My god, Lois Chiles voice and acting was abot as expressive as a 1970s porno actress. Flat, colorless, wooden are adjectives that don't do the debacle of her performance justice. Why was she cast? I can imagine WHERE (the proverbial couch) but why???
-------------------------------------------------
"Why do people always laugh in the wrong places?"
--Arnold Rothstein
Totally disagree. Does everyone have to be over the top? I suppose you liked Farrow's annoying turn as Daisy.
shareI'm surprised--I thoguht she did an excellent job, especially considering how she took the role so early in her career. The laid back, blase attitude she projected suited the character well--it seemed to mask character-appropriate insecurity.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I thought she did a good job too, and think she would have been a better Daisy than Farrow. But I like Kim Novak.
However, there was a casting couch story and the wolf is the one who tells it! In "The Kid Stays in the Picture," Robert Evans (the studio head) complains that Lois Chiles (who he's "dating") complained to him that she didn't get the Daisy part, so he dumps her! He tells the story like she was using him! He doesn't get that even when he tells it, he sounds like a horrible lech! I think it is great she stood up to him when he told her she was going to be Jordan and Mia Farrow would be Daisy: "I'm sleeping with you and all I am getting is Jordan, which I already had." She apparently was already signed for Jordan, when he said "we now think you should be Daisy," and then asked her out to "dinner." I guess Evans is not all bad, he let her keep the Jordan part, but you better believe he knew what he was doing when he dangled Daisy in front of her and then asked her out. I hope she slapped him or, better yet, beaned him with a vase.
OMG, watching this, I just had the exact same thoughts. I mean she is bad! I was even thinking—I am not making this up—she sounds like Kay Parker or some other 70s porno actress.
shareI think it was the character that's the problem, but it's hard to make blase, vain, shallow, superficial people enjoyable and one shouldn't bother do do so, since it runs contrary to the plot.
shareIn the novel, Nick describes Jordan as a "hard, limited person" whose apparent self-sufficiency he finds very appealing. It's hard to convey any of these qualities onscreen. Lois Chiles looks the part, but I never see any of that gentle cynicism and muted sophistication that makes Nick fall for her.
And in the big party scene where Daisy finally comes to Gatsby's, I can't hear a word of her dialogue. I've tried many times, but the sound is mixed so poorly in that scene you can't hear her at all. If you could you might get a better handle on her character -- if you're not already aware of it from having read the book. Otherwise I guess Jordan is stating the obvious -- her bemusement at the rich, dropping names and bon mots...
she's good. not a bad golf swing.
His name...was Julio Iglesias!
As CanSteve ^ said, her acting technically suited the part but I agree that it was very lifeless. It's hard to successfully enact a virtually emotionless character with any zest; I actually think Elizabeth Debicki gave a better performance of the character in Baz Luhrman's depiction (one of the very few areas where that film was better than this one).
shareShe was a Bond girl.
share