happened had Tom found out the truth. Would he kill Daisy, file for divorce (and take Pammy), or would he and Daisy "Eh, our lovers are dead. We're even, honey."?
This can be explained by the fact that Nick is in fact a homosexual
Here for my English assignment! Thank you for this 🤍
This is was such a lovely commentary. I throughly enjoyed this, and hope to see more.
I think when Gatsby saw Daisy's daughter, Pamela, he was reminded of Tom.....that Tom exists and the child exists and that Daisy and Tom would always be tied due to that child, even if Daisy left Tom for Gatsby.
Or because in his mind Daisy was still the young débutante he knew from 5 years prior. He even imagined that once she leaves Tom, they will go back to her parents' house and they will marry there. As if the past few years never happened. The existence of Daisy's child, which he never even fully believed in until that moment, is a stark reminder that time did pass.
thanks for helping me with my homework
It's a bad adaptation, and yet still one of the best adaptations of this story on film... I don't know if this is more of a commentary on the book itself or on society as a whole.
But it's something.
@@shelbyherring92 this comment is very interesting. This is my second time reading it, I finally understood it……… and (despite never seeing the movie) this is a very interesting take. I dont know if I agree, but the truth in this is undeniably
I was a junior in high school when this movie was released. I think for me, at 16/17, I saw both the book and the movie as romantic, mainly because of the time period. 11 years later, I can see the story of The Great Gatsby is not a romance, its an anti romance- despite all of the adultry and daisy- and gatsby's affair and the romantic gestures present, its basically all anti romance.
Imagine if every year they came out with a new artist's interpretation of the Mona Lisa. I think the only valid complaint against re-creating art is that the audience should be interested in the original more so than the adaptation. Sadly, most people today care more about the newer version and never care to explore the originals.
Hey, Gatsby is now in the public domain so anyone can adapt it. And I might as well mention two cases where the film version far exceeds the source material: The Zone of Interest is an OK book but 2023’s film outdoes it on every front. And, ahem, Adaptation (2002) highlights how being unfaithful to the text can actually improve it.
Now i want to know your opinion on the new musicals about Great Gatsby.
I'd say yes and no. I think the movie did a great job with depicting the excess of Gatsby's parties and the inclusion of symbolism along with the dream-like tone. The movie lacks a melancholic tone but replaced it with nostalgia (this latter theme appears in the book) I'd also say that the novel has a dark fairytale style see the Gothic elements. That story is Beauty and the beast. Just like Wuthering Heights, The Great Gatsby provides a rewriting of this fairytale and many iconic works of literature such as Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Rebecca, Pride and Prejudice, and The Phantom of the Opera did so. Therefore, this adaptation was good but out of all the other adaptations it's probably the best one. This movie's a basic introduction to the book. Interesting video though.
I find it funny that Baz Luhrman removed certain things from the novel in order not to make Daisy look bad. Daisy is not supposed to be sympathetic. She has her vulnerable moments, but by the end of story she shows her true colours. Daisy was based on a real-life woman whom Fitzgerald used to be in love with, but as he himself wrote, rich girls don't marry poor boys. After the book came out she met Fitzgerald again and asked him if she was the inspiration for any of the characters. To which he supposedly said "Couldn't you tell which bitch you were?". Daisy is only sympathetic when presented through Jay's pink tinted glasses or by Jordan Baker.
I wonder what you thought about the Redford version? Is there a video? The Redford version was the one I saw after we had to read the book in school. The only problem I will have when I eventually see this version is the fact that putting Jay-Z music into a film about the Roaring 20s might give me a headache--no matter how visionary. This is not like using Elton John for Moulin Rouge. This is literally putting Jay-Z in a time when we should be listening to jazz. Disclosure: I'm still upset about his desecration of "It's a hard knock life" as I am the world's weirdest theater kid. That would be like inviting Eminem (whom I like, by the way) to do the soundtrack for Of Mice & Men. Not saying it's not possible I'm just saying it would be weird. I do like the vivid images I've seen so far of the Jazz Age but, they seem a little bit more like what the 21st century thinks the Jazz Age was rather than a critique of the Jazz Age culture.
I feel like the Redford version does a better job depicting the actual literal sequence of events of the book. But it lacks a lot of flair and personality, both stylistically and in performances. Because of this, I actually prefer the Dicaprio version just purely because of entertainment value - even though I find a lot of its decision blasphemous. Both films are quite bloated, but the Dicaprio one is bloated in an "overly ambitious auteur" way, while the Redford one is bloated in a boring costume drama way. They're still the best we got though, because the 1949 one and the straight-to-TV 2000 one are worse.
Great channel btw - also I think Toby was the weakness of the film , as he was basically the key presence in the film
The Great Gatspy Should have been a GREAT TV show! And make it stay true to the source material! By Copying and Pasting everything from the Source Material and do it justice with care and passion and patience!!!
I am so confused how Gatsby is evil??? Gatsby is the only likable character in the whole book? Everyone else is evil, except for mb the mechanic. The whole book is about elitism and Gatspy’s inability to change the past and where he come from,
This is my perspective (which is what I love about literature, it's up for interpretation), but I believe that it shows that not everything is black and white, Gatsby is not purely innocent, but also not entirely horrible. His relectance to move on from Daisy, which I felt most of his attraction was due to her wealth, showed somewhat of a moral lesson? To me it showed that you should not change for someone or something else other than who you want yourself to be. So I don't see Gatbsy as evil, more so flawed. Again, just my interpretation from someone who hasn't read the book in months, but I would love to hear yours as well, the more the merrier!
@@Theabrishmalik I pretty much agree with what you said yes. Not evils was a very strong word, no one is blameless, Gatsby was overly obsessed. But I feel like the fact both men who die are the one most “moral.” again for lack of a better word. (But I don’t t remember Gatsby wanting Daisy for her money, he got money for her to impress her I thought?)
@@aarbear83fierce if he wanted her for money is still up to interpretation, but what I (and my English class) thought of was the line “her voice is full of money” as more so he never loved Daisy, he loved what she represented (money and the American dream)
Still hoping there will be an adaptation with the infamous McKee/Elevator scene. The movie hinted at McKee being queer, but I doubt we’d be ready for that interpretation of Nick.
This seems to have that typical hollywood problem of selling the coolness of a character too much for the audience to truly give up on a villian. Tyler Durden, Bateman, etc. Yes I am calling Gatsby a villian here, that's my interpretation.
Love the book and the Movie. 🍿 Even if it doesn’t meet the criteria you established at the beginning of the video. Fitzgerald and Lurman are genuinely genuine
The 1970s version with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow was much better and much more faithful to the novel.
I think I slept through half of the great Gatsby movie during 11th grade English class.
It's a wink from diddy.
Think about it. DIDDY PARTIES.
Gatzby=diddy. Gatsby parties.
Leo Dicaprio real life friend of diddy. Jay z does music.
Wild sex parties, cover ups, fashion, elegance, history of violence, rock star persona, gangster car rides.
This film is diddy. If you view it backwards. It's hiding in plain sight.
Daisy and husband could represent Jay z and Beyonce.
Dude gets framed and question by cops. Like incidents from diddy life.
THE GREAT DIDDY.
Plus. Main character becomes traumatized after encounter with Gatsby.
Like diddy victims
You turning multiple chapters in a book to a hour maybe 2 into motion picture lol some people read some people want visuals
Thank you for this analysis! It made me appreciate the novel more. I couldn‘t really enjoy reading it because of the antisemitism in it.
I just read the book for the first time a month ago after seeing every adaptation that's been made and I can safely say the story is told so much better on screen by different artists, Baz being by far the best. The book was just kind of bland and outdated to think the book is better than this movie.
honestly better than the book, the book was not that good
I think this video is useless
You are saying from the perspective of a book reader I don’t like reading books that much so who cares if the movie is different from the book
the video is about how its a bad adaptation...from the book. Its obvious that you dont like reading much, or reading at all.
It’s for people with taste, which it appears you don’t have