Among the many casting errors in the 1974 production, the one which really made for difficult viewing was having "Weird Al" Yankovic play Tom Buchanan. He nails the oily repellence of the character pretty well but is physically repulsive where the character needs some attraction to work (and is described by Fitzgerald as athletically-built). What were the producers thinking?
I agree that Dern didn't look like Tom Buchanan. The book describes an all American Prep Jock type. And out of all the wealthy characters, Buchanan stands above them all in family history and money.
However I think Dern had all the correct mannerisms and attitude. Especially his desire to impress Nick. For whatever reason, he values Nick's opinion and friendship. Very much like Gatsby in fact. The contrast is nice and interesting.
[deleted]
James Caan built himself a career playing tough guys, I don't think he would have been believable as Tom. Since that is not how Tom comes across.
Christopher Reeve has way too nice a demeanor and was leading man material. I don't think his people would have allowed him to play a 1%'er who beats his wife on occasion.
Paul Newman would have been good. And he certainly would have pulled Redford out of the flabby performance he gave.
[deleted]
In the 1973 book about the making of this film, it is revealed that Dern actually has some sort of blueblood lineage. I guess he talked his way into the role, convincing the producers that they were getting the "real thing" by casting him. He DID have the mannerisms and attitude. However, he fell short in the looks department. I went to school with many guys like "Tom": jocks who were rich party boys. Most of them were guys you simply couldn't take your eyes off: perfect face, perfect body. But they acted like A$$h0les - and when you got to know most of them, some were real jerks. I know one who used to beat up his girlfriend (who also had money). Some turned into alcoholics as well.
"Don't call me 'honey', mac."
"Don't call me 'mac'... HONEY!"
He sure acted well in the roll, that's for sure.
Is it crazy to suggest Redford and Dern should have switched roles?
"Do you know what lies at the bottom of the mainstream? Mediocrity!"
Wow, now there's something I never thought of!
Both were miscast, that much is for sure.
Only Waterston shines in this flick imho.
As far as acting, none of them is up to Scott Wilson's level.
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
I thought Wilson`s performance, his grief stricken mannerisms, were rather too overcooked, overwrought.
As for the rest, Redford was probably the most impressive of the (very uneven) bunch. One of his best performances, albeit in a career that don`t have too much in the way of variety. Dern`s also good as he pretty much always seems to have been.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
[deleted]
Is it crazy to suggest Redford and Dern should have switched roles?
The entire film was miscast except for Scott Wilson as Wilson.
share