To be re-edited to showcase Sam Waterston. I swear he was the living embodiment of Nick.
I'm sure they could edit out a few more minutes of Mia's tittering and Redford looking slack jawed while substituting more scenes with Sam. It would be worth it.
They can leave Bruce Dern's scenes alone. He was quite good. Ditto for Karen Black and Scott Wilson. I could take or leave Lois Chiles.
[deleted]
I'm on the fence about Redford in this version. He seems too self-possessed not someone who is trying to impress. The whole deal behind the Oxford comments is that, by looks, it is totally unbelievable that Gatsby actually attended that university.
When Redford states he attended, I believe him, which shouldn't be the case.
Wilson was at least memorable. The actor in the new version was forgettable even though he was closer to type.
Remember too that Wilson has quite a resume; for instance he was the other half of the duo with Robert Blake in In Cold Blood. I haven't read The Great Gatsby yet so perhaps you have a depth of understanding of the character. But I liked Wilson maybe especially because he was a journeyman actor who maybe was content with just working.
share[deleted]
IMO Redford is fine, Watergate scandal notwithstanding. However there is just zero chemistry between he and Mia Farrow, quite possibly because besides being terrible in the role. She also IMO, looks incredibly unattractive, in a role where you have to feel that Gatsby is being drawn to someone with strong appeal, despite possessing a shallow nature.π
shareBut isn't that part of the story? She might fit in that regard: Gatsby is mesmerized by her pedigree ... her wealth, everything that comes with who she is.
I do think though that Mia was supposed to have had a fragile beauty which her angular features and near translucence evoked. What made her horrible for me was her voice, the sort of impossible-to-fall-in-love-with persona. Which might have spoken even more to the dynamic. Here is Gatsby in love with someone against all reason, chiefly because of how she makes him look?
Whereas I would agree in a film such as Rosemary's Baby Mia displayed a "fragile beauty", in this film it just appeared to be hidden behind garish eye make-up and the like. I just found it amusing that Gatsby would be pining for such a person. Carey Mulligan was far more believable in the 2013 version, whilst still staying true to Fitzgerald's Daisy.π
shareCarey Mulligan looked NOTHING like a WASP Daisy. She looked like Daisy's Irish maid playing dress up.
At least Farrow looks Waspy.
She looked like Daisy's Irish maid playing dress up.Did you detect a faint trace of Catholicism or aroma of potatoes surrounding her person Sherlock? Go and lie down. You've clearly lost the plot.π share
No. YOU lost the plot.
This story about a certain time, place and culture. The miscast with Mulligan (IRISH) ruins the whole story because it is about fitting in with a culture that was anything but inclusive. It was a culture that Gatsby dearly wanted to be a part.
And yes, she has a doughy face. Something that American WASPS do not have. I know, I grew up with this crowd.
Mulligan is not Irish (which you just seem so hung up about), so rest easy. She is English with some Irish heritage on her father's side. In fact she has more Welsh than Irish in her background. She is a huge improvement on the insipid Farrow and does a fine WASP. Go girl!π
shareNOPE. NEVER would she be recognized as an East Coast/Gold Coast WASP. WASP means no Irish, Welsh, Italian or any other background at all.
In fact NY WASPS are only considered old blood if they have Dutch lineage.
Mulligoon was a travesty with her one note simper and her plain, potato face.
LOL! Farrow has more Irish heritage than Mulligan anyway genius, being born to Irish and Australian parents. Fixated on racial stereotypes as you are, you just can't seem to find a "WASP" actress to save yourself.π
shareFarrow doesn't look like the Pillsbury Dough girl. She can pass as a member of the upper class of the time. Mulligoon can't.
They can cast Mulligoon as whatever they want in Britain. But the new version of the Great Gatsby was completely ruined by Mulligoon. No one wanted to see a Non-American Daisy. Also no one wanted to see a Great Gatsby made by a non American. Luhrmann was over his head and it shows.
She can pass as a member of the upper class of the time.So now you are conceding an actress with an Irish heritage can pass as a WASP.
WASP means no Irish, Welsh, Italian or any other background at all. In fact NY WASPS are only considered old blood if they have Dutch lineage.
No one wanted to see a Non-American Daisy. Also no one wanted to see a Great Gatsby made by a non American.Worldwide takings for The Great Gatsby 2013 = $351 million. Throw a couple of Oscars into the mix. More evidence demonstrating your credibility is sadly lacking, to say the least.π share
So now you are conceding an actress with an Irish heritage can pass as a WASP.
Worldwide takings for The Great Gatsby 2013 = $351 million. Throw a couple of Oscars into the mix.
LOOKS. I was talking about APPEARANCE.Rubbish! With your constant racial slurs and whiney immature name-calling you've made it crystal clear to all and sundry, that in your prejudiced opinion, no one with an Irish heritage could/should play a WASP, in your ignorance not realising Farrow herself, had an Irish mother.
The miscast with Mulligan (IRISH)
WASP means no Irish, Welsh, Italian or any other background at all.
Absolute crap makes money all the time. It doesn't make it a good film.Again you lose, while desperately obfuscating. The issue at point was not whether the film was good or bad. You made another bone-headed blunder in claiming that no one wanted to see a film, which actually was an international commercial hit, whether you liked it being directed by an Australian or not.
I agree, Spookyrat, I'm rewatching this version on Netflix, and while I'm tolerating Farrow better this time around, she still annoys me. I still prefer the DiCaprio version, it made me want to read the book. This version needed both a different Daisy, and editing - BADLY!
ξAVADA KEDAVRA!!!ξ
With your constant racial slurs and whiney immature name-calling you've made it crystal clear to all and sundry, that in your prejudiced opinion, no one with an Irish heritage could/should play a WASP, in your ignorance not realising Farrow herself, had an Irish mother.
You made another bone-headed blunder in claiming that no one wanted to see a film, which actually was an international commercial hit, whether you liked it being directed by an Australian or not.
Look who's turned up again like a bad penny after 8 months to cop another serve ... the masochistic kaiskait, who immediately indulges in self - contradictions.
Cold hard facts are not prejudice.
Again I don't care what the actress is in life,Just laughable! And what's more continues with ...
Who cares if it was a hit in Australia. Australia doesn't have the numbers that a hit in the US would be. It was flop here and that was all that mattered.Australia doesn't have the market size to create a $351 million hit by itself. You really have no idea, do you kaskait and just don't want to face up to those cold hard facts you babble on about.? It was an international hit, whether you like it or not and didn't flop in your personal centre of the universe.
If this film was a hit we would be hearing a lot more from all people involved (beside DiCaprio).This is your definition of a hit movie? LOL! Just priceless! Seriously, you'd be out of your depth in a parking lot puddle.π share
Just laughable!
Australia doesn't have the market size to create a $351 million hit by itself.
This is your definition of a hit movie? LOL! Just priceless!
What the studios really want is a hit IN UNITED STATES DOLLARS They want to break even in the currency paid to actually make the film. I'm sure you aren't slow enough to realize that the dollar is worth MORE than the Australian dollar.You really are a nit wit aren't you. The film made US$351 million, as I have said all along not Aust$, not yuan or anything else you care to dream up. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=greatgatsby2012.htm
Why didn't Tobey McGuire experience a career upswing?
Again Elizabeth Debicki should have been a big up and coming face due to that "hit".Again as previously questioned this is your bizarre definition of what makes a hit movie ... whether the support stars have hit the A - list or not??? It's just obfuscating nonsense, clearly ignoring factors such as studio decisions, individual actor script choices, agents' and media influence among a host of other variables. Your mind isn't so much twisted as badly sprained. Lie down and give the poor thing a rest. It obviously needs it.π share
Again as previously questioned this is your bizarre definition of what makes a hit movie ... whether the support stars have hit the A - list or not???
And the proof that it was a failure was that it did not launch any careers or revive them.ξξξπ share
Better cinematography? I don't know why a lot of this is shot like it's a TV Movie. Douglas Slocombe proved himself to be very good behind the camera. So, I don't know if it's the director who wanted it shot this way, but it isn't shot well.
share