View original postTo a great extent, I worry that the latest movie will probably help to reinforce their opinions of the author based on what sounds to be a treatment of his book that fails to grasp the underlying point. Perhaps some authors are doomed to be warped by cinematic treatments of their works. I am reminded of Pasternak's wonderful anti-utopian novel that shows the attempt of the optimistic realist to retain both optimism and realism in the face of societal madness. It was originally to be called There Will Be No Death, but he called it Doctor Zhivago instead. Somehow, it became the cinematic equivalent of a tawdry romance novel sold at Wal-Mart for trailer trash.
I haven't yet written my review of the new movie, but that certainly will feature in the criticisms of it (I had mixed-to-positive reactions to much of it, but Fitzgerald's intent was certainly lost (purposely?) in translation to cinema.
View original postI haven't seen Luhrmann's movie adaptation yet, but the reviews I've read highlight that he remains superficially faithful to the novel while missing its larger points. If that is the case, it's not entirely surprising. American society is caught in a Gatsby-esque obsession with money that has permeated society as never before, despite a major economic crisis that many are now treating as nothing more than a temporary setback. I'm certainly not saying I support the uneducated protest movements against "Wall Street" - far from it. However, there is a difference between promoting a market economy and promoting a fixation on money to the exclusion of all else. Gatsby highlighted that in a way that was wonderfully expressive. It was the quintessential New York novel, and probably remains it after so long because it doesn't seek to explain contradictions or simplify complexities. It just presents the paradoxes and lets the reader figure out who he sympathizes with.
That's one of the better summations of the book that I've read. Agree 100%.
View original postIt may be that no film could objectively portray Fitzgerald's novel because it has to qualify people as good or bad to make it easier for a stupid audience to pick up on those cues.
I wish that weren't true, but alas it is. Also, the romance element was played too straight in the new version. At least in the 1974 version, Mia Farrow's Daisy was more obviously self-absorbed with the trappings of wealth.
View original postEither way, I think the book is one of the best American novels out there, and it sadly doesn't always get the respect it deserves.
Agreed, although I seem to be in the minority that liked Fitzgerald's next novel, Tender is the Night, even more. I plan on reviewing it this weekend or early next week, once the school year is over here.
Illusions fall like the husk of a fruit, one after another, and the fruit is experience. - Narrator, Sylvie
Je suis méchant.
Je suis méchant.
F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby
- 18/05/2013 11:19:43 PM
1084 Views
Hm. Having neither seen the movie nor read the book yet, I have a question...
- 19/05/2013 04:00:02 PM
462 Views
The 2013 movie has much the structure of the 1974 film (which review I linked to above)
- 20/05/2013 03:58:17 AM
479 Views
Alright, finished the book now, will probably go see the movie this week.
- 09/06/2013 09:53:07 PM
438 Views
I often find myself in the position of defending Fitzgerald from people who don't think him serious.
- 20/05/2013 05:15:22 PM
949 Views
I prefer Fitzgerald to Hemingway, among others
- 21/05/2013 07:36:20 PM
866 Views