EssenceStory Well Deserved Praise

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Mobithailand The film has come in for a lot of criticism as well as some praise but as far as I can determine it has been generally regarded as a bit of a flop, both financially and critically. I actually quite enjoyed it. There has been much criticism of the acting, especially Mia Farrow in the role of Daisy, but for me, it worked quite well. I thought the lead male actors were particularly good and Redford made a sterling effort in portraying the somewhat enigmatic Gatsby on the big screen. The costumes, scenery, design and cinematography were exceptional and brought to life everything in the way that I had imagined when I read the novel. The music, ably orchestrated by Nelson Riddle, was, of course superb and so evocative of the Jazz Age era.Reading some reviews afterwards, (which ranged from hating it to loving it), I found several reviewers complaining that the screenplay, by no lesser personage than Francis Ford Coppola, was very mundane and lacked the beauty of Fitzgerald's original prose. These comments caused me to wonder about the wilful deceptions of reviewers who are determined to put the boot into a film they don't like. When I saw this movie, I had only just read the book, and Fitzgerald's wonderful writing style was still firmly in my mind; so as I watched the movie, I kept thinking to myself; 'Did they actually pay Coppola to write this?' Not because it was terrible, but because it seemed to me that he had copied the narrative, word for word, from the original novel. It was essentially a 'cut and paste' job. It was quite remarkable how he succeeded in using so much of Fitzgerald's own prose, whether it was from the mouth of 'Nick', by way of narration, or part of the general dialogue. And even when the writer, (or producers), had decided to include new scenes that were not in the novel, you could barely detect any change in the style of the dialogue from that written by the novelist. To me, far from being mundane, the screenplay was a master class on how to be as faithful as possible to the original book. As with the book, it is all quite subjective, but I have sneaking suspicion that the film is now held in much higher regard than when it was originally released.

Zeego As Roger Vadim once famously said, "A film is not a book." When adapting a novel to a film, it is necessary that certain changes be made in order for the story to work in the new medium. Despite what book purists may claim, a good adaptation is not always a faithful one. One need look no further than Stanley Kubrick's very loose, yet brilliant, adaptation of The Shining for evidence of this. When a director sticks too close to the source material, even with good intentions, it can sometimes result in a film that's confusing, emotionless, or just plain boring. Such is the case with Francis Ford Coppola and Jack Clayton's adaptation of The Great Gatsby.With this film, Coppola and Clayton have essentially filmed the novel word-for- word, with the actors reciting the book's dialogue verbatim. The performances are serviceable, but they are undercut by the ionless directing style. There seems to have been very little thought put into the cinematography, which often involves awkward static shots of people standing still. The editing doesn't help matters, and many shots feel either longer or shorter than they ought to be. In the end, it's a cold, dry film that leaves no impact on the viewer.Having seen both versions, I will assert that the 2013 adaptation is far better, and I highly recommend you see that one instead.

cricket crockett " . . . that's the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool," Daisy Buchanan recounts to her cousin\confidante Nick Carraway regarding her innermost thoughts on the birth of her only child, "Precious" Pamela. Actress Mia Farrow campaigned desperately to attain this role of "Daisy." Yes, this is the same Ms. Farrow who'd become, first, Hollywood mogul Woody Allen's mistress, then his mother-in-law. THE GREAT GATSBY (1974) is a perfect barometer for this looming Real Life Oedipul Mess. Daisy is a loose cannon; a careless, hit-and-run type of a person, as fickle as a magnet. She allows herself to be picked up by anyone with Big Money. As she careens through Life, totally oblivious to the carnage left in her wake, her tiniest creature comfort takes precedence over the very lives of the vast mass of humanity cursed with only a normal amount of wealth. Like Ms. Farrow, Daisy is a "beautiful little fool" willing to besmirch husband Tom the instant an opportunity for financial betterment presents itself. Many have argued that "Tom Buchanan" and Woody Allen are uncouth, as well as being socially inept (Tom spouts racist Nazisms, while Woody marries his daughters). The common Femme Fatale? Mia Farrow.

Stephanie Mayle There is much allure to Fitzgerald's best-selling novel The Great Gatsby. Perhaps it's the scandalous intimacy shared between the characters, or the extravagance described in the wealthy life of Long Island. Most of all, however, it is the "in-between-the-lines" spin Fitzgerald puts on his storyline. It's the mystique of not knowing the meaning behind each sentence, and the excitement of the readers to draw their own conclusions about the characters and plot line, both of which the film The Great Gatsby (1974) very much lacks. One specific departure from the story is the controversy of Nick's sexuality, which the film promptly leaves out completely. Throughout the novel, the basis of this controversy is alluded to. "'I beg your pardon,' said Mr. McKee with dignity. 'I didn't know I was touching it.' 'All right,' I agreed. 'I'll be glad to.' … I was standing beside his bed and he was sitting up between the sheets, clad in his underwear, with a great portfolio in his hands…" (Fitzgerald, Chapter 2). What happened in this moment is not specifically stated by Fitzgerald, leaving the readers to draw their own conclusions, and creating a scene that is completely left out from the film. Another difference between the two is the greater emphasis placed on Gatsby and Daisy's relationship in the film than in the novel. In the book, since Nick is the narrator and all is told through his eyes, the readers only see such, leaving much of Gatsby and Daisy's growing relationship in the dark, with only slight references to the workings behind their correspondence. "'I hear you fired all your servants.' 'I wanted someone who wouldn't gossip. Daisy comes over quite often--in the afternoons.'" (Fitzgerald, Chapter 7). In the film, the audience is given the privilege of a larger glimpse into their conversations and meetings. This, however, destroys some of the mystery of not knowing, such as in the novel.The director of the film The Great Gatsby (1974) probably chose to make these changes to Fitzgerald's story because he wanted to savor the plot, the theme of the tale, not the language and diction that Fitzgerald so eloquently placed on paper. In of accuracy and storyline, yes, the movie represents the novel. Although, in correctly replicating the overall ideas and emotions and enigma behind Fitzgerald's characters and scenarios, the film does not even come close. As far as personal preference, the novel comes in first by far. There's something about being able to visualize scenes and interactions in the mind, just from simply ink on a page, that a movie will never be able to quite capture.