This underrated 70s version was very good. Just because it didn't do well at the box office doesn't mean it was a bad movie. It was a faithful recreation of the novel, a good period piece, and has good acting. I can't imagine this new hip hop soundtracked remake with Leo can be any good by comparison.
______
No matter what they take from me
They can't take away my dignity
Agreed. Leo wishes he could be The Great Gatsby. He wasn't even close to being in Redford's league.
shareLeo's Gatsby is someone you care about when the inevitable happens. That also has to do with superior direction and writing, but it would be nowhere without the acting.
The 1974 film answered some questions I had from the 2013 version, but it is completely lifeless. It's a simple whodunnit compared to the romance of 2013. Despite many scenes essentially identical, the effect is entirely different.
Still, Gatsby has yet to be done right by any director. I'd like to see someone take the seeming faithfulness to the written material (which I have only read selected individual pages of) of the 1974 version, mix in the emotion and glamour and symbolism from the 2013 version, and make Nick the gay/bi man he was written as.
I wholeheartedly agree. But I'd like to point out the new version isn't a remake; it's just another "adaptation" of the book, and a poor one at that.
shareHi samnitebc,
While I agree with you that the 2013 is not a remake, I personally thought it was the strongest screen adaptation of the novel. I've seen the four available versions (I'd love to see the lost silent and the two television versions which also appear to be long gone.) In my opinion, DiCaprio created the most vivid Gatsby, a Midwestern interloper who tries to no avail to enter the inner sanctum of a lost Long Island society. No version really captures the 1922 idle-rich of the Locust Valley, most go for the later flapper look but this one still worked for me better than earlier incarnations.
Hey digitaldiva,
After seeing the 1974, 2000, and 2013 versions, I'd have to say that the 2000 one with Mira Sorvino remained faithful to the story and the one I enjoyed the most. Sometimes the television adaptations turn out to be better than their theatrical counterparts.
Since Fitzgerald thought the silent version was horrible, I wouldn't want to see it even if they found it. He's ultimately the "final" authority, but seeing how he's dead, it makes one wonder which of the modern adaptations he would've endorsed.
Hi samnitebc,
I thought the 2000 version had merits, but while I liked Paul Rudd's Nick and elements of Toby Stephen's Gatsby, I had problems with the movie's direction, slow pacing, skimpy production values and Mira Sorvino's Daisy. Still, the 2000 version is used in some high school English classes as a teaching aid. Regarding the silent film - It was based on the Broadway play adaptation, and wasn't really an adaptation of the novel. Fitzgerald never made a public statement about the film. We only have a comment from a third party who said that Fitzgerald and Zelda detested it. Since the third party didn't note what they hated about it, who knows?
I think that one has to view any film from their own perspective. Stephen King was vocal in his dislike of Kubrick's The Shining and worked on the television version. I personally prefer Kubrick's vision.
In the end, if a movie closely follows a book, then everything else is fair game and open for attack. For example, one may not like the color and fabric of the costumes used in a film, another may dislike the face of an actor, and so on.
When it comes to Gatsby, I feel there are enough versions out there and better novels waiting for a chance to be adapted to film. I hope this is the final Gatsby. How many more do we need? Even though this is from my youth, I'd love to see "The Pigman" made into a movie, even if it's just for television.
I'd have to go along with King's dislike of "The Shining". I saw it once as a boy, and another time in a cinema class and I found it boring, although there were memorable moments and the acting was good. I can't watching that film again. I don't recall the television version.
@ CanSteve3 » Thu May 9 2013 11:01:19
Your remarks serve to emphasize the virtues an intelligent reviewer can find in the 1974 film, which remains remarkably faithful to the book--including the dialogue. People who denigrate the film have their own mental depictions of its characters that are based on their reading of the novel.
Thank you for your perceptive observations. They help to offset the uninformed detractions of other people who post on this site.
i think the 2013 is visually better. much nicer to look at. the 1974 version has a better cast and better 20's feel (no out of place "music"). havent seen the 2000 version but will check it out
shareThe 2000 version has a lot of problems. It looks like it was filmed in the fall in Canada, because, um, it was. Nick's house doesn't appear to adjoin JG's property. There are five extras at JG's first party. The mint juleps at the Plaza are green-colored water. Stephens is the right age but has only one facial expression - a sideways smirk/smile. The screenwriter adds a few humorous lines (one about a book, one about a corpse), and Owl Eyes is in there unlike the Redford version, but all-in-all it's a very choppy, under-produced movie of the week.
sharewell now i dont feel so bad about not finding it anywhere! im happy with the redford version and will never watch the latest one again
share[deleted]
Don`t know if there`s a "need" for it, but there`s definitely plenty of room for improvement over this constipated, terribly paced Hollywood prestige picture here. It`s got excellent production design and looks mostly quite fabulous - even though the soft-hue`d compositions tend to veer pretty close to kitsch at times - and there are occasional interesting directorial choices and touches... and the acting`s mostly fine... but the whole thing`s just kinda dull and feels hollow. Given the gravity of the source material, there isn`t exactly any lack of potential.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan