Reflections on filming The Great Gatsby

[Emil Miller]

I understand that another version of this classic American novel is planned, which will make it the 5th attempt in 85 years, and while it’s unlikely to be any more successful than its forerunners, money aside, it poses the question as to why film makers persist in filming what is essentially an unfilmable novel. I say unfilmable because so much of what the author conveys is below the surface of what seems to be a conventional love story.
There doesn’t appear to be a print of the first film made in 1926 but the subsequent versions made in 1949, 1974 and 2000 are available and each fails for various reasons such as casting, script, acting, direction, but also for their inability to translate Fitzgerald’s intention from book to screen.
The 1949 attempt is the weakest in that it portrays Gatsby as an erstwhile gangster. The 1940s hairstyles and clothing are at odds with those of a story so obviously rooted in the 1920s and the dialogue departs wildly from that of the characters in the book.
The 1974 adaptation was not well received, a fairly typical reaction being: “It pays its creator the regrettable tribute of erecting a mausoleum over his work.”
Jack Clayton had wanted to direct Gatsby ever since he read it as a young man and it must have seemed like a dream come true when he actually got the chance to do it. It was, however, a poisoned chalice because, although the production values are good, they are too good to be true; it’s all a little too glitzy and although the details are scrupulously observed with just a few minor departures from the story, it is the 1920s too obviously seen through the prism of the 1970s.
That being said, the scenes set in Wilson’s garage in the valley of ashes and the party in the private apartment are totally convincing. There are whole chunks of the original dialogue in the script, which should have brought the film closer to the book, but a major problem is one of casting in which few of the main characters are suitably portrayed.
Scenically, the film made in 2000 is closer to the story and looks more natural than the over the top settings of the 1974 version. The problem is that the lead character is unconvincing, although Daisy Buchanan is much more realistic than the mannered performance of her given by Mia Farrow in the 1974 production.
Fitzgerald’s critique of the superficiality and unrestrained hedonism of the period that would inevitability end in the 1929 crash never gets beyond Gatsby’s personal tragedy and it is in reconciling these elements of the novel that, thus far, the cinema has failed.
It remains to be seen whether the projected remake improves on its predecessors but, on any objective assessment, it is likely to fail.

[PeterL]

I don't sewhy you would think it to be "unfilmable". I regsard The Great Gatsby to be quite simple, and the imagery and symbolism are obvious to the point os being silly. The story itself is quite straightforward. The characters are a little more interesting, because they all seem flat, abut nearly all are crooked. If someone filmed it directly out of the book, then it might be good.

[Emil Miller]

If it were that straightforward it would obviously have been done by now.

[mortalterror]

It's doable. You just have to find a director who's as good at filming as Fitzgerald was at writing. You need a Kubrick, Bergman, Fellini, Kurosawa, Scorsese, Welles, or Coppola.

[PeterL]

If it were that straightforward it would obviously have been done by now.

There aren't many people on ttrhe movie busniess who have good reading comprehension, They make movies purely for enjoyment without any attempt to have content.

[Patrick_Bateman]

Leo Di Caprio will be playing Gatsby and he's a fantastic actor.
It just so happens I have this morning finished The Great Gatsby and I'm awaiting the film with much anticipation.

[Emil Miller]

It's doable. You just have to find a director who's as good at filming as Fitzgerald was at writing. You need a Kubrick, Bergman, Fellini, Kurosawa, Scorsese, Welles, or Coppola.

The problem is that all but two of the directors named are dead although, interestingly, Francis Ford Coppola wrote the script for the 1974 version and it was very true to the book.

[Emmy Castrol]

I've got no faith in Baz Luhrman to pull off the Great Gatsby. I liked Romeo & Juliet and Strictly Ballroom but everything else of his has been dismal.

That said, even if they found a fantastic director, the casting is just as important. I am glad they managed to get Leonardo DiCaprio as I don't think anyone would be able to portray Jay Gatsby better. Tobey Macguire is a good choice for Nick too. I'm surprised that Scarlett Johanssen turned down the role of Daisy. It would have been a perfect role for her but I'm happy to see that her replacement, Carey Mulligan, looks just as dislikeable. I noticed that Anne Hathaway and Jessica Alba were considered to portray Daisy... how terrible would that have been...

[Harlow]

I'm very nervous about this adaptation...this is one of my favourite books by one of my favourite authors. I fear it'll go through the Hollywood mincer and will be terribly misunderstood. It's such a complex book, I wonder if anyone will be able to truly make it screen worthy.

[IceM]

I don't think much of this novel is filmable. Much of the symbolism to me lies in context; the waste of an era that created both ridiculously wealthy and desperately impoverished people made incriminating the rich of shallowness much easier. But that's conveyed through the ashes, the eyes of T.J. Eckleman* (is that his name, I forget) and the grandeur of their manors versus the shallowness inherent in the characters. Creating a movie that carries the same symbolism is easy enough; creating one that maintains symbolism and is thoroughly entertaining is much more difficult.

Readers of novels permit authors to be boring if the message conveyed is significant. Audiences of movies prefer instant entertainment. Boredom isn't acceptable. For many movies, attempting to carry heavy symbolism in an era different from that in which the novel was written will be almost impossible to do successfully.

[Emil Miller]

I'm very nervous about this adaptation...this is one of my favourite books by one of my favourite authors. I fear it'll go through the Hollywood mincer and will be terribly misunderstood. It's such a complex book, I wonder if anyone will be able to truly make it screen worthy.

I agree that it's a concern for those who look upon it as a great novel. I have been checking out the actresses mentioned in Emmy Castrol's post and, although I know nothing about their acting ability, I would ageee that Scarlett Johanssen looks the part more than the others. The girl actually chosen to play Daisy Buchanan has a pert prettiness but she is English and I don't think she will be convincing in the role.
Moreover, the director is Australian and the film is going to be shot in Australia for some reason (financial?) and perhaps that's why Ms Johanssen turned it down. The production is going to be filmed in 3D which would appear to be a something of a gimmick. It's not scheduled to be shown until 2012, during which time enough publicity will no doubt be generated to make it a box office hit if only as a curiosity, but whether it will resemble Fitzgerald's masterwork in any meaningful way would seem to be questionable.

[kelby_lake]

I don't think Johansson looks suitably twenties. Although she's stunning, I'm not sure that she'd be right for Daisy. Maybe for Jordan?

[Emmy Castrol]

I had this conversation with a work colleague who also thinks that Johansson wouldn't suit the role of Daisy. She thinks that Johannson would make a better Myrtle. Her reasoning is that Scarlett is too curvy to look like the thin, fashionable, twenties flapper girl.

I think Johansson can be made to look the part, that is, she can lose weight to look skinnier but still have that curvy appeal. The reason why I think she suits the role of Daisy is more based on her personality. I have a feeling that Scarlett would rather role over dead before playing a role as humbling as Myrtle and Jordan wouldn't demand as much billing. If Johansson turned down Daisy, for sure she would turn down Jordan!

The character of Daisy has always been narcissistic, inconsiderate, false and unattainable and I feel that Johansson's true personality exhibits all these traits. That's why she was so good in He's Just Not That Into You (which I thought was superbly casted, although I am not interested in reading the book it was based on) although she probably hates how she came across in that movie because she's so egotistical. A younger Naomi Watts would look the part of Daisy perfectly but she's just too old. Have not seen Carey Mulligan's work but at least she looks the part.

I've been racking my brains to think of a more suitable director than Baz Lurhman and just considering the style of movies currently, there really is no one (alive) who could do it. Anthony Minghella would have been able to pull it off beautifully (assuming he could pull off the 20s period as well as he has the 50s) but he's dead. No, I really do feel all the elements have not gathered just yet to produce the perfect film version of The Great Gatsby.

[wessexgirl]

I had this conversation with a work colleague who also thinks that Johansson wouldn't suit the role of Daisy. She thinks that Johannson would make a better Myrtle. Her reasoning is that Scarlett is too curvy to look like the thin, fashionable, twenties flapper girl.

I think Johansson can be made to look the part, that is, she can lose weight to look skinnier but still have that curvy appeal. The reason why I think she suits the role of Daisy is more based on her personality. I have a feeling that Scarlett would rather role over dead before playing a role as humbling as Myrtle and Jordan wouldn't demand as much billing. If Johansson turned down Daisy, for sure she would turn down Jordan!

The character of Daisy has always been narcissistic, inconsiderate, false and unattainable and I feel that Johansson's true personality exhibits all these traits. That's why she was so good in He's Just Not That Into You (which I thought was superbly casted, although I am not interested in reading the book it was based on) although she probably hates how she came across in that movie because she's so egotistical. A younger Naomi Watts would look the part of Daisy perfectly but she's just too old. Have not seen Carey Mulligan's work but at least she looks the part. I've been racking my brains to think of a more suitable director than Baz Lurhman and just considering the style of movies currently, there really is no one (alive) who could do it. Anthony Minghella would have been able to pull it off beautifully (assuming he could pull off the 20s period as well as he has the 50s) but he's dead. No, I really do feel all the elements have not gathered just yet to produce the perfect film version of The Great Gatsby.

Do you know Miss Johansson personally? Admittedly I don't read celebrity or gossip mags, so I may have missed something, but that sounds a little harsh. As an actress, I'm sure she would want to do a good job whatever role she was offered, so even if she was suitable for the lesser role, she could still upstage the lead roles and be up for a best supporting actor gong. As for Carey Mulligan, she is an excellent actress, and I'm sure will do a great job. The fact that she's English, as was mentioned earlier, is irrelevant. That's why it's called acting. I'm not a fan of the book, but perhaps a really good adaptation can be made, which will send people hurrying to read it, so I wouldn't dismiss it so easily.

[Emmy Castrol]

I don't read celebrity and gossip magazines either, nor do I know Johansson personally but I don't believe that you have to 'know someone personally' in order to know their personality and character type. An actor is not so remotely independent from the character whom they are playing that their interpretation of that character does not come across. A great many inferences about the actor's person can be obtained from an actor's interpretation of a character. All I am saying is that Johansson would be more likeable in roles that suit her personality (as you can't hate an honest person, no matter what their other bad traits are) than roles which are supposed to portray 'nice' people as she just comes across as false.

It has been a few years since I last read The Great Gatsby but I think it is one of the best books written last century. One of my favourite parts, and one that I always found quite heartbreaking, is the explanation offered post Gatsby's death of his rise to wealth. I admire the way Fitzgerald painted Gatsby's pursuit of wealth, portraying Gatsby with a vulnerability, purity and honesty that is often not considered when one outlines their path to riches. Tom detected this vulnerability immediately and uses it to sneer at Gatsby, a behaviour that instead betrayed his own despicable character, and which Fitzgerald may be suggesting represents a class of America, who instead of encouraging and admiring the hardworking common man in his pursuit to prove himself, will 'kick him to stay down' due to their own insecurities of their true worth in relation to their class. I imagine it would be a difficult scene to translate into film and I'm curious how past directors have pulled it off.

[IndyMan123]

I think it can be filmed but it should be a long movie. I hate it when Hollywood ignores major points in the book for time and money's sake.

Or when they concoct something because they think it works:
I remember the 2000 version where Meyer Wolfsheim tells Nick that he met Gatsby aboard Dan Cody's yacht. Untrue to the book.

Daisy messing up Gatz' name and calling him Gatsby, and having him just agree to be called that by her. They should have flashed back to Gatsby rowing out to Cody's yacht as a young man...hit that side story for a minute, and then bring us back. I'd really like to lose myself in the movie like I do the book.

Stick to the book. Of course, I realize that they want to make a movie that people besides English majors will see.

For casting, I think Dicaprio can pull it off. He did well as Howard Hughes. I also think Toby McGuire can play the meek Nick Carraway. I'd read rumors about Affleck playing Tom Buchanan. I think it would work. Interesting to see who they cast for Wolfsheim....Pacino? De Niro? They'd be good, but too expensive.

[Trask]

Just updating this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rARN6agiW7o

[Emil Miller]

I have already seen the trail for the film and it doesn't look promising, the trashy musical(?) accompaniment is totally irrelevant to Fitzgerald's masterpiece and hopefully it is only there to attract the morons who like trash and not a feature of the film itself. There are some interesting touches missing from previous versions and it's really a question of wait and see what happens.

[aj47]

.....

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Money aside? There is no other reason.

[Emil Miller]

Money aside? There is no other reason.

So artistic endeavour is solely about money. Don't let stlukes hear you say that or he will rap you across the knuckles with a ruler.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

In Hollywood, it's about money.

[Emil Miller]

In Hollywood, it's about money.

I agree that may be the case today but the great producers of the past such as Louis B. Mayer and Sam Goldwyn were also concerned to make quality films; they had to because of the strong competition between different production companies.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Oh, I'm sure they're concerned with making a quality film, but of you're working in big-budget Hollywood, money is the number one motivator. Just look at the preview for the new Gatsby film--noisy, super colorful and active, tons of CGI, crappy contemporary music, and it's even in 3D. All stuff to try and get the average movie goer through the door.

[kev67]

I read an essay (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=153166&sectioncode=26) by Carlyle V. Thompson who had a theory that Gatsby was passing for white. I only picked up on a couple of clues: that he looked tanned and that his hair was shaved short and tended to curl (iirc). I think there was something in that theory, because one of the characters is very racist. Everyone thinks Gatsby is hiding something, with his Oxford University expressions and mannerisms, but it's not that he didn't really go to university or have a glorious war career, but that he is mixed race. It would be an interesting angle for a film, but blown out of the water if you cast someone like Robert Redford or Leonardo di Caprio in the lead role.

[Emil Miller]

Oh, I'm sure they're concerned with making a quality film, but of you're working in big-budget Hollywood, money is the number one motivator. Just look at the preview for the new Gatsby film--noisy, super colorful and active, tons of CGI, crappy contemporary music, and it's even in 3D. All stuff to try and get the average movie goer through the door.

As I said, that may be the way Hollywood works today and the trailer for the film doesn't look promising for anyone wanting a sincere attempt at filming the novel. The financing of films today is very different to that of the past. Nowadays, most of the money raised goes, not on the film, but on publicity because the marketing of the film is on a scale much greater than in the days of the studio system. Bankers and private investors will only put up the money if there is a guaranteed ballyhoo factor attached to the film. Here's what the noted film critic Judith Christ said about the 1974 version of Gatsby : "Leaves us more involved with six-and-a-half million dollars' worth of trappings than with human tragedy."
If it were true 38 years ago it's massively more so now.

[Emil Miller]

I read an essay (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=153166&sectioncode=26) by Carlyle V. Thompson who had a theory that Gatsby was passing for white. I only picked up on a couple of clues: that he looked tanned and that his hair was shaved short and tended to curl (iirc). I think there was something in that theory, because one of the characters is very racist. Everyone thinks Gatsby is hiding something, with his Oxford University expressions and mannerisms, but it's not that he didn't really go to university or have a glorious war career, but that he is mixed race. It would be an interesting angle for a film, but blown out of the water if you cast someone like Robert Redford or Leonardo di Caprio in the lead role.

Well it's already blown out of the water anyway as it's just another ludicrous attempt at racial engineering. Simply Google the Medgar Evers college mentioned in the link and there's the proof of the usual wishful-thinking that is the hallmark of such people.
We've already had Gatsby the homosexual and I fully expect that he's being lined up somewhere as a closet transvestite. Don't worry though, because we have the same sort of people over here with one well-known loony lefty wishing that James Bond was black.

[aj47]

.....