Skip to comments.'The Great Gatsby' Book to Movie: 5 Key Differences
Posted on 05/12/2013 10:50:03 AM PDT by EveningStar
If you haven't already, you're going to hear a whole bunch of gripes about "The Great Gatsby" movie out this weekend. And the biggest of them all will likely have something to do with how faithful it was to the classic F. Scott Fitzgerald novel.
Needless to say, there are some significant changes. But there are significant changes in "Iron Man" when put up against the comic books -- sometimes change is necessary, and even good. Then again, sometimes they're not.
(Excerpt) Read more at movies.yahoo.com ...
#7: It’s a popular entertainment vehicle product.
I decided that the movie was going to be worthless trash when I heard bits from the musical score - rap and hip hop music instead of twenties and thirties style jazz.
Same thing that ruined Django.
That’s how Baz L directs, same old shtick. On a plus side, I;ve never liked Dicrapio movies. Just like Freeman, Tom Cruise etc, they look the same in every movie. At least Daniel day Lewis changes his looks in every film he does.
That’s from the trailer. Trailers frequently have their own music. I have no idea if it’s also in the movie.
How do you know if the movie is drivel if you haven’t seen it.
I noticed that it’s getting mixed reviews.
There is a reason the 20’s and 30’s were called “The Jazz Age” and to use 21st century music in a period piece is anachronistic.
It’s a postmodernist it’s comment about the pop cultural swirl.
It's a good movie, and I'd be inclined to see it again. Yes, there are a few things, primarily the soundtrack, that keep it from being a great movie. Apart from that, it's well acted and visually stunning. It's far more engaging than the 1974 Redford attempt. I'm no fan of DiCaprio's politics and he's had some stinkers for movies. He's also had some very strong performances and this is one of them.
Joel Edgerton gives a very strong performance as Tom Buchanan. The "Nick in a Sanitarium" gimmick certainly sounds contrived when you read about it in a review, but it works pretty well on screen, and by employing a series of flashbacks it doubles down on the whole Gatsby/Daisy theme of idealizing the past and dealing with the present.
FWIW, I've long held that, as much as I thought the '74 film was an overall bomb, one of the best casting choices in all of filmdom was the selection of Sam Waterston to play Carraway. Prior to seeing the new film, I thought McGuire was really going to have the toughest role in this film, and while I still think Waterston's Carraway was better, McGuire did well enough with a tough role; I could be wrong, but it appeared to me as he spent a good bit of time studying Waterston's performance.
Just my $0.02.
I probably will see it on video sooner or later without expecting much, and probably I'll like it more than Moulin Rouge. I don't think I could like it less.
I didn't mind the earlier version. It sort of defined the novel for me (and for other people too, though I guess we aren't supposed to admit it). It might be interesting to see a new take on the story
But does Meyer Wolfsheim still fix the 1919 World Series?
Good. He was always a pivotal character for me, a lens that focuses the nihilism of the Twenties. If a noble institution like the World Series could be bought and sold, then all values and morality had become unmoored.
Although in this movie he has a molar for a tie-tack instead of cuff links (one more difference the purists will be sure to harp upon).
So they decided to keep some of the anti-semitism in without making it so obvious.
While there are some small but significant liberties taken, IMHO, they actually serve to better relate the larger themes and emphasize the more obvious symbols and back story.
As mentioned above, the device of Carraway writing from an institution sounds very contrived in speaking or writing about it, yet on screen - it worked. Similarly, the flashbacks to Gatsby's childhood, Dan Cody and his days as a junior officer were brief but very effectively contributed to the overall telling of the story.
I noticed that its getting mixed reviews.
Didn't care for the book, and have not liked a single movie I have seen DiCaprio in.
Absolutely hated Titanic and walked out halfway through the movie (can't recall the name) that he was "gay" in.
In addition he is an uberliberal.
Three strikes in my book.
Makes sense to me. And FWIW (without having seen it yet) DiCaprio strikes me as the best possible choice to play Gatsby from the current crop of actorsmaybe because of, rather than in spite of, all the reasons he is hated on FR. (I would have liked to see Allison Pill as Daisy after she did such a believable job as Zelda in Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris.)
I agree. DiCaprio was an excellent casting choice for JG.
Then you missed the best part, the part where he dies in the end.
While the majority of the leads were libs, “Midnight in Paris” was amazing. Loved Picasso and Latrec.
The only reason I saw that either of them was that I owed the wife a chick flick. She didn't tlike the "gay" one either.
In the movie, I heard the word "kike" used to refer to Jews, something I didn't see in the book.
The musical score was ridiculous. There was no rap or disco in 1922. And the few tunes from the 1920’s that were used were all post-1922.
Did you see the movie?
I thought that Hemingway in Midnight In Paris was spot on.Sexiest Hemingway ever!
I just saw the movie this afternoon. In its favor, the 3-D technology certainly added to its entertainment value, and although it was more than two hours long, it was never boring.
I thought the flashbacks to Gatsby’s childhood were an improvement on the book. And in the book, when Carraway asks Gatsby what part of the Midwest he is from, Gatsby answers “San Francisco.” The movie omitted this ridiculous answer.