You didn't answer Juniper's question, which I was also going to ask, Emil. Even if these interpretations hold water (I'm not at all convinced that they do), how is that "promoting" homosexuality?
Printable View
You didn't answer Juniper's question, which I was also going to ask, Emil. Even if these interpretations hold water (I'm not at all convinced that they do), how is that "promoting" homosexuality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Really? I have written three novels and was always in control of what I was writing. To presume something, isn't the same as telling the truth. My dictionary gives 'presume' as 'to venture on without leave'; another definition is 'to form over-confident or arrogant opinions'. I am not saying that the second definition is the case with yourself but there is very obviously one individual on LitNet to whom it does apply.
If somebody wants to fantasize over someone else's work, they can go right ahead but they shouldn't expect others to acknowledge what they say as being anything other than just that.
I didn't mean to imply that at all. I was trying to say that Fitzgerald was a great writer, and Gatsby is a great book, exactly because it's open for multiple interpretations.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
There's always a line. If I were to say, for instance, that Ayn Rand's novels were written as satires of capitalism instead of advocating for capitalism, I would be pretty squarely wrong. But literary analysis loses all of its fun and wonder if we only looked at books from the perspective of exactly what the author intended. In some cases, I'd even say that the author's intentions can be disregarded. Should we throw away the anti-censorship interpretation of Fahrenheit 451 just because Ray Bradbury said that he didn't mean to write it as an anti-censorship novel? It does no harm to Fahrenheit 451 when people read it as being against censorship...But it does harm the novel when the writer steps in and says that everyone else is wrong. While I agree that there's a point when interpretations are very explicitly wrong, there's also a point when putting too much weight in exactly what the writer intended is equally ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Literature isn't dogma. As a writer yourself, wouldn't it make you happy to hear that someone took something that they find valuable from your work, even if you didn't necessarily intend it to be taken that way?
(For the record...I also didn't really see any homoerotic undertones in Gatsby. But I don't see the point in castigating anyone who did come to that conclusion.)
[QUOTE=Desolation;1111699]ILiterature isn't dogma. As a writer yourself, wouldn't it make you happy to hear that someone took something that they find valuable from your work, even if you didn't necessarily intend it to be taken that way? [QUOTE]
Well, as a writer, I would rather be read than misread.
Geesh!! I came back to this thread after a couple of days and people are still arguing about a scene in my favorite book! The elevator scene, with Nick helping the drunk guy, shows that Nick can be caring and goodhearted. It just gives another hint of Nick's character. I suppose one could see homosexuality in every piece of literature, but some people want to see if every where. I wonder why this is.
[QUOTE=Emil Miller;1111753][QUOTE=Desolation;1111699]ILiterature isn't dogma. As a writer yourself, wouldn't it make you happy to hear that someone took something that they find valuable from your work, even if you didn't necessarily intend it to be taken that way?Well as a writer you are no Fitzgerald. So I am unsure as to your previous statements credibility.Quote:
Well, as a writer, I would rather be read than misread.
[QUOTE=Alexander III;1111974][QUOTE=Emil Miller;1111753]I'm sorry but I thought I was replying to a question by Desolation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Desolation
I don't think it shows that. It's more to establish the hedonistic party, and Nick being a bit drunk and having a crazy old time that he can't remember much of (hence the ellipses).Quote:
Originally Posted by KCurtis
People don't seem to read very well. The McKee's lived in the flat below and the party was likely to break up after Tom Buchanan's physical assault of Myrtle Wilson. Now is it likely that Nick Carraway would indulge in homosexuality with a comparative stranger when the man's wife was likely to come down at any moment?Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
It shows that too!! :banana: Fitzgerald shows more than one facet of Nick in this book, that is why Nick is the protagonist, and why the book is so interesting and is being argued about and discussed!!Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Very unlikely- and unlike Nick's character. I think some people may assume the homosexuality part because it is also assumed that Nick did not have sex with Jordan. He didn't have to- it would not make sense in the story, and would be unimportant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Although somewhat peripheral, Jordan Baker belonged to the East Egg set and that was the reason that Nick Carraway's relationship with her never really took off. Although distantly related to Daisy, Nick knew that he didn't belong to thoseQuote:
Originally Posted by KCurtis
whom she had married into. This was why he instinctively sided with Gatsby and eventually returned to the mid-west after Gatsby's death. The more I read this book, the more I am bowled over by Fitzgerald's writing.
Naked by Mike Leigh. The back and forth dialogue is so real it's uncanny. One of the best films I ever seen.
You're right I didn't think of that when I posted, that also has to do with Nick thinking she was shallow. I really wish Fitzgerald could have written more books.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
I completely agree with The Livers of Others! (Das Leben den Anderen) It is extremely beautiful and moved me to tears.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
Another movie worth mentioning will be Let The Right One In (Swedish). It's not only the dialogue, but the setting. Perfect, sublime, and amazing.
They were drunk, weren't they, so "indulging" doesn't really come into it. Whether there was any "indulging in homosexuality" or not, I doubt there was any concern about who would walk in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Walk in on WHAT??? Two drunk guys in an elevator. This elevator talk is so way off the mark. It is really not a significant part of the book. They were at a drunken party- the party was significant. I would like to think that in the movie coming out a year from now, that the director knows this. If he doesn't we are in for a disaster of a flick.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
I think Mr. McKee's wife would have been concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
I was referring to the old elipses that links the elevator scene with the bedroom bit. Some think it's simply fast-forwarding the action, whereas some think it's the curtains closing on a private moment...Quote:
Originally Posted by KCurtis
Personally, I think it just adds to the effect of drunkeness. As for how Luhrman will interpret it...it'll probably be a swingers' party or something :lol:
I just checked out Luhrmann and he actually looks quite sensible and not some publicity created charlatan. There are a couple of shots from the forthcoming Gatsby. Here's one, it certainly looks more authentic than what I expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/7...5galgatzby.jpg
It's easy to make this look authentic, it's the story telling I'm worried about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Well, according to this, he might simply back out of the project altogether.Quote:
Originally Posted by KCurtis
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment...n.html?_r=true
Here's another shot that looks pretty good. I think they look more like the protagonists than those in other versions. However, it remains to be seen whether Luhrmann finishes the film or not.
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/4...ysecondpic.jpg
It looks nice but Luhrman is known for glitzy extravagance (borderline camp in some cases).
That's a pity because if he managed to curb it he could have the makings of a good film here. Of course, glitzy extravagance are at the heart of the story anyway but there's so much more behind the meretricious surface.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
He did a modern interpretation of Romeo and Juliet (with DiCaprio as Romeo) so whatever your view on that is will probably decide your view on what this film will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Well, I didn't see it but I do remember someone asking on LitNet what was the difference between Luhrmann's version and Shakespeare's and Stlukes replied; "One sucks and the other doesn't." I'm not sure which one he was referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Originally posted by Emil Miller
Here's another shot that looks pretty good. I think they look more like the protagonists than those in other versions. However, it remains to be seen whether Luhrmann finishes the film or not.
But Gatsby is not the protagonist
That article is over a year old...Before casting (aside from the two leads) and principal photography even started. By now, it's pretty clear that he settled his mind on the matter and won't be backing out, seeing as how the movie's almost complete and all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
MortalTerror- When I think of a literate script I mostly think of the dialogue, the best examples of which are usually screen adaptations of plays such as Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Julius Caesar, or Glengarry Glen Ross.
From the number of posts it may seem to late to pipe in in agreement, but yes... I immediately thought of both Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Glengarry Glen Ross.
KCurtis- Yes, it wasn't that good of a movie, it portrayed Gatsby much differently than in the book- hence the problem with classic books turned into movies.
How is that a problem? A film and a novel are two distinct art forms. We don't look at Michelangelo's Sistine frescoes and compare them to the Biblical Book of Genesis (upon which it was based) or listen to Strauss' Also Sprach Zarathustra and compare it to Nietzsche's text.
I loved Let the Right One in too! Best vampire movie I have seen in a very long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by irinmisfit92
I also can't wait for this Gatsby thing. Quite exciting.
Luhrmann's commentary tracks will tell you how much thought he puts into the look and feel of his films. His storytelling just takes some acclimating to. He even mentions (accurately) on the Romeo DVD commentary that if you can make it through the gas station scene, you're fine for the rest. Moulon Rouge was the same for me--ten or fifteen minutes in and I was ready to quit on it, but I knew by that time how Luhrmann's movies work, so I stuck with it. Then about twenty minutes in, I clicked into his rhythm, and the rest of the film flowed just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
I put up with it mostly because he's never seemed pretentious or deliberately difficult to me; he just marches to his own drummer.
Haven't seen that one yet (or the American remake, which I've also heard good things about), but I've recently picked the novel up used. Maybe I'll give that a go when I'm done with my current read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
I highly recommend it, Calidore. I haven't seen the American version either. The child actors are so outstanding in the original. I have to think it would be tough to match in quality. Let me know how the book turns out, pretty please. :)
:iagree:Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I've never understood the complaint that they shouldn't have "changed the book." Like you said, it's two completely different art forms, so sometimes a different interpretation for the screen is going to work better than the book, and sometimes it's an improvement. Still, there will always be some who will believe, no matter what, that any deviation from the book is a crime.
Just to give an example of a movie that's leaps and bounds better than the book because of changes made: Jurassic Park.
Sure thing, but you're probably going to have to wait a while. Still got just over 1000 pages to go in this one (The Naked God by Peter F. Hamilton).Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
Agreed. Another example would be Lord of the Rings. I'm not saying the movie's better than the book (though it didn't take me 25 years and a half-dozen tries to get through the first movie), but if the films had slavishly followed the books as some vocal uberfans wanted, they would have been boring as bleep to everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
Yes, I should have checked the date but I was going by the projected date of showing, according to some being December 2012, which still seems a long way off. I'm still not sure whether it's going to be shown in 3D, as has been mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Desolation
Your argument is different than what I was talking about. If a movie is based on a book, it is telling the story of the book-hence the name of the book "The Great Gatsby", and the name of the movie "The Great Gatsby". The characters in the movie are supposed to be the characters in the book, so, one would assume the movie keeps to the story. The Great Gatsby movies of the past were not that good because they did not or could not tell the story effectively, and due to the unique narrative style of the book, I am skeptical of the upcoming movie. If it is not a problem for you, fine. It is a problem for me and many others who love the book. It is only a problem if one anticipates seeing a good movie though. If one is realistic and skeptical, as I am, I won't be real upset over it. This is really just a discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
A crime?? That's harsh. The problem is that if the movie doesn't portray the story in the right way, it could be a very boring and trivial event. I will check the reviews (as I always do) of the movie before I go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi